What is the point of when it is replacing something far simpler (:''...''). Please don't add unnecessarily complicated formatting for no reason, particularly not at the very start of articles where it is going to confuse people. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 03:07, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
:I understand the reasoning behind this template, but only after figuring it out for myself (in case the accepted formatting of disambig links changes, the template can be changed). This is a good idea, but it should be mentioned on Wikipedia:Disambiguation before people start hopping in and changing articles. dablink is also not the best name for this template. User:Rhobite 03:40, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
:View the source, there is more to the change than just italics. User:Anthony DiPierroUser:Anthony_DiPierro/warning 14:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
::It's a div with a class (presumably to be hidden in the print CSS), indent, and italics. I agree that it's a good idea but it should be explained and debated before it goes into general use. User:Rhobite 23:25, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
:::I don't see why anyone would need to remove it from a printed version since it is useful information directly relevant to the text. I see no reason to add additional confusing templates. This increases the barrier to editing for no benefit. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 00:05, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
::::Look at the top of Wikipedia:Copyright problems (noting of course that this is in the Wikipedia namespace). Would you want that in a printed copy? User:Brianjd 10:18, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
----
I have a problem with the indenting and I don't think I'm the only one (although I think we are in the minority). I would rather just add a horizontal line underneath. User:Brianjd 10:19, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
:''The horizontal rule is evil and should be destroyed''. It is one of the ugliest HTML elements and has defaced many a webpage. Please indent. User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 03:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)