Talk:Gold (disambiguation)

dab style

Hi there Tedernst, I noticed that you recently edited the Gold (disambiguation) disambig article and there are some things that I'd like to point out here. Yes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) dictates that albums should be italicised but only and only the album's title should be in italics, therefore the trailing words in parentheses should not be in italics, and hence the usage of piped links is required. And since songs are also required to be in quotation marks, I took it as an extention of the above case and implemented it myself, although it hasn't been mentioned in the MoS and should really be discussed.

And another thing is that is it really necessary to remove basically all of the text after the individual entries? Besides the album's artist, the year of release and just a simple statement whether or not it was an EP, a compilation album, a boxset or just a music album shouldn't be left out. After all, it's just a short sentence, has useful information and definitely wouldn't bother the reader by its length, format or layout-wise. Likewise, is stripping the intro necessary? As it stands now "Gold is a chemical element" has not much use as "Toyota is a company". I've already limited the usage of multiple wikilinks to only the intro section and only one for the entries as encouraged in the MoS. Don't skimp with the space, will ya? ;) --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 20:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for breaking the style-mandated piping. I will not interfere if you change it back. I'll also be more careful when editing other pages in the future.

As for the explanatory text, I don't see what benefit it brings. To me it just feels like it's in the way. We'll just have to differ on that. Again, I won't revert if you change it back, though I will be unhappy about it. Tedernst | talk 20:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reinserted back most of the edits. Anyways, to me it seems like an oversimplification of the entry's descriptions. Wikipedia can be proud of its concise, direct and compact information in its articles, and by reading an article within 5 minutes you'll be able to have a grasp of what it is about. And by right disambig pages should have a similar style, by reading a disambig page you should be able to know what it is and why is it so notable in Wikipedia at first glance.

Thanks for the compromise, though it'd be better if we can have a bit of a communication here and at least let me know why are you unhappy at the changes. :) --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 09:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still think there is way too much explanation. I don't see how it help the reader to know the atomic number of the element, gold. In any event, I took back out the wikilinks you re-inserted in that opening sentence. Those links surely aren't necessary. I didn't remove any text, though I'd really like to. :-) Tedernst | talk 15:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taking out the wikilinks is fine with me. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 18:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]