Editing Category talk:Disambiguation
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
What's also interesting to note is that Wikipedia disambiguations pages are not titled "name (disambiguation)". Seems like its not really needed to them however. [[User:Dots|<font color="red">Do</font>]][[User talk:Dots|<font color="blue">t</font><font color="purple">s</font>]] [[File:MewtwoMS.png]] The Smiley 11:58, 24 June 2013 (EDT) | What's also interesting to note is that Wikipedia disambiguations pages are not titled "name (disambiguation)". Seems like its not really needed to them however. [[User:Dots|<font color="red">Do</font>]][[User talk:Dots|<font color="blue">t</font><font color="purple">s</font>]] [[File:MewtwoMS.png]] The Smiley 11:58, 24 June 2013 (EDT) | ||
As I see it, the main argument for including "(disambiguation)" in title is that it somehow would make things more consistent, but I don't see how. It ''creates'' inconsistency since doesn't follow the standard that titles shouldn't be redundant. Why does the title ''have'' to indicate that it's a disambig, why is that preferrable? If you claim it's because "some contain it, therefore all should for consistency", I don't see how. In some cases, the format "X (disambiguation)" is needed to distinguish it from an actual article named "X"; this is the purpose for the parenthetical addendum in a title. If you go to a page in this category with "(disambiguation)" removed, it will just redirect to corresponding disambiguation in the very most cases. What's the point of that? Why not just make it standard not to have that tag in the title? - <font face="lucida handwriting,segoe script">Ceci n’est pas un [[User:Smiddle|Smiddle]].</font> 11:05, 25 June 2013 (EDT) | As I see it, the main argument for including "(disambiguation)" in title is that it somehow would make things more consistent, but I don't see how. It ''creates'' inconsistency since doesn't follow the standard that titles shouldn't be redundant. Why does the title ''have'' to indicate that it's a disambig, why is that preferrable? If you claim it's because "some contain it, therefore all should for consistency", I don't see how. In some cases, the format "X (disambiguation)" is needed to distinguish it from an actual article named "X"; this is the purpose for the parenthetical addendum in a title. If you go to a page in this category with "(disambiguation)" removed, it will just redirect to corresponding disambiguation in the very most cases. What's the point of that? Why not just make it standard not to have that tag in the title? - <font face="lucida handwriting,segoe script">Ceci n’est pas un [[User:Smiddle|Smiddle]].</font> 11:05, 25 June 2013 (EDT) |