9,379 Pages

OOU or IU?Edit

This article is obviously a valid IU entry, but since Microsoft is sponsoring the show, are we going to make another OOU entry about the company? Thief12 (talk) 00:35, July 2, 2014 (UTC)

Since I'm almost finished with the articles on these OOU, production companies, sponsors, etc. I think it's time to bring this up again, to get some feedback. My main concern is with how to disambiguate this article. Thief12 (talk) 15:10, July 27, 2014 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to use terms like IU or OOU for the disambiguation tags. How about "Microsoft (sponsor)" and "Microsoft (software company)" or something? or "Microsoft (Findings at CTU)" for the in-universe page? I feel the tags should describe how each thing relates to 24--Acer4666 (talk) 16:43, July 27, 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking along that lines. "Microsoft (sponsor)" was the one that came to mind for the OOU article. Wasn't so sure of how to list the other one, but that's a good suggestion. Thief12 (talk) 00:47, July 28, 2014 (UTC)

Picking this up again, I already created an OOU article for Microsoft (sponsor) and fixed all the necessary links to it. However, I wanted to ask about the IU article disambiguation. Should we go with Microsoft (software company) like Acer suggested above? Thief12 (talk) 15:50, January 19, 2017 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I'm wondering if we definitely need to have two distinct pages here. The way we have Cisco Systems is to make it an iu page primarily and describe the real world company's connection to the show in the BGIN section. Currently the Microsoft sponsor page is only a couple of sentences anyway, and we could redirect the microsoft (sponsor) link to the BGIN of this iu page. We could also categorise the redirect into the relevant OOU categories so it shows up when browsing categories, but we're not double categorising this page. It's a lot cleaner than having disambiguation tags on the page names, and a disambiguation page and everything else that goes with it.
I think diambiguation is useful when we have two completely separate things that happen to have the same name, but when we're describing different aspects of the same thing, from two different perspectives, this may be a better solution--Acer4666 (Talk) 18:11, January 19, 2017 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of that and I don't think I had seen that Cisco article. Anyway, I'm just trying to think of ways in which that might establish an unwanted precedent for any other articles, but I think it might work. Thief12 (talk) 19:11, January 19, 2017 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.