Category talk:Disambiguation pages

Why do we need this, instead of just a youmay like we use for Scorpiomon or Deathmon? 15:12, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
 * All of the other Species have a disambiguation page for their names like . We may end up phasing out disambiguation templates for both Scorpiomon and Deathmon anyway because of how disambiguation pages are being structured. Chimera-gui (talk) 00:05, April 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * Shoutmon is not an analagous situation at all. This is a situation where we have two pages, one named X, the other named X (Y). As with Scorpiomon and Deathmon, we can easily have a youmay on each saying "you might have been looking for the other one" without having to create a third, totally unnecessary disambig page. To be clear -- we can solve the problem of the reader landing on the wrong page in the same amount of code without creating a third page, therefore there's no reason to create one. 14:03, April 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * Except Shoutmon's disambiguation page doesn't just refer to Shoutmon itself though, it refers to every species with "Shoutmon" in their name including "Shoutmon X#" with only Shoutmon DX missing. Secondly, We're going to need to make disambiguation pages for both Scorpiomon and Deathmon anyway because we're going to eventually split those pages up in-line with the new species page format so there's no point to having those templates anymore. Chimera-gui (talk) 15:41, April 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * That very well may be, but that's because splitting those pages per the new standard would result in more than two pages. Even then, we could probably get a long with a youmay. Shoutmon's page simply isn't analagous because its disambig has twenty or so names, way, way too many for what the youmay was ever intended to accept. Right now, you have the main Burgermon page pointing to this disambig. There's already a "youmay" on that page, for all intents and purposes, it's just pointing at a disambig instead of the single other page it could ever be pointing at. There's no need for that. There's no need, ever, to create disambig pages as a matter of principle. If there are only two pages the term could possible be referring to, use a youmay instead of creating a completely unnecessary disambig page. If we ever get a third Burgermon (and no, Ebi doesn't count), it might be worth having a disambig. Right now, with only two pages, it is literally a waste of code. 21:13, April 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, I should have used as an example rather than Shoutmon but Burgermon is neither the first nor only species to have disambiguation page while only having two species that the name can refer to. Chimera-gui (talk) 00:06, April 2, 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but I vehemently disagree that it is efficient to create a disambig for only two pages, esp. when it's not something like PawnChessmon where "PawnChessmon" doesn't already have a clear target. I've stated my disapproval, I'll leave it up to community consensus going forward. 02:05, April 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards Kryten's view. If it's just two of them, where one is "X" and the other is "X (Y)", then a disambiguation is unnecessary. On the other hand, if it's like PawnChessmon or MegaKabuterimon where there isn't a default, or is there is more than one like AxeKnightmon, a disambiguation should be used. Lanate (talk) 02:32, April 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * But why is this only a problem when it's " " but not when it's " X" or " " even though the former qualifies as a separate species just as much as the latter two? By that logic, Cyberdramon should be using the disambiguation template that Scorpiomon currently uses since that species falls into the the format. Where do you draw the proverbial line in the sand is what I'm asking. Chimera-gui (talk) 04:16, April 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that Cyberdramon should be using the Scorpiomon template too. Lanate (talk) 04:40, April 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume that this is going to apply to Guardromon, Grand Generamon, and Veedramon as well, correct? Going back to Scorpiomon and Deathmon for a moment though, I don't think we'd be able to use the templates with either of them cause I'm imagining the format being like this:

Scorpiomon can refer to the following species:
 * Scorpiomon, whose Japanese name is Anomalocarimon.
 * Scorpiomon X
 * SkullScorpionmon, whose Japanese name is Scorpiomon.
 * And Deathmon's disambiguation page's going to include not just Deathmon and Ghoulmon, but the former's various forms as well. Chimera-gui (talk) 06:35, April 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree we'll need disambigs for Scorpio and Death, since they have more than one non-default form. 17:10, April 5, 2016 (UTC)


 * And while we do need G-SANtos' opinion on this, I agree with using the approach Lanate suggested going forward. Chimera-gui (talk) 23:57, April 5, 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, is it going to go something like this?


 * Q1: How many species can the name refer to?
 * A1: 1 -> Do nothing (end)
 * A2: 2 -> Go to Q2.
 * A3: Greater than 2 -> Create disambiguation page. (end)


 * Q2: Is the default name a species in itself?
 * A1: Yes (example: Gotsumon and Gotsumon) -> Use Template:Disambig2 like what currently exists on Gargomon. (end)
 * A2: No (example: PawnChessmon with PawnChessmon (Black) and PawnChessmon (White)) -> Create disambiguation page. (end)

Lanate (talk) 01:12, April 6, 2016 (UTC)
 * More of less, though the big question is are we applying this rule to Digimon with X Antibody variants or Mode Changes (including Burst Modes) as well? It seems to be the case given your example but I want to make sure. Chimera-gui (talk) 02:20, April 6, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we would be. Lanate (talk) 02:38, April 6, 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. A couple of observations I made as well regarding this issue:
 * Agumon will definitely need a disambiguation page on the grounds of how many variants there are for that species.
 * Gargomon might not have been the best example to use since in addition to being the English name of one species and the Japanese name of a different species, the former also has a variant like Scorpiomon meaning there'd be three species using that name. SkullMeramon would've been a better example since the name "DeathMeramon" only refers to it and a Deathmon variant.
 * Chimera-gui (talk) 02:53, April 6, 2016 (UTC)