Sorry, Magnus, but your counter-proposal changes the
runtime behavior of the system and is /far/ too complicated.
Let's not shoot the golden goose here: Wikipedia works
because it is SIMPLE. Article title space should be
flat (whether or not we add typing conveniences).
Also, disambiguation isn't the problem we're trying to
solve here. That can be done easily enough manually.
There are already great disambiguating pages like "Java",
and we should allow the software to do those automatically
because we want human judgment and creativity to apply to
making them.
The issue really is just one of typing convenience. When
I write about Texas Hold'em strategy, I might say something
like "A raise from late position on the flop will often
cause an opponent to check to you on the turn, giving you
the chance to check behind him and take a free card." In that
sentence, I might want to link words like "raise", "position",
"flop", "free card" and such, and typing "[[Raise (Poker}|raise]]"
for every one of them is a pain. But I /want/ to do the right
thing semantically and make sure that the link actually does go
to the "Raise (Poker)" page, and not just to a disambiguating
"Raise" page that will interrupt and confuse the reader.
Of course, when I /want/ links to be ambiguous to encourage
"accidental" discovery, I can still do that too. In my
"See also" lines, for example, I'll probably just link to
simple titles, hoping that accidental links do interesting
things. So there /will/ be an "Elves" page with pointers to
other contexts, as well as "Elves (Tolkein)", or whatever.
The author should have the choice, and the power. The software
should support what theauthor wants to do, not enforce its
ideas or structure upon the author.
0