Orphaned Disambig pagesEdit

In the policy, this paragraph is listed:

While it's generally okay for disambiguation pages to be orphans — it's more appropriate for other articles to link to the specific subjects rather than to the disambiguation page — we want to avoid cluttering the List of orphaned pages with these intentional orphans. Thus, all disambiguation pages should be included in the disambiguation category.

The problem is, that... even if they're in that category, they're still orphans. That doesn't solve the issue. One possibility is to create a list of all disambig pages, such as "Memory Beta:Disambiguation pages". That will remove them from the orphans list (I've found 3-4 thus far, as I de-orphan a bunch of articles today). -- sulfur 20:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Policy suggestionEdit

I was cleaning up some failed links to disambigs both here and on MA and came across something interesting on Wikipedia's policy. The section is on naming disambiguations and contains this section here:

In addition, when a disambiguation page exists at the ambiguous term, there should also be a redirect to it from the "(disambiguation)" title; in other words, if "Term ABC" is a disambiguation page, a redirect from "Term ABC (disambiguation)" should be created if it does not already exist. This type of redirect is used to indicate any intentional links to the disambiguation page, to distinguish them from accidental or erroneous incoming links that should be disambiguated to the appropriate article.

I'd like to suggest that we bring that methodology here. This would make it a bit easier to sort out incorrect links to these pages. This is in no way a suggestion of changing the general naming scheme at all, just the way that we link to the pages from templates or articles. -- sulfur 19:59, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

so every piece of disambiguation-type stuff would have a redirect pointing to it from stuff (disambiguation)? - sounds sensible to me. it would eliminate the need to differentiate between {{otheruses2}} and {{otheruses3}} in all cases since 2 would logically lead to the same link created by 3. -- Captain MKB 20:14, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

That's actually a win that I hadn't even considered. Bonus! :) -- sulfur 21:12, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. It would be easier to find the disambiguation page when searching or in the suggestions pop-up when typing a link. -- BadCatMan 01:04, February 6, 2012 (UTC)
Definitely a good idea. Good call sulfur.--Long Live the United Earth 03:00, February 6, 2012 (UTC)
I could probably make a few changes to {{otheruses}} to eliminate the other two, even. Once I run the template code into one article, the others could be redirected, possibly a bot could wipe them away. -- Captain MKB 03:03, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

Yup -- I could do the cleanup, mostly with a bot (SulfBot -- if community consensus agrees that he can have a bot flag that is :) ). -- sulfur 03:13, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.