This is the talk page for Saints Row Wiki:Disambiguation:Disambiguation.
See Saints Row Wiki:Discussions for discussion policies.


The titles of our Disambiguation pages are ambiguous.
Special:ShortPages lists most disambiguation pages before others, because they are short due to their nature.
Solution: Renaming Disambiguation pages to include (disambiguation) in the title, (keeping redirects). For instance, redirecting "Credits" to "Credits (disambiguation)".
I can't yet think of any downsides to doing this, but I'm going to leave it a while and think about it some more --452 17:55, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

I checked how wikipedia deals with them, and they say that redirecting "Credits" to "Credits (disambiguation)" is wrong. However, just because wikipedia does it one way doesn't mean we can't do it the other. --452 18:09, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
Today, wikia changed how search works.
Searching for "rounds square shopping center" will not simply show the disambiguation page, it now shows search results - the first hit is the disambiguation page
In the search results, it is not clear that that page is a disambiguation page, as the "this is a disambiguation page" template is not displayed in the search summary.
As such, the search results would be more useful if the title shown was "Rounds Square Shopping Center (disambiguation)" --452 00:09, April 27, 2012 (UTC)
Also, it would be more convenient for the drop down search suggestions box. So I'm going to go ahead with this. Although I'm considering moving disambiguation pages out of the main namespace altogether, but I'm unsure if it's a good idea. --452 03:39, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
No, disambiguation pages should stay in the main namespace so they can be searched. But due to search suggestions, they should be explicitly labelled. --452 15:31, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad we had this discussion, thanks for the feedback everyone. --452 22:33, June 8, 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation namespaceEdit

I would still like to remove disambiguation pages out of the main namespace so they're not counted as articles. I know a few more relevant things now that I didn't know in 2012:

  • It is possible to set different namespaces as default search namespaces.
  • It is possible to set different namespaces as "content" namespaces.
  • It is possible to have custom namespaces created.

With these points in mind, I'm going to ask Staff to create a "Disambiguation" namespace, which will appear in default search results, but does not count as "content". -452 (talk) 01:29, March 6, 2014 (UTC)

Help:Custom namespaces says "There must be consensus on your wikia for the addition of the namespace."
So if you agree, say "I agree", if you disagree please state why.
If I get some positive responses, I'll put in the request in a week. If I get no responses, I'll put in the request in a month.
I'd appreciate some responses so that I can finally put in this request for something I'd thought of 2 years ago.
Unfortunately, due to technical reasons, we can't use "Disambiguation:" for the namespace, so we'll have to use "disambig", which seems fine to me. -452 (talk) 01:48, March 6, 2014 (UTC)
(Edit: I was mistaken, the list of forbidden names is w:MediaWiki:Interwiki map 21:04, March 20, 2014 (UTC))
After this goes ahead, this mean we'll (I'll) move and redirect Ned (disambiguation) to Disambiguation:Ned and change Ned to redirect to Disambiguation:Ned. -452 (talk) 02:09, March 6, 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. Staff should have added that long ago.
TheMoonLightman (Message Wall, contribs) 01:58, March 10, 2014 (UTC)
Sounds useful enough. If it improves upon search functionality staff should indeed have added it long ago, since that particular function can be a trainwreck at times.
OAndersson (talk) 02:03, March 10, 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have been informed by Wikia Staff that that page is outdated and that they are no longer enabling custom namespaces as non-content namespaces.
So, the only avenue at this stage is to move Disambiguation pages into some other existing non-content namespace. -452 (talk) 20:45, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
It seems like "Saints Row Wiki" is the only sensible namespace to use, but we have two options:
  • Saints Row Wiki:Disambiguation:Ned
  • Saints Row Wiki:Ned (disambiguation)
I think we should use Saints Row Wiki:Disambiguation:Ned, that way they're all together alphabetically.
Opinions please? -452 (talk) 21:13, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
I'm for the first one too, as long as it's going to work fine.
TheMoonLightman (Message Wall, contribs) 01:18, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I think option 1 as well.Sentinel Jake (talk) 00:44, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
Updates - 18:55, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
Apparently Disambiguation pages were never intended to be counted as main namespace pages in the first place, but Wikia Staff have no idea why they're being counted, and there's no telling how long it will take to get fixed, so I've moved all disambig pages to "Saints Row Wiki:Disambiguation:", and set all titles to display just "Disambiguation:", and I've added the redirect pages themselves to Category:Disambiguation, which solves the problem of ugly long titles in the category page.
However, there are 4 pages which do not have short titles: McManus (disambiguation), Stilwater University (disambiguation), Zombies (disambiguation) and Saints Row (disambiguation)
The only solution to de-ugly these titles would to rename the base pages to McManus (weapon), Stilwater University (neighborhood), Zombies (characters) and Saints Row (game) - but I think that it's find to leave them as they are.
-452 (talk) 18:55, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
Not the only solution, see below. -452 (talk) 19:55, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
Updates - 18:57, September 16, 2014 (UTC)
Since it has been about 6 months, I followed up with Wikia Staff and they have informed me that they have completed their review of "non-content" namespaces and decided that they no longer offer non-content namespaces.
What this means for us is that nothing changes, we'll continue using "Saints Row Wiki:Disambiguation:Ned".
-452 (talk) 18:57, September 16, 2014 (UTC)
Updates - 22:50, January 12, 2015 (UTC)
No change, and no new ideas. -452 (talk) 22:50, January 12, 2015 (UTC)
Updates - 18:40, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
After seeing a suggestion on central to use both the "old forum" and "new forum" by moving all old forums posts to a different namespace, I realised that the "Forum" namespace fit all the requirements of the Disambiguation namespace, so I asked Staff if it was possible to rename a namespace.
They confirmed that it is technically possible, and they would gladly rename any custom namespace, but that default namespaces like Forum might cause problems. After suggesting we try it out on a test wiki, they said they still did not want to do that. If would have been simpler for them to just say "It's against our policy to do that", since they did not want to test the reason they gave.
(It's also bizarre that they stated a reason at all, since they have stated no reason for why they refuse to create the disambiguation namespace as non-content)
In short: "Portal" is the only namespace that we could use at this point, but I don't want to give up the Portal namespace.
So, I'll just check back in 6 months. -452 (talk) 18:40, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
Updates - 12:55, January 3, 2016 (UTC)
For the check 6 months ago, I again had to specify that I wanted a non-content Disambiguation namespace, despite having fully explained it in the past.
For the check just now, I learned that Wikia Staff can spell "No." using 744 characters. -452 12:55, January 3, 2016 (UTC)
Updates - 00:25, July 9, 2016 (UTC)
Another 6 months has passed, so I have again asked Wikia Staff if there were any changes to the policy. This time, it took them 28 hours to say no. They once again acknowledged that the policy may change, but noted that there was not currently an active discussion about it, due to "low demand". It's kinda hard for their to be "demand" for something which has not been available for over 2 years now. -452 00:25, July 9, 2016 (UTC)
Updates - 13:13, July 11, 2016 (UTC)
After talking about this with Wikia Staff 6 times over the last 2 years, Wikia Staff have finally thought to mention the fact that it is impossible for custom non-content namespaces to have a right rail, and that this means they cannot have ads, which is the real reason they will not create a Disambiguation namespace. They have at least apologised for not making that clear. -452 13:13, July 11, 2016 (UTC)
Updates - 13:05, December 23, 2016 (UTC)
Wikia Staff have clarified that:
  • Due to a technical issue, it is not currently possible to create a non-content namespace WITH a rail.
  • Due to a rule, they will not currently create a non-content namespace WITHOUT a rail.
-452 16:44, July 5, 2017 (UTC)
Updates - 16:44, July 5, 2017 (UTC)
When asked "Have you fixed the technical issue blocking your ability to create a non-content namespace WITH a rail?", with the word WITH capitalised, as it was the most important word in the sentence
Wikia Staff replied: "There were no technical reasons to disallow namespace creations without the right rail. This simply is a design choice we are no longer allowing.", apparently completely ignoring the most important word in the sentence.
Sometimes I think they're just deliberately trolling, especially given that reply was from the same member of Wikia Staff who accused me of violating the customisation policy when I had permission to do so.
-452 16:44, July 5, 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation redirectsEdit

I thought that I had created redirects for Disambiguation:Ned, etc, but apparently these don't exist. Since the original idea was to have a disambiguation namespace with links of the form Disambiguation:Ned, it would make sense to continue with that and to have redirects for all of those titles. -452 (talk) 19:20, July 19, 2014 (UTC)

Done, there are now links for all disambiguation pages of the form "Disambiguation:Zombies", etc.
I think that when linking explicitly to the disambiguation pages, we should probably use:
For other uses of "Zombies", see Disambiguation:Zombies
instead of
For other uses of "Zombies", see Zombies
Then we can finally get rid of the remaining ugly (disambiguation) links. -452 (talk) 19:55, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
By "get rid of", I mean "stop using", they have to exist for searching purposes. -452 (talk) 20:45, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
Oops, I missed that memo and deleted them. It is useful for the disambiguation redirect to appear in the search results. I'll recreate them now. -452 (talk) 21:28, September 15, 2014 (UTC)


{{disambig}} can now be used for the disambig for the top of article disambig lines. There are around 100 articles which need to be updated.

However, the format is currently a little haphazard.

  • At least 30 articles use "Not to be confused with X"
    • Pro: Shorter.
  • At least 60 articles use "For the similar Z in Y, see X"
    • Pro: More information.

Either the user is in the right place, which is confirmed by the intro line telling them what the subject of the article is, or the user can tell they are on the wrong page for the same reason, in which case the link in the disambig line is almost certainly what they actually want, and it is therefore redundant to confirm the subject of the other page.

For this reason, I think the first format should be preferred over the second. -452 (talk) 21:28, September 15, 2014 (UTC) -452 (talk) 21:28, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

Deleting CategoryEdit

This category originally existed to easily track disambig pages, and to exclude those pages from DPL lists.

Since disambiguation pages now have their own pseudo namespace, they can be easily tracked, making Category:Disambiguation redundant. When the rename occurred, the redirects were added to the category so it was not empty, however, there is ultimately no purpose in categorising those redirects.
These two pages should each contain the same list of disambiguation pages:

Can anyone think of a reason at all to keep the category? -452 (talk) 22:08, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

Last day. Is anyone opposed to deleting it? -452 (talk) 01:14, October 15, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.