Help talk:Disambiguation

On definition disambiguation pages, should the  prefix be visible in the links or not? --barto (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I think it's cleaner and improves readability if we hide them. --barto (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2017 (EDT)
 * It may be useful for the reader to know that a page referenced is a definition rather than a proof. This is why the "Definition" namespace is left in place in "Also see" sections. --prime mover (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I agree for the "also see" section. What about disambiguations? Compare Definition:Complete and Definition:Open. --barto (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2017 (EDT)


 * As I say, it may be useful, which explains the reference to Also see sections. --prime mover (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2017 (EDT)
 * All right, then since at a definition dismabiguation page everything is a definition,  becomes superfluous and can be omitted. --barto (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2017 (EDT)


 * Whatever, you're the boss. --prime mover (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2017 (EDT)

If I look at what happened to Definition:Complete as a result of this discussion, then I'm not really happy... I think it is because we are moving away from disambiguation as a means to link to an *exactly identified page*, which is made clear by including that page's full name. The lesson to draw from Definition:Open is that it may be beneficial to have more short descriptions of what is being linked to. I would be happier with the old convention. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Hmm... yes, I see what you mean. Just to make sure we all know what we're talking about, with "old convention" you mean including ? Are you fine with hiding the namespace if there's a short description for all links? The only reason I think of hiding the namespace is readability. Another idea is to hide the namespace but emphasize in the disambiguation intro text that all links below are definitions:
 * Complete may refer to the following definitions:
 * or something. --barto (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2017 (EDT)


 * If it ain't broken, don't fix it. --prime mover (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2017 (EDT)

Given everything written, I still prefer to include the namespace on the grounds of unambiguous reference to the page (after all, this is what disambiguation pages are for). The text is a nice addition, but should ideally be independent of the page title. Like so:
 * "Definition:Link: A link is a ..."

I don't see any need for a change. And as Prime.mover rightly points out, the status quo always has the advantage of least effort. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2017 (EDT)


 * Fine for me. Here are some examples of the precise punctuation used on wikipedia, to give an idea:
 * Order (mathematics)
 * Completeness
 * Compact
 * --barto (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2017 (EDT)


 * a) We don't want to be Wikipedia.
 * b) I would be interested in find out where you believe our punctuation is not as precise as Wikipedia's. --prime mover (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2017 (EDT)