...

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.

I understand what you are getting at here Tim, but I don't think it is reasonable to push an editting task on a reader. Now, if they show any editting interest in the page that is a different matter. Then you could (perhaps) ask them to fix a few links while they are there. You would have to give them a means to chicken out though.

The optimum would go a little like this...

1. Reader clicks on some link
2. Oops, what am I doing at this disambig page
3. Correct destination is radio button 1, or 2, or 17
4. Wiki software fixes calling link AND...

5 Reader transparently moves to desired destination. 6. Gaz wins Lotto next day and retires ;-)

But then what do you do if THAT reader got it all wrong?

The reader doesn't think they're editing, the reader is just trying to get to the information they're interested in. If a reader views [[Roman mythology]] then [[Mercury]] then [[Mercury (mythology)]], we can surmise that it's more likely than not [[Roman mythology]] should link to [[Mercury (mythology)]]. If the user is distracted, suddenly realising how interesting the element mercury is, the link will be set incorrectly. Readers following the same path later click on the "other uses for the word 'mercury'" header in [[Mercury (element)]] (after a moment of confusion). Editors following that link will fix it.

I don't know what the right way to do it is. I'm just contributing a couple of ideas.

-- Tim Starling.

_________________________________________________________________ MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp