Template:R from ambiguous term is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here. |
Disambiguation | ||||
|
Redirect Template‑class | |||||||
|
This template was considered for merging with Template:R from incomplete disambiguation on 2018 January 16. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
This template is a good idea, but I propose to extend its applicability slightly. This template marks various ambiguous titles which have not to be linked from articles, but it does not imply that the target of such a redirect should always be a disambiguation page. There are such terms as NetBEUI/ NetBIOS Enhanced User Interface which are known to be broadly used in an incorrect sense (and hence inbound links should be undesirable), but have good reasons to be redirected to articles. For example, it would be unwise to make "NetBEUI" dab page, because a reason of the confusion is well explained in the NetBIOS article. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 15:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
There should be the option to mark these redirects as printworthy. This is to allow for situations where multiple ambiguous terms are disambiguated on one disambiguation page. For example Locked redirects to the disambig page at Lock but it is a printworthy term itself. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Why are these redirects marked as unprintworthy by default? I would have thought they would more likely be printworthy. Say Foos is an ambiguous term that redirects to FooBar, surely if someone were looking for Foos in an index of a print Wikipedia, it would be useful to have Foos listed with a note to see FooBar. This is essentially the case for most redirects. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Template:R from ambiguous page → Template:R from ambiguous term – I believe using term would be clearer and better reflect the language used in the description of the RCAT. -- Tavix ( talk) 23:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the {{
Tfm/dated}}
from the template.
Nihlus 00:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
A discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_16#Template:R_from_ambiguous_term decided to keep both this template and {{ R from incomplete disambiguation}} and clarified when each should be used.
Done:
In progress:
Not done:
Please shout if I'm causing problems or have missed anything. Certes ( talk) 12:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I'll put this change on hold for now and await further comments, then revert if necessary. Certes ( talk) 13:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
A quick note on my logic: before I meddled, R from ambiguous term had 286 uses with parentheses; 10,183 without. R from incomplete disambiguation had 21,647 uses with parentheses; 1,278 without. I read those figures as a consensus that R from incomplete disambiguation was for titles containing a Wikipedia-style qualifier such as 1 (album), whilst R from ambiguous term was for natural titles such as Edward Latimer Beach that someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia's conventions might actually type in. But I can understand the opposing view. Certes ( talk) 14:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a redirect from an ambiguous page name to a page or list that disambiguates it.That can be any page and does not have to be specifically a dab page.
Such titles should redirect to an appropriate disambiguation page (or section of it), or to a more complete disambiguation.Again, these redirects may or may not specifically target a dab page.
Hi to Certes and Paine Ellsworth, I stumbled upon this discussion three years late, but I'm glad neither of you followed through on your inclination of moving Philip W. Anderson (film editor) back to Philip W. Anderson (editor). Not only is the more distinctive disambiguation (film editor) the standard (as you would see when looking through the categories of film editors), it is the far better choice – not because there is another editor of any sort named Philip W. Anderson (there isn't, to my knowledge) but because the term "editor" itself is too broad and ambiguous. Besides the fact that "editor" is even used for non-humans, like text editing software, there are numerous occupations from very different branches that use the word "editor". The most common association people rightly have upon reading only that word, is someone working in publishing or journalism. Therefore, as Roman Spinner fittingly wrote when moving the page in 2015: "enhanced qualifier will more specifically indicate subject's professional affiliation with cinema (such usage is standard)". Not even within the film industry is "editor" reserved for only one occupation; there are also sound editors, music editors, VFX editors, commissioning editors...
I wrote this to you because I am busy moving all the remaining film editor pages that have only an (editor) as disambiguation to (film editor) – and would really appreciate no-one undoing that! By having standardized this, we are doing a service to readers. Greetings from -- Sprachraum ( talk) 11:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Template:R from ambiguous term is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here. |
Disambiguation | ||||
|
Redirect Template‑class | |||||||
|
This template was considered for merging with Template:R from incomplete disambiguation on 2018 January 16. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
This template is a good idea, but I propose to extend its applicability slightly. This template marks various ambiguous titles which have not to be linked from articles, but it does not imply that the target of such a redirect should always be a disambiguation page. There are such terms as NetBEUI/ NetBIOS Enhanced User Interface which are known to be broadly used in an incorrect sense (and hence inbound links should be undesirable), but have good reasons to be redirected to articles. For example, it would be unwise to make "NetBEUI" dab page, because a reason of the confusion is well explained in the NetBIOS article. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 15:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
There should be the option to mark these redirects as printworthy. This is to allow for situations where multiple ambiguous terms are disambiguated on one disambiguation page. For example Locked redirects to the disambig page at Lock but it is a printworthy term itself. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Why are these redirects marked as unprintworthy by default? I would have thought they would more likely be printworthy. Say Foos is an ambiguous term that redirects to FooBar, surely if someone were looking for Foos in an index of a print Wikipedia, it would be useful to have Foos listed with a note to see FooBar. This is essentially the case for most redirects. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Template:R from ambiguous page → Template:R from ambiguous term – I believe using term would be clearer and better reflect the language used in the description of the RCAT. -- Tavix ( talk) 23:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the {{
Tfm/dated}}
from the template.
Nihlus 00:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
A discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_16#Template:R_from_ambiguous_term decided to keep both this template and {{ R from incomplete disambiguation}} and clarified when each should be used.
Done:
In progress:
Not done:
Please shout if I'm causing problems or have missed anything. Certes ( talk) 12:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I'll put this change on hold for now and await further comments, then revert if necessary. Certes ( talk) 13:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
A quick note on my logic: before I meddled, R from ambiguous term had 286 uses with parentheses; 10,183 without. R from incomplete disambiguation had 21,647 uses with parentheses; 1,278 without. I read those figures as a consensus that R from incomplete disambiguation was for titles containing a Wikipedia-style qualifier such as 1 (album), whilst R from ambiguous term was for natural titles such as Edward Latimer Beach that someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia's conventions might actually type in. But I can understand the opposing view. Certes ( talk) 14:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a redirect from an ambiguous page name to a page or list that disambiguates it.That can be any page and does not have to be specifically a dab page.
Such titles should redirect to an appropriate disambiguation page (or section of it), or to a more complete disambiguation.Again, these redirects may or may not specifically target a dab page.
Hi to Certes and Paine Ellsworth, I stumbled upon this discussion three years late, but I'm glad neither of you followed through on your inclination of moving Philip W. Anderson (film editor) back to Philip W. Anderson (editor). Not only is the more distinctive disambiguation (film editor) the standard (as you would see when looking through the categories of film editors), it is the far better choice – not because there is another editor of any sort named Philip W. Anderson (there isn't, to my knowledge) but because the term "editor" itself is too broad and ambiguous. Besides the fact that "editor" is even used for non-humans, like text editing software, there are numerous occupations from very different branches that use the word "editor". The most common association people rightly have upon reading only that word, is someone working in publishing or journalism. Therefore, as Roman Spinner fittingly wrote when moving the page in 2015: "enhanced qualifier will more specifically indicate subject's professional affiliation with cinema (such usage is standard)". Not even within the film industry is "editor" reserved for only one occupation; there are also sound editors, music editors, VFX editors, commissioning editors...
I wrote this to you because I am busy moving all the remaining film editor pages that have only an (editor) as disambiguation to (film editor) – and would really appreciate no-one undoing that! By having standardized this, we are doing a service to readers. Greetings from -- Sprachraum ( talk) 11:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)