Time Turner said:
My biggest fear when it comes to stuff like this is the slippery slope; if we include Swoopers in the bat disambig page, what would be the limit as to what other bats not called "bat" are included, and what would that mean for other disambig pages like [[King]] or [[Fly]]? There are a couple of disambig pages out there like [[Eel]] that throw the most notable (which is dependent on who created the page at the time) examples of the species or job onto the page, so it'd be good to have a definitive statement on what to do for the pages for consistency's sake.
Yeah, hence I said use a link to the bats category rather than Swooper, if we must link at all, so then there is no single bat being singled out, paving the way for more exceptions down the road. In fact, thinking about it some more, one
could argue that someone searching "bat"
is hoping for an overall bat "species" page, like how we have a plain
Dog page,
Dinosaur page, etc., so having a link to the "bat" category isn't an unreasonable extension. Even your King example has a link to the corresponding category, but like Fish, it's as a footer rather than one of the bullets, which I think is the best solution.
Also, things like
Cat should lead to
Category:Cats for similar reasons. We already have some redirects like that, like
Kirby Series leading to
Category:Kirby Series - it makes sense.
As for things from earlier that I didn't have time to respond to while I was at work this morning:
Baby Luigi said:
Oh hahaha, I don't like it. You're so busy and all so I think it would lift some labor if the process is automated and relieve some stress from you.
And I say again, this kind of maintenance work itself
is stress relief: just simple editing, no pressing deadlines, no fear of edit conflicts or snipes, no arguments, no coding puzzles. It's as good as down time - but productive.
Pi said:
So I kind of hate it when articles have =={{conjecturaltext|text}}== since it's very inconsistent and it looks very, very ugly. I think formatting in headers should be minimised to italics only, so I propose we fix this. For the Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 Galaxy levels, I propose we mention that "all names of planets are conjectural", and for glitch pages we should say "all names of these glitches are conjectural" in the introduction paragraph. What does everyone say about this?
Mario Party Δ said:
Wouldn't this text be easily overlooked? Once the conjectural text titles are removed, it becomes way less apparent. I don't think they look that ugly since they're pretty subtle in the text.
The conjecture's not
that bad, but it's not great either. Perhaps a variant of
Template:Conjecture could go at the tops of the list pages and planets to say the subjects therein are all conjecture - that'd be more noticeable than merely stating it, and a lot easier and cleaner than pasting the conjecture tags everywhere. The only downside would be cases where there's a planet or whatever that actually is officially named, but I guess in those cases, the relevant section could say "oh, btw this one's really named", maybe with a refnote or something. I guess people who section-link in might miss the note up top, but really, we don't worry about that for conjecturally-named articles, so w/e, seems like a non-issue here too.
