Talk:RTP

Talk
→ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.148.223.131 (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Readers
Overly trimmed: User:Pol098 this removed many entries and overly shortened descriptions making them ambiguous. Many of these are known in sources by their initialism. "articles that don't include the initials (WP:DABABBREV). Trim summaries to disambiguate only (WP:DABNOT) " ... please see WP:DABABBREV where "If an abbreviation is verifiable, but not mentioned in the target article, consider adding it to the target article...". (now done) "England and Wales" cannot be trimmed to "England", and we need more prose to dab the different network protocols, arguably also including the See also item. Have you trimmed other dabs like this? Regards Widefox ; talk 12:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a disambiguation page is to, er, disambiguate, not to summarise the article or to add new material not in the article; hence WP:DABABBREV, WP:DABNOT and related guidelines. If "Many of these are known in sources by their initialism" it is up to the article to state that, not for the disambiguation page to add this information—once it is in the article, it becomes relevant to disambiguate. I may be overzealous in trimming (e.g., "and Wales" isn't objectionable, though I'd argue that nobody is going to fail to find the article from its initials because those words were omitted). "See also RTMP" quite clearly doesn't belong here - or should we add "RTMA", "RTMB", "RTMC" ... ?


 * "Have you trimmed other dabs like this?" Hundreds. There have been only a few objections—in some cases my changes have been reverted and other editors have stepped in and reinstated them. I started doing this after trying to find some articles and having to wade through lots of irrelevant links, and verbose, often multi-line, summaries, sometimes almost mini-articles; a favourite was to add any person or thing that happened to have those initials, though not normally known by them, like ABdPJ. A slimmed-down minimal list is much easier and faster to use, without loss of functionality (beyond omitting summaries). Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Pol098 "nobody is going to fail to find the article from its initials because those words were omitted" ? Your edit inserted a factual error. If the jurisdiction is worth including it should be correct, yes? You don't seriously consider factual errors as being meer "words"?
 * I was not inviting you to reason why you consider your insertion of factual errors into Wikipedia is a good thing, but you to reflect that your edit goes against the consensus above of MOSDAB that you quote.. I repeat, "If an abbreviation is verifiable, but not mentioned in the target article, consider adding it to the target article..." . If I see you remove entries again without taking that consensus into account, I will consider this willful disruptive editing, making it harder for readers to navigate to articles. I have put a note into the dab project to alert that hundreds of dabs may need checking. Please stop that now. Widefox ; talk 11:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * England and Wales as a legal jurisdiction is a term of art, though it was misleadingly called "England" until 1967. Doing a proper job with the initials requires some research.  For example, Rak Thailand Party doesn't seem to be referred to as RTP.  The only source I can find mentioning both terms uses the letters to mean the Royal Thai Police.  On the other hand, RacingThePlanet does merit the initialism, which Widefox has kindly added.  Sadly it's not as simple as removing all entries which don't contain the letters; we should only remove those entries which shouldn't contain them, and ideally add them where missing. Certes (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I concur that I couldn't find "RTP" in use for the Rak Thailand Party – which is unusual, as it's so common for abbreviations of political parties to be used, complicated by the abundance of "RTP" for Royal Thai Police.
 * Just to be explicit, trimming like this removes readers ability to easily disambiguate the three network protocols, didn't satisfy WP:DABRED requirement of having the redlink used in the bluelinked article and incorrectly used the initialism rather than the article title Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol all per MOSDAB:


 * Real-time Transport Protocol, a packet format for delivering audio and video over IP networks
 * Reliable Transport Protocol, a component of the routing protocol EIGRP
 * Rendezvous and Termination Protocol, a protocol in the PARC Universal Packet internetwork protocol suite
 * Real-time Transport Protocol, in networking
 * Reliable Transport Protocol, part of EIGRP
 * Rendezvous and Termination Protocol, part of the PARC internetwork protocol suite

which I've now fixed and restored to: ===Computing=== Widefox ; talk 13:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Real-time Transport Protocol, for delivering audio and video over IP networks
 * Reliable Transport Protocol, a Cisco protocol used by Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol
 * Rendezvous and Termination Protocol, part of the PARC internetwork protocol suite
 * As for "See also RTMP" removed, restored is more borderline but we have 5 network protocols with similar names, per my comment protocols that are somewhat ambiguous (Real-Time Messaging Protocol, Routing Table Maintenance Protocol) which the interdab links in both dabs cover.  Widefox ; talk 13:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Article fits disambiguation purpose much better now, with edits to the disambiguation and linked pages. There's no justification fo RTMP for disambiguation. If somebody finds an unexplained "RTP" when reading something, how will a link to "RTMP" help to disambiguate.Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Pol098 The justification is both inline and here (which is, obviously, 5 network protocol topics with similar initialisms, and sometimes similar names)! The interdab links have not be contested in 6 years . Please stop edit warring over it, and seek consensus here. "why not RTOP, RTBP, ... RTMC, ...?" is a straw man. The article names could also have confused hatnotes. This isn't a precedent for interdab links which is your second argument.  Widefox ; talk 13:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

User:PamD re I'm following MOS:US While, in principle, either US or U.S. may be used (with internal consistency) to abbreviate "United States" in any given article.. so I always shorten to US and UK. I believe the majority of our readers are now on mobile devices, so every little helps when not ambiguous, in which respect the shortest, correct, unambiguous text is good. I agree with adding the country to the Regional Transportation Plan entry, it improves the older description transportation plans conducted by Metropolitan Areas that was removed by Pol098. I would just use "US". Widefox ; talk 20:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)