Talk:Write-only memory

Merge or redirect to Write-only

It appears that Write-only currently includes all the links that are here. I don't believe a formal merge is necessary, just a quick redirect. Any comments/objections? (I will take care of any double-redirect fixing by myself.)

What would the applicable redirect category be? My understanding is that without a formal merge, {{r from merge}} does not apply, and we'd fall back on {{r from ambiguous page}}. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any point in redirecting to another dab page. Anyone searching for "write-only memory" is not going to be looking for any of those other things. If articles are linking here they need disambiguating and redirecting to another dab means they need even more disambiguating. I think it is fine as it is, but since there are only two entries, it could be redirected to one of them and a hatnote used to find the other. To do that, of course, one would have to make a decision on which one has the main meaning, and I don't think either article can unarguably lay claim to that. Spinning Spark 07:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To address "any point in redirecting to another dab page," I thought of this as functionally an incomplete disambiguation, except that it doesn't have a parenthetical disambiguator and hence doesn't technically qualify for that Rcat. That's why I suggested {{r from ambiguous page}}; I did glance at the contents of that category and find some of them analogous.

As for the possibility of a primary topic, I'm aware that you moved what was originally at this title to Write-only memory (joke), but my feeling is that the other meaning is more primary.

Redirect or not, would it help to reorganize Write-only to be more similar to this page? Would doing so count as a merge, or at least as preparation for one? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is fine as it is. What is the problem you are trying to address? If there isn't one it is a waste of effort to change anything and you risk actually creating a problem. Spinning Spark 08:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the duplication of links between this page and Write-only. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that a problem? It's both harmless and useful. Strictly speaking, the links should not be on Write-only per WP:PTM because they are partial matches, but in this case it seems plausible to me that someone might search on "write-only" when they wanted "write-only memory". Spinning Spark 18:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that the duplicate links on Write-only could be removed and replaced with a new section "See also Write-only memory" (NB: following WP:INTDABLINK here)? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you really need to go to that complicaton, but see the last paragraph of WP:DABNAME. You would need to link through a redirect rather than directly. Spinning Spark 09:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]