Template talk:Location disambiguation 2

Other use cases

Use this section to list use cases that need to be tested against the template. This does not mean that the template must work for that example; it only means that we have to decide whether it should or not (i.e. we might decide to manually produce the code for the e.g. 4-5 situations one-offs rather than kludge the template to accommodate them). Please add comments in this top part of this section and feel free to add additional examples/use-cases below. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Use-cases

(in theory, each of these should be retested after major changes to the template)

Title	Issues	Test results / Updated?	Notes/comments
Minister Cho's Estate	Uses punctuation for mish, explorable, and outpost	/	22:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Works without ornamentation, {{locatation disambiguation 2}}
The Great Northern Wall	The landmark lacks a definitive article: Great Northern Wall	/	22:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC) {{location disambiguation 2|The Great Northern Wall|landmark=Great Northern Wall}} Works well for mish, outpost, landmark.
Haiju Lagoon	Explorable, ZVQ, WoC explorable, landmark, dragon-fest mish	/	05:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC) {{Location disambiguation 2 | Haiju Lagoon | other=Haiju Lagoon (mission) | otherdesc=a Dragon Festival mission}} All's well that ends well.
Eye of the North	Outpost and a pseudo-campaign.		Currently uses {{other uses}} for both.
Nahpui Quarter	Mission, Explorable, ZM, ZV (and possibly Winds of Change area - unconfirmed).	/	22:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Works without ornamentation, {{locatation disambiguation 2}}
Unwaking Waters	Classic one-off (i.e. probably won't use the template): two outposts, a mish, a z-mish, an explorable, and a ZVQ. (The first two do not follow a standard convention.)		Two outposts → probably requires manual solution (or two "other" parms).
Fort Aspenwood Jade Quarry	Each has two outposts, a competitive mission, a quest, and a z-combat.
The Falls	Explorable, landmark (interactive object/creature), ZVQ	/	22:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Location articles use, {{Location disambiguation 2|other=The Falls (creature)|otherdesc=an NPC/landmark}} "NPC" uses {{Otheruses 2|an NPC/landmark|explorable area|The Falls|Zaishen vanquish|The Falls (Zaishen vanquish)}} Arguably, needs a landmark article (since is also a landmark), but that's a debate with little/nothing to do with the template.
Gate of Desolation	Like most NF locations, the explorable uses a distinct name, The Sulfurous Wastes; {{location disambiguation}} prints, "For information on the explorable area, see The Sulfurous Wastes.", whereas this template assumes identical names.	NA	Proposed: do not disambiguate unless there's similarity of names. (We can worry about pointing to nearby locations at a later date, either using this template or something else.)

Small problem

When used on a mission page, it forgets to remove the mission arguement from the list of other things. --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 09:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Which mission? I'm pretty sure Tub & I both tested on several mission articles. Can you add it to the use cases? Thanks! — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Specifically Nahpui Quarter - "This is a mission article. This name is also used for an explorable area, an outpost, a mission, a Zaishen mission, and a Zaishen vanquish."

i.e. it locates the redirect from "Nahpui Quarter (mission)" and creates a link to it. I suspect a lot of missions have that redirect? I'll take a look at some other missions for a similar example.--File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 10:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Also I get this problem on every mission page I attempt to use it on.--File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 10:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. That means we have to teach the template to ignore redirects. One option would be to add parms for ignore=, which would tell it to ignore specific possibilities (that's probably easier). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added a small change that should fix these issues. Since all Missions use the article without suffix, the template should now check the existence of "Location (mission)" for autodetection, but always treat "Location" as the mission article. If "Location" is not a mission article, an additional parameter has to be given, i.e. Location disambiguation|Kessex Peak|explorable=Kessex Peak

I'm short on time, so I've only checked Nahpui Quarter. If you encounter problems on other articles, just revert and I'll take another look later. Tub 21:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It should be fine for now. As you can see, I'm building up a list of use cases that we can check, rolling this out and/or replacing the use of the original. Probably, for the weirdest ones, we should stick to a manually typed list (or use {{otheruses 2}}), since there's no reason to make the code more complex just to cover one more oddball. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well done tub <3 --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 08:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Beyond articles

So how should we add beyond articles?

• I couldn't find any location articles for the HotN mini-missions. Are they hidden somewhere or can that point be removed from the checklist?
• How do we integrate the WiK/WoC-stuff? Here's two examples:
  • Riverside Province: there's no regular explorable, so Riverside Province (explorable area) points to the WiK area. Do we need to include WiK in the disambiguation, or do we just link to the "explorable area"?
  • Watchtower Coast: there are two explorable articles, how do we do the wording and linking?
    • From the ZVanq: This is a Zaishen Vanquish quest article. This name is also used for an explorable area and an explorable area during War in Kryta.
    • From the explorable: This is an explorable area article. This name is also used for an explorable area during War in Kryta and a Zaishen vanquish.

The two examples above would be the easy way out, but maybe there's a more concise wording for the additional explorables? Tub 13:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point about HotN; I've crossed them off the list.

• Riverside Province (explorable) isn't special; it should be treated identically to any other explorable (i.e. follow Tub's suggestion above).

• In contrast, Watchtower Coast has three locations: a redirect to Auspicious Beginnings; the WiK version; and the original.
  • Tub's suggestions are fine.
    • Alternatively, the WiK version could be parenthetical (when listing both): an explorable area (and its alternative during the War in Kryta).
    • And slightly simpler when using one: This article is about the explorable area. This name is also used during the War in Kryta.

– Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

type of the main article

browsing around, I noticed that we may need a better autodetection for the main article (the one without suffix). What does the main article contain? A mission, an explorable, something else? We'll either need to determine the common case and require a parameter for everything else (i.e. Location disabiguation|Watchtower coast|explorable=Watchtower Coast) or we need smarter autodetection. It appears that most main articles will either cover a mission or an explorable area. Did I miss any other common type of main article?

We could use DPL to detect whether the main article is a mission or an explorable, which should greatly simplify the application of this template on most articles:

Riverside Province: Mission

Watchtower Coast: Explorable area

I could try to incorporate this into the template, but before I do: which common types of main articles did I miss? Tub 22:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Good idea. It's likely that the only way to be sure that we cover everything is to make an exhaustive list of every location article that has a sister article re-using the name (plus: we're going to have more via WoC, which is only 0.33⅓ complete).

To answer your direct question: I believe that the possibilities could be any of the following (in vague frequency order): mission (most common), explorable, outpost, landmark, quest, festival quest or mish, interactive object, item. (Probably, the last two are never primary, since a location will usually be.) In a couple of cases, there are similar article names (e.g. The Great Northern Wall and Great Northern Wall and The Great Northern Wall (outpost)); in some of those cases, we might be able to fix things by renaming/moving or adding some hidden data on the article to get the dismbig template to handle it. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

new approach

User:Tub/Sandbox/Location disambiguation

This is basically a rewrite, which I didn't want to do in the main namespace. The code looks a lot cleaner now.

This does autodetect whether the main article is a mission, explorable, outpost or primary quest. It adds two parameters, other= and otherdesc=, for pages that have another article that doesn't fit our categories.

The logic for proper grammar has been removed, I'll re-add it once we finalized the wording and order of items. Tub 01:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you can safely replace the code for this template for two reasons:

1. It's only used once so far.
2. The big honking warning on the page.

I think you should replace it because at this point, we want to make it easier to test. (Also, this will help keep the convos all in one spot.) I'll take a look at the template in more detail in the next little bit. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Grammar aside, this looks brilliant! I'll do some testing later on. (And try to look for something that will break the logic so we can fix it before a roll out.) Awesome work! – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to see this on main articles until the grammar issues are resolved, but I don't want to resolve them before we agree on the wording and item order (because it's an ugly task to do, and I don't want to do it twice). Now that all technical issues appear to be solved (the problem with ", and" on two items is solvable, too), I think it's time to reignite the original discussion and get more opinions about that specific issue. A task I'll gladly leave to the native english speakers. Tub 13:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It's really fine to experiment with this: it's not in mainspace in any meaningful way. However, in the meantime, I'll repoint the talk page here (to reduce the number of convos going on). I've also re-ignited the community portal note. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 14:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Current bugs (i.e. test results for Sandbox)

• 1. Apparently, some Zaishen mission pages are named [Location (Zaishen mission)]. The following code doesn't seem to work:
  • {{User:Tub/Sandbox/Location disambiguation|Arborstone (Zaishen mission)}}
• 2. Similarly, it's not working for ZVQs, e.g. it doesn't work on
  • {{User:Tub/Sandbox/Location disambiguation|Arborstone (Zaishen vanquish)}}
• 3. The manual setting, e.g. landmark=, doesn't appear to be working, e.g.
  • {{User:Tub/Sandbox/Location disambiguation|The Great Northern Wall|landmark=Great Northern Wall}}
• 4. When punctuation is used, {{PAGENAME}} and the base name don't work; you have to use html substitutes, e.g.
  • {{Location disambiguation|Minister Cho&#39;s Estate}} works.
  • {{Location disambiguation|Minister Cho's Estate}} does not.
  • {{Location disambiguation|{{PAGENAME}} }} does not.
• 5. It didn't seem to work on Eye of the North (outpost) (it understood it was an outpost, but didn't find the campaign). Similarly, it didn't work on the campaign (thought it was a location article).
• 6. It also has trouble with Haiju Lagoon (the plain version). It also fails to mention (on its page) that Haiju Lagoon (mission) is a festival mission (not a primary) (and I used the alternative parameters).
• 7. It also didn't seem to work for interactive object, e.g.
  • {{Location disambiguation|The Falls|other=The Falls (creature)|otherdesc=interactive object}} (it seems to think that The Falls is a mission entry).

I'll add to above as I continue checking. (As these get fixed, Tub and any other repair krewe have my permission to cross them out strike them out above.)– Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 14:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• 1. and 2.: Neither is supposed to work, the first parameter is the basename without any suffix. I've added documentation to reflect that. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any parser function that might strip the suffix from a string. The original template suffers the same problem.
• 3.: Fixed, I simply forgot one line.
• 4.: This template exhibits exactly the same problems as the old one did. Not sure why it does or how to fix it, it seems to be a quirk in the mediawiki software. We may end up documenting the problems and accepting them.
• 5.: No point in autodetection for a single case, use manual configuration. Grammar issues aside, this works fine when using the example code on my template.
• 6.: Not sure why it says "This article is about a location." on Haiju Lagoon. The mission is a one-off-case, no proper autodetection, but worked fine on my tests with the right parameters.
• 7.: Works fine for me, except for the bug mentioned in 6.

Please be careful to include "User:Tub/Sandbox/" in the template name, copy/pasting the examples will otherwise lead to invalid test results. Tub 16:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• 6.: autodetection didn't work on the primary articles, because autodetection requires DPL-including the primary article. Including an article on itself isn't allowed by default (to prevent infinite recursion and other fun stuff), but thankfully such safety features can be disabled. Should be fixed. Tub 17:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• again about 1. and 2.: there are functions in the ParserFunctions extension that could be used to remove the _(stuff) suffix, but the ParserFunctions extension on this wiki is one version too old (1.1.1 is installed, the string functions need 1.2.0 and $wgPFEnableStringFunctions = true; in LocalSettings.php).

Having these functions would be extremely useful for this template (it would start working on most pages without any parameters at all!) and I could imagine some good uses on other templates. Still, I'm not sure whether it's worth bothering an ANet dev and/or doing the required paperwork/discussions for consensus etc.. Tub 19:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fixes. (I took the liberty of indenting your numbered responses; I hope that was ok.)

5: I have been careful to use the correct template, so I'm not sure why you are seeing different results for the EotN combo than I. That aside, if it turns out not to work, than a manual solution will be fine.

4: I don't have a problem with forcing us to manually punctuate (it doesn't come up all that often).

1 & 2: What parser functions are you attempting to use? I wonder if there's a substitute. I think we should agitate for updating the extension, but let's try to make things work without (and drop a note in the template to remind us to update the template, e.g. add to Category:Update when ParserFunctions 1.2.0 installed). In the meantime, it's not terrible if we require the template to use basename=[basename]. That's still simple enough that nearly anyone can apply it to an article and helps troubleshooting if someone misapplies.

I'll do some more testing later. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

1 & 2: The installed ParserFunctions extension does not provide any tools for string manipulation, neither do the default wiki tools. I've double- and triple-checked, no can do.

There is the StringFunctions extension, #rpos and #sub can be used to remove the suffix, #replace would be quite handy in other places, too (e.g. replace &#39; with '). All three functions have been incorporated into ParserFunctions 1.2.0 and beyond. Either installing StringFunctions or updating ParserFunctions would work, but the latter is probably the better choice long-term.

BTW, the trouble with ' vs. &#39; is that {{PAGENAME}} doesn't provide the name verbatim, but replaces some special chars. For any comparison to work, all entity replacements done by {{PAGENAME}} must be made in the parameter, too. I couldn't find a list of all replacements, it's probably buried in mediawiki's source code.. Tub 20:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

WoC and WiK explorable phrasing

How do we want to phrase things for explorable areas that are dependent on a particular part of WoC, WiK, or (if it comes up) something else? (e.g. UW for halloween).

Currently, we are using the verbose, an explorable area during Wings of Change. Some other variations:

1. a Winds of Change explorable area
2. an area during Winds of Change
3. during Winds of Change
4. a WoC explorable area
5. an explorable used in Winds of Change

Are any of these so good that we should replace the current text? (Are any so bad that we should chop them off at the knees now before further damage is done?) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox 2.0 - ready for primetime?

It's good to have certain people's edits in one's rss reader. Although official confirmation is still missing, the StringFunctions have been enabled in parser functions, which I promptly used for this edit.

Long story short, you can just slap {{Location disambiguation 2}} at the top of a page and it should figure out the rest. Tested on Cho's and Arborstone, works like a charm.

If no further bugs pop up, and assuming that the StringFunctions will remain enabled, I think we can finally move this to mainspace and start using it. Tub 03:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Poke confirmed that StringFunctions are here to stay, so I moved everything from my sandbox to this template.

Since parameters are compatible with {{Location disambiguation}}, we could just overwrite said template, then go through all location articles and remove any redundant parameters and disambig-templates.

But before we do that, I wish to call out again for comments, opinions, and testers. To test, edit any location article, add {{Location disambiguation 2}} at the top, hit "preview" and check for errors or omissions. Tub 01:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with replacing the original location disambiguation as long as all the test cases have been covered (and, ideally, documented. (We could also use a bot to replace all {{location disambiguation}} with {{location disambiguation 2}}; if we missed something, the original would still be available as a fall back. After a few months, we could delete the original.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Seemingly at the moment the first phrase of this template doesn't change if the article is a mission (the Location disambiguation template switches to This is a mission entry [seemingly this doesn't work on some articles at the moment with that template]) also I was looking at applying this template to D'Alessio Seaboard - it seems to display mission twice, is there a way to avoid that? File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 19:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The first phrase changes fine, just not on the examples on the template article. Or can you name an article where LocDis2 doesn't detect the proper type?

The explorable is listed twice because there are two articles: D'Alessio Seaboard (explorable area) and a redirect at D'Alessio Seaboard (War in Kryta). I've added a deletion template to the second, it's unused anyway.

We could also work around that by passing "explorablewik=none" to the LocDis template. Tub 19:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've started going through the use-cases. It burps on Haiju Lagoon, b/c of the dragon festival mission (it renders as a mission, even if using an override). An easy solution would be to rename the mission to e.g. Haiju Lagoon (festival mission) (or something along those lines, ideally using an extensible convention).– Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It would've worked on Haiju, if you had read the example on the template documentation. Alas, if even you can't get that right, I need to make it more idiot-proof user-friendly, so I did. Haiju should now work without manually removing the mission (Which could have been done by simply passing mission=none, btw).

Of course I've accounted for all the use cases listed above, and tested them personally (well, except those that use a disambig page anyway). But part of the testing is to figure out whether it's usable by other editors. So go ahead, if you don't get green on all cases, it's your fault :p Tub 01:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The more I work with this, the more awesome it looks. Good stuff (as always).

I've updated the usage notes so that it's easier to see what to do without having to find an example that matches the use-case. (I only found the none example by using find on my browser; it's not directly associated with Haiju Lagoon or how I thought things would work.) I expect to have more time tomorrow to review the uses cases and make any relevant changes to the instructions afterward. (For the record, that's the main reason I want to check everything; I assumed Tub already checked them twice before posting the all clear.)

I'm also going to use LD#2 on another 2-3 articles as a final test.

@Tub: assuming there are no objections, how would you like to proceed? Do you want to propose an implementation plan? Having thought about it some more, I wonder if it might be better to update articles to use LD#2 and then (assuming all goes well), delete the original (if we do it the other way, there's a small chance that we'll miss something b/c someone fails to update this parm or that). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the amount of location articles we have (~350), just replacing the original template with this and double-checking all articles may not work out. Who's going to double-check 350 articles in one sitting?

Thus we should add LocDis2 to all articles and remove the original later. That'll leave us with a poorly named default template, but it allows us to take our time during the transition.

That said, I wouldn't mind if you hit "save" whenever you tested an article. What's done is done. Tub 18:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If it still needs changing I have a week free after my exams (ending in two weeks time.) I can be a robot for a while. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 22:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Do we want disambig templates on ZQuests / ZVanq Articles?

Just noticed that zaishen mission / zaishen vanquish articles don't have a disambig template right now. Usually, the first line is "Complete <Location>" or "Vanquish <Location>", which should be enough to find the most relevant article. On the other hand, if we don't add the template, you'd need two clicks to go from a zmission to the outpost or something.
I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but for the sake of consistency, we should decide whether to add disambig templates to these articles or not. Tub 23:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Some had something, some nothing. IIRC, part of the problem was the the original LocDis didn't work with them...so it was easier for ppls to create the articles without. I should have asked the question before updating the first few (got distracted by the sheer number of articles to validate).

I don't have a preference, either: consistency argues that we add the disambig so that anyone coming to the wrong article by accident can find the correct one easily...but like Tub sez, the first line usually leads one to a good guess (and then it's only one more link from there if need be).

Probably, tho, we should post this at the community portal; I doubt many ppls are going to respond here. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

For the moment, I'm not bothering to add the disambig to the Zaishen challenges; we can decide whether that's required at any time (and it reduces the amount of current work). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Gate of Desolation/Sulfurous Wastes

I added a new use-case: Gate of Desolation's equivalent explorable is The Sulfurous Wastes. {{location disambiguation}} prints that name, whereas this template assumes an identical name (it links to correct article, but always displays, the name is also used for...).

There are at least three ways to handle this:

1. Continue to use the original disambig: it works (but it's still awkward b/c of the amount of repetition).
2. Update the new disambig to allow for 1-2 articles with completely different wording (this might also be useful for FA/JQ).
3. Manually disambig, either using {{otheruses 2}} or going completely manual (not using a template).

If there was no work/testing/retesting involved, I'd love to see #2 (always ideal if a single template can do it all). But #3 is perfectly acceptable. (#1 is merely cromulent.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh-oh. Yeah, in this case the old, verbose wording of "for X, see Y" is a better fit - but avoiding that was one of the reasons to create LocDis2 in the first place.

So we can either decide to accept that the name difference isn't pointed out (maybe rephrase "this name is also used for" to something more neutral), or opt to use another solution on these pages.

Or maybe find a solution in this template? What IS a good wording for the disambig, that links to all related pages (including zvanq), but still points out the naming difference? Maybe if we figure out how it should look, I'll find a way to extend the template code for it. Tub 20:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I was too quick to post. This is true for every single nightfall mission; the closest naming similarity between mission and explorable is Gate of Pain -> Domain of Pain. In one case, we have two missions sharing an explorable: Consulate Docks and Pogahn Passage.

Currently, most of the mission articles only disambiguate to the mission-related articles, ignoring the related explorable and vice versa. We could trivially keep doing that. OR we figure out which links we want to appear on each article, how to word them, and then see about wrangling the code to comply. Tub 20:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

For now, I think the best thing is to restrict the location disambigs to their narrow purpose: distinguish between ambiguously named articles. Since Gate of Des and Sulfur Wastes don't have similar names, there's no need to disambiguate. That gets us to a good-enough place sooner.

At some time in the future, we might be interested in adding links between mish/explorable articles with dissimilar names...and we can address that issue then. (I can think of two reasons: consistency with Proph/Factions articles and orientation, a sort of "what else is nearby" hat note).

(The only reason Gate of Dez and Sulfur Wastes stuck out for me was that the mish's {{location disambiguation}} noted the explorable, although other NF missions didn't. In other words, the wiki was previously inconsistent about whether to point to dissimilar location names.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, could we combine it to something like

This article is about a mission. This name is also used for an outpost and a Zaishen mission. For the explorable area, see The Sulfurous Wastes.

This article is about an explorable area. This name is also used for a Zaishen vanquish. For the mission, see Gate of Desolation.

That'd require adding more parameters to the template, making it even more difficult to use. But seeing that all nightfall missions refuse to stick to the pattern, it may be worth it to make the articles easier to navigate.

(though gandara still needs special treatment to link to two missions..) Tub 00:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the phrasing.

If you're willing to tinker, I think it would be ok if the template becomes more difficult to use; in theory, once we finish the migration to LD2, all that someone will need to do if/when there are new articles is to copy the template from one of the like-named ones. (Hmmn, that suggests I should work on the Factions ones next, before WoC-III comes out.) Plus, the current usage information all but gives people the necessary text to use for most situations.

So, yeah, it would be great to accommodate dissimilar names. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully the solution I implemented is flexible enough to accomodate other needs as well. Tub 12:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Phrasing

"during War in Kryta" - shouldn't it be "during the War in Kryta"? File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 13:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

fix'ed. Tub 13:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Didn't LD2 originally use the serial comma: this location, that location, and another location ? Is that easy to fix? (If not, we'll just have to be inconsistent with the predominate practice on the wiki; not ideal, but I doubt compliance is better than 80% in any case.) Thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and according to the articles I checked, it does that if there are three or more articles in the list. As usual, if you wish to file a bug report, please link to an article where it's broken. Tub 20:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to check if it was a bug first. See D'Alessio Seaboard (explorable area), Riverside Province (explorable area), Riverside Province (outpost), and D'Alessio Seaboard (outpost) (the two mission articles are ok). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

ahh, I forgot to count missions when counting how many entries are in the list. Thanks, fixed. Tub 10:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What's done and what isn't

First of all, I think we should remove the warning from the template page. It's ready to be used in mainspace. Objections?

Second, I think we should document somewhere which pages have been adjusted already. The What links here isn't structured, thus somewhat useless. I propose grabbing a set of similar areas at a time, and to always adjust all related articles before continuing (i.e. if you place it on a mission article, adjust the corresponding explorable, outpost, z-quest etc as well).

I've started with the WiK-areas, to finally get rid of their combination of LocDis1 + otheruses. Tub 13:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the warning from the template; I've added a note to {{location disambiguation}} that its use has been deprecated in favor of this one.

Thanks for including a checklist. I was trying to go systematically through the use cases and connected locations in the same region; atm, that will look more haphazard than I intended. (Ran out of time to implement my original plan.) (I don't think I can say this too often: this template is awesome; great job, Tub.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Unwaking Waters and FA/JQ will need the disambig page, if only because of the huge amount of related articles.

In Nightfall, I've linked to the respective explorable on all mission articles (i.e. Dasha Vastibule -> The Hidden City of Ahdashim), but not on outposts. I suggest linking back to the mission only from the explorable where it's taking place. Tub 00:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

• Core
• Prophecies
  • all areas related to War in Kryta
  • all missions and related articles
  • other explorables and outposts
• Factions File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 14:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Unwaking Waters (and its related pages) still point to a disambig (if that's as good as we can/should do, then let's update the use case above accordingly).
  • Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry (and their related articles) (same deal; these are oddities that might not be able to use LD2)
• Nightfall
  • All non-elite outposts, explorables, missions and challenge missions Tub 13:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • What to do about the elite mission, Gate of Anguish etc? {{otheruses 2}}?
• Eye of the North
  • All primary quests
  • Explorable Areas
  • Dungeons - currently not supported by the template. Do we even want disambigs on these?

One more use case

At the moment, PvP arenas require using the work-arounds. Is it worth adding code to this template to account for {{arena infobox}} or should we go with other = [arena name] and otherdesc = PvP Arena ? – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a decent idea as they're quite frequent in prophecies. I used

{{Location disambiguation 2|other=Shing Jea Arena|otherdesc=an arena}}

on the Shing Jea Arena (outpost) page. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 19:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

hmm.. there are a lot of arenas that have been removed from the game. Do we wish to link to those from other articles? If not, we shouldn't introduce autodetection.

Looking through the list of arenas, are there more than two or three that actually share the article's name? Most of them are "<Location> Arena", which would be very troublesome to autodetect. I'd say we use the other= parameter, that's what it's made for. Tub 19:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I was working off the last remaining items that use {{location disambiguation}}; that includes a couple entries using {{arena}} and their respective {{outpost}}. There's also The Great Snowball Fight of the Gods.

Take a look. It's not that many entries for {{arena}}, so I'm ok using the work-around, especially if it would require actual work to autodetect. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Zaishen mission quest

I think the template should be ... ", a Zaishen mission quest" ... instead of just "Zaishen mission", just like "Zaishen vanquish quest". The missions themselves have nothing to do with the Zaishen, just as explorable (vanquishable) areas don't. Also, the page refers to the ZM quest, not the mission. ---- Magnum 15:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mr Alex :) ---- Magnum 16:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Easy changes are no problem :P It was a good idea. This template still contains a boggling number of switches + I wouldn't have known where to start if it had been a bug :P -Chieftain Alex 17:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

mission outposts not giving mission link

Maybe I'm just too tired atm to see the obvious. But when used on Tyrian mission outpost pages, the disambig doesn't give the mission of the same name. Is there a reason for it? Steve1 (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)