Talk:Ram

Ram (name)
I am finding that there are alot of names that are Ram. There is no page on this disamb page that tells me anything about it. Im just gonna make a new apge called Ram(name) and we can go from there, as i am working on fixing the disamb page.

Bearingbreaker92 14:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

helpme Being new, did not want to get too carried away without input from someone else, also is the use of the helpme take proper in the dicussion pages?
 * Don't worry, normally it should be used on your talk page but I don't think anyone will complain if you're asking a real question and not misusing the tool ;). For your question, be bold and go ahead! If anyone disagrees with you, he can discuss it on this talk page. If you need further help, please don't hesitate to post on my talk page or to put   followed by your question on this page. -- lucasbfr talk  16:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Difference between sections Ram or ram and RAM
Before I added to the confusion by editing the article too much, it appears that the two sections are "apples and oranges" Section one (Ram or ram) is broken out into fields of use. The title, when compared to sections 2 (RAM) would imply that it should only include the case types Ram and ram with all entries of the case RAM belonging in section two. But this does not appear to be the case as the following entry appears in section 1 but does not fit the current usage of section 2:
 * RAM (band), a mizik rasin band based in Port-au-Prince, Haiti

I have add the following entry copied from section 2 into the military section of section 1
 * RAM (acronym) - RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile, a short-range surface-to-air missile

Section 2 (RAM) changes style from section 1 (Ram or ram) in that it is not broken out into fields but only contains a list of abbreviations.

My recommendation would be to change the section headings to:

1) Ram, ram or RAM 2) RAM used as an abbreviation

Sorry for not being able to make this shorter. Dbiel 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Makes sense - sorry to have confused the issue when I edited the page the other day. I've changed the headers to:
 * Ram, ram, and RAM
 * RAM as an abbreviation
 * Cheers! PaladinWhite 21:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating the headers Dbiel 00:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of RAM (acronym)
I am still learning how to translate be bold into actual usage as in this case. If I were to be bold, I would revert the deletion made on 14:25, May 12, 2007 by PaladinWhite which was expained in the edit summary as (Undid revision 130335293 by Dbiel (talk) - The RIM-116 is already listed under the acronym section.) But this would seem to violate the rules regarding reverting, so I will expain here why I think it should be reverted back.

The two sections are almost like two separate articles. Section one lists pages by field of interest.

Section two is simply a list of abbreviations

As such I see no reason why they should not be listed both places.

Note: some abreviations have become so popular that for many they have actually replaced the phrase that they are abreviated. examples: Radar; 3M and many others.

Alternately if one insists that the link not be used twice, it might be possible to alter section 2 into the same field of use subsections used in section 1. Unless this is done, I feel that it is perfectly acceptable to have the link appear both places; 1 indicating the field it relates to and 2 indicating that it is in fact an abreviation.

Well on second thought I will be bold in this case and revert the deletion with a reference in the edit summary to see this discussion. Dbiel 00:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The only reason I didn't subdivide the second section is that most subdivisions would have only one entry. As it is written now, the entire second section is basically the In other: subdivision of the first section.


 * The entry should not appear twice on the page. As I see it, we have three options:
 * Leave the second (abbreviation) section as just an unordered list of entries. I think this is the best option. It doesn't prevent a user from finding what s/he needs, or make the process any slower.
 * Leave it as one large section, and simply add In other: at the top. This doesn't seem to make any sense if it's going to be the only subdivision.
 * Subdivide it, and place many entries in a category of their own. As I see it, this will make it harder on the user - when s/he visits the page, s/he will first have to ask, "What category would my entry be in?" before finding it.


 * Whatever we do, the duplicated entry needs to be removed. PaladinWhite 00:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have changed the heading of section one to get rid of the "apples and oranges" relationship and have deleted the duplicate entry.

I see you logic, for the time being, of not breaking up section two into sub sections. If it is further expanded, then it would be a good idea to make the two sections consistent in terms of format. Dbiel 00:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any comment on the "be bold" question I raised above? Still not sure which was the best way to go, revert your deletion and open a discussion on it (which is what I did this time) or simply open the discussion. I noticed that you decided to not revert again but rather simply stated the need to do so in the discussion.Dbiel 00:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As this is a question between the two of us, and does not relate directly to the article itself, I will reply on your talk page. PaladinWhite 02:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Subject Headings
Thanks to Stephan Leeds we have even a better title for section one "Ram, ram, or RAM as a non-acronymic word"Dbiel 14:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A couple things:
 * WP:Manual of Style reads, "In a heading, capitalize only the first letter of the first word and the first letter of any proper nouns, and leave all of the other letters in lowercase," and, "Avoid putting links in headings." Thus, I am going to remove the link and lowercase all words but the first in the section headers.
 * I think the second heading, ... as an acronym, already implies that the first section is ... NOT as an acronym; I believe it is redundant (and counterproductive, given the relative "bareness" of your typical disambiguation page). I won't consider changing this one, however, until I hear back from someone else.


 * This is going to be a great page when we're finished putting it through the grinder! PaladinWhite 05:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit: We don't need to clarify, "... in some cases pronounced as an initialism, some as an acronym ..." The purpose of a disambiguation is simply to direct the reader to the page for which s/he's searching, not to instruct him or her on the usage of a term. Where it's appropriate to clarify between an initialism and an acronym, each individual article should do so. I'm going to remove this line. PaladinWhite 05:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM)
Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM) see http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/Aaas/RAM.pdf.

RAM
Very nobile strong willed animals! Animals not just rams but all of them should be treated respectfully. Animal Lover 101 --74.130.36.9 (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.36.9 (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to take a stand for animals! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.36.9 (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In non-native English speaking country, the main meaning of ram can be Random-access memory.

In Thailand too, when we say ram, it usually mean Random-access memory

--49.49.188.50 (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sports teams
The sports teams are Rams, not Ram, therefore they are duplicating what is at Rams. I propose that we move all the sports teams to Rams (removing any duplicates), and add Rams here as a See also. --Jameboy (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Separate RAM (disambiguation) page
Hi, I am planning to move the uses of the acronym RAM to a separate location (it's like this on a number of other wikis, e.g. RAM vs. Ram). Any objections? &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , no one has disagreed in almost a year with your proposed split. I am going to take the tag off the section, if you want to split it, go for it.  -- GB fan 11:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah, not needed really. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)