Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Redirect pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Broken?

The support for redirect templates seems to be broken in MediaWiki 1.4. It seems to work in previews and diffs [1] but not on the actual redirect pages [2] and the categories are empty, containing only the templates themselves, not the redirect pages using them (e.g. follow the Category:Redirects from plurals link in the diff). I noticed that there are no template messages and category links on the redirect pages when I first saw the new layout with large type and redirect.png just after upgrading to MediaWiki 1.4, which looked like a minor display issue, but now I see that the categories are empty, making the entire Category:Redirects hierarchy useless. I assume that was not intentional. Can the old redirect page layout be used until the problem is solved? Rafał Pocztarski 18:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, I’ve read Wikipedia:Bug reports and found Bugzilla:927 bug report. Rafał Pocztarski 18:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note that "Whatlinkshere/Template:R from whatever" pages do work still. -- Paddu 03:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Suggested change to article text

The opening words of the article currently read

One or several to be placed at the bottom of a redirect page. This doesn't prevent the redirect from working. Note: This feature is broken right now. See: the explanation and Bugzilla:927 bug report.

I would like to change this to read

Typically add one on the same line as the REDIRECT command on a redirect page, as
example for a redirect from Glops to Glop
#REDIRECT [[Glop]] {{R from plural}}
Placement of the template in other positions will either result in the template not being saved or the redirect page not working properly.

Thoughts? Courtland 17:32, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —Nightstallion (?) 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)

[edit] Template:R from former child to Template:R from merge

An oddly named Template:R from former child (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) recently appeared, but not yet in the official documentation. We don't actually have children. I moved it to Template:R from merge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), as that's shorter and more accurately describes the need.

--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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Suggestion

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


[edit] 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 PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 22:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/m/Wikipedia_talk%7ETemplate_messages_Redirect_pages_0ec6.html"