wrote:
"Rolf Lampa" <rolf.lampa(a)rilnet.com> wrote
in message news:fftcic$ebu$1@ger.gmane.org...
Jay R. Ashworth skrev:
Yes, more ideas exist about what kind of information to define as
Aliases, but some of those ideas really isn't a good idea at all, in
that they'd intend to manually define what's already in the text -
namely the text. That part, presenting keywords from the text, should
be handled by smart indexers and stemmers. As usual.
Let's be honest here. To users of Wikipedia, the name you choose will
not make any difference. If there is a percieved problem and a feature
exists that solves that problem, then it will be used to solve that
problem - even if it is not what the feature was intended for.
For example, I very much doubt that redirect pages would exist if page
transclusion had been invented first.
If our search indexing is good enough to deal with sound-alikes then
great, but if not (as is currently the case), then
redirects/synonyms/aliases/whatever you call it, will be used to make
these redirects manually (as is currently the case, and as will continue
to be the case if the new feature is added first, whichever name you
choose).
"Sounds alike" is a feature that will prove exceedingly problematic.
[rest of comment snipped]