Category talk:Disambiguation: Difference between revisions
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
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) | ||
And for some reason, on this page ther's no "remove where redundant" option, or similarly, to vote for. Since the vote has been going on for such a long time without that option, the results aren't really valid. - <font face="lucida handwriting,segoe script">Ceci n’est pas un [[User:Smiddle|Smiddle]].</font> 11:14, 25 June 2013 (EDT) | |||
===Move everything to Example (disambiguation)=== | ===Move everything to Example (disambiguation)=== | ||
Revision as of 10:14, June 25, 2013
(disambiguation)
This wiki is extremely inconsistent. Some pages have (disambiguation) tacked on the end, while others don't. What do you think we should do? Air Conditioner 
Now with ROLLBACK! 19:09, 19 September 2012 (EDT)
- Before anyone does something else, I just want to clarify that you're supposed to comment under the thing you support. Air Conditioner
Now with ROLLBACK! 19:25, 19 September 2012 (EDT)
- Bump. Air Conditioner It's getting better all the time! 21:03, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
- If I don't have any votes to the contrary by tomorrow, I'm going ahead with moving everything. Air Conditioner -.-- -.-- --..! 19:12, 25 September 2012 (EDT)
- More discussion is needed, so bump again. Air Conditioner I am the air con. 16:48, 24 October 2012 (EDT)
- If I don't see a strong argument from the "Keep it as is" people/refutation of my argument, I'm going ahead with moving everything tomorrow. Air Conditioner The wiki's OTHER penguin 16:37, 7 November 2012 (EST)
- If I don't see a strong argument from the "Keep it as is" people/refutation of my argument, I'm going ahead with moving everything tomorrow. Air Conditioner
- More discussion is needed, so bump again. Air Conditioner
- If I don't have any votes to the contrary by tomorrow, I'm going ahead with moving everything. Air Conditioner
- Bump. Air Conditioner
We have three options. Discuss.
Keep it as is
- Just because it's inconsistent doesn't mean it's a problem. Toomai Glittershine
The Undirigible 19:16, 25 September 2012 (EDT)
- Granted, it's not a big problem, and it will never have high priority on the wiki, but inconsistency is still something we might want to take care of. Air Conditioner Come together! 18:12, 16 October 2012 (EDT)
- Granted, it's not a big problem, and it will never have high priority on the wiki, but inconsistency is still something we might want to take care of. Air Conditioner
- There is no problem with the disambiguations. Dots The Cute Asian
18:18, 16 October 2012 (EDT)
- Well, it's inconsistent. Inconsistency is confusing. There's a reason why other wikis do it with Example (disambiguation). Air Conditioner Come together! 19:18, 16 October 2012 (EDT)
- Well true that it is inconsistent. What else can we do? Dots The Cute Asian 19:27, 16 October 2012 (EDT)
- You could... read the options I've provided down there↓? Air Conditioner Come together! 19:31, 16 October 2012 (EDT)
- You could... read the options I've provided down there↓? Air Conditioner
- Well true that it is inconsistent. What else can we do? Dots The Cute Asian
- Well, it's inconsistent. Inconsistency is confusing. There's a reason why other wikis do it with Example (disambiguation). Air Conditioner
- For. Probably really late, but the disambiguation tag is redundant in many cases. Where it is not needed, it should not be. - Ceci n’est pas un Smiddle. 12:56, 20 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. Dots 
The Smiley 11:58, 24 June 2013 (EDT)
- Actually I kinda take that back, some of them would have that title but I don't know if its the true correct way. Dots
The Star Fox 09:48, 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? - Ceci n’est pas un Smiddle. 11:05, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
And for some reason, on this page ther's no "remove where redundant" option, or similarly, to vote for. Since the vote has been going on for such a long time without that option, the results aren't really valid. - Ceci n’est pas un Smiddle. 11:14, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
Move everything to Example (disambiguation)
- I support this option, as it will make it clearer to anyone who isn't sure. It sounds like nobody could possibly not be sure, but there are a lot of idiots in the world. Air Conditioner Now with ROLLBACK! 19:09, 19 September 2012 (EDT)
- Other wikis do it this way with reason, the specifics are more useful for users. Toast
ltimatum
19:11, 19 September 2012 (EDT) - Support Per AirCon. lol to his last point. --RoyboyX Talk 19:17, 19 September 2012 (EDT)
- I support this option. I think it is awesome enough. The Awesome 20:20, 19 September 2012 (EDT)
- Support for the sake of organization. --Havoc48 >:D!!! 21:10, 16 October 2012 (EDT)
