. signed, Rosguill talk 03:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = RISM (identifier) }} → :Répertoire International des Sources Musicales (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RISM_(identifier)&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2020-04-03&end=2020-05-02&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=RISM_%28identifier%29 stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:RISM (identifier)|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#RISM (identifier) closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:RISM (identifier)|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#RISM (identifier) closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:RISM (identifier)|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#RISM (identifier) closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Delete: unlikely disambiguator in the redirect title: RISM is already an unambiguous redirect. The redirect was apparently created for an (in the mean while failed) experiment. Francis Schonken (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Puzzling qualifier which doesn't help the reader select between articles at all, especially when RISM is unambiguous. Not even worth keeping as {{tl|R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Narky Blert (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The redirect from the abbreviation RISM and the identifier redirect RISM (identifier) serve two completely different purposes - this is by design, not by error: The former is a redirect used in "normal" article linking, the second one is a redirect only used in links from manifestations of RISM IDs in articles, typically invoked through templates like {{tl|RISM}} (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ARISM&type=revision&diff=954516554&oldid=746914056]), citation templates or the like. The parenthetical disambiguator (identifier) is reserved for this specific usage.
: The main reasons to deliberately route such occurences through identifier redirects is that there are typically many invocations (up to hundreds of thousands as in the case of identifiers like ISBN). They completely pollute "What links here" to a point that it is no longer usable. Routing them through this redirect, people doing normal article work who are only interested in normal links to the target article, can easily mute them in "What links here" and concentrate on those links they are actually interested it, instead of having to sift through an endless list of links they do not care about at all. Likewise, other people may want to carry out reverse lookup of only those articles which contain manifestations of a particular identifier (while doing research or wanting to maintain articles including a particular identifier). They can narrow the scope to only these incoming links as well. People, who don't care about a specific class of incoming links, can continue to recursively traverse through all incoming links like before and won't miss any articles, as the network of incoming links remains intact (unlike to what would happen in some other proposed solutions to this longstanding problem that have been discussed in the past) as only the grouping of incoming links changes. Also, in some cases, going through the redirect helps to keep the link from being displayed in (undesired) boldface.
: Among other places, this was discussed at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_64#choosing_identifier_redirects and it is highly desirable to remain consistent in the naming conventions here, hence this switch to use the identifier redirect rather than linking directly.
: --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
::Re. "is reserved for this specific usage" – all very unhelpful idiosyncratic system. Please take your experiments elsewhere, this isn't helpful by any stretch. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
::: If there is anything idiosyncratic it is your abuse of the {{para|postscript}} parameter (Talk:An_Wasserflüssen_Babylon#RISM). If you want to be considered, you should work collaboratively with other users (including trying to understand their reasoning) and avoid using words like "unhelpful" so frequently even when extensive help is being offered.
::: --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Matthiaspaul's explanation makes a lot of sense, but does this practice reflect established consensus? It seems that this is really a workaround for the longstanding Wikimedia bug where template transclusions can't be filtered out from What links here. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
:: Re. "...does this practice reflect established consensus?" – No, it doesn't. It's also a (well-intentioned but) botched hack: on mouse-over one gets RISM (i.e. "RISM (identifier)") instead of RISM (i.e. "Répertoire International des Sources Musicales"). This may make possible to sort "what links here" lists, which is of interest for very few users, while the large majority of users would simply want to know what the abbreviation stands for when steering the pointer of their mouse over it – for which "RISM (identifier)" is about as unhelpful as the abbreviation itself.
:: In other words: Matthiaspaul failed to get consensus for the system they're pushing. For the {{tl|RISM}} template and wherever they wanted to use the "RISM (identifier)" redirect, the damage has been reverted & repaired, remains the unhelpful redirect to be deleted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
::: Unfortunately, Francis is confusing things. It is his abuse of a citation template parameter that is causing (easily fixable) problems, not the use of identifier redirects.
::: He has joined discussions at Help talk:Citation Style 1 only recently (and only after the discussions regarding the switch to identifier redirects). But instead of reading up on the topic and getting some background on this long-standing usability problem of polluting "What links here" for which there were complaints and discussions for years, he started to loudly oppose, revert and even edit-war in various places (see f.e. Help talk:Citation Style 1#Link to ISMN not going through identifier redirect).
::: He is reverting my enhancements ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ARISM&type=revision&diff=954516554&oldid=746914056][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ARISM%2Fdoc&type=revision&diff=954518116&oldid=954516680]) of the {{tl|RISM}} template and my fixes ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Wasserfl%C3%BCssen_Babylon&type=revision&diff=954522654&oldid=953269313]) of his abuse of the {{para|postscript}} parameter (see Talk:An_Wasserflüssen_Babylon#RISM). The fix for that problem is to simply move the RISM template from the {{para|postscript}} parameter (which was designed to define the leadout character of citations, not to hold some template code or other lengthly strings) into the {{para|id}} parameter (which was designed for this very purpose), otherwise my switch to use the Catalog lookup link template will create an error message, and he is using his abuse of the {{para|postscript}} parameter as an excuse for reverting my {{tl|RISM}} enhancements. The other reason he cited is that the switch to the identifier redirect is changing tooltips (only for users with Javascript disabled). However, in the previous discussions before the switch to identifier redirects (in which Francis did not participate) this was a topic broad forward but regarded as of only cosmetical nature by all but one user. We even had two possible solutions for it. My proposal for this was to go through identifier redirects using the long-form of the identifier name, but in the discussion users found that not all identifiers have long forms and that it was more consistent and long-term maintainable to use the short forms, so we eventually decided against it. {{u|Trappist the monk}} developed another potential solution for it using HTML spans, which would display the "old" tooltip whilst still going through the identifier redirect. This was demonstrated to work nicely and was considered to be rolled out alongside the switch to identifier redirects, but some users participating in the discussions found that the issue was minor enough and that the tweak might even cause unnecessary astonishment. So, it was decided not to roll out this tweak at this time - but it could still be done if more users would find this useful. Either way, the discussion was an example of fruitful collaboration searching for the best possible solution for everyone, and it resulted in a very good compromise. The fact that Francis has now repeatedly complained about it in various places, indicates that he is not even aware of these discussions and possible solutions.
::: --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Matthiaspaul, I see what you're going for, but instead of this one, could you route template traffic through a redirect that's meaningful in its own right? RISM (organisation), perhaps? I really don't want to get in a way of a solution to the WLH problem, but if I had been aware of the March discussion, I would have voiced my concerns as a member of the loose-knit redirect community. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- : IMHO RISM (organisation) is as meaningless as RISM (identifier). Répertoire International des Sources Musicales ID, on the other hand, might work. Compare:
- :# RISM
- :# RISM
- :# RISM
- : IMHO #3 is by far the most helpful for someone who never saw the abbreviation (the difference is in what happens when one hovers a pointing device over these links). The first two suggest some (unneeded) disambiguation, while not clarifying anything without clicking the link. The third gives an inkling of what this is about without clicking through to another page. The first two, which are misleading, or at least fake disambiguations, should never exist. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- : Alternatively, Répertoire International des Sources Musicales – International Inventory of Musical Sources might also work for the redirect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- ::Unnecessary disambiguation is just that—unnecessary, but hardly "meaningless". {{t|R from unnecessary disambiguation}} exists for this purpose. If :RISM were ever repurposed, redirects via RISM (organisation) would not need updating (except, of course, if there were competing uses which were also organizations). --BDD (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
::: Francis, if you read up the previous discussions you will see that a scheme like #3 was considered as well (actually, it was one of my suggestions, although not the preferred one). But other schemes were found better for various reasons (including that a scheme like #3, while working fine for some cases, could lead to awkward constructions in the general case and that it isn't obvious which parts of the name represent the original name, and which were added for disambiguation purposes).
::: Regarding your tooltip remark, a solution to display the expanded form of the name was demonstrated as well, but in the end it was decided not to roll it out at this time (could still happen at a later stage). However, this is not an argument against this redirect, because it could be implemented for this redirect as well.
::: --Matthiaspaul (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
:: BDD, "RISM (organization)" could be a good choice for a redirect to distinguish incoming links from a meaning as organization from a meaning as a mere abbreviation, but it would not be a good choice for a meaning as identifier. Also, I think it is important to maintain consistency across the board, so, by the compromise established in the previous discussions, the naming scheme for these identifier redirects is "symbolic-name (identifier)", resulting in "RISM (identifier)" here. If, in the future, RISM would have to be repurposed for something different (for example a disambiguation page), and a new redirect would be need for RISM's meaning as symbolic name, a redirect like "RISM (symbolic name)" could be created for it. There would be no need to repurpose "RISM (identifier)" for it.
:: Actually, in the prior discussions we considered various naming schemes, short names, long names, various capitalization variants, and various disambiguation methods and names with and without parentheses. We settled on "(identifier)" because this is quite unobtrusive (Wikipedians are used to this scheme and almost "overlook" it). It naturally separates the actual name from the disambiguation part (instead of having to invent extended names where it remains unclear which parts represent the actual name and which were added for disambiguation purposes only). The "(identifier)" disambiguator is specific and meaningful enough to be mostly self-explanatory and unlikely to clash with other redirect names. At the same time the scheme is generic enough to work for all kinds of identifiers (regardless their name) without looking out of place.
:: --Matthiaspaul (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Still not impressed by the lack of broad consensus your proposals garnered. Here is a recent quote from a discussion (in which I didn't bother to get involved yet) where a similar proposal appears to be going under: "... there is no one-to-one relationship between [another Wikidata property] and Wikipedia articles, which is what the constraints of Wikidata suggest, but that's a problem there, not here." There's no consensus for any of this, thus, until if and when a consensus develops regarding RISM, the RISM (identifier) redirect should be deleted to prevent a continuation of {{lang|fr|fait accompli}}-like dynamics, where those engineering a {{lang|fr|fait accompli}}, which affects a large number of mainspace articles, never bothered to make a consensus among less than a handful of editors official by presenting it to the community on a broader scale *before implementing*. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Yeah, I'm sorry, I just can't endorse populating mainspace with such misleading redirects. The discussions linked here to establish that convention don't have much participation. Please use something that doesn't have negative side effects like this. I would even be fine with a cross-namespace redirect from template space, for example. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
