Forum:Eliminating disambiguation pages
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Forums: Village pump → Eliminating disambiguation pages
(This topic is archived. Please do not edit this page!)
(This topic is archived. Please do not edit this page!)
I want us to consider eliminating disambiguation list pages which only have two different possibilities. This means the majority of Alliance/Horde quests and items. I think we should instead redirect to either the more common choice, or in the case of Alliance/Horde, the choice with the lower ID. Then we can add {{redirect}} or {{for}} as appropriate. This would reduce clicks for about half the userbase and clean up some short pages. Also I have been already doing this with certain pages, especially those disambiguation pages which don't have anything linking to them (search works better for that anyway), but the Alliance/Horde stuff is more of a special case. --Pcj (T•C) 13:10, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
- And which one would be the "most common choice"? Are you saying that we should do a research on which faction of a quest/item is more popular? Possibly every single quest, and probably every item too, that has a version of either faction has the Alliance equivalent with the lower ID. Wouldn't this make it more biased toward Alliance than Horde? --g0urra[T҂C] 13:33, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be overly concerned about faction bias: the faction that "loses" would be no worse off than it is now. If anything, it might be more beneficial to be biased in some consistent (rather than random) way -- we could just poll the editors to see which faction they prefer and redirect ambiguous pages to that. -- foxlit (talk) 13:53, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't a "Wrynn eats baby trolls for breakfast" kind of bias; my opinion is that usability is more important than this sort of neutrality. -- foxlit (talk) 14:15, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly, and further, if we wanted to maintain neutrality we could always just combine the Alliance/Horde pages into one faction neutral page. Also as far as the rest of it, it's not always an overt popularity contest. For example, obviously the current Stormhoof which is in game (and was previously at "Stormhoof (taunka)") would be better known than Stormhoof (tauren) since it appears the latter is only referenced in one RPG book. We can make educated guesses for what people are looking for; for the rest of the people it's like foxlit said: they still are the same number of clicks away. --Pcj (T•C) 23:44, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
- The vote at Talk:Field Duty (quest)#Functional Disambiguation pages might be related to this in some way.--SWM2448 23:53, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, you already know my stance on that one. I'd rather not see items and quests that are of different factions get merged.
- On the matter of item and quest articles, we really can't say which type it is that people are looking for. Obviously if it was a disambiguation about something that appears in the RPG with the same name, the WoW equivalent goes first. --g0urra[T҂C] 00:03, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
- What about both? Remove the disambig pages, merge everything onto the single page - use a table with 2 columns titled Alliance & Horde, and separate the information that way. Start using the 2nd field in {{Template:Elinks-quest}}, update any other necessary Elinks template to accept a 2nd input. Or if the information is practically identical (like the example above), just use one copy, and use the {{alink}}/{{hlink}} inline for dissimilar information. That way the wiki remains neutral, differences are distinguished, we don't lose information, and can do away with disambig pages. Resa1983 (talk) 15:17, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- I prefer having disambig pages and a main page that links all disambiged.
- Choosing who's the most used is a bit subjet to controversy.
Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 19:17, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Because disambig pages prevent people from having to think that the non-disambiged article is the lvl 58 item (about Sergeant Major's stuff)
- And why should we decide that the lvl 58 is to be the one, instead of any other level?
- For Horde or Alliance item, it's the same thing, why should we favor the Alliance? Plus, having both written in the name makes the whole thing clearer (to me and the noobs I hereby represent).
- Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 20:00, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- What do you mean they prevent people from having to think? They still have to decide which article to view on a disambiguation - so actually more thinking is required with a disambiguation. --Pcj (T•C) 20:06, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- You have to think that the non-disambiged article is the one for the level <level> version of the item.
- And you'll have to put on top of each article a link to every version of this item, because you won't have a disambig page linking them all at once anymore.
- Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 20:10, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, only the two options only.
- That leave my second point: how and why to decide that the greater level is to be the one, instead of the lower level?
- For Horde or Alliance item, it's the same thing, why should we favor the Alliance?
- Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 20:16, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- For Horde and Alliance, I'd be perfectly fine with merging the two articles since usually they only differ in rep required and where you get them. For the rest, it is an arbitrary decision based on item ID, but the "loser" is no worse off than they were before. --Pcj (T•C) 20:21, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- I've put this argument forth a goodly number of times, and been shouted down on every occasion by people who feel that "one ID/one page" should be the rule. Many of these people also favor the almost bare disambiguation over the context-inclusive one (see Field Duty, et al). --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:50, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
- For Horde and Alliance, I'd be perfectly fine with merging the two articles since usually they only differ in rep required and where you get them. For the rest, it is an arbitrary decision based on item ID, but the "loser" is no worse off than they were before. --Pcj (T•C) 20:21, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
My general opinion is:
- For sets of entities that are nearly identical, have one page, the same way we have one page for all ranks of each spell. This would include some quests (some actually have 4 versions for alliance/horde and one-time/daily), some talents, the PvP items, and while we're at it, multiple instances of the same NPC. (Obviously there's still the question of what counts as "nearly identical".)
- If there are actual differences so that two pages make sense, I slightly prefer the option Pcj suggested. Basically, half of the time (or more, if we can guess correctly which is more common), it will save the user one click. But ideally nothing should link to the un-disambiguated redirect; everything should link to one of the two actual pages.
- If there is a disambig page, I prefer including as much information as is in common between the two usages of the term, so that there is some useful content and not just a pair of links. -- Harveydrone 20:22, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
- I think as far as "nearly identical" is concerned, we can decide that (as far as Horde/Alliance goes) to say if it is just a matter of different rep needed or a different vendor giving it, then that's close enough to have on one page. If there are stats differences or something more important then they're a bit further apart. --Pcj (T•C) 13:35, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
- "Nearly identical" is a fair question on quest pages. I've been shouted down over quests which differed by "different quest ender and 3 words of quest ending dialog". --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:50, April 5, 2010 (UTC)