Is there a variable, related to {{PAGENAME}} which can strip off a parenthesised suffix? I'm after the result of doing the pipe-trick IYSWIM.
For example, for the article at [[en:Buff (color)]], {{PAGENAME}} gives "Buff (color)". Is there anything which would give simply "Buff"?
The main reason I was thinking of this was for a variation on {{otheruses}} which could be added to these parenthesised articles automagically.
"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" avarab@gmail.com wrote in message news:51dd1af8050513124050c228bf@mail.gmail.com...
No.
Care to expand on that?
"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" avarab@gmail.com wrote in message news:51dd1af805051602327d9ed75f@mail.gmail.com...
No.
Care to expand on that?
It's an answer to your original question: no, there is not a variable that will give you the page name without its parenthesis suffix.
Thank you. I should have asked a better question :-)
Phil Boswell wrote:
Is there a variable, related to {{PAGENAME}} which can strip off a parenthesised suffix? I'm after the result of doing the pipe-trick IYSWIM.
Ævar already answered "no", presumably saying that you can't do this, but I'd like to add:
The main reason I was thinking of this was for a variation on {{otheruses}} which could be added to these parenthesised articles automagically.
Please don't do this. We do not want these links. The links are supposed to be a navigational help for people who were looking for something other than what they are looking at; but nobody looking at a parenthesised page could have got there without explicitly looking for it.
Timwi
On Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:25 AM, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Phil Boswell wrote:
Is there a variable, related to {{PAGENAME}} which can strip off a parenthesised suffix? I'm after the result of doing the pipe-trick IYSWIM.
Ævar already answered "no", presumably saying that you can't do this, but I'd like to add:
The main reason I was thinking of this was for a variation on {{otheruses}} which could be added to these parenthesised articles automagically.
Please don't do this. We do not want these links. The links are supposed to be a navigational help for people who were looking for something other than what they are looking at; but nobody looking at a parenthesised page could have got there without explicitly looking for it.
Interesting. I had assumed that Phil wanted to link to [[{{PAGENAMENOPARANTHESES}} (disambiguation)]], which could be mildly useful in primary topic disambiguation cases.
Shows how we all think differently, I suppose. :-)
Yours,
James D. Forrester wrote:
Interesting. I had assumed that Phil wanted to link to [[{{PAGENAMENOPARANTHESES}} (disambiguation)]], which could be mildly useful in primary topic disambiguation cases.
But the point is that the "primary topic" will not have parentheses by definition. (At least not parentheses that you want to get rid of.)
"Timwi" timwi@gmx.net wrote in message news:d6793b$4lt$2@sea.gmane.org...
James D. Forrester wrote:
Interesting. I had assumed that Phil wanted to link to [[{{PAGENAMENOPARANTHESES}} (disambiguation)]], which could be mildly useful in primary topic disambiguation cases.
But the point is that the "primary topic" will not have parentheses by definition. (At least not parentheses that you want to get rid of.)
...which is my exact point. At the moment, the only way to show show other related articles is the {{otheruses}} template, which wants to point to a "... (disambiguation)" article.
If the reader is looking at the article on [[lilac (color)]] for example, it is likely that they might be interested in other articles of similar name, such as [[lilac]]. If you use {{otheruses}} however you get a link to [[lilac (color) (disambiguation)]]: there is no way to automate a link to [[lilac]] so you have to type it in manually. This means that there is little scope for making the appearance and behaviour of such complementary links uniform, as per the recent [[template standardisation]] project.
Now some people might like the fact that there is no uniformity in these things, on the grounds that they make the project look too mechanical, but the alternative often looks thoroughly unhelpful and ugly.
Phil Boswell wrote:
But the point is that the "primary topic" will not have parentheses by definition. (At least not parentheses that you want to get rid of.)
....which is my exact point. At the moment, the only way to show show other related articles is the {{otheruses}} template, which wants to point to a "... (disambiguation)" article.
Yes, because you don't need any others, is my point. Am I really this unclear?
If the reader is looking at the article on [[lilac (color)]] for example, it is likely that they might be interested in other articles of similar name, such as [[lilac]].
No, it is not, as I've been trying to tell you. There is absolutely no way they are going to type "lilac (color)" into either the URL or the search box if they are actually looking for [[lilac]].
If there is a semantic link between the topics covered by the article -- as is the case with [[lilac]] and [[lilac (color)]] -- then there will be a link in the body of the text, ideally in the introductory section. If there isn't -- such as between [[gate]] and [[Bill Gates]] -- then your assertion about the likelihood of a user wanting to go from one to the other is clearly false.
This means that there is little scope for making the appearance and behaviour of such complementary links uniform
We *do not* want these "complementary links" because they are useless.
Timwi
"Timwi" timwi@gmx.net wrote in message news:d6advj$9v0$1@sea.gmane.org...
Phil Boswell wrote:
But the point is that the "primary topic" will not have parentheses by definition. (At least not parentheses that you want to get rid of.)
....which is my exact point. At the moment, the only way to show show other related articles is the {{otheruses}} template, which wants to point to a "... (disambiguation)" article.
Yes, because you don't need any others, is my point. Am I really this unclear?
Yes.
If the reader is looking at the article on [[lilac (color)]] for example, it is likely that they might be interested in other articles of similar name, such as [[lilac]].
No, it is not, as I've been trying to tell you. There is absolutely no way they are going to type "lilac (color)" into either the URL or the search box if they are actually looking for [[lilac]].
Is it not possible to arrive at an article by any other means than an explicit search?
Like clicking a wiki-link perchance?
Or following a link from an outside source?
Phil Boswell wrote:
Is it not possible to arrive at an article by any other means than an explicit search? Like clicking a wiki-link perchance? Or following a link from an outside source?
How can a wiki-link or an outside link ever link to [[lilac (color)]] if it is meant to link to [[lilac]]?
"Timwi" timwi@gmx.net wrote in message news:d6ci8n$t1l$2@sea.gmane.org...
Phil Boswell wrote:
Is it not possible to arrive at an article by any other means than an explicit search? Like clicking a wiki-link perchance? Or following a link from an outside source?
How can a wiki-link or an outside link ever link to [[lilac (color)]] if it is meant to link to [[lilac]]?
How about from a search engine? http://clusty.com/search?v%3aproject=clusty-encyclopedia&query=lilac for example. Or say someone's blog or website references a page on Wikipedia?
Am I having a bad day, or am I simply not expressing myself as clearly as I thought I was?
I thought I had asked a perfectly reasonable question.
ObPython: I didn't expect some kind of Spanish Inquisition.
On 5/17/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Am I having a bad day, or am I simply not expressing myself as clearly as I thought I was?
I guess you are expressing yourself quite clearly, it's just that the people are trying to tell you that your assumptions are wrong. For example, do you think that you should place a link to [[Paris Hilton]] into the [[Paris]] article? You know, people searching for her could get to [[Paris]] by coincidence. I believe you should not, those two articles have nothing in common except distant similarity in their titles. The same applies to [[lilac (color)]] versus [[lilac]]. If you are at [[lilac (color)]], you either made a mistake, or you are not looking for [[lilac]]. Both cannot be true. Sure, if you meant to look for [[lilac]] and got there by mistake, a link could help, but, by that logic, you could insert 5000 links into the article, "what if".
Just my CZK 0.50,
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
Phil Boswell wrote:
"Timwi" timwi@gmx.net wrote in message news:d6ci8n$t1l$2@sea.gmane.org...
Phil Boswell wrote:
Is it not possible to arrive at an article by any other means than an explicit search? Like clicking a wiki-link perchance? Or following a link from an outside source?
How can a wiki-link or an outside link ever link to [[lilac (color)]] if it is meant to link to [[lilac]]?
How about from a search engine? http://clusty.com/search?v%3aproject=clusty-encyclopedia&query=lilac for example.
As I already said, by that logic [[George W. Bush]] should probably link to [[bush]], [[Condoleezza Rice]] should link to [[rice]], ...
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org