Help talk:Disambiguation

Two article disambiguation pages.

I had two disambiguation pages speedy-deleted when I was following the rule "Even if there are only two articles, if you can't decide which is more important, you should make a disambig page and redirect to it." I think that is a good guideline, but if that is not how things are actually done the guideline should be changed. Should two-article disambiguation pages be forbidden? - Starfield 14:36, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

From what I understand, the reason we've avoided them is because there's no point. If you arrive at the wrong article, it should always have a disambig tag to direct you to the other one. Thus, it's the same amount of clicks regardless.--Rosicrucian^Talk 14:39, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

And the other issue is that you made these disambig pages and changed the redirects without fixing pages that used the redirects. So now there's a bunch of pages that link to a disambig page rather than the proper article as a result.--Rosicrucian^Talk 14:42, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Three article disambig pages

I thought that with three or more articles you would always go to the disambig page first. However, the guidelines on this page state that if one meaning is more prominent the unqualified page should redirect to it. Which is the proper guideline? Khajidha 13:27, 15 December 2009 (EST)

If one is completely, unambiguously more prominent, go there first, otherwise to the disambiguation page. Optimus Prime, disambiguation page. Ummm .... Bulkhead is a good example of one like that. Sure, there IS an Energon Bulkhead, but he wasn't noteworthy in any way, whereas the animated guy is. Now, if there is a major SG Bulkhead villain, we'd have to rethink that. --Jimsorenson 13:32, 15 December 2009 (EST)

If there is a significant more prominent meaning, while all the other options are arguably of far lesser meaning, the redirect should go there. Nightbeat is a good example of this, though with the Shattered Glass version, the second criterium becomes a bit more doubtful. Rhinox is another good example, what with the other two guys only having had small background-ish roles in comics. Geewunling 13:39, 15 December 2009 (EST)

To clarify, since people have problems with this... you would still have "Character (dis1)", "Character (dis2)", "Character (dis3)"... and a "character (disambiguation)" page... but if the second instance is notably prominent and the other two are notably obscure "Character" would redirect to "Character (dis2)" instead of "Character (disambituation)".

IIRC, this arose as a common-sense application when we started getting extra Nightbeats. Did Shattered Glass Nightbeat actually headline his own story, or was it a cameo? If he headlined, I really think he can't be justifiably called obscure anymore and "Nightbeat" should point back to "Nightbeat (disambiguation)"

(AFAIK the reason this isn't more clearly spelled out in the documentation was that the original discussion was on someone's blog when we first picked up another Nightbeat.) -Derik 14:49, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Saw an edit to the Cheetor page:

Doesn't matter. We have enough for a disambig page, so the normal goes to the disambig page.

So if that seems to be the way things are working now, should this help page be modified? --NCZ 21:37, 10 November 2010 (EST)

No. The help page should stay the same. But it looks like "Cheetor (TransTech)" was in quite a bit of club fiction, so he probably isn't obscure enough for "Cheetor" to link to "Cheetor (BW)". - Starfield 21:56, 10 November 2010 (EST)

I disagree, clearly. I think that once we have a disambig page, we should link to it from the "default". Especially as we don't know what names WILL become more prominent in the future. Prime or Dark of the Moon may introduce a new... oh, let's say Airazor, to pick a multi-used name with one pretty prominent character attached, who goes on to become a major player for a new generation of kids who weren't even born when Beast Wars was on the air. Plus, it just flat-out spares us the argument of "notability", especially when some of those "notable" ones have been on the shelf gathering dust for over a decade. I'd argue ROTF Skids is more prominent than G1 Skids. --M Sipher 22:39, 10 November 2010 (EST)

"Airazor" already redirects to "Airazor (disambiguation)". Not sure why. Have there been many arguments about notability? From what I've seen, the other characters have to be pretty darn un-notable for the redirect to go to the most notable character. But if it does cause disputes, it probably is worth changing the policy. - Starfield 23:34, 10 November 2010 (EST)

I just pulled out Airazor because the name's prior uses suited the hypothetical situation. Where it actually redirects to now isn't important. It was just to illustrate the point. --M Sipher 23:37, 10 November 2010 (EST)

So should we change the policy? Should we take this to the community portal for more feedback? Or leave it alone. --Khajidha 22:41, 12 November 2010 (EST)

Timelines disambiguation suffixes

I was going to write up the Timelines exception to the franchise-of-origin disamiguation rule, but I'm not sure how it works. I thought it was that Timelines characters are given the parenthetical of their "home" franchise-of-origin. In Heatwave (Timelines)'s case, that would be "(SG)" since he originated in Shattered Glass comics. But Interrobang reverted that move on the grounds that Heatwave is not a native of Primax -408.24 Epsilon. So as near as I can figure, the rule is that Timelines-original characters go with their "home" franchise-of-origin unless they are not fictionally native to that franchise's main continuity, in which case, put them in "Timelines." Is it something like that? Also, Descent into Evil is an exception since there is no definitive "home" continuity. - Starfield 21:14, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

The Heatwave thing is also because all of the Nexus Prime components have oddball franchise identifiers to begin with (Cybertron, Classics, and Timelines). Descent into Evil characters have already been moved to (G1), except for Dirge and Ricochet, because there are already established G1 characters with those names. —Interrobang 21:26, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

Do we really need this?

"Note that if none of the meanings of the term require long definitions, they can simply all be listed in the same article. " I mean, are there ANY examples of this on this wiki? Would we REALLY do this for anything? --Khajidha (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2018 (EDT)

"main page"

I'm not sure that it is clear to newcomers that "main page" here means "undisambiguated name". --Khajidha (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2026 (EDT)