CZ:Proposals/Disambiguation mechanics

[edit intro]

Archive 1

CZ formerly adopted the disambiguation model created by Wikipedia, which assumes there is always exactly one keyword article that should be dominant. Not only was the former model was so complicated that people frequently messed it up, thus accidentally hiding all the other articles about keyword, but now we want to open the wiki to the possibility of multiple, parallel articles about one keyword, and the Wikipedia mechanism prevents that.

The old (Wikipedia) model worked like this:

1. The keyword article contains the sole content for the dominant usage of the term (i.e., Paris would contain the sole content for Paris, France)
2. The keyword article MUST include {{tl|keyword (disambiguation}} at the top, just below {[subpages}}
3. The keyword (disambiguation) article lists all articles pertaining to keyword, with the dominant article shown first
4. Non-dominant articles SHOULD include {{tl|keyword (disambiguation}} at the top, just below {[subpages}}

• GOOD EFFECTS: Any search on "keyword" brings you immediately to the dominant article, as in "Paris" (dominant article about Paris, France) and "Tree" (dominant article about trees in botany).
• BAD EFFECTS: If the dominant article fails to include {{tl|keyword (disambiguation}} the top, none of the additional articles will ever be found. This problem can go unnoticed literally for years.
• SIDE EFFECT: One article is always made dominant over all the others in searches. This makes it impossible for two parallel articles about the same "keyword" to receive equal treatment.

---

Let's now (as of Sept. 2020) try out a simpler model, as follows:

1. The keyword article is the disambiguation page; it must have {{Disambig}} at the top, and no subpages, no categories, no metadata, and no /Definition on that article. It must also the list all articles about keyword, with the more important ones at or near the top.
2. All articles about keyword SHOULD use the {{seealso|Keyword}} template in the top to refer to keyword

• BEST OF ALL EFFECTS: It's simpler than the old way.
• GOOD EFFECTS: If someone forgets, or accidentally removes, {{tl|keyword (disambiguation}} from an article, other articles can still be found because Search always brings you directly to the disambiguation page.
• SIDE EFFECT: Multiple articles about the presumed dominant meaning for "keyword" may be found with equivalent ease.
• BAD EFFECTS: In a few cases, the expected dominant usage of keyword is forced to have a more complex name. Thus, we get Paris, France, or worse, Tree (plant), which people really despise, but if you look at the current Tree disambiguation, you'll find that there are a variety of non-plant usages for the word tree.

---

For 2 reasons--simplicity AND making it possible to have parallel articles about "keyword"--I recommend sticking with the second approach.Pat Palmer (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)