FormatEdit

There isn't any note about where this might be leading, so I guess I'll rather add a word of caution here now, before logging off and returning tomorrow to find a bunch of changed pages:

I don't think that this template, as it is now, should be used. It seems rather messy in case it needs to be administrated later, and adds complexity that seems unnecessary. Also, even if we want a single disambiguation template for all calls (not sure about that, though), there must be a better way than to use several #switch instructions. Last but not least, using this template would mean adding 4KB to the parser limit each time - for a template that will most often be used on articles that are big already.

Perhaps the question should be: what is wrong with the disambiguation templates we have? -- Cid Highwind 22:46, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

When was the last time I went on a rampage through the database without some warning?

This template is to address problems we currently have in our disambiguation templates, mainly because they weren't originally designed to handle some of the uses we use them for. This format has options to change the displayed text and/or the actual link when necessary for all versions, options the templates in use now don't have sometimes. This also has the parameters (for a single link) laid out in a format I think is much easier to understand than some of the layouts we use currently.

This is also to put a cap on the number of disambiguation links on a page. While we have already talk about a cap, without agreeing on a number, I would think we could agree that a cap should be implemented, at least informally through a template, since a formal cap would require a consensus.

The final format isn't set either, and changing it is rather easy. There may also be a way to reduce the parser functions as well. The idea at least should be explored before we just write this off. - Archduk3 00:08, February 2, 2011 (UTC)