765,429
edits
Forum:Story names should be automatically disambiguated: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Story names should be automatically disambiguated (edit)
Revision as of 04:24, 28 August 2012
, 28 August 2012Sorry for having to do this, but I'm being forced to change my sig, and clean up after it, by Wikia Staff
No edit summary |
m (Sorry for having to do this, but I'm being forced to change my sig, and clean up after it, by Wikia Staff) |
||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
Far from burdening you with new work, what this scheme does is to put us on more solid footing that will help us write all sorts of lovely, magical templates. And I honestly think it'll make more intuitive sense to new editors, who will simply get in the habit of adding (TV story) and (audio story) and ''whatever'' after every title. | Far from burdening you with new work, what this scheme does is to put us on more solid footing that will help us write all sorts of lovely, magical templates. And I honestly think it'll make more intuitive sense to new editors, who will simply get in the habit of adding (TV story) and (audio story) and ''whatever'' after every title. | ||
Oh and incidentally, another side benefit of this is that it takes care of a flaw in the MediaWiki software which can occasionally create false redlinks in [[Special:WantedPages]]. So, if you rely on that page to edit, and some people do, then we can make all sorts of nifty templates without fear of cluttering up WantedPages. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | Oh and incidentally, another side benefit of this is that it takes care of a flaw in the MediaWiki software which can occasionally create false redlinks in [[Special:WantedPages]]. So, if you rely on that page to edit, and some people do, then we can make all sorts of nifty templates without fear of cluttering up WantedPages. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}'''23:42:12 Wed '''13 Jul 2011 </span> | ||
==Sounds like a great idea== | ==Sounds like a great idea== | ||
*This would be espically helpful when later uses of the same title appear. I have encountered a couple places where It took me a little wandering before I realized I was trying to reconcile, for example, a comic when I should have been on a Short Trip of the same title. [[User:Mgailp|MGailP]] 22:08, July 16, 2011 (UTC) | *This would be espically helpful when later uses of the same title appear. I have encountered a couple places where It took me a little wandering before I realized I was trying to reconcile, for example, a comic when I should have been on a Short Trip of the same title. [[User:Mgailp|MGailP]] 22:08, July 16, 2011 (UTC) | ||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
==I'm just not sure about this== | ==I'm just not sure about this== | ||
While I do think it would be great to see uniformed page titles, I also feel it may be unneeded. It could look quite messy to have a page title such as ''[[The Wedding of River Song (TV story)]]'' when it's not necessary. Out of the two hundred and something TV story pages, there can't be ''that'' many that need to be differentiated from other media with the same name. I'm leaning towards voting for this at the moment ([[Forum:Page Creation time|considering how it would beneficial]]), but I'm not certain. {{User:D0ct0r11/sig}} 22:36 Sat 10 Oct 2011 | While I do think it would be great to see uniformed page titles, I also feel it may be unneeded. It could look quite messy to have a page title such as ''[[The Wedding of River Song (TV story)]]'' when it's not necessary. Out of the two hundred and something TV story pages, there can't be ''that'' many that need to be differentiated from other media with the same name. I'm leaning towards voting for this at the moment ([[Forum:Page Creation time|considering how it would beneficial]]), but I'm not certain. {{User:D0ct0r11/sig}} 22:36 Sat 10 Oct 2011 | ||
:I think you're misunderstanding the benefit here. It's not about differentiating '''from other media'''. It's about differentiating from in-universe '''things'''. Our current policy requires you to know that there is a thing called ''The Pandorica Opens'' or Paradise Towers, or Castrovalva within the DWU, in order to properly link to the story. The cases where you need disambiguation are ''quite'' common, because stories are often titled around a concept within the episode. You're talking about 30=40% of all stories ''need'' disambiguation. (Whether they currently are disambiguated is a different matter.) {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | :I think you're misunderstanding the benefit here. It's not about differentiating '''from other media'''. It's about differentiating from in-universe '''things'''. Our current policy requires you to know that there is a thing called ''The Pandorica Opens'' or Paradise Towers, or Castrovalva within the DWU, in order to properly link to the story. The cases where you need disambiguation are ''quite'' common, because stories are often titled around a concept within the episode. You're talking about 30=40% of all stories ''need'' disambiguation. (Whether they currently are disambiguated is a different matter.) {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}22:43: Sat 01 Oct 2011 </span> | ||
::I see. Considering how many story pages need to be titled with (TV story), then I guess uniforming pages would be an ideal advance. {{User:D0ct0r11/sig}} 22:57 Sat 10 Oct 2011 | ::I see. Considering how many story pages need to be titled with (TV story), then I guess uniforming pages would be an ideal advance. {{User:D0ct0r11/sig}} 22:57 Sat 10 Oct 2011 | ||
:::Yeah, I just did a count of a single range, the [[BBC Past Doctor Adventures]], and that's running at 25% of the titles needing disambiguation. That's too high a percentage, I think, to be managed on a case-by-case basis. In fact the number would be even higher, save for some near misses, like ''[[Byzantium!]]'', which is saved from disambiguation only by an exclamation point. And, technically, over half the television episodes need disambiguation because of the presence of a novelisation. According to our disambig policy, we've no cause to preference the TV story over the novelisation in terms of disambiguation. Two things with the same name in different media should ''both'' be disambiguated. Yes, a lot of the early novelisations have the fomat ''Doctor Who and the . . . ''. But a lot of novelisations have exactly the same name as the corresponding serial. I haven't done the actual count, but I feel certain that once you took into consideration novelisations ''and'' in-universe "things of the same name", over 50% of all classic series titles would need disambiguation. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | :::Yeah, I just did a count of a single range, the [[BBC Past Doctor Adventures]], and that's running at 25% of the titles needing disambiguation. That's too high a percentage, I think, to be managed on a case-by-case basis. In fact the number would be even higher, save for some near misses, like ''[[Byzantium!]]'', which is saved from disambiguation only by an exclamation point. And, technically, over half the television episodes need disambiguation because of the presence of a novelisation. According to our disambig policy, we've no cause to preference the TV story over the novelisation in terms of disambiguation. Two things with the same name in different media should ''both'' be disambiguated. Yes, a lot of the early novelisations have the fomat ''Doctor Who and the . . . ''. But a lot of novelisations have exactly the same name as the corresponding serial. I haven't done the actual count, but I feel certain that once you took into consideration novelisations ''and'' in-universe "things of the same name", over 50% of all classic series titles would need disambiguation. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}23:05: Sat 01 Oct 2011 </span> | ||
I understand what is trying to be done but I think it is unnecessary. [[User:Glimmer721|Glimmer721]] <sup>[[User talk:Glimmer721|talk to me]]</sup> 17:33, October 2, 2011 (UTC) | I understand what is trying to be done but I think it is unnecessary. [[User:Glimmer721|Glimmer721]] <sup>[[User talk:Glimmer721|talk to me]]</sup> 17:33, October 2, 2011 (UTC) | ||
==Closure== | ==Closure== | ||
There being no sustained objection in over six months, this policy change is deemed acceptable and is now being implemented. It may take up to a week for all stories to be moved to [[dab|disambiguated]] names. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | There being no sustained objection in over six months, this policy change is deemed acceptable and is now being implemented. It may take up to a week for all stories to be moved to [[dab|disambiguated]] names. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}04:56: Sat 18 Feb 2012 </span> | ||
