I noticed that on some pages with very clear titles we can find disambiguation notices, like these ones:
<< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_(software) "This article is about software. For other uses, see Beagle (disambiguation)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis_(island) "This is an article about island named Vis. For the town with the same name, see Vis_(town)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_(unit) "See Barrel (disambiguation) for other uses."
The point of disambiguation notices is to resolve conflicts when the title is shared by more than one meaning.
But the title "Beagle (software)" is not at all ambiguous! From the title anyone can tell it's about a piece of software not a dog or a ship. The same with "Vis (island)", "Barrel (unit)" and thousands of other articles.
Then why do we have them?
On 2/14/07, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
Then why do we have them?
It's a good question. I used to think they were redundant, and indeed, generally "non-ambiguous pages" like this don't have them. But now I'm not so sure. Some reasons for having them:
- it may be useful or just interesting to know what the name is ambiguous with - somewhat related, it helps the reader understand why there is a slightly bizzarre name: Why "Jerry Seinfeld (character)"? Why not just "Jerry Seinfeld"? - it's much easier to maintain ambiguous sets when there are links back to the disambig page - sometimes people link to the wrong page. If there are two "Fred Smith"s who are scientists, people may hastily link to "Fred Smith (scientist)" and get it wrong. - consistency
These may not be compelling reasons, but there is *some* benefit in having the links.
Steve
Ah, now I know what you mean, you are talking about the duplication in the notices. The disambiguations themselves are needed, but the wording could indeed improve. I think it's often a leftover from when there's just one other article to disambiguate with, in which case this is a common wording. Not sure what's wrong with the wording on the barrel one. The unit and the actual metal barrel object are different things that can have their own article.
Mgm
On 2/13/07, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
I noticed that on some pages with very clear titles we can find disambiguation notices, like these ones:
<< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_(software) "This article is about software. For other uses, see Beagle (disambiguation)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis_(island) "This is an article about island named Vis. For the town with the same name, see Vis_(town)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_(unit) "See Barrel (disambiguation) for other uses."
The point of disambiguation notices is to resolve conflicts when the title is shared by more than one meaning.
But the title "Beagle (software)" is not at all ambiguous! From the title anyone can tell it's about a piece of software not a dog or a ship. The same with "Vis (island)", "Barrel (unit)" and thousands of other articles.
Then why do we have them?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, now I know what you mean, you are talking about the duplication in the notices.
Is he? I think he's saying that it makes sense that [[Barrel]] links to [[Barrel (disambiguation)]], that [[Barrel (disambiguation)]] links to [[Barrel (unit)]], but that there's no need to link from [[Barrel (unit)]] back to [[Barrel (disambiguation)]].
I believe that the general pattern is for *those* links to not be added, but I could be wrong.
Steve
On 2/13/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, now I know what you mean, you are talking about the duplication in the notices.
Is he? I think he's saying that it makes sense that [[Barrel]] links to [[Barrel (disambiguation)]], that [[Barrel (disambiguation)]] links to [[Barrel (unit)]], but that there's no need to link from [[Barrel (unit)]] back to [[Barrel (disambiguation)]].
I believe that the general pattern is for *those* links to not be added, but I could be wrong.
Keep in mind that not everyone is arriving at these articles through an internal link. If a reader searches for "barrel" on Google and happens to click on the link to [[Barrel (unit)]], there should be an obvious way for him to find the other meanings of the term once he realizes that he's at the wrong article.
Kirill
I think an "Other uses of X" link is a good thing, but it should probably come under See Also, rather than at the top.
On 2/14/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think an "Other uses of X" link is a good thing, but it should probably come under See Also, rather than at the top.
Nice compromise. I like it.
Steve