Template talk:Disambiguation

I misunderstand the reason for the line break at the end. Without it,

(currently used) and
 * first link

are equivalent. Makes editing easier, because we're used to blank lines in source code. --barto (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
 * first link


 * Saves having to put that line break in. On the occasion where we do add an extra line between the heading and the first line, we would have to check all the instances of where disambig is invoked, and check them all. I do not want to make a load more pointless futile work for myself than I have to. Maintenance is a big enough pain in the neck already, without making extra. --prime mover (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2017 (EDT)


 * We would still have that option. Recall that  and   are equivalent, so we just would have to use   in the template. As long as there's an even number of "\n" in the template, its transclusion can be followed by either "\n" or "\n\n", with the same effect. I suppose this is by design, to be independent of source code preferences.
 * The same holds for linebreaks followed by a heading, in case someday we decide to use sections on disambuguation pages. --barto (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Well I don't know, clearly you have an agenda to completely reconfigure the entire site from the ground up. So at this stage I'm prepared to say, okay, go for it, whatever you want to do, go ahead and do it. But I'm afraid that all this tinkering with the low level of the site opens us up to the danger of a whole load of pages suddenly needing a lot of remedial work so they continue to have the same style as they did. If we decide to change that style, like for example to forget about the double gap between sections, or to decide to put all the statements into one long paragraph and string an entire proof into one long sentence, for example, then again, this is something I would not be able to do anything about.
 * You may well be right, and the style and presentation of this site is so manifestly ugly that it just puts people off, because they want something to look exactly like Wikipedia. Or perhaps we should call it a day and just merge it completely back into Wikipedia and place ourselves under their editorial policy, which would of course mean they would prune it down so as to contain only "significant" proofs.
 * Never mind, it was fun while it lasted. I couldn't see it going on forever. Everything is subject to a corporate takeover at sometime in its life. --prime mover (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Please don't go off-topic. I repeat, an even number of line breaks in a template is robust, an odd number is not. MediaWiki is designed to allow both "\n" and "\n\n" before lists. --barto (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Explain --prime mover (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Experiment and see. Compare e.g. Isometry (disambiguation) and Width (disambiguation).
 * The reason is height (in the css sense) of lists does not depend on linebreaks. (Unlike for paragraphs: when they're preceded by an odd number of linebreaks >=3, height increases - an even number creates empty paragraphs without affecting height.) --barto (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2017 (EDT)


 * Can't see the difference. Wikipedia is pretty ugly and sucky though, so I wouldn't waste a bucket of sweat trying to make us look like them. --prime mover (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2017 (EDT)


 * Exactly, that's what I mean. The difference is only in the source code. --barto (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2017 (EDT)


 * So, now that we're all up to date about MediaWiki syntax, I hope it's clear that removing the linebreak in the template is only beneficial:
 * It gives more flexibility when using the template.
 * It does not require changing any page except this.
 * --barto (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2017 (EDT)


 * Except that pages where:

are used will have to be revisited, and I for one am not doing it. --prime mover (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
 * first link


 * I'm not sure you understood. So just to be sure, I repeat that the extra blank line will not change the result. --barto (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2017 (EDT)


 * Yes it will. Removing the extra blank line will mean that any pages where there is an intentional extra line between and first link will now need to be edited to add an extra line. --prime mover (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2017 (EDT)


 * Oh, I see what you mean. You're talking about intentional inconsistency of the amount of whitespace. I didn't know there are such cases. Can you explain when you think it is appropriate? --barto (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2017 (EDT)


 * Sometimes it looks better. When there is a large number of disambiguation cases, and they are structured under headings topped with the name of the branch of mathematics in which the term is relevant. It makes it more aesthetically pleasing, as well as clearer to the reader, to put a double whitespace between each section. And in order to make the page itself look balanced, an extra line break is then placed between the template and the first link. --prime mover (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2017 (EDT)


 * All right. You mean like this: Definition:Quotient or also this: Definition:Open? --barto (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2017 (EDT)


 * Like Definition:Open now, after I fixed it. I don't remember putting Definition:Quotient into that format, it must have been someone else hijacking my account. --prime mover (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

Suggested conventional style
Given that we have a lot of work to do to bring the various disambiguation pages into some sort of standard style, how about using Definition:Chain as a paradigm? This should be an adequate compromise. It is how several such pages have been crafted. --prime mover (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I have two suggestions:
 * I think the descriptions should not be that detailed. They are descriptions, not definitions.
 * disagree
 * The use of LaTeX and additional links makes the disambig page less neat, while it's supposed to be an orderly overview to quickly find what one is looking for. Only one link per entry should suffice.
 * disagree
 * Also, we give ourselves a lot more work by giving such detailed descriptions.
 * yeah well you won't be doing it
 * Example:
 * A chain is a totally ordered subset of an ordered set
 * disagree, links are important.
 * Disclaimer: I'm not making any comment on the link. --barto (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2017 (EDT)


 * Please sign your posts; see Help:Contents. Also, commenting inside comments makes the discussion hard to follow. Please comment only at the end. --barto (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2017 (EDT)


 * I will comment exactly how I want to comment. If you hav e problems with this, get me barred. --prime mover (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2017 (EDT)


 * Any argument or just disagree? --barto (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2017 (EDT)