Template talk:DisambigMsg

I don't like this template. The icon and horizontal rules are distracting. I'd prefer simple indented and italicized text, like on WP. --68.142.14.39 15:39, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
 * To be honest, this template was designed to match the layout commonly used in WP, like Template:Disambig or Vorlage:Begriffsklärung. --MRA 11:01, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
 * wikipedia:template:disambig is for disambiguation articles. The various "otheruses" templates (wikipedia:template:otheruses templates) do what this is meant to do.  When I'm not feeling lazy I'll change this and fix the articles that use it.  --Fyren 23:23, 26 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree with Fyren; either this template needs to be redone, or the articles currently using it should be changed to use a more appropriate template.
 * This template was at one time used the same way as wikipedia:template:disambig; but the local community moved away from using true disambiguation pages, instead favoring a "see also" reference with the primary article being what was thought to be the most common request for the term. As a result, this template is no longer in line with its common usage on GuildWiki. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:37, 26 August 2006 (CDT)
 * i prefer this to the italics on en wikipedia. it stands out more, and the rules make it simpler to ignore if this is the right article. the italics blend with the article, making it harder to spot at a glance, and harder to seperate from the main text --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 23:52, 26 August 2006 (CDT)


 * The domination magic article (while it was a disambiguation article) used Template:Disambig, not this. --User:Fyren 23:46, 26 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Ah, my mistake - I thought we had eliminated most of the true disambigs - I see there are still several using the other template. I still agree with you though; this one is mis-designed for its current usage. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:54, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

At the moment, this is (only) used on both articles in article pairs like Shatterstone and Shatterstone (unique item). I don't think it needs to be used in the articles with the parenthetical note since you're not going to end up at one of them while looking for the other. Does anyone object to removing them? --Fyren 02:13, 27 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I kind of like those as a way to link back (you can always hit back arrow too, but I like links within the pages for consistency). It also helps flag for the user that more than one thing exists in the game with the same name. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:16, 27 August 2006 (CDT)
 * i really like these, please leave them. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 02:25, 27 August 2006 (CDT)