Wikipedia talk:Template index/Redirect pages/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Renaming redirect special tags

While these templates are relatively new and unknown, I'd like to propose renaming the special tags to make them more memorable, better clarified, and more useful.

Firstly, I'd like to remove the word "from". so instead of {{R from related word}} we'd just have {{R related word}}. This would make it easier to remember the tag, as some use "from", some "for", and others "to". I don't think there is any ambiguity, and the full meaning can be understood from the category page.

Secondly, {{R subtopic}} is much more clear than {{R with possibilities}}

Thirdly, instead of categories based on the original list of what redirects are used for, I'd like to make it categories based on what the special tags can be used for. Misspelling, for instannce, is useful in that it lets the reader know that it's not just an alternative name but a misspelling. (unfortunately that information is hidden at present, but I imagine in future the reader will be told they were redirected from a misspelling.) Also in future, perhaps the "what links here" will tell you which redirect pages are misspellings. That's useful documentation. It means links to misspellings cna be found easily, etc.

On the other hand, whether a redirect is counted as an alternate name or alternate language, I think is less generally useful, and only makes it more difficult to categorise redirects. Likewise for whether something is a different spelling, or just using ASCII. So I propose to lump all the "alternates" together, so long as they are all correct alternatives. This would bring the number of tags down from 13 to nine.

Fourthly, make "misspelling" its own tag, which can be combined with others.

E.g. Air's Rock would become:

#redirect [[Uluru]] {{R alternate}} {{misspelling}}

as it is a misspelling of an alternate name.

Fifthly (ok these ordinal numbers are getting silly), {{R to disambiguation page}} to {{R disambiguate}}. "to disambiguation page" is not really clear, it really means someone should disambiguate the link that lead them there, not only that it redirects to a disambiguation page. And some other minor changes. See list below.

Finally, Any more suggestions? What about redirects from a misspelling of an alternate name? Is there a way to do a heirarchy of these things, like categories?

I don't know how these changes would be implemented. I assume someone would have to write a script, unless there are ways of migrating more elegantly. I also don't know what the appropriate Wikibureaucracy process is to get these changes implemented. I figure someone just has to do it. Comments welcome.

Existing	Proposed
{{R from abbreviation}}	{{R abbreviation}}
{{R from misspelling}}	{{misspelling}} * (see 4th point above)
{{R from alternate spelling}}	{{R alternate}}
{{R for alternate capitalisation}}
{{R from alternate name}}
{{R from alternate language}}
{{R from ASCII}}
{{R from plural}}	{{R plural}}
{{R from related word}}	{{R alternate part of speech}}
{{R with possibilities}}	{{R subtopic}}
{{R to disambiguation page}}	{{R disambiguate}}
{{R for as of}}	{{R as of}}
{{R from shortcut}}	{{R shortcut}}
{{R to sort name}}	{{R sort}}
{{R from scientific name}}	{{R scientific name}}

—Pengo 02:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Adjective redirects

Should a "Redirects from adjective" be made? As in, a redirect from the adjective form of a word to the noun form. Like democratic → democracy. -Shoecream 22:02, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I reccomend being bold and making the new template. Foobaz·o< 06:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't Template:R from related word fit the bill? -- Netoholic @ 06:17, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

It could, but "adjective" implies that the article title does not conform to the article titling policy while "related word" carries with it a meaning-oriented intent. Courtland 13:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Do these templates actually exist?

All these ((R from something)) templates. Are they real? Some at least do not exist and cause the pages to get listed on Special:BrokenRedirects. Should they be removed from these broken ones? -- SGBailey 14:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Which ones are you finding problematic? It would be worth looking at them more closely. Thanks for the additional information. User:Ceyockey 20:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What for?

Maybe this is a stupid question, but what are these templates for? I mean, obviously, they're to put on redirects, but why do we need to be able to, say, find all the redirects from postal abbreviations? There are so many untagged redirects, is there a move underway to classify them all? If so, to what end? If not, what's the point of just classifying a few redirects? GTBacchus 06:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

This has been addressed a number of places, but rather than pointing you to them, I'll just put down the abbreviated version:
- to facilitate classification for exclusion from print-Wikipedia
- to facilitate systematic clean-up (for instance, deletion of redirects in the form of "xxx (Axxx) → xxx (axxx)")
- to facilitate and document consensus implementation around naming conventions
there are several more and these might not be the most important to some folks.
Regards, Courtland 13:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. So... if I'm working on maintenance, fixing double redirects, creating new redirects and the like, should I be adding these as they come up? Is there a project underway to tag redirects according to type? GTBacchus 16:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

And what about something like Madison Park (Hoboken, NJ)? It used to redirect to Madison Park (Hoboken, New Jersey), but now that redirects to Landmarks of Hoboken, New Jersey. So, should the redirect from Madison Park (Hoboken, NJ) to Landmarks of Hoboken, New Jersey be tagged {{Redir from US postal ab}} or not? GTBacchus 20:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where redirecting to a redirect would probably be best (I'll start a new thread about that below). The Madison Park (Hoboken, New Jersey) redirect wasn't tagged; I've just added {{R to list entry}}, though it could fairly be re-tagged with {{R with possibilities}} because there are many park-related articles in Wikipedia. User:Ceyockey 20:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

When are double redirects appropriate?

In a thread up the page from here the following was related:

Madison Park (Hoboken, NJ) originally → Madison Park (Hoboken, New Jersey) (with {{Redir from US postal ab}})

Madison Park (Hoboken, New Jersey) → Landmarks of Hoboken, New Jersey (with {{R to list entry}})

Madison Park (Hoboken, NJ) now → Landmarks of Hoboken, New Jersey (remains with {{Redir from US postal ab}})

I think this is a case where the original double-redirect would be OK to preserve because it is more informative than the revised case. The original case also better supports the potential for Madison Park (Hoboken, New Jersey) becoming it's own article (potentially, eventually). Thoughts? User:Ceyockey 20:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a discussion of this on RussBlau's talk-page at User talk:RussBlau#RussBot and redirect templates. and User talk:RussBlau#RussBot and redirect templates part II. Personally, I think that if the redirect in the middle of the double-redirect chain is {{R with possibilities}}, then the double redirect is appropriate. Ae-a 14:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

R-from-historical-name or R-from-obsolete-name

Has there been a prior discussion around creation of a redirect template entitled something like {{R from historical name}} or {{R from obsolete name}} (or related) with the intent of tagging redirects from names for things like organizations, people, genes, ships and the like that might have been valid at one time but which are no longer "proper", having been superceded for one reason or another? For instance, if a person changes their name from "John Smith" to "Joan Smyth", the former could be tagged with this new template. Also, a real example, the redirect from American Cable Systems to Comcast could be so tagged.

Could discussion take place here for about a week followed by a create/don't-create decision? Or would it be better to take this conversation elsewhere?

Thanks for your input. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirect templates not listed on the page.

While browsing through Category:Redirects, I noticed some redirect templates not listed on the page. These were ~~{{R from ASCII}}~~, ~~{{R from CamelCase}}~~, ~~{{R from title without diacritics}}~~, ~~{{R to decade}}~~, ~~{{R from UN/LOCODE}}~~, ~~{{R from shortcut}}~~, ~~{{R to Wiktionary}}~~ ~~(I also noticed Category:Song-to-band redirects which does not have a template)~~. Is there any reason why they are not listed? Ae-a 00:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC) [update: templates now on the page have been crossed out Ae-a 14:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)] [update II: I have placed all remaining templates on this page, so they too have been crossed out. Also, Category:Song-to-band redirects has disappeared and seems to have been replaced by Category:Redirects from songs and {{R from song}} Ae-a 16:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)]

It would be useful to get some input from folks on why some of these are not on the main page, I agree. I do notice that R-from-CamelCase is there now. I just added R-from-shortcut because it showed up on my watchlist and I didn't see it here, but in adding that one I added a new section for "Wikipedia namespace" redirects (this is the only one I know of). If that's not OK, please revise the listing to a more comfortable version. User:Ceyockey 19:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been two months since my original message has been posted and so far, you're the only one who'se said anything. Unless anyone objects, I will put all the remaining templates on the page myself. Ae-a 14:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Still no response, so I have added them myself. I have also added a link to Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages on the Category:Redirects page in the hope that whoever creates templates without listing them here gets to notice this page.

I have not added {{R printworthy}} and {{R unprintworthy}} because I'm not sure if they need to be directly included in any articles (most (all?) of the other redirects add the appropriate category anyway). Should they be added here?

Also, I have discovered a second list of redirect templates at Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for?. I have started a discussion about the two different lists at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Why have two lists of redirect templates. Ae-a 16:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Another template not listed here is {{R from surname}}; would it be appropriate to add that here, or has there been discussion about whether this should be deprecated in favor of an alternate template? Also, I think that redirects so labeled would be printworthy. Would you agree to add the {{R printworthy}} to this template? Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't {{R to sort name}} serve this purpose already? Ae-a 09:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It could, but it seems that the majority of the redirects tagged with the R-to-sort-name template are of the form (surname, forename). I was thinking more in terms of a template used to tag redirects of the form (surname). For instance, Einstein. It would be fine to redirect R-from-surname to R-to-sort-name if the text of R-to-sort-name were expanded to include this type of usage. Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Should there be an "R lowercase" template?

Some redirects have titles that should correctly start with lowercase characters, for example ω-consistent theory. I have tagged some of these with {{lowercase}}. Recently User:Talrias objected to this on the grounds that redirects, as opposed to articles, were showing up in Category:Article titles with lowercase initial letters.

I feel strongly that these redirects need to be in some sort of maintenance category, in case the restriction on lowercase initial letters is ever lifted. (Why was it ever imposed for non-Latin characters, BTW? At least on English WP, that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. But I suppose you wouldn't want to have to use different software for Greek WP.)

So it occurred to me that we could have a new template {{r lowercase}} that would add the redirect to a new subcat of Category:Article titles with lowercase initial letters, to be called perhaps Category:Redirects with lowercase initial letters. Is this a good idea? Or is it too much instruction creep? --Trovatore 20:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that {{R from other capitalisation}} should be sufficient for the redirects. The {{lowercase}} template should go onto the target article as it is a statement about the article having the incorrect title. I don't think that creating a new category, which would be associated with a template like {{R from other initial capitalisation}} (to be more general than lowercase and article title targets alone), is necessary. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, {{R from other capitalisation}} is a totally different issue. That's when you've got more than one way of capitalizing the title and you want them to go to the same article. The situation we're talking about here is that there's only one (correct) way of capitalizing it, but it's not allowed by the software. --Trovatore 03:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  - An alternative that would emphasize the importance of the matter would be to add a template above the #redirect, which would turn the page from an automated to a manual redirect. In cases where there is true ambiguity and confusion problems, this would be an acceptable "speed bump" to put in the way, I believe. (an example of a template put in such a place to act as a speed bump is {{rfd}}) User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Could be I didn't explain the problem well enough. What's incorrect due to technical restrictions is not necessarily the name of the target article, but rather of the redirect itself. For example, follow the redirect ω-consistency, and it says at the top "Redirected from Ω-consistency", and if you follow that link back, you get to this page, which says at the top "Ω-consistency". But that's quite wrong; it should be "ω-consistency". Moreover this has the potential to be actively misleading, because there's such a thing as "Ω-logic" with the capital Ω, and consistency with respect to that logic would be quite another thing.

So the redirect itself, not the target article, needs to go in a maintenance category against the day that this issue is fixed, and the template will explain the issue (at least to people who look at the source of the redirect; unfortunately I don't know any way to make it display on the redirect page itself). --Trovatore 03:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should have something like this, yes. It's an important distinction, especially in many fields of science. —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 13:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The question I was trying to get at is, should we have the new template and the new category specifically for redirects with this problem, or should we just use {{lowercase}} for them? A redirect is an article, as far as the software is concerned, so personally I don't see anything wrong with saying that the article (that is, the redirect) is misnamed. Maintenance categories aren't really meant to be browsed so I also don't see anything wrong with including the redirects in Category:Article titles with lowercase initial letters. But that's just me; if it's confusing to other people, then maybe it's worth the instruction creep of having the new template and category.

Now that I've (I hope) finally explained myself, can I get some opinions on which option is better, using {{lowercase}} in redirects, or making the new {{R lowercase}} specifically for redirects? --Trovatore 21:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Summary — prefer use of {{lowercase}} over {{R lowercase}}: I'll stand by my notion that using {{R from other capitalisation}} should be sufficient, but the secondary addition of {{lowercase}} would be something I'd support as an accessory and preferable to the creation of {{R lowercase}}. I consider the inability to have article titles beginning with lower-case letters to be a temporary technical problem rather than a permanent situation. In my opinion, it should be treated as such and efforts should go into generating momentum for a technical solution to the technical problem. As an aside, I am a scientist and I do understand the importance of not only initial capitalisation but also internal differences in case (for instance, in the matter of human vs. mouse gene symbols as one example). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to using {{lowercase}} provided people aren't going to be removing it. I don't want to have to be the one watching all these redirects to make sure someone else doesn't say "hey, that doesn't make sense". As for {{R from other capitalisation}}, though, that just really has nothing to do with it. For example ω-consistency redirects to Omega-consistent theory, which simply is not an "other capitalisation" of "ω-consistency", no matter how you look at it. As for the "speed bump" idea, that would make sense if people were using Ω-consistency with the capital Ω as a link, but I doubt that's happening much; I don't want people subjected to the speed bump when they're correctly using ω-consistency. I agree that the technical issue should be fixed; that's why these redirects need to be categorized, so they can be found when it is. --Trovatore 02:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You can never guarantee that people are going to leave an edit alone, regardless how much consensus is behind the edit. Trying to reach a state where "people aren't going to be removing it" is an impossible task. The only way to "guarantee" this is to protect the pages from edits. You know that. {{R from other capitalisation}} is appropriate as there is a virulent opposition to the use of double-redirects even when there is ample reason from semantic arguments to do so. We were not talking about whether additional templates should be added; in the present case (ω-consistency → Omega-consistent theory) {{R from related word}} would be an appropriate secondary addition to any capitalisation-related template added. I don't see, though, why the article should not be at Ω-consistent theory (given technical constraints) rather than Omega-consistent theory. There is a whole other discussion here about the lack of a template for {{R from letter to articulated letter}} (awkward title) which would specifically address the case of "Ω → Omega" or "ω → omega" redirection; there is also the related matter of whether "ω → Omega" or "ω → omega" is correct ... in articulating letters, is case preserved as a matter of typographical correctness? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that rationale for {{R from other capitalisation}} is kind of strained. Surely this is not the situation it was intended for. As well, that template puts the redirect into Category:Unprintworthy redirects, and these are not in fact unprintworthy. --Trovatore 16:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That inappropriate classification as 'unprintworthy' is a good point. Thanks. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect from subtopic

Was there at one time a Template:R from subtopic? I used a Template:R from related word for an item that would be better categorized as a subtopic ... Infrastructure in Norway. Courtland 19:47, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

What you're looking for is probably Template:R with possibilities. BTW I'm not sure whether Infrastructure in Norway should be a redirect to Norway. The information required is not in Norway but in Communications in Norway, Transportation in Norway, Power supply in Norway, .... -- Paddu 03:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the "R with possibilities" is likely what I'm looking for; I do seem to recall tha the "subtopic" one existed ... I could be mistaken.

The reasons why I did the norway-related redirect (based on what I'm thinking about now) are a couple in number. First, in order to scale the items under "Infrastructure in Norway" now one needs to edit the Norway article, thereby enriching it. Second, I'm guessing (hopefully rightly) that a typical user will not enter Wikipedia with the query "Infrastructure in Norway" on their fingertips; their first stop will likely be the Norway article, from which now the three existing items are available one click closer than before. Third, which is really "2nd part 2" is that I thought the previous situation unnecessarily extended the link path given Norway as the most likely entry point (my guessing as to the most likely entry point). I actually thought about putting up a "vote for deletion" on the "Infrastructure in Norway" page but thought better of it as there is a dual utility for it's existing: as a machine readable "pseudo-category" embedded in the Wikipedia data structure and as a "release valve" should the categories of infrastructure in the Norway article increase substantially.

Now all that being said (in quite longwinded fashion) I certainly would not engage in an edit-war on this matter ... if my arguments are not convincing and a person is sufficiently convinced of an alternative configuration, I'd in no way try to stand in the way of a full reversion or revision. I think my use was right, but there isn't a single right answer to these things in general, and in this case specifically as an instance.

Regards, Courtland 04:08, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)

An extensive discussion of the use of R-with-possibilities vs. R-from-subtopic ensued during a deletion/renaming debate that ended with keeping the two templates separate. See this for the archived discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:R from former child to Template:R from merge

--William Allen Simpson 00:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The template is unlike others in that Instanood has a parameter, but only on one of the instances. The parameter points to the merge debate. OK with me, but does anybody else think this is useful? It's not implemented correctly, so I'd rather have a consensus before working on it.

--William Allen Simpson 00:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Temp pages from copyvios

If someone posts a copyvio, a temporary page is constructed at Foo/temp. What redirect template should be used? Does one need to be created? — Dunc|☺ 21:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just been putting {{R unprintworthy}} on these sorts of redirects. However, it seems to me that at some point these could be deleted.–RHolton ≡– 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Templates in redirect pages deprecated by developers

Hello,

FYI, developers Brion and Tim Starling currently say that templates shouldn't be used in redirect pages, and that the functionality may be broken in the future. (Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger. Besides, I find the "R templates" useful, but it seems to be for performance reasons.) Full story and IRC log excerpts at

Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Content_of_redirects:_templates.2C_categories.2C_multiple_lines

-- 62.147.38.54 18:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

How about an "r from Web address" template for redirects such as Zh.wikipedia.org and Myspace.com? --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 10:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Automation

Can't someone write a bot to automate the tagging for the vast majority of these? It seems like a thankless task to add them manually. Nossac 19:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A bot could probably label some, but not all. Though it may work for "as of," CamelCase, and other capitalisations, most of the rest would probably require more artificial intelligence than can be programmed into an Internet bot (or at least make a lot of mistakes). --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 22:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep redirect from a misinterpretation of an abbreviation?

Hello, the thing is: Some user made a redirect from Apple Audio Codec to Advanced Audio Coding. I think because some people think AAC stands for this which is not the case. I think maybe Apple wasn't even involved in the creation of this codec so... Should we delete the redirect page? --Tobias Schmidbauer 14:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

r from/to scientific name for things outside biology?

I have started a discussion at the Village pump; please continue it there.— The Great Redirector 18:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Category -- R Template mappings

Just doing some routine housekeeping, found Category:Redirects_from_portmanteaus doesn't seem to have a template associated with it (presumably {{R from portmanteau}}, nor a listing in the two reference pages: Wikipedia:Redirects and Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. Hence it's no wonder the contents are skimpy to say the least.

I was tempted to tag it with a {{cfm|Redirects from alternative names}}, but the larger issue came to mind so I raise it here; how many 'other' such "orphaned" categories might also exist? Or is there a historic discussion and someone never carried out an implementation, or is this a "busted" CFD loose end. Hence the 'yelp' for "collective memory and skills assists"!

I don't really have the skills with special pages searching to run this down, but suggest that someone should run this kind of thing down that can and update the redirects reference pages accordingly. Best regards // FrankB 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC) (Co-posting WP:AN)

Note: incomplete disambiguation discussion

Note to any interested parties: There's a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Incomplete parenthetical disambiguations about handling redirects from incomplete disambiguations, and possibly creating a new template {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} to tag them with. Any feedback, on the template creation or otherwise, would be appreciated. --Piet Delport 07:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: as discussed, i created the template and category. --Piet Delport 04:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Seen enough AfDs end in redirect rather than merge to wonder: Would there be any benefit to creating {{R from AfD|AfD/VfD/whatever discussion, if available}}? MrZaius^talk 22:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

R from title without diacritics and R from alternative language

{{R from title without diacritics}} category links talk edit This is a redirect to the article title with diacritical marks (accents, umlauts, etc.) The correct spelling is . Use this redirect link (without piping) when the page concerns language translation or English language equivalents. Other pages using this link should be updated to replace text with the redirect target (again, without piping). For more information, follow the category link.

Q: Why is there a need for this redirect? For English words using standard English alphabet no diacritic use is warranted. For borrowed words in English that use diacritic spelling no redirect is possible.

{{R from alternative language}} category links talk edit This is a redirect from an English name to a name in another language, or vice-versa. It leads to the title in accordance with the naming conventions for titles in other languages and can help writing. However, do not replace these redirected links with a piped link unless the page is updated for another reason. For more information, follow the category link.

Q: Why is there a need for this redirect? Why would another language be used in en-Wikipedia or vice-versa? What of WP:UE?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 08:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A little late, but I just saw this...

Diacritics: Wikipedia actually uses the Latin alphabet, which does include diacritics. There is no standard for the use of diacritics in article titles. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) was rejected. The redirect is useful in cases where diacritics do exist in a title. Example: [[Jozef Pukowiec] redirects to Józef Pukowiec.
English names: Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources". There is often no verifiable translation of a foreign language name or there are several translations and some are disputed or controversial, thus the original non-English name is used. It is also useful to redirect from the original non-English name to the article with the English name. Example: Azərbaycan redirects to Azerbaijani language.

--— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

R from other gender

Having just added a redirect from equestrienne to equestrian with {{r from related word}} I couldn't help but want a more specific template, such as {{R from other gender}} for such cases, where the related word is simply the female (or male in the case of widower and perhaps a few others) variant of the subject. Any support for such a template? Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I support it because I just created it! It's called {{R from gender}} (because many of the pages in question would probably go to a gender-neutral title, and not "the other" gender).

\sim

Lenoxus " * " 21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

New proposals

I have made two new proposals and will put them on the following sub-page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect/Format and categorization proposals. Please drop a line there and let me know what you think! $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 17:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirects to articles whose titles begin with "the"

I've made a redirect from Wackness to The Wackness and put it in Category:Redirects from abbreviation. Is that correct or should there be a category for redirects like this? "Wackness" doesn't feel like an abbreviation, but "Redirects from titles with missing articles" would be a confusing name. Tim Ivorson 2008-10-07 – 14:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Automatically generated lists

As a side-effect of other work carried out for the Red Link Recovery Project, I regularly generate lists of redirects to from title A to title B where the titles vary only in a specific manner, for example alternate capitalisations, differing diacritic marks, or by the addition or removal of a disambiguation term. It wouldn't be much work to filter these lists to show those redirects that are missing a particular redirect template - for example "Some Title" redirects to "Some title" but does not contain "Template:Redirect from alternate capitalisations".

What I'm looking for is firstly confirmation that such lists would be useful, secondly someone who can help me understand which templates should appear on which redirects, and thirdly a check that I'm not crazy - there's no such thing as a redirect categorisation wikiproject that this task beings to that I've overlooked? Thansks in advance. - TB (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No you're not crazy :) I regularly add redirect templates to redirects that I notice are missing them (which is pretty much the majority of redirects). Though I don't know if i'll have the patience to go through a whole list, I just kinda catch 'em as I come across them. -- œ ^™ 16:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

General policy/guideline links?

Is there anything relevant that should be linked from here? Pcap ping 04:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No probably not necessary. -- œ ^™ 05:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Template documentation

Template:R from incorrect name now has template documentation. Feel free to run an eye over it, correct it as necessary, and then populate all the other R-templates, the purpose of which is a little bewildering to the uninitiated - like me. Josh Parris 14:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

links to zero namespace

Such templates are being transcluded from zero namespace redirects. Any links from templates marking zns redirects to zero namespace disable the possibility for redirect target identification with use of toolserver metadata.

I've tried replacing such links by external links to wikipedia, but FrescoBot does authomatically replace them back. My view, such a bot behaviour is wrong for this particular type of templates, however...

In order to fix the issue some of the templates are to be unlocked (e.g. Template:R from abbreviation).

Any other ideas on how to make redirects containing only one link to the target namespace so that the redirect target could be recognizable?

Mashiah (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean, can you rephrase? -- œ ^™ 22:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's suppose a redirect page contains a template, which links other pages in the namespace our redirect page belongs and points to (assuming inter-namespace redirects are prohibited). Wikimedia metadata (which is used by tools on the toolserver and by wikipedia itself) in this case contain a record in 'pages' table, which corresponds to our redirect page, and this record is marked so that the page can be recognized as a redirect page in a certain (zero) namespace.

On the other hand, 'pagelinks' table contains more than one link from the redurect page to the namespace it belongs to (one for redirection target and some more from the template we use for redirect pages classification).

Which link is the target for redirection? There is no way to get this info with use of toolserver metadata tables in case a redirect contains more then one link to the namespace it belongs to.

As well as we are talking about templates, which are supposed to mark zero namespace redirect pages, we should probably state that such templates should be free of links to zero namespace or extenal (like [http:// ]) links to be used instead (and FrescoBot should avoid modifying such links).

Here is an example of a tool, which works with toolserver metadata to construct the whole graph of links between articles. For such purposes, of course, the bot cannot parse content of articles — there are too much of them.

From the above example you can see that lots of redirects in english wikipedia are recognized as having more than one target, and the reason is in templates used for redirect pages markup.

Mashiah (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's an attempt at English that isn't tl;dr:

The databases store metadata about which pages link to which (for "what links here", etc.).

Redirects contain an entry for their target, which is usually the only Mainspace link.

Some templates (e.g. {{R from abbreviation}}) add other links.

Mashiah thinks this is wrong for some reason, but FrescoBot is reverting his changes.

As the templates in question are never actually displayed to anyone, I think the simplest solution is to just delete the links (or even the entire text). OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right here, my English doesn't allow me being shorter unfortunately. Hope I'll be able to improve this some day. However, the outline you've made is not quite right. I think it is ok if a redirect contains links to anywhere except for links to the namespace the redirect belongs to. Other links could be easily filtered. The issue with FrescoBot is important just in case we deside to replace [[...]] links by [...] links, but this is just one of possible variants to resolve the problem. The other one is to avoid use of any links in templates made for redirects classifying. Mashiah (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

So, in order to make the redirect information in the database tables more usable, the idea is to remove the links that this template embeds (a template that isn't even visible to users). I have no problem with that. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Or you could just use the redirect table in the database, instead of trying to misuse the pagelinks table. Anomie ⚔ 20:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately this table contains just partial data and cannot be used for any serious analysis. See here for details. Mashiah (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a bug then. Anomie ⚔ 05:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The other option is that redirects table is somehow used by MediaWiki for caching purposes. Mashiah (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. I've been through all of Category:All redirect templates. There's still a lot of junk in there that's almost completely useless, but at least it's not confusing link tables anymore. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. Mashiah (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've looked through some of them and found that Template:R from abbreviation still contains link to Abbreviation. There could be some others, let's see using this tool. Mashiah (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Would moving the information in the template to template documentation instead correct the problem? Since these templates don't actually display, we should make a determination about whether template documentation should be used for everything except the categorization or should never be used. --Bsherr (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. As well as template documentation is not included together with templates, it does not add any liks anywhere except for the template page itself. Mashiah (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting template talk pages

I propose redirecting the talk pages of all of these templates to this page. For exmaple, this has been done with the user warning templates. It consolidates discussion among hundreds of generally unmonitored and low traffic talk pages. Concerns? --Bsherr (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Support — -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Need to archive current talk pages before redirecting; can list them on this page using {{archive banner}}
- Use {{central}} to list the redirected pages on this page
- Add {{Editnotices/Page/Help talk:Cite errors}} as an editnotice for this page
- See Help talk:Cite errors for examples of the above
Support strongly. Comment on this page resulted in a discussion for me and no feedback got for the same comment in discussion of a particular template. Mashiah (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Unsightly border gap"?

The instructions at the top of the page state:

"As demonstrated in the example, please separate templates using either a carriage return or nothing at all. Inserting one or more spaces between the templates produces an unnecessary and unsightly bordered gap."

Is this still current and applicable? or has this problem been fixed by now? -- œ ^™ 09:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

TfD discussion

There's a discussion which relates to this page (sort of) over at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_9#Template:R_help. Any comments would be great. Thanks! Mhiji (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:R from move

Template:R from move has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 09:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Rename templates

I'm planning to rename these templates to expand the "R". Thus

Current practice is that templates should be named as clearly as possible so that, ideally, their function is evident from the name. Would there be any concerns about doing this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well.. just the one about me having to type more letters... I do all my editing manually and I add these templates frequently to redirects, the abbreviated R makes things much faster. Not really a big issue, 'cause I know the leftover redirect would still be available, but there's just something I don't like about adding a redirect onto another redirect, especially when it's another redirect template! ;P -- œ ^™ 16:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As a compromise why not Redir rather than R or Redirect? Just a thought. S a g a C i t y (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Haha, yes nothing wrong with a redirect to a redirect template. And you may continue using "R" rather than "Redirect". I don't think Redir is much better, so I'm still proposing to move them to the full name. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a good idea in theory, because newer editors will find the names to be clearer. Some of these have alternately-named redirects that would all turn into double redirects after the moves, and all these would have to be fixed. /Doc pages also need to be moved. Then there is this index page with all (or most) of the Rcats listed as "R" this or "R" that. Who will change all of those to the longer name? Will anyone ever actually use one of these? It just seems like a lot of work to go to when you consider that even newer editors can go to the R from/to Rcats and read about what they do and where they should and shouldn't be used. And when they learn of the shortcuts, they'll probably use them rather than type out the full name, "Redirect". I wonder what the learning curve actually is? How long does it take a new editor to figure out that the "R" stands for "Redirect"? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 07:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It would probably not take long at all to learn than R stands for Redirect. But when you consider the huge number of acronyms and abbreviations that we use on Wikipedia (who would know what, to pick some random examples, {{S-par}}, {{UKHBS}}, {{WAS}}, etc. would mean by looking at the name of the template?), I believe we are making it harder for newcomers to get to grips with Wikipedia. The drive in recent years to replace these acronyms with clearer names is helpful. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's a long-term project I've begun to upgrade/update the /doc pages beginning with the most-used ones in the {{R template index}}. Part of that is to find and add all of the aliases. I also moved a couple of them to the longer "Redirect..." names, but like I said, that takes a long time to hunt down and fix all the double redirects on some of them. So at least I'm hunting them down and adding them to the /doc pages (in a subsection called "Redirects"), and they'll be there ready to fix when the time comes to rename the template. Of course, there's always the chance that another editor will come along and create more aliases (actually, I caught one today who had just created two more aliases for a template that already had ten of them <sigh!>). Eventually, I'll finish the functional index and then start on this alphabetical index. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 15:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Like Paine states, I also believe that this is a good idea in theory, but how do we know that newbies won't just use the old style "R from..." syntax when they first hear of it and not type out the longer "Redirect from..." syntax, especially given pages like Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects and the fact that it seems standard practice just looking at how Wikipedia:R redirects to Wikipedia:Redirect? Also, will they even know these templates exist in the first place, given that they are only viewable by first appending redirect=no to any redirect url and then finding an appropriate diff, if there is even one available, to see the template in full? It would require intricate and technical knowledge of the system, and by the time they learn the hoops they'll already be using "R from..." :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 11:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirect display text

It seems like a lot (possibly all) of these redirect templates have text intended to be displayed on the redirect page. For instance {{R from other capitalisation}} is of the form

----

This is a redirect . . . [purpose of the page, linking to WP:Redirect]

Pages linking . . . [maintainence instructions]

For more information, . . .<includeonly>

[category]

</includeonly><noinclude>

{{documentation}}</noinclude>

But as far as I can tell, Media wiki does not display any extra text on a redirect page, whether or not it’s transcluded from a template (except for diffs, e.g. Abiword diff). And it screws with things like Special:Whatlinkshere/WP:Redirect and tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py/WP:Redirect (see User talk:Dispenser#Rdcheck: Too many hidden links, aborting).

I suggest to put this display text inside <noinclude> brackets, at least while Media wiki doesn’t display the text.

Vadmium (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It is annoying how "What links here" doesn't work properly. I would rather that be fixed than my hard work on the redirect templates be made pointless. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I hoped that leaving your hard work to still be displayed on the template pages themselves would be okay.

I just noticed Template:R from camelcase currently has two links: one to w:CamelCase and one to Wikipedia:Subpages. The link using the “interwiki” [[w:]] prefix seems to avoid my What links here problem. Just noting it for the moment though; I’m not particularly keen on it though because it seems like a bit of an ugly hack. Vadmium (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC).

I prefer if redirect templates only contain links to corresponding categories. The categories can provide more information and links. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer if the redirects displayed something that would give an indication to reader-editors whether the redirect is something to be fixed or should be left alone. The templates are bizarrely inconsistent in that some include non-hidden categories and some have only hidden categories. For example {{R with possibilities}}, a template I would think it important to include visible indicators to editors that links using the redirect aren't broken and shouldn't be fixed contains only hidden categories, while {{R to related topic}} includes visible categories. IMO, these are not purely maintenance categories and should not be hidden. Or, if the categories are to remain hidden, then the explanatory text on the template should be transcluded on the redirect. older ≠ wiser 13:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently in a slow on-and-off process of standardising the redirect categories and templates. Annoyingly, some redirect templates are fully protected, which is completely pointless and prevents most editors from improving them, improvement which they desperately need. However, there would be a lot more point to redirect templates if the software allowed text to be shown on redirect pages. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Mclay1, why is it that you believe yourself to be prevented from editing protected Rcats? All you need do is use the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page of the Rcat you want to improve. You've made some very good improvements to several Rcats, and these would be good for the protected ones, too. There are very good reasons to protect those Rcats that, when edited, have a substantial effect on the server. And there are some that admins just want to keep track of the edits. You should feel free to use the EP template to get help from an admin to edit the protected ones. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 07:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

For reference, bugzilla:7304 is about the “What links here” problem. Vadmium (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC).

Proposal: Interwiki link hack

I’ve decided that the “What links here” behaviour is too annoying so I am going to try and prefix the links with [[w:]]. Mclay: I hope you don’t feel this will make your template work pointless, but I presume it would be okay since you also said you prefer only the category link.

Please prefix links with [[w:]], and append a pipe when appropriate, in the following redirect templates, similar to my change to “Template:R from short name”. See #Redirect display text just above and User talk:Dispenser#Rdcheck: Too many hidden links, aborting for background. I picked these templates by sampling the list of redirects (with links) to WP:Redirect. There might be a few more that I missed, but I reckon this should take care of most of them.

Template:R from other capitalisation: 2 links; easily the worst offender

alternative spelling: 2 links; second worst offender

historic name: 3 links

~~to list entry: 3 links; use {{Further}} instead of {{See}}~~

Vadmium (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I removed the edit request and changed the section title. Edit requests are only for protected pages. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you did this on {{R to section}} but, looking at "What links here" for Category:Redirects to sections, it doesn't seem to have worked. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually intended the edit request for the four redirect templates I listed above, which are protected pages. Perhaps I could have made it clearer. However I’ll let it sit as it is a while in case people want to discuss it more or disagree.

The reason why I changed Template:R to section was to fix the problem specifically in Help:fullurl, which was (and still is) listed as an error at the top of tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py/Help:Magic words. I’m hoping the error message will go away in a few hours once the tool’s data gets synchronised. I had a look at “What redirects to” Category:Redirects to sections, and the first entry, Anglo-American playing card. That redirect uses {{This is a redirect}}, which does invoke {{R to section}}, but I think the actual link is created with {{Redirect template}}. There are too many confusing and complex ways these redirect templates are implemented and styled. Vadmium (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC).

{{This is a redirect}} does cause problems; however, it's a useful template and I don't think the problems are bad enough to warrant to removal of the template. We just really need to get the bugs fixed. One of the problems is that "What links here" thinks any redirect with a link to a page is a redirect to that page. I don't understand why it's so hard for the software to be changed to only count the first link as the target page in "What links here".

PS: Sorry about removing the edit request. I didn't realise you meant that for the templates. However, it would probably be better for those who are watching the templates for the edit request to appear individually on each template. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay the edits have been done. Vadmium (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

R from file extension

Could someone add {{R from file extension}} to this list. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

{{R from non-neutral name}} too. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

R from informal name

I think this one is missing. I added it to Tigerstaden (which means "Tiger City" in Norwegian). Shouldn't this be a redirect sorting item? __meco (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Support but as 'R from informal placename' S a g a C i t y (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Business names - actual/legal name vs trading name

It seems to me there ought to be a redirection template/category for this scenario: X is the legal name of a business (or maybe the legal name minus "Ltd" or ", Inc." or some such), but the company identifies itself in branding by a different name Y. X is made a redirect to Y. Should we create one?

A further complication: What if the company used to be known only as X, but Y came later? Then it's a bit like {{R from former name}} except that isn't exactly a former name since the company is still X legally. An example is A. Jones & Sons → Jones Bootmaker. How do we categorise a redirect like this? — Smjg (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Namespace restrictions

Why, for example, do {{r from plural}} and {{r to plural}} enforce a restriction to article namespace? I can understand why they would be inappropriate in talk namespaces, but it seems that a few people have tried to use them in project namespace; see for example Wikipedia:Not editing because of Wikipedia restrictions. Should we consider loosening the namespace criteria for these?

Why do the templates generally refuse to apply their normal category (e.g. Category:Redirects from plurals) when a namespace error is detected? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Because otherwise these misuses would show up in the category lists. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm fine with that I guess, but arguably Wikipedia:Not editing because of Wikipedia restrictions isn't a misuse. The first paragraph of my post was meant to be more important than the second. Where was the discussion (if any) that decided that these templates should be restricted to article namespace? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get the point, but the reason why this should not happen is, again, that the "article space categories" should never have entries from other namespaces. You could think of a reader being in different contexts. When he reads articles, there should be no way for him to accidently leave article space and enter some other context, like meta discussions about articles or Wikipedia or an editing context etc. If you delete anything non-article-space (for example for a printed version of the encyclopedia), this namespace should still be completely self-contained with no dangling pointers to elsewhere. If you lump together articles and non-articles into categories like "redirects from plurals" you would break this rule. It would be possible, however, to have separate "redirect from plurals" categories for articles and non-articles. The question is, however, if the latter really serves a purpose. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

One last try at making myself clearer. I'm not talking anymore about article categories needing only to contain articles. My point is that we should have some way to categorize redirects like Wikipedia:Not editing because of Wikipedia restrictions. Is it worth creating {{r from plural in project namespace}} for redirects like this? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I since edited the particular example in question to use {{r from alternative name}} instead, since that's what another similar redirect used, and that template allows use in project namespace. I was a little surprised by that inconsistency. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a new discussion on this topic at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 122#Categorizing non-mainspace redirects. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 01:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Categorization of redirects

A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects about a proposed update to one of the sections of that project page. All ideas are welcome! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"CharR to work"?

We currently have "CharR to list entry" (which adds the redirect to Category:Fictional character redirects to lists and Category:Redirected fictional character articles), but there's no template for character redirects that point to the work in which the character appears - in other words, a template that just adds the redirect to "Redirected fictional character articles". Should we have one? Or should the category just be added manually? Tevildo (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Four years later, is it still true that all of the pages in cat Redirected fictional character articles are placed there using the code "Category:Redirected fictional character articles?

Anyway, if i understand correctly, we do not even have any parallel category for fiction-based redirects other than character source pages and list targets. For instance, fictional element pages either go to lists of fictional elements using {{FictR to list entry}} or we have no better classification than Redirects to related topics, probably implemented by {{R from related topic}}.

--P64 (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

R from char to work?

It seems to me that a new template called "{{R from char to work}}" or something similar may be useful to tag redirects that point from a character in a work like a novel, novella, or story to the work itself. {{CharR to list entry}} is the closest that seems to exist but many of articles on fictional works don't have actual lists. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge and functional index Navbar

To editor Netoholic: The recent changes you've made, both to this alphabetical index and to the functional index at {{R template index}} appear to be of questionable value. For one thing, this index was already getting long, and you've made it much longer by merging the instructional content from the functional index. Another is that the table format for the functional index page may or may not be superior to the Navbar format – I'm still grasping on that one. Third and very important is that these major changes have been made apparently with little or no input from other contributors who work on redirect categorization. Frankly, I would revert your entire new scheme, but I see that you are "semi-retired" from editing, and you have been registered twice as long as I have. I would like to see all this go back to status quo while an RfC is opened to draw comment. Your changes on this page could easily be described in the opener, while your changes to the functional index could be opened at {{R template index/sandbox}} for display. It does not look like you've been very active on these two pages until just recently. Don't you think that such radical change compels input from other involved editors? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 05:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Long indexes of maintenance items (be it wikiprojects, categories, template messages, etc.) belong in the Wikipedia: project namespace. Template: namespace is for things that are actual templates. The {{R template index}} was a very long page not designed at all for transclusion, and it wasn't proper template /doc either - in particular it was only "transcluded" on 2 user sub-pages. The navbox format is much more appropriate way to present this index. I read thoroughly the several move/merge/deletion discussions about {{R template index}}, and none seemed to have a satisfactory outcome. A bold new direction is exactly what it needed, and now in navbox form it may actually find some use as an actual template for transclusion on related pages, userpages, or even still just as a quick-reference of commonly used rcat templates. In its old form, it and Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages presented basically the same "how-to" information, and consolidating the two is the way to go if you want to attract more people to helping with the RCAT project. -- Netoholic @ 05:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC) @Paine Ellsworth: As an example of how useful this navbox can be, check out the See Also section in the documentation for Template:R from alternative name where I've called the navbox. The same can be used on all the RCAT template /doc pages. -- Netoholic @ 06:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's getting late and I'm going to sleep, soon, so I'd just like to cover a couple of things. I have to say that you're "preaching to the choir" as concerns the Navbar. I only wish I had thought of it myself. I didn't like it at first because I thought so much instructional info had been lost. But then I saw that you had merged that table in with this alphabetical index. So the Navbar idea is quite awesome, and you did an excellent job on it! One can see that a lot of thought went into it, and I hope you won't mind if I suggest that the default state should be collapsed. That way, when it is implemented to the /doc pages of rcats, it won't immediately sizzle the attention away from the other See also entries, which are more directly related to the particular rcat on which they are found. The width of the Navbar may need to be lessened a bit to provide for accessibility issues, but that may be something for a future discussion.

There is one area where I must still disagree with what you've done. You have merged a long functional index into a page that was already getting very long. We should consider giving the functional index its own project page. (As many times as I've argued against such a thing in the past, I find it hard to believe that I'm suggesting it now.) I have no thoughts yet as to what the page should be named, but I do feel that two long index pages are better than one extremely long page, such as this page's present condition. I truly hope that we can come to agreement on this, and once again, kudos² on the Navbar! – Paine 09:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Default state to autocollapse might be fine. I dunno, I think its more handy on doc pages if its open by default, but I have no strong feelings. I had a version that used sub-headings... but it got tedious to keep re-opening them since what you want is a list at-a-glance. As for the future of the functional/alphabetical index - don't be too worried about the length of the page itself, pages don't really have size limits. I think it definitely needs some work to make it more practical and compact. Here are my thoughts:

I have doubts about the usefulness of a list put in a strict alphabetical order. Some have fairly ambiguous ordering (is "R from incomplete disambiguation" better filed under "I" or "D"?) and I just don't think people looking for the right template search like that - too easy to miss. So from that point of view, sorting by function is better (and maybe alphabetic within each section).
The thing I think is great about the alphabetical listing is that each template is expanded to show what the message says. This makes it easy to keep the look consistent and aids people doing searches of the page for the right template.
The current functional list is a bit too cluttered with the examples column. Each listing needs to be pared down to the minimum necessary to convey the usage. We already include links to the template, and those /doc pages are where extensive usage and examples belongs.

TLDR; in my opinion, the best presentation of the list is to sort by function, include the actual transcluded message (as used in the alphabetical list), include the brief Usage (from the functional list), and move the examples to the individual template docs. This should reduce redundancy, so that each template only appears on the page once, and keep the page down to a tight, efficient index. --Netoholic @ 10:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that the longer a page is, the longer it takes to load. This is important for those contributors who still have older browsers and possibly for mobile users, as well. There are several editors who have worked hard and long to improve the examples tables. I've added some here and there, and others have, too. We don't see it as clutter, and indeed see it as keeping some of the clutter out of doc pages, some of which are already quite full of information. No, the functional index cries out for its own project page mutually linkable from the alphabetical index. That alphabetical index is also needed for when an editor knows the template name or part of it and wants to find it without sifting through a functional index for it. Just some ideas that will, hopefully, help with this improvement effort. Joys! – Paine 02:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

An editor who knows the template name or part of it should use ctrl-F to find in the page, or perhaps will make use of the new navbox intead. As I said, the strict alphabetizing is even now handled inconsistently and I really don't think people search that way. -- Netoholic @ 02:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

We'll need more input from others on this, then, because I think users search for things alphabetically all the time. And just because there are inconsistencies in the present index does not mean they can't be fixed, all the dabs together under "D", and so forth. – Paine 07:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with the current state of Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. It helps looking up, via the browser's Ctrl+F, the appropriate name of a template to be applied to a REDIRECT. If we speculate about some editors having problems with their mobile devices loading long pages, maybe they should consider their use of tool for the job at hand. As for browsers and long pages: over the last 3 years, all browsers, even IE, have become much better at dealing with long pages. OTOH, I often use the redirects Template:R from or Template:R to –because they are so easy to remember– from the search box to get to {{R template index}} for the same purpose. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

R template for time-sensitive redirects

I drafted an "R template" for time-sensitive redirects, and I want to call for opinions about actually using it. The template accepts one obligatory parameter – date – and categorizes redirects under Category:Time-sensitive redirects. Using parser functions it then determines whether supplied date is already passed and categorizes such "overdue" redirects under Category:Outdated time-sensitive redirects, sorting them by date.

I see this template as an improvement over Thryduulf's List of time-sensitive redirects for the following reasons:

All maintenance tasks could be performed by editing redirect only, in single edit.
Bot could be set up to monitor Category:Outdated time-sensitive redirects and notify other watchers of additions. (This can also be done for a list, but seems to require more scripting and to be more prone to errors.)

Comments? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This template is not needed at all. User:Thryduulf/List of time-sensitive redirects is outdated because now those redirect point to actual articles (Current Year > This year). Wikipedia should not be creating time-sensitive redirects that require future updating at all. --Netoholic @ 21:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Plenty of redirects in that list are time-sensitive. The template looks good and is an improvement on the list. Gorobay (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  - I spot-checked and didn't see any that actually specified years, but checking again there are a couple. The VAST majority of those articles though have no useful incoming links, so there is no function behind their existence. Creation of such redirects should be absolutely discouraged, not endorsed by the creation of this template. --Netoholic @ 23:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    - They are considered useful by some, and thus they should not be discouraged per WP:R#KEEP. Of course they are currently used with caution – there's no guarantee of timely updates – but a reliable mechanism of notifying interested editors of necessity to edit such redirects, properly set up, would address this issue and make time-sensitive redirects viable for linking. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
      - I've seen this kind of thing happen before. As soon as we put structure around these things, we tacitly endorse them, and their number will explode. We'll be seeing Next Wimbledon, Next Chicago Bears game, Next Bond movie, Next episode of Glee, Next solar eclipse, etc. etc., ad nauseum. And then what? Next stage will be Last Wimbledon, Last solar eclipse, etc. etc. This is not an efficient exercise for us. --Netoholic @ 18:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
        You somehow consider them inherently wrong. Why? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
        Mostly, WP:CRYSTALBALL. Also, they have no practical use - you'd almost be an idiot for trying to put a redirect link to a future event into an article. Also, there are practical concerns over maintaining them. Its easy to create redirects like this en masse, but creation leaves a burden for future editors to update or WP:RFD. --Netoholic @ 19:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
        Redirects are useful besides wikilinking – likely search terms, etc. Yes, WP:CRYSTAL rules out many redirects to future events and positions, but some may potentially have their place, because they are, well, indeed likely search terms. More so about "last Wimbledon", "last solar eclipse" and other search terms for past events. If these redirects get maintainable, they will become just useful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
        
        Net, your citing of Crystal Ball is contrary to what that policy actually says. It explicitly says that articles about future events are permitted and encouraged if they are scheduled event sand almost certain to happen. Thus all redirect targets on that list qualify. All of those elections are almost certain to happen, and so is the year 2015. If one of thosevents didn't happen would be notable in itself (like the 1944 Olympics. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Czarkoff, please write documentation so we can test it. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I planned to make documentation and testcases after moving this draft to "Template:" namespace, where it could be tested thoroughly – it won't be found by {{this is a redirect}} in "Draft:" namespace. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see the draft's talk page to help out with a "definite purpose".

– Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 14:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Unfortunately I am not too good at writing documentation... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The list I created has turned out not to be the optimum solution as it requires ongoing maintenance that isn't happening (from me or others), so I support the idea of something that improves that. The template seems sensible for things that have definite dates, e.g. Recent deaths, but I'm unclear how redirects like Current pope (a useful search term in itself, and which also aids external search engines) which have no defined end date will be handled? Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It is out of the scope of this template. I believe there should be some kind of talk page notice for things like that. Something like this:

The following time-sensitive redirects are associated with the subject of this page:

Current pope → Pope Francis

Please update them if the are inaccurate.

I don't see any better way of handling such cases. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

R to related topic at TfD

You are invited to join the discussion at TfD discussion for {{R to related topic}}. Thanks. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Updated

This is just to document and to let interested editors know that as of yesterday, 17 July 2015, every rcat I could find (in an exhaustive search) has been updated, to include their code and documentation. Also, each and every rcat has been indexed to the alphanumeric index table on this page. Recently, I checked the "functional" index table on this page with the navbar, and made them match each other. If anyone would like to try their hand at including concise examples in this page's functional index table for those that don't have any, that would be very helpful. Thank you and Best of Everything to You and Yours! – Paine 08:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for new category template

Suggest: {{R to camelcase}}
Checkingfax (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose; titles should no longer be in camelcase, so such titles existing is odd. That, and every variant of the target article's name, if camelcase, would have to be tagged with this template; it would be unhelpful redirect tagging overkill. Also, if camelcase titles still existed, it would be more helpful to place the page that has the camelcase title in a category itself, not categorize the redirects to it. Steel1943 (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

E for umlaut: transliteration or alternative spelling?

Should the substitution of an umlaut by an "e" be classified as a "R from transliteration" (as in Goedel's incompleteness theorems) or as an "R from alternative spelling" (as in Buesum)? Since the "e" is acceptable even in German-language contexts when the umlaut is hard to produce, I think the latter is correct, but thought I'd open it up before making an assertion on the main page. I don't know about Swedish umlauts and Ø; they may be a different argument. David Brooks (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, you are looking for {{R from diacritics}}. While this simplifies the categorization, I see no reason why either or both of the others, {{R from transliteration}} and {{R from alternative spelling}}, cannot also be used. That would be an unnecessary and yet more thorough approach. Be prosperous! Paine 03:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestion means use {{Redr}} with all three? I agree it's more thorough. My two examples were redirect pages (Buesum redirects to Büsum), so they would be {{R to diacritics}} not "from". I have thought of that template as "diacritic missing resulting in a definitively incorrect spelling" (the template documentation does not make that distinction), while oe and ue (and ae) are regarded in German text as grudgingly correct, and probably OK to type into a search. So I'd prefer to use both transliteration and alternative spelling, but please put me right if "to diacritics" does not necessarily mean "wrong". David Brooks (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood and gave an answer that applied to the Godel's incompleteness theorems redirect. In the cases you did mention, I don't see a "right" or a "wrong" usage, and {{R from transliteration}}, {{R from alternative spelling}} or both could be applied. I'm not an expert, so if an expert were to determine that the digraphs are incorrectly applied as substitutes for "ü" and "ö", then {{R from misspelling}} would apply and be used in place of R from transliteration and R from alternative spelling.

As for the diacritics, originally, the reason to create a non-diacritic redirect was so readers could use their keyboards to find a title with diacritics. It appears that the search engine software does this automatically now, so those redirects are largely unnecessary for that specific reason. They may still be helpful to journalists and students, though, and so should remain as redirects.

To your question about putting the rcat templates within the This is a redirect (Redr) template, I have done a lot of work on that template and always recommend its use to categorize redirects. Hope that's a better answer. Paine 22:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Umlaut: I understand your point about search, which would support "to diacritics". But I think many redirs are there because the page was created lazily and then fixed with a move. In that case, it's "incorrect spelling". I'm leaning against "alternative spelling" because of the context: there are many ways of representing the vowel in a Wikipedia edit box, so the "only when the umlauted vowel is unavailable" rule doesn't apply. I now definitely think "transliteration" is wrong.

Rcats: is it now the community's preference to enclose even a single rcat in {{Redr}}? I've added a lot of naked {{R ...}}s recently, but I can easily go back and fix them with AWB. David Brooks (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I am also leaning toward incorrect application of R from transliteration. As for your rcats question, the answer is still no... unfortunately. I have worked on the This is a redirect template for a long time and would be happy to see community acceptance; however a fairly good yardstick for this might be the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr, which will determine whether or not this template will be used to automatically apply {{R from move}} to redirects. Thus far it's a toss-up and probably leaning toward "not yet". So I intend to continue to try to come with ways to make this template more useful and less "quirky". Whether to use This is a redirect is still more of a personal preference, David, so any changes you want to make are presently entirely up to you. Thank you for asking, and Be prosperous! Paine 18:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I think you're making a noble effort, but understand the pushback. Also, unfortunately I have an aversion to the appearance of a bulleted "list" with only one item, which was my problem with the single-entry version. David Brooks (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

And thank you! I don't know about "noble" – maybe I just have a lot of time on my hands.

I've never been able to fully understand such an aversion. An editor once tried to war with me over it; however, neither that editor nor anyone else has been able to show where it says that bullets must only be used with bulleted lists. Even in the deletion discussions editors usually begin their comments or !votes with a bullet, and sometimes there is only one editor that responds – no list, just one bulleted response. Nowhere does it say that bullets cannot be used either when there is no actual list or when there is only a potential list, as in the case with rcats. An rcat's bulleted entry(ies) only become a "list" when there are more than one rcats. That does not mean that the use of a bullet at the beginning goes against any WP policy or guideline. In fact, it does not; however, we each have our own likes and dislikes, and they must also be respected. Paine 20:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Inverse template for {{central}}

Is there a redirect template/category which basically tags a talk page as redirecting to another talk page for the purpose of centralization. In other words, is there a redirect template which is the inverse of {{central}}? --Izno (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: I'm not sure, but even if there was, unless it is an WP:RCAT template (unlike {{central}}), it would probably turn the redirect into a soft redirect, defeating the purpose of the redirect. However, I think either I or Paine just got an idea for a new Rcat template... Steel1943 (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Right, from my point of view I was thinking RCAT, not a *mbox. :) --Izno (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@Izno: Oh ha, I just realized the name of the page we are on right now. It's obviously on my watchlist ... I should have caught this. Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
It happens. --Izno (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Redirects from surname, also use short name?

Should {{R from short name}} also be used when {{R from surname}} is applicable? Jason Quinn (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

R from legal name

The example used in Alternative names for {{R from legal name}}, David R. Jones, is now a redirect to a dab rather than to David Bowie. I tried to replace it but the only live example of R from legal name seems to be Martha Helen Stewart. (I assume the others were changed to use R from personal name directly.) R from legal name is now not a template but a redirect to a template for redirects, and I'm not sure how to express that in the documentation without causing confusion. Certes (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I hope the update clears this up, Certes, and thank you for a goood catch! In addition to altering the text and using a different example, I added {{R from legal name}} to the alphabetical index. Thanks again for this – I didn't know the DRJ redirect had been rerouted to the dab page. Feel free to tweak it as you see fit. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 14:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! The examples both use {{R from personal name}} directly but I think that's OK, unless there are circumstances when we prefer the {{R from legal name}} redirect. Certes (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Pleasure! Paine

Pedro Alva y Astorga

For more information see pp. 135-145 of Birdman of Assisi: Art and the Apocalyptic in the colonial Andes by Dr. Jaime Lara ACMRS Publications; Tucson AZ; 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianalynner (talk • contribs) 19:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Rcat for spelling conventions/dialectical variations?

I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to make a separate rcat for things like Sports in South Africa and Labor movement, or if {{R from modification}} is sufficient? Pariah24 (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Tagging R from eastern name order

I was making a redirect for Kvassay Jenő which is how his name appears in most of the literature about him (since most of it is in Hungarian), and I went to tag the redirect by type, and found no type applicable. I tried {{R from eastern name order}}, which didn't exist. Is there an appropriate existing redirect tag for these Hungarian names? The {{R from sort name}} is close, but there is no comma in the eastern name order. I thought that {{R from foreign language}} would be misleading. Any suggestions? --Bejnar (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

To editor Bejnar: there is a related discussion at WT:WikiProject Redirect#Redirects from reverse name order that may interest you. I think you'll find that {{R from sort name}} is appropriate whether or not there is a comma. See Abe Shinzō and Yamashita Miyuki for examples from the Japanese language. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 21:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:R to anchor and Template:R to TV episode list entry

Should Template:R to anchor be used when Template:R to TV episode list entry is used, or does the episode list entry cover the anchor part? --Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as the documentation on the template page explains, if the link is to an anchor, then use {{R to anchor}}, and if the target is a section of an article, then use {{R to section}}. One or the other of these, anchor or section, should be used with {{R to TV episode list entry}}. Also, remember to use {{R printworthy}} or {{R unprintworthy}} as appropriate. Thank you very much for your work with redirects and their categorization! Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 02:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be populating the redirect categories with itself

I've had a look through the source code but I can't spot the error, this seems to be putting itself into some redirect categories where it don't belong, e.g. Category:Redirects to talk pages (that's not only one, but I'll add as I notice them.) There's logic in the template to prevent this, but there must be a break in the chain somewhere... 85.238.91.38 (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Template edit request for two templates that hard-code Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages in a whitelist

‹ The template below (Edit template-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Template:R from album and Template:R from ISO 4 abbreviation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages was moved to Wikipedia:Template index/Redirect pages on Feb. 21, 2020.

Eight "R from" templates that have {{italic title}} in them hard-code an exception for this page, but the template whitelisted the old name, not the current name.

I've fixed six of them but two are template-protected. Changes are in the sandboxes.

Requested edits are in the diffs:

Template:R from album (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:R from album/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), diff
Template:R from ISO 4 abbreviation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:R from ISO 4 abbreviation/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), diff

Suggested edit summary: per page move of 21 Feb 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Template_index/Redirect_pages&diff=941905578&oldid=939575822

Already done:

Template:R from film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:R from book (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:R from Bluebook abbreviation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:R from NLM abbreviation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:R from MathSciNet abbreviation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:R from journal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to do one:

Template:R from work (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Fixed. I also used {{DISPLAYTITLE}} at the bottom of the project page as a "canary" so if this happens again, there will be some kind of notice. Nearby HTML comments point back to this discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Duplicated entries in the Alphanumeric listing

Why some rcats are duplicated in the Alphanumeric listing? Examples: {{R comics with possibilities}}, {{R ME with possibilities}}, {{R plant with possibilities}}. Feelthhis (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we haz "R from hyphenated compound"?

Article titles are usually nouns, e.g. Long truss, but may be used in contexts such as "A Long-truss bridge" where the compound as modifier needs a hyphen to make the parse less ambiguous to the reader. I typically make redirects for this, but I don't find a good R tag for it. Template:R from alternative hyphenation is possible, but not really useful or specific, since it's a punctuation issue, not a spelling issue. I don't know the process for such things. Dicklyon (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:R from misdiacritization

This template would be used for redirect titles diacritized incorrectly, such as:

Hamza Çakir which redirects to Hamza Çakır

It would display: {{Redirect template |id=R from misdiacritization |name=From a misdiacritization |from=a page title with [[diacritics]] used incorrectly to the same title with correctly used diacritics |all category=Redirects from misdiacritizations }} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faster than Thunder (talk • contribs) 00:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The concept is not implausible. However "misdiacritization" does not seem to have any significant currency in the wild; it gets just one Google hit. The root "diacritization" gets a lot more, but almost all of them seem to be about Arabic, whereas I gather that you're intending to talk about diacritics in any language. --Trovatore (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm intending diacritics in any language. Faster than Thunder (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Searching for a RCAT

Is there a RCAT template that can be used on redirects in Latin script that looks the same as Greek or other script target page. For example, I just created A,β-Unsaturated carbonyl compound (with a Latin A) a target to Α,β-Unsaturated carbonyl compound (a Greek Alpha). I created them because at the URL the starting Alpha looks exactly like a Latin A. But don't know what categories to put into. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

To editor CX Zoom: the only rcat template that pertains to scripts is an ISO type from a script to an explanation for the script. Your above application might be best covered by {{R from alternative spelling}} for now. If in the future a larger application for this emerges, a new rcat template and redirect category can be created. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 14:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Should we create a {{R from homoglyphs}} (homoglyph) as a redirect to {{R from alternative spelling}} for now, and then tag as R from homoglyph? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Homoglyphs would be typos, not alternate spellings. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Good point, editor Headbomb – that would mean that if a redirect is created, then it probably should be singular, as in {{R from homoglyph}} (similar to R typo), and target the {{R from misspelling}} rcat template, editor CX Zoom. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Headbomb and @Paine Ellsworth. I agree, this would be a case of R from typo, not alternate spelling. For now, we create {{R from homoglyph}} as a redirect to {{R from misspelling}}, and if a major need ever arises (unlikely), we can convert it into a separate template. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)