430
edits
Forum:Relaxing T:HONOUR: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
no edit summary
Tag: 2017 source edit |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 141: | Line 141: | ||
:This rule you're proposing is much too vague. What does "especially helpful" mean here? Is the issue with Sabbath ''just'' that people don't think of him as "the Sabbath from Movers"? Or would this apply to ''every'' character over a story based dab term, if they also have a descriptive title/epithet/etc? Either position seems unpalatable, as the latter is a massive change that makes the ranks of Faction Paradox deeply split on whether they have their title or not, and the former seems, well, arbitrary. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC) | :This rule you're proposing is much too vague. What does "especially helpful" mean here? Is the issue with Sabbath ''just'' that people don't think of him as "the Sabbath from Movers"? Or would this apply to ''every'' character over a story based dab term, if they also have a descriptive title/epithet/etc? Either position seems unpalatable, as the latter is a massive change that makes the ranks of Faction Paradox deeply split on whether they have their title or not, and the former seems, well, arbitrary. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC) | ||
::As others have pointed out, page titles are primarily a matter of discoverability and so pages should be titled in a way that maximises that both internally and externally. I'm not sure if most-called in-universe name fits this, because page titles are an out-of-universe thing, and that would seemingly kill conjectural titles in their tracks (although maybe that's a good thing - [[Talk:Christopher Eccleston (in-universe)]]). Descriptive titles are helpful but in a well structured wiki these sort of queries should be easily answered by other means. Internally, if I wanted to know who Mickey's mother is I visit his page and look in the infobox, and putting "Mickey Smith's mother" into Google returns the Odessa Smith page here in a featured snippet, no less (because Google has very good relational content understanding). So renaming that page is not actually helping discoverability because the page is not hard to find. Search is not the only tool a wiki has for finding pages! "Sabbath (Movers)" fails external discoverability because the page doesn't show up on Google when searching for "Godfather Sabbath", and so is a prime candidate for renaming. | |||
::And on that relational content understanding (and moving the page name aside), I wonder if linking to that page more often as <nowiki>[[Sabbath (Movers)|Godfather Sabbath]]</nowiki> rather than <nowiki>[[Godparent (rank)|Godfather]] [[Sabbath (Movers)|]]</nowiki> would help. From a UX point of view I could find myself, as a reader, being annoyed by the latter version: clicking on the Godfather part of the name does not actually get me to the character's page despite it seemingly being part of it, and Google would not as strongly be associating the Godfather bit of the name with the page itself. Would need a bit of an experiment but I imagine the results would be quite helpful here. | |||
::Making redirects just for the purposes of linking is generally frowned upon, especially just for editors to save a few keystrokes - and so if pages are linked to most through a redirect that should be some sort of indication that maybe that page is misnamed (although I am not familiar enough with the "First Great Time War" example above to really comment further) - but I know this wiki and redirects has a very odd relationship. And again, I can imagine a bit of experimentation with linking to redirects directly, and seeing if that changes Google's understanding in any way, would be a good idea. | |||
::So to sum up an actual position, I think moving away from dabs and towards honorifics is a good thing, but probably only on a case-by-case basis to start with, where such a discoverability problem actually exists. For Vastra, that means the page is probably fine where it is because there's no problem finding it on here or on Google. Google doesn't actually understand page moves very well, so moving a page actually kills its SEO history and starts it over again, and therefore mass moving pages might actually have unintended negative effects. [[user:guyus24|guyus24]] ([[user talk:guyus24|talk]]) 01:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
