GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Disambiguation

"If there are any longstanding GuildWiki traditions/procedures that remain undocumented, please write up an article and link it appropriately." (-- Policy) Well, this is certainly a longstanding procedure, so I've written it up. I'm proposing it as a S&F guideline, not as policy, but we don't have a template. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 19:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

add notes about avoiding linking to disabig pages when possible. (if talking about pvp go to the pvp skill page. if talking abuot cratfing materials go to tanned hide square not hide (skill)). Also, what about disambigs for abbreviations? Um... Depending on setting, SF will mean either Searing Flames or Shadow Form. SoC is usually Song of Conc but we use it for Sig of Capture which is usually called cap sig... SoR is Shield of Regen or Song of Resto and theres a good chance sig of removal will come into play. But some things are weird. We have AR pointing to Armor rating and its usually used for Aggressive Refrain. I would change the redirect to point to aggressive but would that cause confusion? And things like SS change over time (in ha it used to be sandstorm, then steady stance, and then spiteful) while in pve its almost always spiteful. Do we have a way of working things that deal with setting and stuff? Can I make it so that if its a skill used in PvP more it goes to the PvP version that the PvE version? (I look stuff up for PvP way more often and I usually use the abbrevs to search). &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 19:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirects are good in cases where there is no ambiguity about what the abbreviation will mean, like OoP or THK. In cases where there is ambiguity, though, it seems like we usually have a disambig page.  AR the redirect was created long before there was an Aggressive Refrain, but because we do have AR the skill now, it should be changed to a disambig.  Seems to me like it would be good practice to always use a disambig if there's more than one meaning to an abbreviation.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 20:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Complete restructuring
I wrote a [moved to main article --Dr Ishmael], but ought to cover much the same ground as this one. I wanted to make it more simple to read and understand, and worded it more like a S&F guide and less like a policy. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by m.mendel (contribs) 09:17, 30 July 2008.


 * Heh, much better than mine. The only complaint I have is that there's too many boxes and stuff and not enough explanation.  I can take care of that, though.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 20:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hope I didn't take it too far down the road back to a policy, but there was a bit of information that I felt needed to be added back in. Feel free to re-refine it to make it more "S&F"-ish again.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 21:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I'd been waiting for a reaction from you. I like your additions, but I felt that introducing the "primary topic" term just for that is a bit much at the start of the article, so I rephrased that a bit. I set off the list of common qualifiers again; if you want it to be an equal part (at equal size) of that section, it needs to be considerably shortened; or it could be in an appendix (i.e. in its own section at the end of the page) - it's just not important when you first read the guideline, and the layout should reflect that. The two policy-like prescriptions have been set off with red boxes to underline that these are really important and we're going to enforce these. I broadened the second one a bit to cover not just primary articles, because any kind of qualified article ought to have (and usually already has) a disambiguation if it has "sister articles". Maybe we ought to allow glossary on disambig pages? Glossary is often just a paragraph or two, and if you put it at the bottom of the dismbig, it wouldn't need its own page. Thoughts? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by m.mendel (contribs) 18:42, 31 July 2008.


 * You forgot to sign again, mendel. :P Anyway, I like most of your edits.  I still don't like having the Tihark Orchard redirect as part of that one example, though - I don't think it fits there.  Simply mentioning a redirect may be enough to confuse some people, too.
 * I've got an idea on what to do with the "common qualifiers", give me a moment and I'll put it in. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 01:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Argh - why is that about the signing on this page? I think the first time I wanted to sign above the long list and forgot, but now? Why did you shorten the list when you made a new section for it? I think it'd be good if the list was lengthened (have I mentioned I like the category descriptions you came up with?) to include all the qualifiers we use (or in some cases, all types - we don't need to list all location names), and then clean up the "non-standard" qualifiers still on the list below. (I think the present list may be bugged, though - I suspect I've matched non-mainspace articles as well). --◄mendel► 07:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Suffixes in current use in Mainspace
The table is without attribute qualifiers used for the Weapon quick references (these should really be subpages). --◄mendel► 19:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

listing
i suggest listing the most probable meaning first rather than alphabetizing. also it would be helpful maybe to say what settings will be certain things (SF in HA is usually Searing Flames and in ToA its gonna be Shadow Form) &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 20:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also like listing skills with the skill icon. &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 21:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed on both points. Don't really care about the skill icons, but they could be helpful &rarr; When looking up a skill and you think to know the profession in question (such as SF when talking about an Ele) you'll see the skill color, and thus find what you need faster. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage  21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tell me what you think of CC or AP. Most disambigs are short enough, only 2 or 3 links, that it seems inefficient to split up the list like that, so I'm trying to include the context in the link's description.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 01:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and about ordering: if I knew that one meaning was the most common one, I would say so, and then say "it can also refer to:" and then alphabetize the rest - for an example, see AoE. The problem is that I'm not terribly familiar with the community's current usage of most of these terms, so I alphabetized the list.  Feel free to correct my ordering.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 02:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On CC: Consume Corpse is more often used in PvE. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage  03:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well fix it then. :P &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 04:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I really like the way FS looks. Do them all like that!&mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 05:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, CC is usually called consume when its used in PvP (don't see it used much atm tho) but in PvP, CCs as candy canes comes up more around wintersday but if i see or hear CC in pve i think candy cane. &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 05:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's see, doing it that way for AP yields:

The abbreviation AP can refer to:

Game mechanics:
 * Armor penetration, a percentage of the target's armor that is ignored in damage calculation.
 * Attribute Points, required to raise the rank of each of a character's attributes.

Skills:
 * Ranger:
 * , a preparation in the Wilderness Survival attribute.
 * Assassin:
 * , an elite hex spell in the Deadly Arts attribute.
 * Hm, I thought it would look more cluttered, but it actually looks pretty good. I can go back through and fix up the ones I've already done (A-G) tomorrow.
 * About CC, like I've said, I'm not exactly "in tune" with the community - especially the PvP side - on these things, so I won't mind at all if you fix or add anything I might be ignorant about. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 05:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I always try to look through the cats and add pvp stuff. &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 05:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's why it's a wiki --Gimmethegepgun 06:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Profession icon/name in skill listing
Jedi, I noticed on AoF you left the profession name out and only had the icon. It does seem a little redundant to have both, now that I think about it, but it also looks a little odd to only have the icon. What does anyone else think? &mdash;Dr Ishmael 18:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize I left it out. It looks better with the name. &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 18:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Great Work!
I just want to say great work boys! You contributions are greatly appreciated and... YOU HAVE PLEASED BEERCRAT!&mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 17:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yay! Happy Beercrat >>> Angry Beercrat.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 18:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is very rewarding to work with Dr Ishmael, because he usually gets what I'm after, corrects my errors, and takes the whole thing a step further. I enjoy that very much. --◄mendel► 23:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, thank you very much, Mendel. It's fun working with you as well, even if you do annoy me every so often (but that happens with anyone I work with, I'm not the greatest team player >.>).  I'm working on getting my wiki-code skills up to your level - I learn a lot just by watching you.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 05:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So do that mean this proposal is accepted, or do we need to call for a more general RFC? &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 22:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since there isn't a single opposing comment, so far the guideline seems to be community consensus. Since it's not really a policy, I believe we need nothing formal. I suggest linking it in S&F now and leaving it on the proposed policies page for a week or two in case somebody else wants to comment (i.e. for process reasons). --◄mendel► 05:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)