Template talk:Disambig

Streamlining
This template is causing pages to go to (1) http://disgaea.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Disambiguation_pages. But (2) http://disgaea.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Site_maintenance doesn't link 'pages', it links (3) http://disgaea.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Disambiguations. I'm removing the 'pages', and hoping that the site will shift all the ((disambig))ed pages over automatically. Why? This is unnecessary plurality. Streamline, streamline. (I'd really like to drop the 's' off of '3', but that would require editing the MOS page which links to '3', and I don't think I have the permissions to do that.) SannaSK (talk) 01:04, February 10, 2015 (UTC)

How much to "point directly to the intended article"?
Moving this piece of conversation here, so it's attached to the relevant element.

From Otherarrow on Talk:Specialist - "I think the disambigs should never be removed, not because of linking, but searching." Yes, this makes sense to me. The only reason I mentioned the idea of getting rid of them (which, slight tangent, I worded poorly; what I said wasn't quite what was in my head to say) was this text currently in the ((disambig)) temp: "If an internal link referred you to this page, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article, so as not to confuse poor Angels like Flonne." It made me think that it was important for, say.... there are a few pages that lead to Sniper when what they really want is 'Sniper (Disgaea)', right? Special:WhatLinksHere/Sniper. Is it a priority* to link those pages to the correct Sniper? To the point that in the end, nothing would link to Sniper, and it would only come up in searches?

My overall question is, how literally should I be applying "point directly to the intended article"? Should the text in the ((disambig)) be different?' Is it actually ok for, say, 'archer disgaea tier' to link to 'sniper' and not 'sniper_(disgaea)'? Or is the end goal to have no links go to any disambig pages?

Am I overthinking this? Haha, probably. It's late anyway \o night.

(priority* - for some loose, low-pressure definitions of 'priority'.)

SannaSK (talk) 04:03, February 10, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the goal is that none of the links in the articles themselves should link to a disambig, and the disambigs are for convenience of navigation. The notice on the disambig template is basically telling the reader "if you got here by clicking a link, go back and fix it so it points where it should". It's not too high priority a thing to do all at once, but it should probably be fixed up as it's stumbled on.--Otherarrow (talk) 05:11, February 10, 2015 (UTC)