Talk:RFC 3066
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Language Tags (from Stellertony's talk page)
Regarding your edit of the redirect I made, the double redirect was actually intentional. I was planning on making an article at RFC 3066 about that standard and language tags as I had made an internal link to RFC 3066. I'm very new round here so perhaps you could help me a couple of things:
- Should the article be at RFC 3066? Maybe Tags for the Identification of Languages or language tags (which I redirect there) would be more appropriate? I prefer the less elegant RFC 3066 as it is less ambiguous: the other two could be referring to a different standard for tags to represent languages (or even to tags in language or tags that markup language). Maybe it should even be at BCP 47 in the interests of longevity?
- Do you have any idea why the "RFC n" articles (even for common standards) all redirect to Request for Comments, as opposed to to more appropriate articles for that standard (e.g.: HTTP).
- Also, out of interest, do you have any idea why a redirect to a redirect doesn't work? There are instances that I can think of were you would want to do this and (unlike in my case) want it to actually redirect to the final destination (e.g.: if bar is a synonym for baz and foo is nearly a synonym for bar, you might want baz to redirect to bar which redirects to foo). I can conceive why it might not want to redirect lots of times, but the system could get round this be normally working out the final destination and going straight there.
[edit] Language Tags (from Joeblakesley's talk page}
[edit] Double Redirects
Redirects to other redirects are generally discouraged, as it is messy and takes both more work for the server as well as more time for the reader, because Wikipedia has to go through two pages instead of one before it reaches its final destination. Related terms can be referenced in the article itself.
Also, double redirects don't always process through completely, leaving someone at a redirect rather than the final article.
[edit] RFC 3066, in particular
I don't see that giving this its own article is really justified, as there is a link to the actual RFC at Request for Comments. If one were so inclined, I suppose they could add a short description on that page.
I don't see that link there, and I was confused when looking for information, so now I'm going to change the redirect to language code, I hope that isn't too terrible. 140.247.236.6 00:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)danl
As a side note, please remember to always sign comments with ~~~~. Thanks!
Stellertony the Bookcrosser 05:30, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Further Discussion
This includes "Responses to your Response on User talk:Joeblakesley" (from Stellertony's talk page) and additions. (Thanks for moving everything here.) -Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley 16:48, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
[edit] Double redirects
I understand the logic here. I was just suggesting that in some very special circumstances, this ability in Wikipedia would actually be useful; probably, this hasn't been done because any usefulness is probably far outweighed by the fact that double redirects would be created all the time where it were clearly not necessary. Maybe both this and the problem of people redirecting to redirects generally could be solved by setting up the system so that if one tried to create a redirect (from foo) to a redirect (of bar to baz) a warning would appear at the top of the edit page (when previewing or trying to save it) that would say:
You are trying to redirect foo to bar, but bar is also a redirect to baz. You would normally want to redirect foo directly to baz instead.
- If it is appropriate to redirect foo to baz; edit the foo article to do this [links to the edit page of foo with edit already made in text box]. This is highly recommmended.
- If you are sure you want to redirect the foo article to the redirect page, bar, you may save this edit to foo.
- You might also decide not to make the redirect after all. You could, for instance make an article at foo that has a link to baz in it.
-Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley 16:48, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
[edit] RFC 3066, in particular
-Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley 16:48, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
[edit] P.S.
Is it normal to respond to comments on one's talk page on the commenter's? This seperates out the two sides of the dialog. Maybe it would have been better if I had started this discussion on Talk:RFC 3066 and directed you there in my comment here.
Also,I will remember my sig this time. Doh!
-Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley 16:48, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
