Talk:Alex (1992 film)

The WP:RCAT
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)
 * 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 ≠ wiser 13:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Sure. I agree the purpose for the various categorizations is often unclear. older ≠ wiser 17:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 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)
 * 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 Redirect arrow without text.svgll (rapper).  "Other dab"-types may also apply to non-parenthetical dabs.  I just did one today at Redirect arrow without text.svgr (typography) ("character" as a "natural disambiguator").  Good fortune to both of you!   Paine   u/ c  18:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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, 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 ≠ wiser 19:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * If the redirect's disambiguation is incomplete, use R from incomplete disambiguation
 * If the redirect's disambiguation is incorrect, use R from incorrect disambiguation
 * If any part of the redirect's disambiguation is not necessary, use R from unnecessary disambiguation
 * If none of the above apply, then use R from alternative disambiguation
 * Also, for most intents and purposes these are always   Paine   u/ c  22:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 ≠ wiser 15:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The examples I placed on the template and /doc pages yesterday day are:
 * Redirect arrow without text.svger
 * Redirect arrow without text.svgese Bobtail (an unnecessary natural disambiguation)
 * Redirect arrow without text.svgThe Fool (1990 film)
 * 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.   Paine   u/ c  12:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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 ≠ wiser 14:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think I've found part of where I was getting my initial understanding of this Rcat from -- under WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT there is this statement: While this doesn't strictly exclude the use cases you describe, it seems to me to imply a more limited use. older ≠ wiser 14:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.   Paine   u/ c  18:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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 ≠ wiser 19:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.   Paine   u/ c  22:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)