Talk:Ranger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Removed

Removed by someone else (not me) as irrelvant:

Removed the second instance of the character class - appeared both in Fiction and Other Euchrid 05:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical

Extracted From ‘The Popular Encyclopedia or Conversation Lexicon’ Blackie & Son c 1890 (Names & spellings as found)

RANGER, formerly a sworn officer of the English royal forests and parks, whose principal duty it was to see and inquire respecting trespassers in his baili­wicks, and present them at the next court holden for the forest; but now merely an officer of state.

[edit] wikilinks in dab of Black Rock Rangers

There is some disagreement about whether or not there should be a wikilink to Burning Man in the disambiguation link for Black Rock Rangers. Although I realize that excessive wikilinks should be discouraged, I believe that many viewers of this page may not know what Burning Man is in the first place, thus would rather go to that link first before they visit Black Rock Rangers. In this case I do not believe this wikilink to be excessive. However, since User:Rogerd disagrees I would rather discuss it here than revert again. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 06:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages live by a different set of guidelines than do other pages. The point is: Is it possible that someone is entering Ranger when they really mean Black Rock Rangers? Yes, absolutely. Is it possible that someone is entering Ranger when they really mean Burning Man? No, I think not. The purpose of disambiguation pages is to give an editor a choice as to what articles an ambiguous word or phrase may mean. It is ok to have a small amount of info there, but not internal links about articles that are not disambiguation or any external links. Also, many editors use navigation pop ups, which depend on disambiguation pages to be formatted correctly. The purpose of explaining what "Black Rock Rangers" is is served by the mention of "Burning Man", without linking it. --rogerd 06:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Roger, I appreciate your detailed explanation of why you feel the wikilink is inappropriate. I think that you have explained it fairly clearly, and I am willing to cede consensus to you on this issue in lieu of other comments. Thanks! Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 06:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)