Disambiguating parentheses
{{}}
Friday, June 15, 3:40 PM -- Soon, we will be able to disambiguate topics by using parentheses. It's worth starting to think about some general principles about when to use parentheses, and what to put in the parentheses.
Let me work with some examples, and draw some principles from how I would decide them. [[]] can mean either the fruit or a kind of computer. But probably, it would be wisest to let [[]] mean the fruit and include a link on the [[]] page to [[]].
Here's a similar example, using the recently-edited article [[]]. Originally, some programmer type, in all seriousness (), innocently went about writing the article as though there were no such things as religious icons and that "icon" unambiguously meant a programming language. In actuality, [[]] in its religious sense is probably the very most important sense, and nobody but programmers gives a rat's patoot about Icon-the-programming-language (). So we might just let the [[]] page discuss the religious sense--rather than putting it on ()--and on the [[]] page include links to ( ) and () or () ().
I believe that consideration of these cases supports the following principle:
- When there is one central, best-known, most common meaning to the term "xyz" (), and in that sense "xyz" names a topic about which we'll want an encyclopedia article, then we should put discussion of that topic on [[]] with no parentheses, and from [[:]] we should include links to other articles under the heading "xyz" but qualified with parentheses, such as () and ().
Here's another issue that needs adjudication: given that we've decided we're going to use parentheses to disambiguate topics, what should we put in the parentheses? Take the [[]] example again. Suppose we've decided () to make [[]] just a pointer page, and we needed parenthetical qualifications for our three senses of "icon." How do we decide what to put in parentheses?
I might choose (), ( ), and ( ). Why?
In the first sense, I wouldn't choose ( ), because "religion" is probably going to be useful in disambiguating many other titles. Another possibility is (), I suppose. Again, though, my favorite for the religious sense is just [[]], because the religious sense is after all the most basic sense.
I might choose () ( [[]]), rather than (), because the latter is too broad: there are at least two things that "icon" () means when discussing computers (). I also wouldn't use (), because "language" here is insufficiently precise: when presented with the word "language," what most people immediately think of is an ordinary, natural language like English or French.
Finally, I might choose (), because that's something the nonspecialist could understand. I imagine there is some piece of computer science jargon to describe the general sort of thing an icon is, and you could title the article (), but that wouldn't be clear to the person who, after all, needs to know what "icon" means. Besides, "computer jargon" is probably going to end up being a very useful way to qualify various titles; think "disk," "processor," "processing speed," "mouse," "keyboard," etc., etc.
So there are a few principles/remarks that seem reasonable to me:
- In general, put stuff in parentheses that is both easy to guess ( ) and that successfully disambiguates titles.
- Use qualifying words that are used to qualify other article titles as well ().
- If at all possible, keep the qualifying words simple and clear, so that nonspecialists can understand them.
- So, the qualifying phrases are probably going to name rather general categories that an article's subject falls under, but not so general as not to be able to distinguish it from the other subjects named by the title.
Well, that's my first stab at these issues. I'm sure others will have lots to say too.