WT:WikiProject Redirect#Template:R from abbreviation

Bumping comment inquiring about the reinstatement of {{tlx|R from incorrect hyphenation}} by User:Wbm1058, w.r.t. this RfD. A similar reinstatement was made by :User:Eejit43 for {{tlx|R from alternative hyphenation}}, but User: Rosguill referenced the same RfD for both blank and redirects (which did not decide on {{tlx|R from alternative hyphenation}}, and did decide to redirect {{tlx|R from incorrect hyphenation}}). Tule-hog (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

:{{tlx|R from incorrect hyphenation}} was created May 2013 as an {{tl|R from modification}}.

:It retained that generic status until changed on 19 November 2018 to {{tl|R from alternative spelling}}. I don't really agree with that. The length of a horizontal line is not an a–z spelling matter.

:Barely a month later it was boldly upgraded on 29 December 2018 to {{tl|R from misspelling}}.

:I reverted on 7 May 2020 back to {{tl|R from alternative spelling}}.

:Then it was boldly changed on 14 May 2020 to make it an {{tl|R from incorrect name}}. That was even worse. A cosmetic change in the length of a hyphen does not change a name.

:Then came the February 2021 discussion that changed it back to {{tl|R from misspelling}}. That discussion was closed without any administrative analysis or rationale, after another admin had felt the need to relist it to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus – and no further discussion had occurred after the relist. Not a lot of !voting there, more "{{tq|I have no good answer}}" than strong opinions.

:The last comment there was {{tq|I agree that this is confusing. We need to decide whether punctuation is spelling or modification. Originally, it was supposed to be modification. But I don't have a problem changing it to spelling if that's the consensus.}}

:Back when I first became active on Wikipedia, in December 2011, I actually started my user page by writing a user essay about hyphens and dashes, which another editor copied a year later to start Wikipedia:Hyphens and dashes.

:{{U|Tule-hog}}, I'm wondering if you've read Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings. I've struggled to keep that report under control. Editors continue to get more and more perfectionist in the way they tag redirects, escalating cosmetic things like hyphen lengths to the level of top-priority misspellings. I'm attempting to do something to ease the workload on the gnomes who correct misspellings. That's why I created :Category:Redirects from incorrect hyphenation on 5 November 2023. I did not reinstate the redirect to {{tl|R from alternative spelling}}.

:I think I can write a bot to "fix" cosmetic horizontal line issues where they've been tagged as incorrect rather than as valid alternatives. My view is that these should not require human scrutiny, so we should not burden gnomes with demands to make these corrections. And presumably, since these have been branded as incorrect, such a bot wouldn't be rejected for making "cosmetic edits" per WP:COSMETICBOT. I just haven't gotten around to writing the bot code yet, as my time is still way oversubscribed. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks for the in-depth reply - hopefully your reasoning will be useful reference for future contributors to the project.

::Would it be going too far to extrapolate from your answer that all 'incorrect' rcats are (eventually) intended for use in a database report (presumably to be 'fixed')? My guess is that is too far, since some templates automatically tag {{tlx|R unprintworthy}}, which is useful for different purposes.

::In the following, an indented bullet point represents dependency; when labeled with ➝ the page redirects to the parent, if not, it uses a subcategory of the parent. A link to a relevant RFD is provided when it exists.

::I see the following are reported via Linked miscapitalizations and Linked misspellings:

::* {{tlx|R from miscapitalisation}}

::** {{tlx|R from incorrect capitalisation}} ➝ (RFD)

::* {{tlx|R from misspelling}}

::** {{tlx| R from incorrect spelling}} ➝

::** {{tlx|R from incorrect spacing}} ➝

::** {{tlx|R from incorrect punctuation}} ➝ (RFD1, RFD2)

::The other 'incorrect' rcats (I can find), without database reports (as far as I'm aware), are:

::* {{tlx|R from incorrect disambiguation}}

::* {{tlx|R from incorrect hereditary title}} ({{small|➝ {{tlx|R from subsidiary title}}}})

::* {{tlx| R from incorrect URL encoding}} ({{small|➝{{tlx|R unprintworthy}}}})

::* {{tlx|R from incorrect name}}

::** {{tlx|R from incorrect hyphenation}}

::** {{tlx|R from incorrect quotation}} ➝

::** {{tlx|R from incorrect abbreviation}} ➝

::** {{tlx|R from incorrect modification}} ➝

::** {{tlx|R from incorrect term}} ➝

::** {{tlx|R from incorrect title}} ➝

::There are a number of aliases for each template, so I have tried to only include significant page names (often marked with possibilities). Extending my previous question, would it be useful to have a Linked misnamings?

::As to automating incorrect➝alternative, from the replies of Eejit, Anomie, and Hyphenation Expert, it seems it would be difficult to create such a bot, but the interest is there. Tule-hog (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

:{{tl|R from incorrect hyphenation}} seems like a very valid rcat, usages of hyphens instead of en dashes, for example, are incorrect. I'm not sure exactly what would make something an alternative hyphenation instead of an incorrect hyphenation, but something like {{noredirect|-1}} redirecting to −1 could be an alternative as a hyphen is commonly used in place of the minus sign. I see no harm in having both rcats, but the differences between the two should probably be explained better in their respective documentations. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

::The inclusion or omission of an optional hyphen; e.g., {{-R|Non-profit organization}} or {{-R|Preeclampsia}}. :Category:Redirects from alternative hyphenations Hyphenation Expert (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:::I've just noticed AnomieBOT EnDashRedirectCreator tags all hyphen-to-endash redirects as "alternative" instead of "incorrect" hyphenation, blech. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

::::Ah yes, I believe AnomieBOT is tagging incorrectly there. Thank you for the clarification regarding alternative hyphenations, in that case it seems like all hyphen-to-endash (and similar) redirects should be tagged with {{tl|R from incorrect hyphenation}}, and there will definitely need to be some cleanup of those categories. cc @Anomie ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::Possible exceptions would be in proper names, e.g. an organisation might use a hyphen where our style guide says to use an en-dash or use both interchangeably, similarly with em-dashes. I don't know whether there are any such examples, but its something to look out for. There are definitely examples that have come up at RfD where two hyphens are used in the official name (I want to say Canadian electoral districts, but I might be misrembering). Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

::::: {{re|Eejit43}} AnomieBOT used to use {{tl|R from modification}}, until you asked me in April to switch to {{tl|R from alternative hyphenation}}. I can switch it again if it's wanted that every redirect the bot creates for en-dashed titles should be tagged with {{tl|R from incorrect hyphenation}} instead. It seems unlikely I could have the bot know the difference between "incorrect" and "alternative", however. Anomie⚔ 17:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

::::::Yes, I wasn't aware of {{tl|R from incorrect hyphenation}} at that point so sorry about that. I'm not sure exactly how the bot would be able to determine if a redirect is an incorrect or alternative hyphenation. Logic could be made to check if the dash is between two digits and other examples, but that seems too difficult to maintain. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:Some background: back in 2011, when I was just getting started on Wikipedia, there was a controversy so noisy that I couldn't help but notice it. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting was a discussion mandated by the Arbitration Committee, which resulted in a completed consensual draft for inclusion in WP:MOS. The dissenting view was "{{tq|This represents a small clique of editors, ignoring two lengthy polls. On both of those polls, half of the editors opposed making dashes mandatory, as this draft proposes.}}", to which the disingenuous clique leader's rebuttal was "{{tq|I'm not finding any place where anyone said "mandatory" besides PMA himself... Certainly there has never been a poll about "making dashes mandatory"... someone usually just cleans up after them.}}" Dashes are not found on standard keyboards, making them "difficult" to type. I wrote a user essay about them, as back in 2011, as at the time they were new to this older guy who worked on mainframe machines that only supported seven-bit ASCII, and grew up playing on sixbit (all caps) machines. The idea was, go ahead and use a hyphen if you don't know how to make a dash, that's an acceptable alternative form, which someone may, optionally, later change to a dash. Lately, however, we see increasingly aggressive pushes for perfection, as the drumbeat keeps pushing {{tl|R from alternative hyphenation}} to become the mandatory {{tl|R from incorrect hyphenation}}. What I'm not seeing is members of "the clique" actively helping to make these mandated edits. The ringleader has tried, but they apparently lack to competence to develop acceptable bots to fix the problems automatically, or the patience to slow down their semiautomatic edits to where they can catch and correct the inevitable "gotcha"s. And none of "the clique" wants to burden themselves with manually making the mandated corrections, they just expect "someone else" to do it. Hey, "someone else" isn't stepping up, so that just leaves me. My first bot using the database to make corrective edits is now approved and running; I'll use that as a template for writing a hyphen–dash correcting bot, and I see from the current Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings that an ʻokina-fixing bot is also on my horizon. These wouldn't be my highest priorities if the obsessive clique weren't so aggressively pushing them on me. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion § Crazy idea for a template. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 21:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I'd be interested to hear thoughts on {{tl|R to subsection}}, a former "redirect with possibilities" of {{tl|R to section}} that was recently created by @Bunnypranav. In my opinion I don't see it worth it to differentiate between sections and subsections (sections being first level and subsections being higher levels), but I wanted to get input from other project members. Thanks in advance! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

:I agree; I don't see it being very useful for tracking. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

:I agree that this granular level of tracking is unnecessary. @Bunnypranav: it's usually a good idea to get input from folks here before creating an Rcat. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 06:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

::Noted, will take input for such actions from now. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

:My reason for creating this template out of the redirect: The template is transcluded in atleast 770 pages per :Category:Redirects to subsections. People who want to expand sections into articles can sort based on main sections (simpler to expand and generally have more content), and subsection (generally have less content, harder to expand into newer articles, takes more work). Plus it can also help for tracking based on more parameters.

:I am open to any feedback and am ready to revert back to the redirect if consensus says so. Thanks! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

::@J947@Voorts Does this rationale justify the creation? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The redirect {{no redirect|Brinell hardness test}} contains several paragraphs of article content. I didn't know exactly what to do here (Just remove the article content? Merge the content into the end article?), so I'll leave it to you guys to fix. --Hirsutism (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Hirsutism}} Well spotted. An IP editor in 2017 seems to have clumsily copied Brinell's biography onto the redirect. I've reverted to the redirect. Thanks. PamD 07:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:51D2:8D00:FD12:2382:49F3:916: this IP has been adding DEFAULTSORTs with brackets as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shay_Grewal&diff=prev&oldid=1269385764 here]. They seem to have stopped, perhaps after I left a note on their talk page, but there are a lot to undo. Very odd. PamD 13:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:R_his&redirect=no Template:R his] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 17#Template:R his}} until a consensus is reached. Tule-hog (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

There is an RfC on the proper venue for BLARed articles at {{slink|Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)|RfC: Amending ATD-R}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion about adding do not remove text at Template_talk:Redirect_for_discussion#Can_%22do_not_remove_this_notice_before_the_discussion_is_closed%22_be_added?. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

{{u|Gonnym}} and I have been unable to agree over the use of category redirects for template-generated categories on redirect pages, so I am bringing the matter here.

Since 2021 {{tl|R from television episode}} resolves category redirects, and {{tl|R from fictional character}} since 2022. This saves a deal of work if a series category is merged or renamed: instead of having to update the series name on each redirect page, a category redirect is left at the old name, and the rcat template resolves this when placing redirects into a category.

This also works for generic media types that do not match current categories. E.g. 186 redirect pages such as Jade Chan have {{R from fictional character|Animated series}} which generates ":Category:Animated series character redirects to lists", but that category page was redirected to ":Category:Animated television series character redirects to lists" (as it happens, this was per Gonnym's nomination to rename the category at WP:CFDS last year). {{tl|R from fictional character}} then resolves the category as the correct ":Category:Animated television series character redirects to lists".

For an example re episodes, {{u|Ymblanter}} created the redirect ":Category:Animated series episode redirects to lists" temporarily after a renaming, but it has proved useful as editors have since created new pages using {{R from television episode|Animated series}}.

Although this is working fine for episode and character redirects, Gonnym is opposing resolution of redirects for location redirects, and has twice reverted me on {{tl|R from fictional location}} as follows:

:no, those red categories should be created. Post on the talk pages of those editors that are not doing so.

:again, no. There is absoulty no reason to use this template with a value of a series you aren't intending to populate it as a category. Just add the category you do want to populate, leave blank, or don't use the template

{{collapse top|Copy of user talk page discussion}}

Hi, your revert on Template:R from fictional location has repopulated the redirected :Category:The Adventures of Tintin location redirects.

It's easier to make a single category redirect to implement a decision such as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 20#Category:The Adventures of Tintin location redirects, than to edit every member.

In this case it's not even a renaming of the series, but a category merger to a target that is not only for redirect pages, so I don't know how else to implement it.

I did not understand your edit summary no, those red categories should be created. Post on the talk pages of those editors that are not doing so. – Fayenatic London 22:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:The template's only reason to exist is to populate a category. If you want to populate a different category, use that name. If you don't want to populate any category, leave blank or don't use the template. Modifying the template, isn't a valid option. Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

{{cob}}

As for the option "don't use the template", I believe it is still desirable to use the template to keep the page within :Category:All fictional location redirects.

I grant that :Category:The Adventures of Tintin location redirects only contains 6 redirects, so it would not be arduous to edit all six combining two of Gonnym's suggested options add the category you do want to populate, leave blank, viz. changing

:{{R from fictional location|1=The Adventures of Tintin}}

to

:{{R from fictional location}}

:Category:Tintin locations

However, I can't understand the objection in principle that resolving category redirects on fictional location redirects "isn't a valid option", when this works so well on fictional character & episode redirects.

Resolving category redirects also works well on other types of templates, e.g. file namespace templates such as {{tl|Non-free video game screenshot}}.

Is it permissible? Or is it better to require every instance of a non-valid category parameter to be edited? – Fayenatic London 22:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:Because what you are trying to do is use a template, then break its functionality. You've yet to explain what advantages it gives to use that template without using a valid category. Gonnym (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::Regarding the other redirects, those probably should be reverted also. Those actually hinder the category system in finding and creating categories. Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The advantages of resolving category redirects within such templates are (i) removing the need for edits on every member page when categories are merged or renamed, (ii) automatically categorising new pages correctly when a predictable obsolete or duplicate category is specified.

:::You have yet to explain the actual hindrances. – Fayenatic London 11:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::::But we {{em|should}} edit every member when a page is moved or deleted. Leaving bad code behind is an awful paradigm. Editors that aren't as familiar with the system will write down the text and not understand why the template isn't working as it should. A category redirect in template space is really only needed when we automate things we have no control over, but this isn't that. I'm also pretty sure we do move all article pages when a page moves even though we can leave behind a category redirect on those pages. Gonnym (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Gonnym, Fayenatic london, it seems better to me to use {{t|resolve category redirect}} in cases like this with :Category:The Adventures of Tintin location redirects, where the pages can't (I think) be straightforwardly edited, because the new category name doesn't fit in the {{t|R from fictional location}} naming scheme, and Fayenatic's suggestion of {{#tag:syntaxhighlight| {{R from fictional location}}{{Truenewline}} Category:Tintin locations|lang="wikitext"}} would presumably double-categorise the redirects. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::: Not sure what you meant by double-categorising – good or bad? And now, {{u|Timrollpickering}} has edited the Tintin category members, omitting {{tl|R from fictional location}}, so they have been removed from :Category:All fictional location redirects, where I think they still belong.

:::::: As for we {{em|should}} edit every member when a page is moved – not if we can help it. E.g. if a stub category is renamed, we just edit the stub template. If the stub template is renamed, we often leave a redirect at the old name, e.g. {{tl|EastTimor-stub}}. What self-flagellation calls us to edit every page and update the template link, when a redirect works perfectly well? As WP:RFD says, Redirects are cheap. Remember, we are talking about cases that won't be handled by JJMC89 bot III, so every page would have to be edited manually, perhaps with partial help from WP:JWB. I've been implementing CFD for a long time, I've been there and done that in tedious bulk,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=&namespace=6&start=&tagfilter=&target=Fayenatic+london&offset=20231219103848] but I would rather save the effort for anyone. – Fayenatic London 23:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Fayenatic london, I think they should retain the {{t|R from fictional location}} (and the :Category:All fictional location redirects) - though the new category is not an rcat category, it's an article category. Probably leaving them at the top level, at :Category:Redirects from fictional locations, will be fine. So what I think should be done is use {{tlx|R from fictional location}} and then add :Category:Tintin locations manually because it is an article category, not an rcat category. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: For the record, I have done as suggested on the 6 Tintin redirects. Meanwhile I have used redirecting again to save work on much larger categories (e.g. :Category:NFL team logos, not fictional locations), and am seeking a consensus in support of such use of {{tl|resolve category redirect}} within templates. – Fayenatic London 22:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Fayenatic london, I think {{T|resolve category redirect}} is reasonable when preserving category naming schemes (in this case :Category:Redirects from fictional locations). No thoughts on other cases. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Template:Photo requested is another instance where resolving category redirects works very well. As there is no consensus against this practice, I propose to reintroduce the coding for fictional location redirects. – Fayenatic London 17:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::You don't need consensus against something, you need consensus for something. Red categories are a valid thing and should not be something we dread and are afraid. They show us that something is missing or incorrectly used. Since ALL usages of these redirects are manually entered by users, there will always be a human decision behind the category selection, which is how it should be done. As a side note, your examples of templates that use this are all templates you edited to use them. I don't think those instances are also good, but I don't gnome that area so don't know enough or care to check. Gonnym (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svgA requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:How to make a redirect to be moved to WP:Redirect maker. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{tlp|bots|2=deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Template:Wikidata redirect currently redirects to Template:Soft redirect with Wikidata item. It doesn't assign tagged pages to a subcategory of :Category:Wikipedia interwiki soft redirects. In fact, :Category:Redirects to Wikidata was deleted a while ago. There's also Template:R with Wikidata item. I'm inclined to create a Template:Redirect to Wikidata, after :Category:Interwiki soft redirect templates. It's being considered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/43rd parallel south. Otherwise, a poor man's redirect to Wikidata would look like this: User:Fgnievinski/test redir to wd. Pinging previous editors: {{ping|Maddy from Celeste|Eli|Paine Ellsworth|Fastily}}. Thanks! fgnievinski (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:I assume you meant to ping Elli. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Please add the {{code}} for a translated name redirect to the style guide, or a link to the page, because for the life of me I can't remember how to do it and I never bookmarked the template. Guylaen (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)