Disambiguation: We really need to finish it this time!!

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

I agree that it doesn't look too easy to devise a simple but all-inclusive rule. So, a simple (albeit undemocratic) answer would be to leave borderline cases for subject editors to decide (and maybe argue amongst each other) with the Editor-in-Chief occasionally stepping in to offer some common sense.

[Aleta Curry]

It is also a clear example of why everything should not be disambiguated: you do not perform disambiguation on things that are not ambiguous. It's like perfoming heart surgery on someone whose heart is perfectly functioning!

See, I knew if I kept trying, someone would end up making my point better than I could. 

snip! There are so many (to me) obvious basename winners, but there will be ties and arguments and people that enjoy arguments.   

Look, David, you're right about that.  We can do this, we have the technology.  We managed with biology.

So ...  we need either 1) a rule, such as Daniel's but not limited to Core articles because that list is too short  2) a benevolent decider, not a divider, or 3) Dictionary rule, first meaning in dictionary X wins everytime and/or ...

Probably not so much of a rule as a set of guidelines.  This means that yes, inevitably have a few scrapes, but we're stuck with that, if the project is to make any sense at all. ONE rule won't work, trust me, because there are exeptions to each of the valid points you've made. e.g. the first meaning in the given Dictionary can't win because, never mind that we'd be fighting over WHICH dictionary, but dictionaries document usage, they don't necessarily keep up with it.  Until very recently all dictionaries of note still gave the first meaning of 'gay' as 'happy'.. My dictionary doesn't have 'foo', 'dot com' or various '-logies.'

4) a clever "if exist" macro or template automatically runs on each page, such that when you visit page Foo and Foo (disambig) also exists, the page automatically includes the "For other meanings of Foo, see Foo (disambig).  If Foo (disambig) does not exist, the phrase is not shown on the page.

won't work:  e.g. I was writing a film theory article at that other place and linked [[ingenue]].  Some well-meaning genius had the baseline article already written as the KD Lang album!  That's why, I believe, Hayford and I are all for common sense, which works when you've got a few smart folks with their thinking caps on;  chances are SOMEONE's gonna hit on a solution; in this case, title all albums [[foo (album)]] to start with.
 

Personally, I will stick to my previously stated M.O. until I see a resolution to vote on. 

  You go ahead, honey, like glue!

[Chris Day]

• If none of the uses of a word in question are listed as CORE, none gets the basename (such that most of the site can profit from a fairly consistent system of disambiguation).
• If exactly one use is listed as CORE, it shall get the basename.
• If more than one uses are listed as CORE, none gets the basename (since we accept no hierarchy between workgroups).

Hi Daniel this is certainly a novel idea but i wonder whether the CORE articles are extensive enough for such a proposal? I suspect for those that want basename articles it is too small a set.

[Daniel Mietchen]

I repeat an earlier post: I'm 100% for common sense and 100% against a long set of arbitrary rules that will only, eventually, screw things up.

I wish I could agree with that but I fear "common sense" will nonetheless result in some arguments. On the other hand, I know nobody cares for long sets of rules (e.g. those behind the selection and voting for drafts and articles of the week), so I was aiming at one small set of clear and transparent rules. As for David's options:
1) Yes, a small percentage of "reserved base names" was implicit in my proposal but who says the Core can't grow with CZ?
2) That would facilitate the work for everybody who is not the decider but it does not appear to be compatible with the kind of Citizenship advocated at CZ.
3) I think dictionaries won't work because they generally cover less ground, or at least sample the non-CZ world differently than CZ does.

4) Templates can be an enormous help but they need VERY clear rules (not necessarily identical to those of 1, as made clear by Noel in the dambig mechanics proposal) in order to work properly.

As an aside, I was wondering the other day whether our policy pages wouldn't be better of with an "in a nutshell template" as known from the other place. For an example, see Be BOLD. In a way, that is what definitions do to article pages, so if quantum mechanics and life can be summed up in those 30 or so words, why not a policy at CZ? To get back on topic, those nutshells could probably serve to guide "common sense", and the nitty-gritty details of disputes can be left to The Great Decider(s). So what would be the nutshell to be place at CZ:Disambiguation?

[Chris Day]

OK I'm reviving this thread and starting to push this proposal through.  As a reminder, this is how it currently reads (see text below the two figures).  I have drawn a couple of figures so we can all get up to speed before killing ourselves in the next CZ civil war   (Now I need to go back and read this whole thread)  (A whole bunch of stuff in a second thread too.





All articles/names which have multiple potential meanings (i.e. need disambiguation) will be handled as follows:

* The disambiguation page (i.e. the page that provides links to the articles, for those meanings for which we have articles) should be at "{BaseName} (disambiguation)" (where {BaseName} is the name in question).

* A redirect should always be placed at the base "{BaseName}" location (in diagrams "{BaseName}" is "A" and "B") ; i.e. with no article actually at "{BaseName}", not even the main meaning. That redirect will point at either the disambiguation page (see example B above), or the most common meaning of the disambiguated term (see example A and read the discussion at the proposal for when we follow this strategy). It will also be placed in a category, to allow all such disambiguation redirects to be easily found.

The talk page of the redirect should always be redirected to the talk page of the disambiguation page; that way, discussion of any issues related to the redirect will all be in only one location.

* All "BaseName" articles will always be at pagenames with an unambiguous name, which will usually consist of "{BaseName}" plus some disambiguation elements (Examples in diagrams use "A of X", "A (y)" and "A (Z)" format). This may be an extended name (e.g. [[Ruby programming language]]), but if no such obvious extended name exists, we will disambiguate with a modifier enclosed in ()'s, producing pagenames of the form "{BaseName} (song)", "{BaseName} (automobile)", etc.

[Matt Innis]

So are you saying there will never be an article named [[try]].  Just [[try(disambiguation)]] with articles [[try(verb)]] and [[try(soccer)]]?

[Chris Day]

So are you saying there will never be an article named [[try]].  Just [[try(disambiguation)]] with articles [[try(verb)]] and [[try(soccer)]]?

You mean "[[try (disambiguation)]] with articles [[try (verb)]] and [[try (rubgy)]]"

As the proposal stands [[try]] would always be a redirect, either to [[try (disambiguation)]] or to [[try (rubgy)]].  In the latter case the article would have a link at the top of the page to the disambiguation page.  See Fossilization for an example in the wiki right now.

[Matt Innis]

So are you saying there will never be an article named [[try]].  Just [[try(disambiguation)]] with articles [[try(verb)]] and [[try(soccer)]]?

You mean "[[try (disambiguation)]] with articles [[try (verb)]] and [[try (rubgy)]]"

As the proposal stands [[try]] would always be a redirect, either to [[try (disambiguation)]] or to [[try (rubgy)]].  In the latter case the article would have a link at the top of the page to the disambiguation page.  See Fossilization for an example in the wiki right now.

rugby, soccer; same thing - or was that football, soccer?!   

[Aleta Curry]

OK I'm reviving this thread and starting to push SNIP

My Heavenly Father, Chris, do you hate me or something??!

rugby, soccer; same thing - or was that football, soccer?!
I'm TRYing to ignore that!     

[Chris Day]

My Heavenly Father, Chris, do you hate me or something??!

Huh? You don't want us to come to some conclusion? All I did was revive the discussion.

[Matt Innis]

My Heavenly Father, Chris, do you hate me or something??!

Huh? You don't want us to come to some conclusion? All I did was revive the discussion.

Oh, we're supposed to reach a conclusion!

[Chris Day]

My Heavenly Father, Chris, do you hate me or something??!

Huh? You don't want us to come to some conclusion? All I did was revive the discussion.

Oh, we're supposed to reach a conclusion!

Either that or I just do what ever i wish! 

[Aleta Curry]

All I did was revive the discussion.

I know, I know--but as it was, I could ignore it, hoping 'it' would go away!