Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages

RE: The newer templatte

Hi, 👋 @Danbloch the reason I think the article and other instance of quoting article content could use a template like this is:

1. For consistency firstly, mostly block indents are implemented using : or blockquote or block indent templates of many kinds
2. Or custom div's are employed with varying styles like just a box, black border, gray border, blue dashed border.... Then some will use a pre or code tag but remove the monospace.... which looks totally off to the visual mimicry, and I honestly would do that and match the style, but I cannot do the background or the interior padding... it's not consistent to the way the actual printed text appears, and that's what we're trying to 'mimic' or convey to the reader that's what they're now looking at. It's one reason we syntax highlight for small snippets even of code.

I'm happy to change the margins (even though they exactly match how .mw-content of article class appears and the .body class), but I think it deserves a bit more padding? And the background being var(--background-base); this also accomodates themes/skins etc. What do you think? waddie96 ★ (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, waddie96. I completely agree that a template would be nice (makes wikitext of articles which use this construct easier to read, and make it easier to create new articles or modify existing ones).

The consistency I was talking about was within MOS:DAB, but that was misleading on my part--if you'd changed all the examples in the article at once instead of just the first section it would be consistent, but I would still have the concerns that I think it's more readable (colors) and looks better (indentation) with the existing display.

If I understand your post correctly, you're saying that it is possible to make the template-generated display similar to the existing display. If you're okay with that then I'm all for it. And I agree about the padding. And to be fair, if you don't want to do make some of these changes I'd probably get used to it.

For people following along at home, in Special:Permalink/1311323420, #Linking to a primary topic uses the template (new style), while the rest of the document, starting with #Introductory line, uses raw HTML (existing style). Danbloch (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Cool I'm actually happy with a background I agree it's needed, I added a more subtle one so it doesn't look like an infobox/sidebar/navbox? Are you okay with that. I also put the margin+padding to be the 3em block quote amount; I do think if it's padding:0 and margin 3em (which is what it is on the old MOS:DAB that we would like to replace, is a bit too indented... It's jarring the jump from normal text to it... Let me know how you like it now, examples can also be seen at Template:Quote article text#Examples. Last question, I made a boolean tq/green/color variable, that some editors like to make the quoted text have {{tq}}, now this sets it green but not the font serif. Should it? Or should I remove the feature and editors should just insert {{tq}} when inserting in the content para,meter. Like:

{{quote article content |{{tq|content}} }}

waddie96 ★ (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I think that's fine. Feel free to put back the change to "#Linking to a primary topic" so I (and others) can see the new version live. I don't have a feel for the usage, but if you think editors will want to use tq formatting, the boolean seems much better than having them use {{tq}} manually. Danbloch (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok so instead of doing it on the live page, I did the edits here: User:Waddie96/sandbox/dab. FYI the template almost exactly replicates block quotes (without the border-left of course 😉) but also with the background and border as discussed that dilineates it nicely. I actually like the padding/margins etc that i was initially against. Just took the eye some getting used to. It replicates it so well it 'fits'. Other issue I came across is as a screen reader user myself, this DAB page is a minefield of *(#%*(#@&#*(%#&*(%& unnecessary lists..... think CSS bright web color blue on purple on neon green for your visual interface with courier new mixed with a crayon font, is how this text sounds to the person using a screen reader when semantically relevant HTML elements are used for styling 🙈🙈🙈🙈🙈🙈

Functionally, ARIA roles, states, and properties are analogous to a CSS for assistive technologies. For screen reader users, ARIA controls the rendering of their non-visual experience.

[1]

Sigh. I am willign to fix it, but hesitant if someone comes along and does a sweeping revert... Anyway let me know what you think of the imp[rovements! waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks! Danbloch (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Should I merge? waddie96 ★ (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• I'll go ahead and merge

waddie96 ★ (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Consensus on seperating capitalization

Is there an accepted consensus on disamb pages per capitalization? I found it quite unhelpful to not see certain acronyms presented, especially given Wiki autohandling of this in the searchbar. Respublik (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Prince Andrew (disambiguation)

There is some discussion at Talk:Prince Andrew (disambiguation)#Primary topic redirect about the best way to present the former prince on the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 18:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Question about alphabetising

I thought I had come across a style guide page about this years ago, but cannot track it down. Do we do word-by-word or letter-by-letter alphabetising on DABs? I thought it was word by word, i.e. Skinny Fish would come before Skinnyfish (made up example), but I just came across someone reordering as if the space did not exist. Can anyone point me to a style guide on this, or indicate what is preferred on DAB lists, please? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Introductory line when there is no primary topic

The disambiguation page Pinkwashing has no primary topic. The intro line in that page has 4 blue links. In my opinion, they are all useful. I tried to codify that case into the MOS, to make those links more than just WP:IAR. However, my effort was reverted. In a discussion on the reverting editor's talk page, they eventually said that they do not believe the intro line at Pinkwashing is correct, but don't want to fix it.
So the questions are:

1. Is it proper to have 4 blue links in the intro line at Pinkwashing?
2. If so, should we codify it into the MOS, or just keep it as WP:IAR?

Green Montanan (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Other editor here. I didn't want to get into a debate about a page I don't care about, but now that I have: The introductory line in Pinkwashing is non-standard, and everything except "Pinkwashing may refer to:" should be removed. DAB pages are for navigating and shouldn't include article content. Danbloch (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you mean "informational content" since there is no article from which to pull "article content".

Be that as it may, although all the examples at MOS:DABINTRO show very short intro lines w/o adding any additional information, the section doesn't say that the intro line cannot have any informational content. Green Montanan (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

It looks like you are using the intro line to define a common meaning before more specialized ones. You might as well just reformat it to be straightforward, skip the obvious parts and links, and simply say:

Pinkwashing is a portmanteau word that may refer to:

• Any cause marketing related to femininity
• Pinkwashing (breast cancer), [...caption...]
• Pinkwashing (LGBTQ), [...caption...]

--Joy (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Although your proposal sounds good, the problem is that the cause marketing article does not currently mention the word pinkwashing. Therefore, unless or until the article mentions the word, I don't think it would be a valid dabs entry. Green Montanan (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

So, then just find a source that says this and edit the article first, and then you have a valid mention? --Joy (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

There's no point at all to linking to any of the four words. I think simply "Pinkwashing may refer to:" is sufficient. There is a link to wiktionary if anyone is interested in the definitions and derivation. older ≠ wiser 03:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The intro shouldn't include any unsourced statement. Where there isn't a primary topic, just "Pinkwashing may refer to:".

Possibly "Pinkwashing" should be added alongside "Bluewashing" in Greenwashing#Related terms, and Greenwashing included here as a "See also"? PamD 08:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)