Alex (1992 film) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
Australia and
Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New Zealand and
New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
@
Bkonrad:{{R from other disambiguation}} is for redirects where the target page's title has a disambiguator and the redirect's disambiguator doesn't include any word of the disambiguator used in the article title; {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} is for redirects where the target page's title may or may not have a disambiguator and the redirect's disambiguator uses additional word(s) that includes the word(s) used in the target page's title's disambiguator (even if the target page's title doesn't have a disambiguator.) With this being said, my edit should be restored since using {{R from other disambiguation}} on this redirect is not correct.
Steel1943 (
talk)
13:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
That's not how I understand these categories and that isn't how the documentation for those templates and categories reads to me. {{R from other disambiguation}} is for redirects to targets that require disambiguation (i.e., the target of the redirect is a disambiguated title). {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} is for redirects to targets that do not require any disambiguators.
older ≠
wiser13:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Bkonrad: I have to admit, I was in the same situation with the confusion regarding these Rcats a while back, but for a different batch (so, my interpretation my be wrong with this situation as well.) Yes, they do get a bit confusing sometimes. Would it be okay if I ping someone who works with Rcats a lot more than I do ... that I know does a lot of work with Rcats?
Steel1943 (
talk)
15:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Bkonrad: Thanks! @
Paine Ellsworth: Due to your rather active editing and knowledge regarding
WP:RCATs, I'm hoping you can provide us some clarification on these Rcats or direct us to someone who may be able to shed some more knowledge on these categories. Please see the above conversation for the Rcats in question.
Steel1943 (
talk)
18:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
To editors
Steel the man! and
Older ≠ wiser: It is sooo good to see you, Steel man! The fact is that you're both correct. This is indeed an "other" or alternative disambiguation; however, since the date is unnecessary in this case (and may someday become necessary) this redirect is also currently disambiguated unnecessarily. In a sense, all "unnecessarily" dabbed redirects are also "other"-type redirects – so are "incorrect"-types, "incomplete"-types, and so on. So the "other"-type rcat is reserved for redirects that are merely disambiguated differently, not incompletely, incorrectly, nor unnecessarily. An example would be Pitbull (entertainer)Pitbull (rapper). "Other dab"-types may also apply to non-parenthetical dabs. I just did one today at Dagger characterDagger (typography) ("character" as a "natural disambiguator"). Good fortune to both of you! Paineu/
c18:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Paine Ellsworth:@
Steel1943: I have to say, the way the description for {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} reads now, it looks to me like
Alex (1992 film) should be a redirect to an article at
Alex. The phrase a currently unneeded disambiguation qualifier, along with the example given of Jupiter (planet), strikes me as implying the disambiguation qualifier is the entire parenthetical disambiguator, not a portion of it. Similarly, the description at {{R from other disambiguation}} seems to imply this case should fall into that category. "1992 film" is a correct disambiguator for this so I'm confused as to why it is unnecessary. What might the decision tree look like to determine whether to use unnecessary dab or other dab?
older ≠
wiser19:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
To editor
Older ≠ wiser: Yes, "1992 film" is indeed a correct quaifier, which is why it's not tagged with {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}. The other way around, if "(film)" redirected to "(1992 film", then {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} would be used. I have included examples both in the rcat and its documentation to clarify all this. It is the date in this case, a part of the disambiguation, that is unnecessary, and if any part of the qualifier is not necessary, then it isn't used as an article or page title, it is redirected. And then it can be tagged as having an unnecessary qualifier.
@
Paine Ellsworth and
Bkonrad: Just wanted to confirm that I've read this and I don't think I have anything to add or ask at this time. (Also Paine, I don't think your most respect ping to Bkonrad worked since you signed your comment in a different line than Bkonrad's mention in your comment.)
Steel1943 (
talk)
14:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I did get a ping, just wasn't ready to reply then and hadn't thought to get back to it until now. I'm still confused as to what makes disambiguation "unnecessary"? In the case of a parenthetically (or comma) disambiguated term that redirects to the same term without any disambiguation, that is clearly unnecessary. But what makes a portion of a disambiguating term "unnecessary" vs. merely an alternative disambiguation?
older ≠
wiser15:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)reply
The first case is straightforward, the second case one of an unneeded "natural" qualifier and the third is much like this one. In the third case the "British" portion is not currently needed, although just as in this redirect's case where someday the date, "1992", may be necessary if another "Alex" film is produced and is notable, if someone were to dig and find a different film that was made in 1990 titled "The Fool" that was shot, say, by a company in France or Brazil, then there would again be a need for the "British" qualifier. Gosh, I hope I'm putting this together for you, o ≠ w! For me, explaining things is sometimes like driving a car – I know how to get where I'm going, and yet that's a lot easier than helping someone else with how to get there. Paineu/
c12:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)reply
It's starting to get clearer. I hadn't noticed that
Category:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation is a subcategory of
Category:Redirects from other disambiguation. Picturing this as a Venn diagram, unnecessary dabs are a wholly enclosed subset of other dabs. For some reason I had been thinking of them as rather more discrete constituencies. I suspect
Category:Redirects from other disambiguation is populated with many entries that could be in one of the subcats. Just in poking around a bit, I've come across several that contained all the subcats (unnecessary/incomplete/incorrect/other). Aside from incorrect disambiguation, I'm not sure it makes all that much of a difference, TBH.
older ≠
wiser14:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)reply
And I saw that as just an example in the same vein as "Jupiter (planet)". It may have been a bit more confusing for editors if it had read, "...may be moved to a less qualified title based on a consensus that this is the primary topic for the less qualified term...." For the longest time, "Jupiter (planet)" was the only example I gave at the rcat's page, and yet I've been so rcatting "less qualified" redirects for years. It's good that people question these things so they can be made less vague and "more" clear and precise for users. Paineu/
c18:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I still think there is a bit of a disconnect. The implication on the guideline page is that it applies to redirects to unqualified titles, not to partially qualified titles.
older ≠
wiser19:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Possibly, or it's just a bit of "keep it simple"? One might add a note to see the template documentation for more info/details, if it's found to be too wanting. Paineu/
c22:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)reply