Difference between revisions of "Help talk:Disambiguation"

Latest revision as of 03:02, 18 October 2009

"In this case it is achieved using Mercury as a disambiguation page." The irony, of course, being that it is not a disambiguation page. And since there are only two things in Eve that are referred to as Mercury that I can think of (the moon mineral and the ISD department), it can make do with the disambiguation link discussed later on the page . . . maybe you should use a different example, CCP? --Garion Avarr 03:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the example was badly chosen, as the page was a copy of wikipedia's own with examples that were not related. --ISD Elumiel 09:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Over agressive disambiguation

By forcing (fitting), (player), (corporation), (guide) and other disambiguations to article names, you are breaking the simplicity rule of wiki media and its disambiguation rules. e.g. Salvaging, Salvaging (Guide) and Salvaging guide all refer to same thing, but yet they are scattered, thus disambiguation is pointless. If the article is about Ishkur, how to fit such wessel should be in the same article. Or are we fitting some other ship than ishkur in Ishkur (Fitting) article? Also capitalziation the names inside of ()'s also break naming conventions rules. Top of that, it renders the info from database useless as the FACTs are separated from WIKIs. BlackSmith Sisunautti 10:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

There are a few reasons that it was decided to have (Fitting), (Chronicle), (Player corporation) etc appended to articles, one of the biggest reasons was the autolinker that is installed here, which, if some of these page titles are common and likely to show up a lot, the autolinker will link them everywhere in the EVElopedia. That involves a lot of work to remove them afterwords, as currently the only way to do so is to add <nowiki></nowiki> to every occurrence of the word. Another reason in regards to the ship pages article you linked; long pages currently break the rendering of the EVElopedia in the in game browser, and this was one way that we could both limit the length of the page, as well as keep information relevant to what the person was searching for.

The Salvaging guide and Salvaging (Guide) pages I wasn't aware of before now, and I will look at merging the two of them after this reply.

Bad capitalization of page titles is something we are working on dealing with just now. Not sure what your last comment on the item database is meant to mean, sorry.

Regards ISD Erilus Nex 11:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The autolinker is indeed a issue, but disambiguation does not address nor solve the situation you describe. It actually makes the situation even worse. By enforcing artificial disambiguation, the links that it generates take to articles that possibly don't cower the issue and editors need to do the linking by hand, thus the autolinker looses even more of its meaning. e.g. ishkur and Ishkur (Fitting). Now when user follows the link, he suspects to find all the info about Ishkur as there is no second link next to of the autolinked thus it does not cower all the artificially done disambiguation articles. I fail to see your point where the autolinker would do harmful or inappropriate links if article name space would follow wiki rules. Dare to give an example where the autolinking would be harmful if ambiguousness would be applied? Remember that the autolinker only triggers on full article names, not on partial names.

If article length is the another reason, then enforcing the wiki rules about article relevance should be looked at. e.g. subtitles in ships should be moved to the appropriate ship types article while the article itself should handle ships very generally. Also the various fitting guides that are out there, could be integrated to the main article with 3rd of their length as they cower the topic usually way too lengthy. We have datapulled from database that can not me manipulated aka hard facts (best side of this wiki) but yet the wiki information about the topic is (usually) force disambiguated to another article (worst of this wiki). The information value of the wiki while ingame is next to nothing as the same facts can be found inside of the game lot easier and same time bad disambiguation policy hides the info the user would really like to know, thus elevating the wiki to a working ingame feature will be pure pain and hard to say the least because of the violations of Naming conventions. BlackSmith Sisunautti 15:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)