Disambiguation

This disambiguation page 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

What does RAH mean in this context? --DocumentN (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bkonrad, the IP was right here: RAH can refer to any of the hospitals named Royal Alexandra Hospital, and not just the one in Canada. The removal of the entries for the other hospitals with the name cuts off readers' access to those articles: readers will likely assume that we don't have articles about them. – Uanfala (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At present only one of the hospital articles supports that usage. If you care enough about the issue, you can update the articles. And in that the articles which satisfy WP:DABMENTION and WP:DABACRO should be linked directly from this page rather than indirectly through another disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 22:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DABMENTION is about topics coveted within another article, it's not about alternative names of the same article. WP:DABACRO and WP:DABABBREV are relevant, but only in theory – these guidelines were developed for people and initialisms, where it's relatively uncommon for people to be referred to by their initials, so there is a need for that usage to be established before inclusion on a dab page. No such need exists here – institution names are commonly abbreviated, and – as already pointed out – the fact that RAH is widely used for a number of hospitals with the name is trivially verifiable with a web search. – Uanfala (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:DABACRO was most definitely not developed specifically for people. It is a basic principle for disambiguation that dab pages do not introduce details that are not supported in linked articles. older ≠ wiser 13:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no need for such details to be explicitly supported if they're as obvious as here. There's nothing in the style guidelines that articles should include abbreviations, and very often articles won't include them if they're transparent. If you believe in the need for inclusion of such mentions in the linked articles, you're welcome to edit the articles concerned. – Uanfala (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DABACRO is pretty clear and it's been discussed quite a bit in the past. I suggest you need to establish whether consensus has changed on that guideline. older ≠ wiser 14:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed to see you continue edit-warring here. Again, I wish you could follow the advice at WP:DABACRO and add the abbreviation to the articles instead of removing them from here. Regardless, I believe there's a fundamental problem with the current guideline as it states a narrowly applicable heuristic in very general terms that do indeed seem to encourage editing like yours. I've been planning on starting a broader consultation that will lead to an eventual update to the guidelines. Until then, I'm coming to think it will be helpful to gauge the opinions of the community at large – that's probably easier done for a simple question like the one here than in the context of an involved re-appraisal of existing guidelines. To that end, I'm starting an RfC. – Uanfala (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry to see you are disappointed that guidelines should be applied consistently. As you've done the research and have some opinion in the matter -- you also are quite capable of editing articles to add the acronym. older ≠ wiser 14:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not editing the articles because I don't think it's necessary for them to list obvious acronyms and in my view this shouldn't be a precondition for including them here. – Uanfala (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the several hospitals known as Royal Alexandra Hospital should be listed in the disambiguation page RAH: should there only be an entry for Royal Alexandra Hospital (Edmonton), or is it acceptable to also include, for example, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley? – Uanfala (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be acceptable to instead just link to the hospital disambig in the see also section and not list any specific hospitals? Alternatively, a hatnote linking to the hospital disambig? Remagoxer (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's possible (and in my opinion, also preferable) to link straight to the dab Royal Alexandra Hospital (like here) and not bother listing individual ones. But the link should be in the main body of the dab (because the hospitals are referred to as "RAH"), and not in a hatnote or the "See also" (which are normally for terms that are similar to, or likely to be confused with "RAH"). – Uanfala (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remagoxer placing it in see also would be a possibility. At present there is no basis for including it in the main section. The disambiguation page makes no assertion that the entries are known as "RAH" and at present only one of the articles makes any mention of the usage. Even if the hospital dab were included in see also, I would expect the sole current entry that does attest to being known by the initialism to remain in the main listing. older ≠ wiser 16:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether each individual article will have a mention of the acronym is a style choice, and I see no reason to be turning that style choice into the basis for listing on the dab page. "RAH" is commonly used for at least several of the hospitals – that's easily verifiable in a web search [1] (incidentally, there seem to be a lot more uses of the acronym for the Paisley hospital, which you've removed the dab page, than for the Edmonton one, which you've kept). – Uanfala (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it is a requirement of WP:DABACRO. Without that requirement there is nothing to stop people from adding everything and anything to disambiguation pages with a particular set of initials, more or less because they know it is the WP:TRUTH. We expect the linked articles to provide some degree of attestation that the entity is known by that initialism. The actual applicability and verifiability of the usage is up to the editors of the linked articles, who presumably have some familiarity with the subject. older ≠ wiser 17:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I definitely agree with this requirement, but only if the acronym is unusual and there's judgement involved on whether it's noteworthy (e.g. "Bojo" for Boris Johnson or Amlo for the current president of Mexico). I'm struggling to see a similar justification in the case at hand – It's immediately obvious that "Royal Alexandra Hospital" is likely to be abbreviated as "RAH", and all it takes is a trivial web search to verify if the acronym is in common use for any given hospital with the name. – Uanfala (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • whether something is obvious or not is rather subjective. There are several editors (or perhaps sockpuppets) who routinely add every possible initialism to a disambiguation pages. Are they obvious? It's really not up to the disambiguation page to determine. Just as it is not up to the disambiguation page to determine whether something is notable. Either there is coverage in Wikipedia (maximally, a standalone article or minimally a mention within some other article) or there is not. If there is not, it is not included on a disambiguation page. The same sort of principle applies to whether an initialism is or is not "obvious". older ≠ wiser 19:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I can see the superficial appeal of the argument "All or most of the hospitals will be known as RAH so let's include the disambiguation page", but it's a slippery slope from there to the "These are the initials of this organisation / entity, so it should be listed on the dab page for that set of initials regardless of whether there's any evidence that the abbreviation is used.". Stick to our policies: if the abbreviation is mentioned in the article on the topic, then make a redirect or dab page entry from it. If not, then not. So if RAH is sourceably used as the abbreviation for any particular hospital, just add that to the article on the hospital, with a source in case anyone queries it after this acrimonious discussion, and then add the entry for the hospital to the dab page. (Brief pause there to check ... yes, one of my local hospitals is indeed listed at RLI, the other not at present at WGH ... I'll check for sources for that abbreviation ... yes, sourced, added to article, ref updated (the old link was dead anyway), hospital added to dab page, all done and dusted.) PamD 09:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather than the mention of an abbreviation in an article being "a style choice", I suggest that if the abbreviation is in general use such that seeing it in the article will be helpful for the reader it should be included in the lead of the article, in bold, and a redirect, hatnote, or dab page entry created as for any other alternative name. PamD 09:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• To save everyone a lot of time I've now added the abbreviation, sourced, to the Paisley and Rhyl hospitals; no evidence (by Googling) that RAH is used for the two RAHC hospitals (one sketchy relevant hit for "rah brighton" but doesn't look convincing, while "rahc brighton" is prolific.) I've added these two to the dab page. Let's just play it by the rules, and spend time improving articles rather than arguing. PamD 10:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Include a entry "Royal Alexandra Hospital (disambiguation), the name of several hospitals" in the body of the disambiguation page, since it is highly likely that all hospitals with that name are known as RAH and not just those with a mention in the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]