Forum:CT:Disambiguation pages

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Disambiguation pages

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was keep as is. jSarek 02:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

After reading up on disambiguation pages at Wikipedia, I got to thinking that we should re-evaluate the way we handle our , particularly in regards to "primary topics":

"When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page."

Now, take the unoriginally titled Star Wars: Legacy of the Force books. Betrayal is just at Legacy of the Force: Betrayal with a link to the disambiguation page at the top. The same goes for Sacrifice. Tempest, however, is at Legacy of the Force: Tempest, despite being the most linked to article with that name (with over 500 links, while the others only have a few). Eventually, the same will happen with Inferno (novel) and Fury (novel). So I propose that in cases like these where major novels are obviously the primary topics, instead of having:

Legacy of the Force: Tempest [the book] and Tempest [the disambiguation page]

We have:

Tempest [the book] and Tempest (disambiguation) [the disambiguation page]

Articles this would affect would be Legacy of the Force: Tempest, Inferno (novel), Fury (novel), Darksaber (novel), and Shatterpoint (novel). (Please post any others I have missed.)

Move articles and link to disambiguation pages

  1. Ozzel 02:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Why are we even voting? If someone brought up this issue, I'd go ahead and move them. Sikon 15:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. --Eyrezer 05:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. To make it more convenient for the people who use the site. - Lord Hydronium 03:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep as is

  1. In-universe things should take precedence. That's why Category:Actors and Category:Authors are in-universe, even though more people are probably interested in real-world actors and authors. Betrayal is only used as a title out of universe, so it makes sense that it's at the main page. But all of the examples cited are the names of ships or other concepts in-universe, so they should stay where they all. -LtNOWIS 02:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Per LtNOWIS Wildyoda 22:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Per LtNOWIS. IU perspective alters things, and we're not Wikipedia. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 19:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oh, we're actually voting on this? As if we somehow want to prioritize OOU over IU? How odd. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 19:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Per LtNOWIS. Green Tentacle (Talk) 23:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. I'd sign with ~~~~, but the sig policy doesn't let me. =( RelentlessRecusant 03:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Damn you Vilmark! -- Riffsyphon1024 04:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Per Culator. Captain Daal Imperial Emblem 07:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. --Dark Lord Xander (Embrace The Dark Side!)Neo-Crusader emblem 04:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Imperialles 13:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Unit 8311 18:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. There may be a handful of exceptions, but I say keep it as is. Master Aban Fiolli (Alpheridies University ComNet) NR Seal 21:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • LtNOWIS, I understand what you're saying, but that comparison doesn't really work. We can fix every single instance so that Category:Actors and Category:Star Wars actors are completely separate. However, we have countless IU articles with (parenthetical) things after them. It's not strictly an IU or OOU thing. It's a wiki formatting thing. -- Ozzel 02:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, but we base our wiki formatting around the canonicity of our topics. Wildyoda 22:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Right now, my only thought is that disambig pages should be at subject (disambiguation). After all, that is how {{otheruses}} works. From there, we can decide which article to put at the main subject page. —Xwing328(Talk) 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I still don't see why IU-priority is such a big deal, since we still have countless IU articles with parentheticals after them. -- Ozzel 00:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Comments Strike Back

So, this CT never ended, and it has lingered so long, it has come back in style, and this issue has reared its ugly head again. And I still stand by my original position: I think that the namespace without the parenthesis should go to the most popular/notable/likely-to-be-searched-for subject. What do you think? -- Ozzel 03:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  • As I've said before, we should be an in-universe encyclopedia first and foremost. The most notable thing, in-universe, should be at the main namespace. -LtNOWIS 03:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ditto. I just rearranged Abel to show that. —Xwing328(Talk) 04:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Same position as before- IU first. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 06:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • But we will still have IU articles with parentheticals anyway. Why does it matter? -- Ozzel 23:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
        • So we can at least get rid of some of them. —Xwing328(Talk) 03:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As much as we may want to pretend we're in-universe, we need to keep an eye on convenience for the people who actually use the site. That means making it easier to get to the things they're more likely to look for. - Lord Hydronium 03:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The OOU items already have natural disambiguations. Namely, *ahem*, their full titles. I don't understand why we're not using them. Thefourdotelipsis 03:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)