Topic on Talk:Growth/2023

Hi and thanks for a great feature! Having been using it for a couple of days on Swedish Wikipedia, I have run into the following situation a few times:

1. The algorithm marks a word and suggests a corresponding article.
2. Reviewing the suggested article shows that the title is correct, but it still is the wrong target, since it has an ambiguous name without for example a qualifier between parenthesis. A (maybe farfetched) example could be one article „Naples“ as opposed to two articles „Naples (FL)“ and „Naples (Italy)“.
3. Since this function/ algorithm keeps „finding“ this kind of articles would I like to suggest implementing a means of capturing the valuable insights they give. As it is now, one can only say „No“ to the link suggestion and then tick „Other“ as the reason (unfortunately also without being able to add a comment), and thus the insight is lost.
4. If, above the checkbox „Other“ on the „Reason“ screen after clicking „No“, there would be a checkbox „Target article name ambiguous“ or similar, followed by two fields suggesting the two new article names, then this information could, for example, be posted as a template entry in the target article, thereby inviting more advanced users to possibly rename the identified article to clear the ambiguity and also maybe create the second one, i.e. the one that „Add a link“ revealed „to be missing“.
5. In this way the feature would be useful in identifying these ambiguous article names, letting the newbies contribute in a way they now how to (delivering the article names they believe should be there), and then leaving enough bread crumbs for more experienced users to fix the issue.

~~~~

Hi Gunboz, and thank you for your feedback!

We are collecting the reasons given by users when they click "no", but we aren't collecting "suggested link is too ambiguous" as a reason for rejection. It is a idea we should consider, thank you for suggesting it.

The example you give about Naples is precisely where a human is needed and valued.

It is not possible to make comments for a simple reason: read all of them requires a workforce we don't have. :)

Regarding posting it on the article talk page, I'm not sure to get your point. Do you suggest to have newcomers adding these links no matter what, and then having experienced users to handle them, or do you suggest to have these possible links to be suggested on the talk page?

Hi Trizek and thanks for your quick response, and I agree, that this is perfect human-KI-integration, I love it! Sorry if I was being unclear in my post. My suggestion would be (using a fictitious example):

1. The ”Add a link” system (in an article about ”Volcanoes in Europe”) finds the word Naples and suggests linking it to the Article ”Naples”, which however covers Naples in Florida.
2. As a user, I now mark this as a ”No”, i.e. ”do not link to the suggested article” (since that would be wrong).
3. The system now presents me with the ”Reasons” screen.
4. Now the new, added choice on that screen is ”Target article name ambiguous“
5. Ticking this box provides me with two string fields, where I can enter my article suggestions: ”Naples (FL)” and ”Naples (Italy)”. The first one would be my new suggested name for the already existing ”Naples” article (whereto I think it should me moved/ renamed). The second one the name for a possible new article (the one that I would have needed for my ”Volcanoes…”-article).
6. The system could then put a template/ tag at the beginning of the original ”Naples” article (not the talk page) like: {New suggested disambiguation | Disambiguation page = Naples | Current article name suggestion = ”Naples (FL)” | Suggested additional article = ”Naples (Italy)”}.

The template/ tag under 6. could then entice an experienced user to get his/ her hands dirty and implement the necessary disambiguation. This could not be automated. Neither could there be a link entered in the ”Volcanoes…” article at this time, since there simply is no article about ”Naples (Italy)” (yet). However, imho here the ”missing link” is the minor issue, compared to the unresolved ambiguity, which the tool ”just happened” to stumble upon. Through this addition to the ”Add a link” tool, it would start helping find and point out those ambiguities.