FANDOM


  • Mathmagician edit: For additional context, see also Thread:253800


    The new changes make absolutely no sense. The page titles look horrible with the "(Disambiguation)" tag slapped on the end of all of them. The change was made because Wood (Disambiguation) and Trident (Disambiguation) could not be given the usual naming convention, due to the fact that pages with those names already exist and the pages needed to be labeled as Disambigs due to that fact.

    Just look at how horrible this looks. It gives headaches and is a pain to look through. The naming conventions that were present before looked just fine and saved time and characters when linking them within articles.

    This change was a horrible decision, affected a good portion of the wiki, and was not agreed upon by the community to be a better, faster method of organizing pages.

      Loading editor
    • "The naming conventions that were present..." I would just like to point out that there were no naming conventions.

      The point was not for it to be a "better, faster method", the point was for conformity, and to tell people immediately that the page they are looking at is a disambig page.

      As another note, it does not affect a "good portion of the wiki", as the original pages have been left as redirects. So, no red links, merely redirects until I can find them all and send them to either the page the article should be linked to, or the disambig page.

      The new changes do make sense.

        Loading editor
    • Fruipit wrote:

      "The naming conventions that were present..." I would just like to point out that there were no naming conventions.

      There were. Beds, Keys, and Gem Hooks are all good examples. It was item type + an s for plural wording and there was NOTHING wrong with that method.

      The point was not for it to be a "better, faster method", the point was for conformity, and to tell people immediately that the page they are looking at is a disambig page.

      Conformity of TWO outlying pages. Yea, changing all 70+ of them was totally necessary. Also, to tell people that the page is a disambig page? Like the big honking template at the very top of the page didn't do that? If anything, the "Disabiguation" in the title is redundant because of the template stating that it is, in fact, a Disambiguation page.

      The new changes do make sense.

      No, they literally do not. As stated above, the tag in the title is now redundancy paired with the template, and it clutters the category itself for no good reason. It's horrible to look at and it was COMPLETELY unnecessary, because the previous convention was fine as it was.

        Loading editor
    • There were two methods. Now, instead of having two different formats for the disambig pages, we have one. As I couldn't change the ones with the tags to without, I opted for the other way around. It doesn't matter that the article tells you it's a disambig page. The 'Goldfish (Item)' page says in the title and the page that it is about the item. Are we going to change that because, according to you, 'it's redundant'?

      Having it in the article title tells people before they go to the page that it is a disambig page. It doesn't 'clutter the category', and there are actually less pages, as several of the mods were improperly categorised.

      Regarding the 'naming conventions', I'm not going to search 'beds'. I only want one, so it will be the singular. Unless there is a gross misspelling, it will come up in the search bar regardless.

        Loading editor
    • The wiki looks gross with the Disambiguation thing spammed everywhere. 

        Loading editor
    • How is it spammed everywhere? Out of the 2,954 pages on this wiki and 9,000+ images, I'm pretty certain that 77 pages isn't 'spamming everywhere'. As those pages also shouldn't have other categories, they're also limited to the one 'disambig' cat, and thus are not one of the first categories a user will see. Closer to the last ones, depending on whether they can see hidden categories or not. So, I respectfully disagree.

        Loading editor
    • Kida,

      I get what you're saying here, however, Fruipit is actually genuinely trying to be helpful here. It is quite normal on other wikis to add "(disambiguation)" at the end of page titles for disambiguation pages, and on many other wikis, this is considered good style. Wikipedia is a good example here.


      Fruipit,

      I realize that you were trying to help here, and that in fact, adding "(disambiguation)" at the end of a page title for a disambiguation pages is fairly standard for many wikis, e.g. wikipedia:The_White_Album_(disambiguation).

      However, a sweeping change of this nature is something that needs to be discussed prior to it being implemented. While I realize from your perspective, there was no naming convention, in fact, there is a reason the disambiguation pages were the way they were. I am not sure I can satisfactorily convince you of that, but it is my opinion that they were better the way they were beforehand.

      Edit: As I just now realized, it seems like there are some more voices on the "support" side of the argument. In Thread:253800, Koggeh seemed to indicate a neutral or supportive position. And on Oscuritaforze's talk page, it seems as if he was okay with the change. I think we should have a central discussion here in one place :)

        Loading editor
    • I'm sorry, I didn't know. I seemed to have Forze's support and, unable to locate a policy for cases like this (although I could have just missed it), I followed what I believed to be standard wiki policy.

      I don't know why you don't think you'd be able to convince me, but I'm more than willing to hear the reasoning. If I don't particularly agree, I'll do what I always do - open a community discussion challenging it. I've already made my stance known as to how I feel about it (although, personally, I feel that all words within brackets should be lowercase, as it isn't actually part of the name of the item/object/enemy/etc.), and am more than happy to hear others' opinions. That being said, I believe the reasoning should be valid; not 'the wiki looks gross'. That goes both ways, though - neither should the reasoning be 'it's already done, just leave it'.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.