As I'm sure most know, when it comes to disambig, the Etymology for the term goes off the parent and stays off the tagged pages. What I'm suggesting is we transclude the Etymology sections in these cases on the tagged pages. It's pretty simple, just set it up on Grand Cross and the Ability page as an example.
We cool with this? | |||
There might be a better way to do it than relying on the transclusion like that. Somehow I can see an etymology template working for settings. Some sort of special box for it? Though I don't know if the etymology sections should be glorified like that. If that was included, then things could be transcluded another way. But I'm actually indifferent to my own idea. The other thing I have to offer would be putting it in a subpage of Grand Cross and transcluding that. But I actually don't think that's necessary at all, since we'll never end up transcluding the disambig pages other than this. It's only something to consider if we do. So: tl;dr I support, but should anything else come up there are workarounds. | |||
Subpages count as articles. So they get bought up in random article and add to article count, which is obviously bad.
The fix is to create an Etymology namespace. Which might not be a bad idea. We can also categorise these pages by name origin and stuff! If I figure out AJAX (and it's about time I did) I could also try to bring up a "pages that embed this etymology" section to these pages.
Back to the original matter sometimes etymology is specific to a version of something, like Midgar Zolom, so just embedding the etym at Midgardsormr won't cut it. It would be unwise to feature the header in the embed. But then we lose out on the edit link. The fix would be to put the embed inside a template which features an added edit link, but then we can't link to the specific section. ?action=edit§ion=1 only works on disambigs, for parent pages that won't work. And you can't go to section by name, which would be great (or if you can I've never known about it) but you can't.
Also no boxes.
So an Etym namespace and an Etym template from that namespace is the most efficient method. 89.243.247.221 00:38, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea, as all the articles related to a term should specify what the term means (I also love the Etimology section). I'd support any better/easier way to implement it, but it seems this is the best we have at the moment. JC Holy Knight (talk) 01:59, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
Unless we want to get the discussion rolling again, I'm inclined to go with the transcluding. There was little discussion on alternate courses of action though so *shrug*.
| |||
 Catuse says at 04:12, July 4, 2014 (UTC) "Somewhere a zealous god threads these strings between the clouds and the earth, preparing for a symphony it fears impossible to play. And so it threads on, and on, delaying the raise of the conductor's baton." | |||
If we're going to the trouble make a whole new namespace just for transclusion, we might as well make a whole 'EndData'(?) namespace that contains miscellaneous content at the end of the parent page -- Etymology, Trivia, References, External Links, and shared categories/sideicons/etc. For example, Tower's metadata page, EndData:Tower (Location), would have the etymology currently given on Tower and Category:Towers. EndData:Cid has the Etymology, Trivia, and {{EndData|Cid|etym=Cid's last name is based on a nickname given to Geppetto...|trivia=Cid is either the third or fourth oldest...}} which would return
Etymology"Cid" is a male name of Spanish origin that means "Lord". Cid's last name is based on a nickname given to Geppetto from Pinocchio. Geppetto's nickname (polendina, or corn meal mush) comes from the yellow wig he wears. Cid's surname is especially befitting of him in Final Fantasy IV: The After Years, as he helps Luca repair Calca and Brina and teaches them the Final Calcabrina Band. Trivia
References
[[Category:Cid]] This would also solve the Midgardsormr problem. I think it would allow for JBed's AJAX idea...but I don't know AJAX so I couldn't be sure. Maybe I'm just overthinking things, though. | |||
Ah, a grand suggestion. However I do not think there are many Trivia points that would be appropriate for a page and its subpages. I would also say similar for External Links, and References is ultimately just a header and {{reflist}}. With Cid you would expect the point about Star Wars calling a character Cid would only be on the parent, because its a reference to the recurring Cid rather than a specific Cid.
Regarding AJAX, the idea is just to get the Special:WhatLinksHere transclusions list (which I imagine I can get through an API query) and present it on the page in a UL (as simply as needed). The same could apply in any method involving transclusion. JBed (talk) 06:17, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with JBed's points on limiting this to etymology.
As for this AJAX thing... no clue what that's about. But I would agree with making an Etymology namespace. I'm just wondering how it would be organized though. Would we just have pages like Etymology:Cid and do that for all Etymology sections, or would we group Etymology data on several pages in some manner and transclude the appropriate sections of those pages? | |||
The way I imagine it working best:
- We create a page like "Etymology:Odin". This page contains the Odin Etym paragraph, and we wrap that in onlyinclude.
- We create a template called Template:Etymology, or Template:Etym. Then we use
{{Etym|Odin}}on pages of things called "Odin" we want to put that Etym on, underneath a ===Etymology=== header. The template is so we can do things like add the edit link. - On "Etymology:Odin", we also add categories like, "Norse Origin" or "Names of Norse origin", or something.
The kind of Etymology that needs a page are:
- Borrowed names (things not originating from SE, so plays on words wouldn't).
- Things that recur (like Malboro).
Anything else can just go on the page. Like small notes about how "Midgar Zolom" is a variation of Midgardsormr. So Midgar Zolom's Etym would be:
==Etymology==
The name "Midgar Zolom" is a variation of "Midgardsormr". It is named so as it resides in the swamps near Midgar.
{{etym|Midgardsormr}}
-- 2.102.231.208 18:25, July 10, 2014 (UTC)
I like the Template:Etym idea. Creating an "Etymology" namespace doesn't seem necessary. | |||
Why not? JBed (talk) 18:41, July 10, 2014 (UTC)
A few reasons:
{{Etym|Odin}} or removing it, you're not making things easier. It just seems like it's not doing a lot that cannot be done another way much easier. | |||
- "Putting etymologies on a single template is an example of doing that"
That is not what the template is for. And I hope you don't mean what it sounds like you mean, because that template would need to be a {{#switch}} statement with 1000s of options.
- "[..]requires contact Wikia, waiting for a response, then setting it up, and then having users constantly move pages from the mainspace to the new namespace because everyone creates them in the wrong place."
No? Yeah, you need to contact Wikia, so it takes a couple days. And no, why would people be creating the pages in the wrong place? The average user isn't going to write Etymology, or if they do they're just going to hard-type it to the page. Which isn't a problem that's not going to exist. Right now we revert uses from adding Etym to pages saying "it goes on the parent".
I don't understand most of what you said. It doesn't sound like you have a solution to the problem we are talking about. JBed (talk) 19:16, July 10, 2014 (UTC)
To your "And no, why would people be creating the pages in the wrong place?" point, that's the exact same question I ask myself everytime someone does that and I have to move it. Whether it's walkthroughs on this wiki, or any of the extra namespaces on other wikis, it happens all the time. The whole point of the template namespace across all of mediawiki is transclusion, and not needing to write "namespace:" before whatever it transcludes. We do not need to create a new namespace for the same transclusion purpose. And if it's what I imagine it is from what I have read, it is just a fancy way of achieving the same transclusion process. My argument is, what's the point? What does it add if we do it that way? If there is a major benefit, if it adds other bonuses, then I understand. But the way I see it, it doesn't do anything in particular that transclusion does not. Might I ask what is wrong with a "{{#switch}} with 1000s of options"? Okay, maybe it slows things more than I expect. If so, okay. But do you still have to create a namespace? What is wrong with making each etymology a subpage of Template:Etym? It's{{Eytm/Odin}} vs {{Etym|Odin}}. Which is better? And if we do use subpages that way, we don't need to create a new namespace, which brings me back to my point that a namespace for something like this is unnecessary. | |||
- "What does it add if we do it that way?"
Organisation. Templates aren't meant to transclude content, they're meant to be templates. The Etymology pages will serve a purpose alone even if they are ultimately for mainspace pages. They are their own type of page.
- "Might I ask what is wrong with a "{{#switch}} with 1000s of options"?"
Simply, it won't work. The template would be too big for the page not only to load, but likely also save. Then we're dealing with how {{#switch}} works. It goes down the list and checks every option (IIRC it's not linearly, but I can't remember the genius witchcraft {{#switch}} is often programmed to run like). But in some cases it will be running hundreds of unnecessary processes. Not to mention the code is stupid difficult to maintain.
But there's not much argument to make. It's like arguing to use
<strong> over
<b>; or that there's no point in using an ID if it's not for JavaScript. There is in fact very good reasons to do both those things, but people will say it isn't necessary and we can already do things without. Yeh, you can, but in doing so you miss the entire point in semantics.
In this case you overlook the purpose of a namespace because... what? We don't need one?
Not to mention your arguments don't make much sense. You talk about moving pages to a different namespace, but how do you think template subpages are going to be different? We're still requiring the creation of pages. JBed (talk) 19:49, July 10, 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm. The Etymology pages will serve a purpose alone even if they are ultimately for mainspace pages. They are their own type of page. I suppose I see why? Well, I understand where you are coming from. But again, what about them being their own type of page demands so strongly that they get their own namespace? If they are to be used on the mainspace, then they are practically templates. If they are to work as articles on their own, they are practically mainspace pages. Not to mention your arguments don't make much sense. You talk about moving pages to a different namespace, but how do you think template subpages are going to be different? We're still requiring the creation of pages. Creating tons of pages that any random person understands the purpose of as opposed to creating tons of pages that serve the same purpose while still being slightly more understood. Anyway, my point was not so much an argument as just an expression of my frustration of moving pages to Fanon, Content, Walkthrough etc spaces across various wikis because a random person decides to make it there.
| |||
I would prefer to create an Etymology namespace to a template. The reason being, unless I missed something, is that it's gonna be one big honkin' template with dozens perhaps hundreds of etymologies in it, and editing it would be a pain.
EDIT - Techno has explained his idea to me better. I would prefer subpages of the main articles to be transcluded on them to a new namespace or template. Though if the latter can be done effectively I would be fine with that too. | |||
@Techno: On second thought, my opinion in creating a namespace is more about my own vision. Because they could only serve a utility purpose for embedding and be fine in templatespace. Well, I don't see it as fine, I see it as disorganised, and thus something that needs to be organised and is best organised with a namespace.
And a namespace offers the opportunities in categorising by name-origin which makes for interesting things, making it easier to observe on a larger scale where FF gets its name roots from. And then it also makes targetting easier because we're not searching for parts of a page name, but instead an entire namespace.
So eh, this is more about my subjective opinion than I originally thought. Though I still believe using a namespace is the best choice. JBed (talk) 20:16, July 10, 2014 (UTC)
New suggestion: An alternative to namespace is an Etym template that searches for an "Etymology" subpage of {{{1}}}. Would not use {{#ifexist}}, just a normal parameter. So | |||
Subpages count as articles and things to be transclused are not articles. From both your utility perspective and my organisation perspective, this idea satisfies neither. This just sounds like a way to avoid creating a namespace, which I don't get. Template subpages is at least more agreeable.
There was a second point, however it may not matter depending on how people want to handle this. JBed (talk) 20:44, July 10, 2014 (UTC)