![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
{{ helpme}} I was starting to add an entry to this article when it became apparent that the rules for what should be included are very unclear.
I was going to add the following entries:
Note: broken links are to pages that are underconstruction in my userspace, which due to Wikipedia rules can not be linked to directly.
But then I decided to review some of the existing entries ie
That is where the confusion started.
RAM is a redirect link to the article random access memory and includes the following entry: "RAM” redirects here. For other uses of the word, see Ram.
Ram is a Disambiguation Page that extensively deals will all possible uses of the term RAM in all case varriants of its useage.
First question: Why should the acroymn RAM link directly to the article random access memory when it is the first entry in the list and is a link to the article itself? Would it not be better to link directly to the Disambiguation Page Ram?
Second question: Ram lists 11 entries which would belong in the entry on this page, but only 2 of them are listed here plus "Rolling Airframe Missile" that does not appear there.
I am unable to understand why that is the case, which is making it difficult to decide how my additions should be added.
In light of that, I am adding only the following as a edit to this page until I have a better idea of the "rules":
Third question, The general rule states that Redirect links should not be used but rather the link should be directly to the article, this would appear to be an exception where the article is already linked to and the link to the redirect page serves the purpose of making the fact know that it does exist and allows for easy editing of the page if someone would choose to do so. Now the question, is linking to RADb acceptable in this case? Dbiel 14:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This page appears to be doomed to be out of date. The sheer volume of disambiguation pages for acronyms suggests that new terms will be added faster than this, or sub pages, can be updated. If a page like this wanted, it should be automatically compiled from some sort of tag like { acronym: 'ABC' }. Charles Merriam ( talk) 16:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
{{ helpme}} I was starting to add an entry to this article when it became apparent that the rules for what should be included are very unclear.
I was going to add the following entries:
Note: broken links are to pages that are underconstruction in my userspace, which due to Wikipedia rules can not be linked to directly.
But then I decided to review some of the existing entries ie
That is where the confusion started.
RAM is a redirect link to the article random access memory and includes the following entry: "RAM” redirects here. For other uses of the word, see Ram.
Ram is a Disambiguation Page that extensively deals will all possible uses of the term RAM in all case varriants of its useage.
First question: Why should the acroymn RAM link directly to the article random access memory when it is the first entry in the list and is a link to the article itself? Would it not be better to link directly to the Disambiguation Page Ram?
Second question: Ram lists 11 entries which would belong in the entry on this page, but only 2 of them are listed here plus "Rolling Airframe Missile" that does not appear there.
I am unable to understand why that is the case, which is making it difficult to decide how my additions should be added.
In light of that, I am adding only the following as a edit to this page until I have a better idea of the "rules":
Third question, The general rule states that Redirect links should not be used but rather the link should be directly to the article, this would appear to be an exception where the article is already linked to and the link to the redirect page serves the purpose of making the fact know that it does exist and allows for easy editing of the page if someone would choose to do so. Now the question, is linking to RADb acceptable in this case? Dbiel 14:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This page appears to be doomed to be out of date. The sheer volume of disambiguation pages for acronyms suggests that new terms will be added faster than this, or sub pages, can be updated. If a page like this wanted, it should be automatically compiled from some sort of tag like { acronym: 'ABC' }. Charles Merriam ( talk) 16:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)