Talk:DRM

Dynamic Resource Mangament - A company that my Mommy is the President of.

I'm sure that this should be deleted.

?

How common are the different uses of this acronym? I ask because I personally feel digital rights management is the primary use and so this should redirect there, with a link to this disambiguation page. Am I right or wrong in this judgement? Discuss.

I think a redirect to the digital restrictions makes sense. Generic69 04:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. In the distributed computing space, DRM is a well-accepted term for Distributed Resource Manager and probably even predates Digitial Rights Management. Search google for "LSF DRM" for examples of usage in that context. Bovineone 18:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Digital Restrictions Management

I deleted the remark about Digital Rights Management. While I agree it's an appropriate name for the technology it's not what the acronym means, and I don't think you can say it's a common description. Propaganda is not in the scope of Wikipedia. Let people read the article and decide for themselves. /Fabjan 10:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added it with different wording. 'Digital Restrictions Management' is a reactionary phrase, of course, but it is a noteworthy term and any complete encyclopedia should make mention of it. There is some discussion going on in Talk:Digital Rights Management that points to the need to define both variations of the term. -/- Warren 17:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That belongs in the article itself. Anyone familiar with the more derogatory version will be familiar with its true meaning. I've removed the reference for now. Timbatron 06:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is what the acronym means. There's no supreme authority that mandates what each acronym should be expanded to; there's valid usage of the Digital Restriction Management expression, and it's even the wording that adheres most closely to reality. Don't confuse it with propaganda! If you like restrictions or not, that's all up to you. Playing word games to pretend a restriction is something else is the actual propaganda. Besides, the use of alternate expansions for acronyms is already well stablished (think of backronyms). I think both should be mentioned. 62.57.142.73 16:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see this discussion: Talk:Digital Rights Management#NPOV_Digital_Restrictions_Management.2FDigital_Rights_Management and pretty much the rest of the talkpage (sigh). Shinobu 01:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have again removed the "restrictions" comment, as someone in the Digital Rights Management talk page said, MS can stand for MicroSh4£t but we wouldn't write that as it is just a derogatery comment.

I'm going to re-add it, because it is sourced at the Free Software Foundation (which is where I found the source): http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/drm.html. It's also discussed on the page Digital Rights Management. If you still want to remove it now that you know it's sourced, feel free to talk or revert or whatever. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm reremoving it. Motivation: it is already mentioned in the Digital Rights Management where it is more suitable but still not really fitting. The point is even though we dislike this technology we shouldn't try to push our opinions on other people, wikipedia should be seen as a neutral point to get information from. Adding this line is about as much NPOV as if we in the description of meat said: "Meat, also called by its critics for Murder". Or (using someone elses analogy here) if the democratic party suddenly decided to call George Bush for Gorgy Bananas and adding it to his page as: "George W. Bush, also known by critics as Gorgy Bananas" etc. etc. The Digital Restrictions Management deserves a small mention in the Digital Rights Management article, but not in this disambiguation page. I don't want to start an edit war here. So please continue this discussion if you believe it should stay. Lyml 08:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, even though I went through the trouble to find a source, I'm changing my mind. I agree with you. It doesn't belong here. I'll go as far as to say it probably doesn't belong in the summary of Digital Rights Management either. It probably belongs buried somewhere in a subsection of Digital Rights Management. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this impressed me. Because of your commentary I read the preceding comment with extra caution. But I didn't convince me. Meat is meat ─ formally known as mete, also known as flesh. There are no other synonyms I'm aware of. George Walker Bush is the name his parents gave him. DRM is different. There is no authority which has the power to define what it refers to. Someone who attended a protest against DRM and has never heard before of it could want to look up the term in Wikipedia. He will know DRM only as an abbreviation for “Digital Restrictions Management”. Wikipedia should serve these users. Including this term isn't POV-pushing because it is a frequently-used term. Otherwise it would be POV-pushing to have an article about “Digital Rights Management” at all. --mms 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As someone else has reverted the article I'm rereremoving it. The prefered expansion of people who are opposing the concept of digital rights management is not notable enough to be mentioned on the disambiguation page and especially since so few people are aware of the term (Digital Restrictions Management) who are not aware of the original term Digital Rights Management. Please continue the discussion in here instead of reverting it without talking it through. Lyml 18:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, reverting

It's "Digital Rights Managment". Just because one group has a nickname for it doesn't mean it's an official acronym. The "MicroShaft" example is a perfect one. I am removing "Digital Restrictions Management" from the disambig page. Especially considering it does nothing more than a redirect. Take the protests to where they belong, not here. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 18:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's actually important that it remain on the page in some form, since some subset of readers will be looking for it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of entries

Well, there has been some disagreement between how entries on this list should be ordered; apparently Warren and Ripe would prefer an alphabetical order, however, WP:MOSDAB states "In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below."

Even though the MoS rules may be ignored in some cases, I cannot see how this disambiguation page is in any way exceptional.

Warren's edit comment said: "don't conflate the importance of digital rights management just because you're a computing enthusiast."
However, I previously only touched the "Information technology" section where all the meanings are related to computing, and I contend that Digital Rights Management is the most important meaning in this field. I would have no problems with refactoring the sections, but that doesn't change the importance of Digital Rights Management over other computing-related entries. -- intgr 15:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Dream

We might need to link this page to Dream in some fashion. 142.59.172.187 20:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and be bold. If you do something wrong, people will correct you. If you want to read more about disambiguation pages, see WP:MOSDAB -- intgr ^#%@! 21:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Digital restrictions management"

This issue seems to have been settled back in 2008; there was stability on this page for six years until an editor again added it last month. In such cases, the page needs to stay at the long-standing version while discussion takes place. There is currently no consensus to include the backronym "digital restrictions management" (one user even suggested MfD'ing the redirect). Joefromrandb (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@JHunterJ and Joefromrandb: You have both violated the three-revert rule, please stop edit warring now. -- intgr [talk] 17:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• 1.)neither of us has violated the three-revert rule
• 2.)as an administrator, JHunter is exempt from the three-revert rule anyway
• 3.)do you actually have anything to add to the discussion or are you just here to provoke people? Joefromrandb (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  Quick note, as an admin, I'm not exempt from 3RR. But as you noted, it hasn't been violated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Digital rights management redirect

Since this has been going back and forth, I wanted to elaborate on my edit summary. WP:DABPIPE says that "Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages." It then lists a couple of exceptions here, none of which apply to this redirect. The redirect doesn't need to be taken to RfD because the redirect doesn't belong on this disambiguation page in the first place, per established Wikipedia consensus. Short of a very good reason and consensus that the redirect does belong in place of the actual article's wikilink, I see no good reason to break from established formatting and create an inconsistency within a disambiguation page, especially when that redirect just links to that same article anyways; the reader still finds the relevant information with the added benefit that the reader is more clear about what they are clicking on and what information they will find. - Aoidh (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Linking to the redirect that matches the ambiguous title is one of the exceptions listed there, and does apply here. The redirect does belong on this disambiguation page in the first place, per established Wikipedia consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that listed as an exception, actually. Where are you seeing this? - Aoidh (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "Digital restrictions management" matches "DRM". "Defective by Design" doesn't. I would definitely link the former term, because that makes the list formatting consistent and straightforward for readers. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Following the MoS creates consistency, and linking to the actual article instead of the redirect is per the MoS, and doesn't create the impression that they're clicking on something else: the direct link is about as straightforward as it can get. Where do you see this suggestion that matching the acronym should be preferred? - Aoidh (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:DABMENTION covers this as well. "Digital restrictions management" does not have an article, but is mentioned in the Defective by Design article. It is hardly "straightforward for readers" to link to an article that doesn't exist. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

And redirects are used for mentions as well, when the redirects exist. This is explicitly covered in the redirect exceptions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes you said that, but didn't point out where when I asked above. I even went back and read the entire page but didn't see what you're referring to. It only lists a very few exceptions, and what you're suggesting most certainly isn't listed as an exception. If it is there it doesn't seem to be that explicit; where is it exactly? - Aoidh (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right, it's not as explicit as I thought. It just seems that way after being in the discussions there. But we prefer the spelled-out acronyms, prefer the redirects that match to description links that don't, and have no reason not use the redirect here, since it's not hiding anything. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that is that Wikipedia consensus, spelled out at the MoS, is saying otherwise. With few exceptions, redirects are unnecessary because they mislead the reader in what they're clicking on. This is most certainly not one of the exceptions. It gives the impression that the term is an article, and in that is most certainly is hiding something. Since the actual redirect target is already linked there is no reason to link the redirect. The manual of style is pretty clear on this, and there's nothing in the MoS that I could find that says the spelled-out acronyms should be given preference in terms of what is wikilinked. So it seems like there are plenty of reasons not to link the redirect, as opposed to a personal preference to use the acronym. The issue is that the MoS supersedes that, because the MoS is spelled out that way for a reason (misleading the reader) and is backed by community consensus. Preferring spelled-out acronyms and ignoring the redirect issue brought up by the MoS doesn't seem to be covered anywhere that I could find. - Aoidh (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that what the guideline appears to be saying isn't the Wikipedia consensus, and the Wikipedia consensus on this point isn't spelled out at the MoS. Preferring the spelled-out acronym: "when the disambiguated term is an acronym, initialism or alphabetism, links should not use redirects to conceal the expanded version of that initialism". Linking to the redirect Digital restrictions management is not misleading. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

If consensus is different, you are more than welcome to start a discussion on that talk page and see if that's the case, and to change the MoS to reflect consensus. Until then, however, saying that "the Wikipedia consensus" is different than what the MoS is saying doesn't hold any water because that's precisely what the Manual of Style and other guidelines are: a reflection of consensus. What you quoted is also irrelevant to this entry, because (1) the wikilink used isn't a redirect, and (2) the expanded version of the initialism is spelled out clearly and unambiguously, so neither of those are an issue. Linking to the redirect is misleading, because it gives the impression that it's an article, and that's inappropriate for the reasons spelled out, by consensus, at the MoS. Short of getting a consensus to change the MoS, the MoS supports the current version, and specifically spells out that the redirect should not be used. Just to clarify, I'm not saying I don't believe that what you're saying could be a consensus, but until it is discussed at the appropriate place and the consensus is shown to change, the established consensus is all we can go by. I say this because many editors have said that a given guideline or policy doesn't reflect "the true" consensus, but when it's actually discussed it turns out to not be the case at all, and that the guideline or policy was indeed reflective of Wikipedia consensus on a given matter. - Aoidh (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume you mean like this. The spirit of what I quoted is relevant (and is apparently Joy [shallot]'s understanding of the consensus as well). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how using a redirect is in the spirit of "Links should not use redirects", which is what you quoted. I also don't see how "conceal the expanded version of that initialism" would apply since that's clearly not happening here by any means. The spirit of that quote is stated within the quote, there's nothing ambiguous there, and this edit very clearly has nothing to do with what you quoted. The redirect is just that, a redirect. It has no article, and it is misleading to link to it since it gives the impression that it's an article. There is absolutely zero benefit to doing that, and the spirit of what you quoted actually seems to support that further, since it's discussing misleading redirects and how they should not be used. What benefit would a reader gain by thinking that the redirect is an article? That is why the MoS is worded the way it is, and the current version is in line with the actual, written consensus, and the spirit of the MoS, since it isn't misleading in what a reader is clicking on. - Aoidh (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

And yet you have two members of the disambiguation project indicating the opposite opinion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You are not the first editor on Wikipedia to have an opinion which differs from a given consensus. Your opinion is contradicted by the Manual of Style in each way you have brought it up. You still haven't explained why the MoS should be ignored; why would the redirect serve a better purpose, and why should it be okay for the reader to be misled into thinking the redirect is an article? The redirect's target is already wikilinked, avoiding that issue entirely. - Aoidh (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

We disagree on my explanation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:DABREDIR says clearly:

Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when both:

1. the redirect target article contains the disambiguated term; and
2. redirect could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term which is already in the article's lead section.

This expansion of the acronym DRM matches these conditions to the letter, does it not? --Joy [shallot] (talk)

It does not. "Digital restrictions management" could not, by a long-shot, serve as an "alternate name" for "Defective by Design". Joefromrandb (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so you mean to restrict this to pure synonyms, as opposed to all redirects mentioned in the destination article lead sections. For me as a reader of disambiguation pages, that's a really technical distinction - the term is defined immediately following the redirect, so there's nothing unclear about the disambiguation target. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not a technical distinction, it's a completely different scope. The term is already linked to the actual article name, so there's no reason to purposefully create confusion by wikilinking the redirect, giving the false impression that Digital restrictions management is an article. That's what WP:DABREDIR tries to avoid with few exceptions, this not being one of them. - Aoidh (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

What is this "pure synonyms" nonsense? You alleged that it "meets these conditions to the letter", and it comes nowhere close to meeting the spirit or the letter. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you calm down, please? The letter of the rule indicates that it's meant for pure synonyms. This DRM meaning doesn't match that, you're right, but it's still pretty close to that. The spirit of the rule is indicated in the guideline lead: This is to make it clear to the reader which article is being suggested, so that the reader remains in control of the choice of article. This DRM disambiguation list entry makes it very clear to the reader which article is being suggested, because it spells out both the redirected unambiguous meaning (of what the user was looking for) as well as the actual destination article title, in the same line. The reader remains in control of the choice of article because they're told about where they're being linked to in no uncertain terms. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That's so far-fetched I don't see how you could reasonably believe it. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking through the talk page archives at the MoS talk page, it's pretty clear what the spirit of the rule is: redirects are misleading and, with a few exceptions, are to be avoided. They should know what they're going to land on when they click on a link. A disambiguation page should disambiguate, not create confusion and mislead in order to match a personal preference for aesthetic. "The reader remains in control of the choice of article because they're told about where they're being linked to in no uncertain terms" is only true when the wikilink matches the actual article; when redirects are used to suggest that the article's topic and scope are different, even if it's "pretty close" it still misleads and is anything but "clear". This is a disambiguation page, but a "ehh, close enough to what you thought you were clicking on" page. - Aoidh (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I just don't see this the way you do - not everything that fails to be identical is necessarily misleading. Likewise, one could easily make an argument that - why should we ever link "Defective by Design", whose acronym would be "DbD", from "DRM"? This would also be unnecessarily fastidious. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The answer to that hypothetical argument that "one could make" would be: "because that's exactly how WP:DABMENTION instructs us to handle it". Joefromrandb (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so while combing through the guideline verbiage, you actually found a more precise description of my argument, but you aren't willing to connect the dots to comprehend what I'm saying? Well, that's just lazy. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

LOL. I see you've descended to the "you're an asshat" stage of the pyramid. Nothing left at this point but Godwin's Law. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to just lob an insult at you - I wanted to tell you how your behavior comes off. Generally, your input has consisted mostly of snappish retorts, which is... unproductive. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Well there's no doubt that I'm both more blunt and less eloquent than Aoidh is, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a very straightforward issue. Guidelines are quite clear on how to handle this, and my "snappish retorts" are largely the product of my frustration at the ubiquity of circular reasoning I've seen here. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think one could "easily" make that argument, because it runs completely contrary to how disambiguation pages are handled. Look at any other disambiguation page named for an initialism, you will see plenty of entries that have wikilinks that do not directly match the letters of the initialism, because what that initialism can stand for is relevant to the linked article, not because the article's title matches the name of the disambiguation page. WP:AT means that articles can't always match any given name, which discounts the argument that "nothing in an initialism disambiugation page should be linked except things that match that initialism" entriely, as does WP:DAB and MOS:DAB. I'm assuming you're not actually making that argument, but trying to use a reductio ad absurdum. Disambiguation pages are meant to disambiguate; creating unnecessary confusion for the sake of personal preference for a specific aesthetic is contrary to the purpose of such a page, and the both letter and spirit of the MoS reflects this. If the article is already linked then moving it to a redirect, thereby making it seem as if the redirect has its own article, is both unnecessary and misleading. If I click on a wikilink on a disambiguation page, I don't want to be surprised that I'm a different page, especially when it can be easily avoided. - Aoidh (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but with regard to the adherence to the MoS I'm just going to have to point you at what Joe found above - another guideline that actually has the practical effect of "nothing in an initialism disambiguation page should be linked except things that match that initialism". As for your claims of being misled and astonished, I'm afraid I just don't see it. You in particular don't strike me as a reader who should be easily misled or astonished. (That's meant as a compliment, in fact.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

What was linked does not suggest, explicitly or implied, that "nothing in an initialism disambiguation page should be linked except things that match that initialism" (I'm assuming you're referring to MOS:DABACRO). If an initialism isn't used to refer to a subject, that subject probably shouldn't be mentioned in the disambiguation page at all. That's what that MOS:DABACRO is saying. Nowhere does it suggest that only initialisms should be wikilinked, and the specific supersedes the vague; that same MoS page already spells out in no uncertain terms when redirects should be used, so even if MOS:DABACRO could be seen as suggesting that only initialisms should be wikilinked when viewed out of context, when viewed in the context of the entire page it quickly becomes clear that this is not the case. The part of the MoS you're referring to says that the initialism should be mentioned in the article linked, not that the wikilink on the disambiguation page needs to match the disambiguation page, otherwise it would be listed as an exception to the "no redirects" part. If you feel that the current reading on the MoS is inaccurate in that regard and that it should be read as saying that only the initialisms should be wikilinked, you are welcome to discuss that on the MoS talk page to add that as an exception to the "no redirect" part, but looking at the talk page and the previous discussions it appears that the consensus is that redirects should not be used except for a few exceptions, initialism-matching is not one of them. - Aoidh (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, this is a definition of WP:wikilawyering if I've ever seen one. The Manual of Style is mostly inclusive and precise, but it's still just a guideline. The appeal to consensus is reasonable, but it doesn't really support your conclusion when we just have two people saying one thing, and two other people saying another - and it's now been over a week that this discussion has been linked from WT:MOSDAB. I clicked through three of the most recent discussions mentioned by Bkonrad, and I saw half a dozen editors making various arguments, and no clear consensus for being as strict as you suggest. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Not very civil. You are welcome to read the discussions at the talk page, it's not "two people saying one thing". If you see no clear consensus for being as strict at the MoS suggests (it is not my suggestion, it is quite literally exactly that the MoS says), you are as I said, welcome to see if consensus is in favor of supporting what you're saying. Saying that the MoS says "no redirects except for very limited exceptions" is not wikilawyering when that's exactly what it says. Resorting to accusing me of "wikilawyering" for suggesting that consensus carries any weight is pretty telling. The MoS is "still just a guideline" but you're just giving an opinion, one countered by the larger consensus at that guideline. Though "just a guideline", the MoS cannot be ignored just because we don't like what it says, and you've offered no reason for ignoring that guideline other than an appeal to aesthetics that fails to address why redirects shouldn't be used. The MoS is a consensus, and there is certainly no consensus here or elsewhere that a subjective aesthetic preference should supersede the MoS, which explicitly and in no uncertain terms says not to wikilink the redirect in this situation (as it isn't one of the very few exceptions spelled out).

I'm citing the MoS not because it's a hard and fast rule, but because the reasoning for what the MoS says is sound logic that is supported by the Wikipedia community and serves to enhance a reader's experience on the page, and I am disagreeing with you not because the MoS says otherwise, but because that change would serve to diminish a reader's experience for the sake of "looking good" (which is, at best, a subjective opinion). That's not wikilawyering in my opinion. There are appropriate places to accuse someone of wikilawyering, such as WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U, backed with evidence, but using that pejorative on an article talk page to disparage an editor's opinion in lieu of attempting to address that opinion is inappropriate. Aoidh (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• After wading through all this mostly pointless venting, I have to concur with Aoidh: "you are more than welcome to start a discussion on that talk page and see if that's the case, and to change the MoS to reflect consensus. Until then, however, saying that "the Wikipedia consensus" is different than what the MoS is saying doesn't hold any water because that's precisely what the Manual of Style and other guidelines are: a reflection of consensus." Exactly. MOS would not say what it does without it at least presumptively representing a consensus, and when we think the consensus is wrong, the proper venue for that discussion is usually that MOS page's talk page, or (if we think that it doesn't have enough traffic) the main WT:MOS talk page, which is one of the most-watchlisted project pages on the whole system. Some discussion buried on a DAB page's talk page, where it isn't even a proper RfC, is a discussion backwater that will never change or establish WP-wide consensus, ever, period. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy for why. This discussion should probably be hatted with {{Wrong venue|Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages}}.

  PS: Yes, it is usually incivil to accuse someone of wikilawyering, absent any evidence that they're genuinely doing so, and that term doesn't really apply to this case, because no process or rule is being abused by wilful misinterpretation or an attempt to follow its letter while violating its spirit. Having a narrower interpretation of a guideline here than one does oneself does not make the other party a disruptive editor of any kind, much less that particular kind. See in particular Wikipedia:Wikilawyering#Misuse of the term: "Because reasoned arguments in a debate necessarily include both elements of fact and references to principles, disputants who lack such an argument sometimes try to undermine arguments they can not otherwise overcome by just tossing out the naked accusation that their opponent is a wiki-lawyer. This is not a good faith tactic and does not foster a collegial consensus-seeking atmosphere. ... Occasionally, editors who engage in semantic discussions about the language of a policy or guideline, or propose minor changes in the wording of a policy or guideline, will be accused of wikilawyering. ... And simply being a stickler about Wikipedia policies/guidelines and process does not make an editor a wikilawyer...."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Reichsmark

In “Other uses”, I can't find a source for “Reichsmark (ISO 4027 code)”. First of all, that standard seems to be something about screws. It should probably say ISO 4217, but even then it's not in the official list. So at least the ISO reference should be removed. Does someone know a better source? --188.192.41.219 (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Add link to "Disability rights movement"?

I've heard DRM used as an acronym for "disability rights movement" several times, but I don't see it on the list. I do see [reform movement] on the list even though it seems... a lot smaller of a topic than the disability rights movement, so I figure if the defense reform movement is on the list, then the disability rights movement should also be on the list. (I didn't want to just add it right away since I've seen hostility towards new/infrequent editors who seem to have good faith, without even bringing disability (heavily stigmatized) into the picture. I'm a little scared.) 199.111.212.204 (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added it (since I've also heard it used). Feel free to be bold next time.

Llew Mawr (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)