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