On Sunday 30 June 2002 07:33 am, Bryan wrote:
[Paris] a rather extreme example, but yes, I wouldn't have a problem with [[[Paris]] being a disambiguation page] :) At least it makes Paris, France's article title more standardized with the other city titles when the reader gets to it.
OK, go ahead and fix the hundreds of links to [[Paris]] so that they point to [[Paris, France]] (which is going to be the new home for this article under the new city naming convention) and the 10 or so that need to be redirected to one of the several other meanings of [[Paris]] and then maintain that disambiguation page by doing the same thing every so often as new contributors naturally link to THE Paris by simply linking to [[Paris]]. The whole concept of the disambiguation notice has failed -- people just don't "go back and fix the link" as requested. Therefore, maintenance shifts to the person creating these non-articles.
I would prefer however, that since simply saying Paris is almost any context almost always is unambiguously meant to mean [[Paris, France]], that [[Paris]] should be a redirect to [[Paris, France]] (giving the French city redirect priority over the use of the page [[Paris]]).
I think it's a bad idea to assume some kind of universal context when writing articles, because everyone has a slightly different idea of what the universal context is.
Well, I guess we should abandon all naming conventions then (which is where the universal context arises here). If there is no universal context, then there is no need to naturally disambiguate terms and wikipedia degenerates into a Jargon file with loads of naming conflicts, misdirected links and an inordinate amount of the use of tedious piping.
--maveric149
At 02:33 PM 6/30/02 -0700, you wrote:
On Sunday 30 June 2002 07:33 am, Bryan wrote:
[Paris] a rather extreme example, but yes, I wouldn't have a problem with [[[Paris]] being a disambiguation page] :) At least it makes Paris, France's article title more standardized with the other city titles when the reader gets to it.
OK, go ahead and fix the hundreds of links to [[Paris]] so that they point to [[Paris, France]]
I said I wouldn't have a problem with it, not that I was interested in the work required to actually do it myself. There are plenty of other things that are more important to do first IMO. :)
I'm a big supporter of disambiguation pages, I like what they add to the structure of Wikipedia and don't have a problem with "non-article" pages as long as they have a useful function. But for the most part, I have largely just been going around and finding existing disambiguation pages and adding the proper notices and format to them, and sometimes fixing some of their links. Perhaps someday the wikipedia software will have tools specifically tailored to disambiguation, a separate namespace maybe? Or a new type of redirect syntax that allows for multiple possibilities? That way, the non-articleness of disambiguation pages wouldn't be as much of an issue.
I think it's a bad idea to assume some kind of universal context when writing articles, because everyone has a slightly different idea of what the universal context is.
Well, I guess we should abandon all naming conventions then (which is where the universal context arises here). If there is no universal context, then there is no need to naturally disambiguate terms and wikipedia degenerates into a Jargon file with loads of naming conflicts, misdirected links and an inordinate amount of the use of tedious piping.
Now you're just being silly. Good naming conventions are exactly the thing that helps Wikipedia become a coherent resource _despite_ the fact that every editor approaches it with a slightly different context; they're the way we make it clear that an article is about _that_ particular Paris, or _this_ particular god without having to assume a common context. Naming conventions mean you don't have to guess a context for an article, it's explicitly provided in the title.
Redirects and disambiguation pages exist as a way to take links which don't conform to unambiguous conventions and make them useful anyway; they are there specifically to _remove_ misdirected links and tedious piping. You can just link to [[Blah]] and not worry about the reader winding up in the wrong place. Ideally you'd link to [[Blah (god)|Blah]] or whatever instead, but with a disambiguation page in place a little sloppiness or laziness isn't going to hurt anything.
-- "Let there be light." - Last words of Bomb #20, "Dark Star"
If we're going on seniority, [[Paris]] should be the character of Greek mythology. At the risk of pouring oil onto the fire, nomenclature like "Paris, France" is an americanism. In both French and British English, we'd write Chester (Cheshire), or Antony (Hauts-de-Seine), giving the county or the departement respectively. For foreign place-names the same style applied: Delhi (India). To British ears, expressions like "Paris, Texas" give the impression of being a single name, that the name isn't "Paris", it actually really is "Paris, Texas". Parentheses would fit in with the house style for other diambiguation pages.
On the wider subject of disamb. in general, I think we're getting a little too bogged down. Part of what makes an encyclopedia useful -- no, fun -- is crosstalk: encountering a dozen interesting article while searching for something, stopping to read them and completely forgetting to look up whatever it was that prompted one to open the book in the first place. That's something we don't have on Wikipedia. There's "random page", but that requires a conscious choice. What we do have is disambiguation pages. They're a way to hop between often very different sections of the encyclopedia. I think we shouldn't bother going back to create pipe links. In brief:
* they're a pain to make * they're a pain to read in raw markup * landing on a disambiguation page adds one click to a reader's stream. big deal. they'll live * and further, it adds to the diversity of what they read
I'd also like to suggest that in cases where one context of an article title is particularly prominent, we use a "disambiguation BLOCK" instead of a page -- that is, open with the standard disambiguation text and links, but run the principal article below on that page.
tarquin
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org