Template talk:R from incorrect disambiguation

Template:R from incorrect disambiguation is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit extended-protected}} to notify an administrator, template editor or extended-confirmed editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.

Redirect

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Redirect, a collaborative effort to improve the standard of redirects and their categorization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Note: This banner should be placed on the talk pages of project, template and category pages that exist and operate to maintain redirects.
This banner is not designed to be placed on the talk pages of most redirects and almost never on the talk pages of mainspace redirects. For more information see the template documentation.RedirectWikipedia:WikiProject RedirectTemplate:WikiProject Redirectredirect pages

Disambiguation

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Merge?

Why is this template separate from {{r from other disambiguation}}, when both categorize as unprintworthy anyway? What specificially makes a disambiguation bad enough to be "incorrect"? Or are all differences in disambiguation considered equally severe violations of style (in which case this template should be merged)? Consider that {{r from incorrect capitalization}} is a redirect to {{r from other capitalisation}}. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 08:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my question, "What specificially makes a disambiguation bad enough to be 'incorrect'?"

If a disambiguator is misspelled, {{r from misspelling}} is obviously appropriate. What other rcat is needed — must it be "incorrect disambiguation," or is "other disambiguation" acceptable?

There are some types of disambiguation differences~~, such as unnecessary precision,~~ that are generally agreed not to be "incorrect." Is there some level of factual error (intermediate between misspellings and precision) that is considered "incorrect"? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I had posted the above, I had forgotten to think about {{r from incomplete disambiguation}}. To be clear, I am not advising that {{r from incomplete disambiguation}} be merged anywhere, as incompletely-disambiguated titles are more likely to result from legitimate merges/refactorings than from simple mistakes.

Also, I have struck part of my previous post, as upon further consideration I have realized that unnecessary precision is sometimes considered incorrect. I don't currently have a good example at hand of a "different but not incorrect" disambiguation. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the What links here page for {{R from other disambiguation}}:

The above redirects are examples of alternative disambiguations that are different but not incorrect.

Now, from the Wlh page for {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}

The above redirects are examples of incorrect disambiguations. Hope this helps! – Paine 07:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know about Special:WhatLinksHere, but my point was to seek an example that demonstrates a strong consensus about best practices, not merely any example of existing use. In my opinion, all the examples except "Syndicalist Party (1976)" leave the dividing line a bit fuzzy.

Which is why I am asking: Was it discussed elsewhere whether there is anything other than a blatant typo or factual error that can make a disambiguator "incorrect"? Are disambiguation differences resulting from page moves (as opposed to newly-created redirects) any more or less likely to be considered "incorrect"? (I noticed that all of your examples are also R from move.)

Or could it be argued that all differences in disambiguation are bad enough to be incorrect, which is the case that would justify a merge? As I mentioned above, why do we distinguish between "other" and "incorrect" disambiguations but not between "other" and "incorrect" capitalizations? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to think about this some more. I think the first three examples above show that not all different dabs are wrong dabs. And some dabs are sure to overlap, which often makes rcatting subjective. With caps, there seems to have been a time when the tendency was to name articles like book chapters with all words beginning in upper case. So we find many redirects like that tagged as "other capitalization". Apparently, it was decided before my time that as far as redirect maintenance is concerned, there was no longer a need to differentiate between other caps and incorrect caps. There was probably some overlapping there, as well. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 00:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use on talk pages

If the article page (i.e. the redirect) is tagged with this template, then the talk page need not (or should not) also be tagged. Is this the accepted best practice?n Senator2029 【talk】 15:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]