Talk:Rhamnus

Creation

If you have some questions, commentaries, don't hesitate:

Talk:Karta24 (French Wikipedia)

Rhamnus

The usage of Rhamnus is under discussion, see talk:Buckthorn -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:DABREDIR

JHunterJ: I don't think WP:DABREDIR encourages linking a redirect that's just a further disambiguated name, as with the very unwieldy Rhamnus (Greek archaeological site). It's talking about actual terms that are used in the article; if Rhamnus itself was available, that would be fine, but "Rhamnus (Greek archaeological site)" is a Wikipedia construct, and frankly not a likely search term.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Going by what it actually says: "Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when both: the redirect target article contains the disambiguated term; and the redirect could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term that is already in the article's lead section." This qualifies. The wieldiness of the title of the article or redirect isn't one of the criteria. Any problems with that should be addressed by giving the article or redirect a wieldier title. And "not a likely search term" is completely irrelevant. The Wikipedia construct there is the qualifier, not part of the search term nor expected to be, and is there for the same reason that disambiguation pages exist: the unqulified title isn't available. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

We could create (or move the existing redirect to) Rhamnus (city), though, if its use here would be better. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it says "an alternative term that is already in the article's lead section". The redirect term "Rhamnus (Greek archaeological site)" isn't included anywhere in the text of Rhamnous, it's just a (bad) Wikipedia construct filling in for the unavailable "Rhamnus". The MOS is speaking about terms that are actually included in the target article; for those that aren't, the guideline recommends the structure I added, just below the "James Carrey" example.

JHunterJ: I wouldn't have bothered with this except for the fact that Rhamnus (Greek archaeological site) is a wonky redirect even as a made-up Wikipedia title. It really doesn't even need to exist as a redirect, it's not helping anyone's ease of navigation outside of unnecessarily being included here and a few other articles. If you want to create a more intuitive redirect to replace it with here, that's fine with me too.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, the redirect has a qualifier. Qualifiers are qualifiers. The redirect term is "Rhamnus", and it has a qualifier because of the same technical limitation that two pages can't exist at the same title. But if the redirect is too wonky for Wikipedia, it can be proposed for deletion. This one I'll switch to "(city)". -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

And again, Rhamnus, the term that's actually in the article Rhamnous, isn't the redirect in question. The guideline doesn't say to include redirects that are Wikipedia constructions, especially when they result in a substantially more confusing entry than something like "Rhamnus, or Rhamnous..." But it's not a big deal so long as the previous unintuitive redirect is replaced.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The guidelines could use improvement, yes. But back when I listed myself on the project that was like pushing rope. But there is at least a glimmer of using Wikipedia constructions in the negative example specific to acronyms: "However, when the disambiguated term is an acronym or initialism (alphabetism), links should not use redirects to conceal the expanded version of that initialism. For example, on the disambiguation page BNL, linking to the full article title Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is preferable to linking to a redirect at BNL (bank)." -- implying that, except for it being an acronym, the redirect BNL (bank) would have been used. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)