- To recognise RuneScape:Disambiguation as a guideline (or policy).
To change the placement of
to the top of the page, as suggested by User:J22f.
Discuss.03:29, April 23, 2011 (UTC) Retracted proposal #2. 04:04, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
- Me too. 05:14, April 23, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - For point 1: Making RuneScape:Disambiguation a policy will mean that there will be some sort of disciplinary action taken against those who do not adhere to it, and I think it will be quite ridiculous to block someone for something like making a two link disambiguation page. To make it a guideline will mean that it is in exactly the same status that it already is: just a suggestion. I really don't see why it's necessary. As for point 2, I think the template looks better at the bottom. --LiquidTalk 05:19, April 23, 2011 (UTC)
- Err, I wonder why this can't be a policy when RuneScape:Granularity, RuneScape:Spoiler policy, RuneScape:Use common sense are policies. We don't actually block people who do not "adhere" to granularity, spoilers, and common sense, do we?
- This wiki has always had misconceptions about policies and guidelines for a long time... see Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays.
- The reason why this is needed is because our disambiguation pages do not have a particular standard. Having this as a policy/guideline helps... 09:51, April 23, 2011 (UTC)
- We don't block people for that because no one has egregiously and continuously violated them. When I said "block," I meant block after a certain threshold of offenses. Sooner or later, for violating policy, someone is going to put his foot down and do something about it. For policies like Granularity, however, it will only happen after a large large number of repeated infractions after numerous warnings. I can think of several discussions that dealt with violations of these more mundane policies rather than user policies. They're just really rare. However, I'll admit that I didn't realize the spoiler policy was a policy (probably because I've never needed to use it before), and so I cannot oppose this becoming a policy if something like a spoiler is a policy. I still oppose moving the disambiguation template to the top, though. --LiquidTalk 14:55, April 23, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Sounds good, though I also prefer the template at the bottom of the page.17:37, April 24, 2011 (UTC)
Comment - First off, good points to all who have posted. Like Azliq7 said above, there was no written set of standards on the formatting of a disambiguation page. Creating it allows us to create a consensus on formatting and it gives us somewhere to refer users when issues arise.
On the idea of discipline, I support the idea of separating these types of articles into "Policies" and "Guidelines" based on how firm the rules are and how severe the discipline would be when the rules are broken. This article fits best in "Guidelines."
For the second proposal, I understand that many templates have traditionally been placed on the bottom, and others at the top. I propose the change because in at least 80% of the disambiguation pages, you must scroll down to see the template. In my mind the purpose of the template is to quickly let the user know what type of page he is on. I know you may say frequent users know what a disambiguation page generally looks like and don't need to see the template first. But the whole reason for the template is for the people who haven't searched that term/been on the page before.
For the people who like it better at the bottom: Yes, that is what I am used to as well. Putting it at the top is different, but I think the change has good purpose. I would like to see some better reasons rather than four people who just "prefer" it at the bottom.02:26, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
Support - I support the article as a guideline for good reference. The disambiguation template should remain at the bottom of the article because the content is more important than seeing the template first.04:04, April 25, 2011 (UTC)