* The original
page is moved to a disambiguated name. This name is
selected
by the user who creates the second page.
* All existing links are updated via the pipe trick to point to the
newly-disambiguated primary article.
Sounds like a bad idea - any pages that previously referred to the old
page _wrongly_ would now be even more wrong. There will be rare cases where
one disambiguation subject would be the only one that had links, but more
commonly there are a few links that go to other disambiguation subjects. So
I would very much prefer to have disambiguation done by hand, or at least
under human control.
I did have another idea for what to do in this case. Perhaps all the links
to the old page could remain pointing to what is now an automated
disambiguation page. Readers (not necessarily editors) could be prompted to
select the right link. Their choice is reflected by updating the referring
page. Of course the link could be manually fixed later, if something goes
wrong.
-- Tim Starling.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to