Magnus Manske wrote:
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>Another issue is performance. Perhaps we could help
both of those
>issues by making a single link to a list page rather than a set of
>links. But what to call that list is tricky. Is isn't really "related
>pages" because they're only related lexigographically, not semantically.
>Perhaps it could be something like "Other 'Foo' pages".
One special case I could think of is that there are a
lot of matching
pages (like the mentioned "USS *" pages). The "Other 'foo'
pages" link
cuold go into effect if there are more than, say, seven other 'foo'
pages. I'm not sure if the trouble of setting up Yet Another Special
Page (tm) will pay off considering the expected short number of such
pages (I think at the test wiki, with all the 'A' articles, "Atlas" and
variants hit the top, with five pages or so, one of them a REDIRECT).
But Yet Another Special Page would be precisely wrong.
It would function like a disambiguation page,
but one not written by a human and featuring only a list.
If we direct people to a special page through "Other 'Foo' pages",
then that really should link to [[Foo (disambiguation)]].
As you say:
The feature was *not* intended to replace the
disambiguation pages.
-- Toby