FFWiki forum logo.png
Forums: Index > Rin's Travel Agency > Archive > Rethinking "Other appearances" and recurring subjects; removing subpages



Technobliterator.png

I agree with most of what you're saying (our coverage of mobile games by just putting images in Other appearances sections is really bad. they should be linking somewhere! if we did it properly I think it would be fine, but a bulleted list would suffice too)

Although my main difference of opinion is that I think we should be following something closer to the Gilgamesh (character) scheme for all characters that appear in more than one sub-series. Character pages with a general profile, and then some sort of Incarnations section that links to subpages.

Yeah, I also think we should still be using subpages. Tags are used to distinguish two things with the same name, but these subpages aren't different things-- they're the same thing. The Emperor Mateus article concerns all that is Emperor Mateus, while the subpage "Emperor Mateus/Dissidia (PSP)" focuses specifically on Emperor Mateus in Dissidia. I don't think "Emperor Mateus (Dissidia PSP)" makes sense when he's not even called Emperor Mateus in Dissidia. I would sooner go for an article name like "Emperor Mateus in Dissidia PSP".

It's different with boss pages because they are distinguishing two things with the same name. JBed (talk) 08:09, April 1, 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how the "Gilgamesh (character)" (or Cid) scenario could really apply to anything else (if these would basically serve as glorified disambigs?), but I'm open to it if I saw an example. The important thing is people find where they need to go. Special:Analytics shows most people are just searching for the characters with their first name; it's good UX if they land on the page they're looking for first.
Regarding subpages, I'd question where this rule came from, why it's not arbitrary, but more importantly, if a reader would know this distinction.
The name scheme needs to be consistent so readers know how to get around the wiki. We understand why a subpage is used in one instance and a tag is used in another, but there's no guarantee the reader does. I imagine "Gilgamesh (Final Fantasy V)/Dissidia (PSP)" and "Onion Knight (Dissidia)" is confusing in itself. Imagine if we had a boss page for Gilgamesh in Dissidia. Would it be "Gilgamesh (Dissidia boss)" and "Gilgamesh (Final Fantasy V)/Dissidia"?
This is all something that can be simplified by just adopting tags. If we understand an article name to be "Subject (context)", the same applies to tags. "Tifa Lockhart (Dissidia PSP)", or "Tifa (as she appears in Dissidia PSP)". "Gilgamesh (Final Fantasy V)", or "Gilgamesh (as he appears in Final Fantasy V)". This is all easily understood and consistent with what is done elsewhere, whereas "Tifa Lockhart/Dissidia" doesn't necessarily mean anything.
We've had people come here saying they're confused about the name scheme before, and we can stop this by applying a consistent name scheme that uses the same rule of "Subject (context)" everywhere else. Although Google will find the right page people are looking for, an ideal system would allow readers to just use the search bar and find things anyway.
p.s. "Emperor Mateius in Dissidia PSP" hits mots of the marks as far as I'm concerned. Explains to the reader what it is, no confusion, and doesn't rely on understanding of any seemingly arbitrary rule; though as you pointed out, it'd be "The Emperor in Dissidia PSP" due to different naming. I'd still use "The Emperor (Dissidia PSP)" just because then there's no fear of someone coming along and asking why we do this here when we do it differently elsewhere.--Magicite-ffvi-ios.png Technobliterator TC 09:02, April 1, 2020 (UTC)
Cid isn't the same as Gilgamesh (character) because Cid isn't the same character each time. Although Gilgamesh is also a bit of a grey area-- the style of the page would still work on characters that are or more clearly the same. I might sandbox something.
That's not what I was pointing out in regards to Dissidia. It's lore vs. gameplay. The Emperor in Dissidia is Emperor Mateus, but he is not called Emperor Mateus.
"The Emperor (Dissidia PSP)" might be a good name for a page about the playable character in Dissidia, but not for one covering his role as a character in Dissidia's story. Firstly, at the very least character name policy would at very least determine it to be "Emperor", but secondly he is Emperor Mateus from FFII. It's the lore of Dissidia.
Tags are for disambiguation. When we have two subjects that need to use the same page name. The subject of the Cloud Strife article is "the character in the FF series, named 'Cloud Strife'". The subject of the Cloud Strife Dissidia article is "the role of 'Cloud Strife' in the Dissidia universe". "Cloud Strife" isn't an adequate page name for the latter because it doesn't cover the subject.
To prove this, if Cloud were to be given the middle name "Rudiger", we would move his page to "Cloud Rudiger Strife" and also do the same for his Tactics and Dissidia subpages. It's why they're subpages. It's the same character, his name is the same wherever he is.
Imagine if we had a boss page for Gilgamesh in Dissidia. Would it be "Gilgamesh (Dissidia boss)" and "Gilgamesh (Final Fantasy V)/Dissidia"?
Yes.
Slightly separate issue, Onion Knight and Warrior of Light should probably be parent pages similar to Ciaran. I can't remember if I had a strong reason for this, but Warrior of Light at least has been used in promotional materials for FFI long before Dissidia. JBed (talk) 23:37, April 1, 2020 (UTC)
Lot of good points here, although I'll start by saying I don't think the rule
Tags are for disambiguation. When we have two subjects that need to use the same page name.
was really substantiated here. It seems like an arbitrary rule that was dictated by the wiki a long time ago rather than a rule that has a basis in the English language.
If we go by the English language for article titles, there is nothing implied by the use of parentheses that is different from the use of slashes (conversely, the use of slashes in titles is very much not present in the English language, hence why it's never used on Wikipedia. Wikipedia uses tags in the proposed way of "<general thing> (<specific instance>)", as seen in projectspace: Wikipedia:Category:Wikipedia naming conventions ).
So I don't see why "Cloud Strife (Dissidia PSP)" conflicts with "the role of 'Cloud Strife' in the Dissidia universe". Parentheses still imply this, and this still makes logical sense to a reader.
Going back to the Gilgamesh example, if we have "Gilgamesh (Dissidia boss)" and "Gilgamesh (Final Fantasy V)/Dissidia", that is understandably confusing for readers.
Beyond this:
  • Good point on the lore of the subject carrying over even when the name does not, but if the Emperor in Dissidia borrows lore from FFII, then the article name should still be "Emperor Mateus (Dissidia PSP)" under this proposal, with the lede clarifying this (Emperor Mateus, referred to as simply The Emperor, is a character in Dissidia Final Fantasy representing Final Fantasy II.)
  • With Cloud, the distinction depends on how gameplay-focused the article is. The Dissidia series is all lore focused, so we'd indeed rename those articles to "Cloud Rudgier Strife (Dissidia NT)" and etc. under this proposal. If an article solely has a gameplay focus, i.e. Record Keeper, it'd remain where it is: that's the name the character is called in the game, and that's the only one what applies.
  • I thought more about applying the "Gilgamesh (character)" approach for other characters, and where I think it'd make most sense would be replacing the existing "/Other appearances" pages (which tbh would be better off as "Cloud Strife other appearances" or something). It could be similar to w:c:dc:Batman, in providing a parent page that exists to link elsewhere; though unlike the Batman page, we are able to reasonably assume which Cloud Strife the vast majority of readers are looking for.
  • Agreed on the Ciaran parent page for Warrior of Light and Onion Knight. Seems reasonable to me.--Magicite-ffvi-ios.png Technobliterator TC 00:35, April 2, 2020 (UTC)
Ah, your Wikipedia example is good. I hate it.
I knew Wikipedia didn't use subpages, but they deal with things differently and it basically never makes sense for them when they can pick a name that sounds like an article title. Also Wikipedia doesn't even seem to call these things "tags". Surely we didn't invent that name...
You're right, using slashes in a page title is bad. I like that subpages means that moving the main article makes it easy to move rest. We could use DISPLAYTITLE to change the "/" to "in"...
I'm not sure about that. In any case, I am convinced about not using slashes, and I wouldn't put up much of a fight if we stop them from being subpages.
In "Cloud Strife (Dissidia PSP)" the tag's not being used to remove ambiguity, but instead be more specific. As I demonstated, that page's name is dependent on the name of Cloud Strife as a whole, not just in Dissidia PSP. All our tagged pages are dependent only on the article's subject. Aeris (Final Fantasy VII party member) will only be renamed if a a new version of FFVII gives that party member a different name.
And the reason why "Cloud Strife (Dissidia PSP)" doesn't work is because the Cloud Strife character in Dissidia PSP is the Cloud Strife character in other things. We haven't removed ambiguity. Take "Garland (Final Fantasy)" -- ultimately that page covers Garland from FFI in all his appearances even outside of FFI. But the tag works because he's the FFI Garland.
If two characters with the same name appear in the same game (like maybe happens somewhere in Opera Omnia), "Garland (Final Fantasy)/(in)Dissidia" and "Garland (Final Fantasy IX)/(in)Dissidia" are clear. If they also created a new Garland for Dissidia, the page would be called "Garland (Dissidia original character)" (or something). We couldn't call that page "Garland (Dissidia)" because there would be three Garlands that are in Dissidia.
This has got me thinking about our use-titles-to-avoid-tags character naming policy. I think I was ambivalent in the past but I kind of like it. We could consider things like renaming Cid (Tactics A2) to Cid of Clan Gully and Garland (Mobius) to Heretical Knight Garland. But I think I may accidentally ignite a tag change debate if I push for that. JBed (talk) 03:16, April 2, 2020 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, I don't know of anywhere else that calls them "tags"... maybe we did invent the name, huh.
Regarding the benefits to subpages, on linking back to the parent page it should be possible to use JavaScript manipulating the DOM element to retain that benefit, and on moving pages, JS can probably still do this, but a bot trivializes this anyway.
Briefly on the parentheses point, regarding Cloud Strife (Dissidia PSP), "the tag's not being used to remove ambiguity, but instead be more specific". That's exactly what parentheses are for (to provide context). Like that, basically.
So I'm not really convinced that this doesn't work as a pagetitle, since using parentheses to provide context is exactly their role. "Subject (added context)", or "Cloud Strife (as he appears in Dissidia PSP)". That it's still the same Cloud Strife as the one on a page titled "Cloud Strife" doesn't necessarily mean the parentheses doesn't work, because in the English language, it does.
That said, I'm okay with Cloud Strife in Dissidia PSP, I just think "Cloud Strife (Dissidia PSP)" will make it much easier for readers when browsing the wiki. Mainly because it's just easy to understand it follows the logic that's used elsewhere. Even if we add an "in" rule that's technically correct, if it just confuses people when searching for the page they want, then it's detrimental.
I definitely think using titles to avoid tags is ideal, and would be all for a move to "Cid of Clan Gully" and "Heretical Knight Garland". To go back to the Garland point, though, the linked examples from the Trading Card Game suggests that a game would supply its own terms to disambiguate the pages, even if in one case that term is just "Garland (IX)".
For gameplay-only pages (as in Trading Card Game), "Garland (IX) (Trading Card Game)" works; for pages covering lore also, we'd definitely look for examples in the game to separate them, like "Garland of Terra (Dissidia PSP)". The "Garland (Final Fantasy IX)" article could also be renamed to "Garland of Terra" if that were supplied, per the "Cid of Clan Gully" example.
If it's just down to preference between "Cloud Strife in Dissidia PSP" and "Cloud Strife (Dissidia PSP)", let's see what others think...--Magicite-ffvi-ios.png Technobliterator TC 05:36, April 2, 2020 (UTC)
The Garland case really highlights how tags work, because it's not "Garland as he is in the original Final Fantasy", it's "the Garland of the original Final Fantasy". Tags seem to add more context because we have "Garland (Final Fantasy boss)", and you could argue that "Garland (Final Fantasy)" is ambiguous to whether it refers to the lore-character or the boss, but we decide the lore-character page covers the boss so it's fine. We just use the shortest tag possible, so sometimes a lore-character will have a page that is tagged with the game/series, but then a boss page will just have a "boss" tag because there's no other boss with the same name in the series.
But I think this as far as we can take this discussion.
Yeah, the point I was leaning towards at the end there was that we start referring to IX's Garland as "Garland (IX)" -- where "(IX)" is not a tag but more akin to the "II" in "Queen Elizabeth II", and when we are discussing character's in a series context we could literally say "Garland (IX)" in an article. But since "IX" is context found outside the lore... it kinda make it a tag, hence why I'm unsure on this idea. The follow up to this would be to use these abbreviations for lore pages ("Mysidia (II)") -- which I guess would be like series/world tags -- but not for gameplay pages. Managing things like this might be useful for us structuring information, but might not be so good for readers.
Although when I first thought of this, what I was actually hoping for was that FFTCG called him "Overseer Garland" (as he was called in the original Japanese-only Chapter TCG but they didn't keep that for Opus). Overseer was his job title in jFFIX, but they didn't TL it as a lore term for the English. JBed (talk) 02:56, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

Both of you make good points. I think we have to accept that any naming solution will end up being imperfect and illogical in some cases, whether it's subpages or parentheses. Whatever we use, someone will get confused by it. I actually think the current subpage set-up has merits, but can understand the confusion it creates. Overall, I think parentheses are less confusing for people trying to create pages, and probably less challenging in terms of maintaining consistency compared to the X in Y format. — YuanSalut 07:05, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.