Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 April 27#Template:R to disambiguation page

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Centralized discussion/local}}
• {{Tfd links|Centralized discussion/meta}}

Unused sandboxes. Seems to be for an idea that never materialized. Gonnym (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete both per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by {{admin|Pppery}} AnomieBOT⚡ 15:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Articles with inline parenthetical referencing progress}}

Unused. Removed with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AArticles_with_inline_parenthetical_referencing&diff=1253612798&oldid=1115254186 this edit]. Gonnym (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by {{admin|Pickersgill-Cunliffe}} AnomieBOT⚡ 00:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Article start request}}

An unused template for an unused idea (evidenced by the fact that the category was never created). Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:I've requested speedy delete as the author. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 21:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 16:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|R to disambiguation page|module= |type=merge}}
• {{Tfd links|R from unnecessary disambiguation|module= |type=merge}}

Propose merging Template:R to disambiguation page with Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation.

We can use some manipulation on {{pf|PAGENAME}} to figure out whether we are on a page ending with {{tq|(disambiguation)}}, and depending on the result output the correct rcat. This makes the templates more user-friendly, because we don't have to explain on {{t|R to disambiguation page}} when to use it versus when to use {{t|R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Maybe. They're not quite the same though. {{tl|R from unnecessary disambiguation}} redirects go to articles. {{tl|R to disambiguation page}} redirects go to disambiguation pages. Is it accurate to call the "(disambiguation)" part of the redirect page name "unnecessary disambiguation"? We also have {{tl|R from incomplete disambiguation}} which is also for page names with disambiguation that can go to page names without disambiguation, but it's different again. Mclay1 (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think I'll have to oppose on this. R from unnecessary disambiguation is for titles such as Truth be Told (Alias episode) which has the unnecessary added disambiguation of "episode", that isn't needed as Truth Be Told (Alias) is available. Gonnym (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::That said, {{tl|Redirect category shell}} should be coded to recognize simple situations so page namespaces and to disambiguation pages redirect templates aren't even needed. Template:Automatic redirect categories was worked on but that project seems to have been abandoned. Gonnym (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, these are not at all the same. There are cases where the templates are used incorrectly (but the actual impact of such cases is minimal). While it might be possible to code some switches to make both functions available in one template, is that additional complexity worth it? older ≠ wiser 10:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:*That said, the main purpose of both templates is to add appropriate tracking categories, if there is way to make the categorization happen automatically, that'd be great; although there are edge cases that may need some discussion as to which categories are applicable. E.g., 1) a disambiguation page is converted to an article and the redirect with "(disambiguation)" is left orphaned; 2) disambiguation pages for similar spellings D1 and D2 are merged into D1 and the redirect "D2 (disambiguation)" now points to D1 -- is that a redirect to disambiguation or a redirect from alternate spelling/capitalization or both? older ≠ wiser 11:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: Not all unnecessary DABs point to a DAB page. These are not mutually exclusive. There may be some overlap when the DAB is the primary topic, but there are several outliers to this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: not the same. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support. The opposition seems to misunderstand the nomination. According to the templates' documentation, {{tl|R to disambiguation page}} goes on {{tqq|a redirect page that has "(disambiguation)" at the end of its title}}, and {{tl|R from unnecessary disambiguation}} goes on all other ambiguous terms. The only difference, in other words, is something that can be detected perfectly by parser functions. There is no need to have two parallel templates, both with reader-facing warnings about avoiding confusion, when we can have one template figure out which circumstance applies. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• :If someone wants to code and test a draft of this functionality, then there may be something to discuss; but until then it is just a hypothetical possibility. older ≠ wiser 11:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• : Just because they *can* be, does not mean they *should* be. Yes, it *could* be detected programmatically and handle both cases, but imho, that is a bad idea (although I am open to being persuaded otherwise). For starters, a merger would require keeping the other around as a redirect (so far, so good) but would also require merging the documentation somehow in a way that would not confuse the user. It would also be non-compliant with my personal (non-guideline-based) philosophy of WP:TEMPLATECLARITYPRECEDENCE preferring clarity and ease of use to: 1) readers, 2) editors/transcluders, and 3) template editors, in that order. According to this principle, although it would be heaps of fun to code both functions in one template and would tickle my template parsimony endorphin center (so a big win for #3), that would come at the expense of confusing doc and puzzlement among readers as to why these two essentially different use cases are found in a single template and a single, combined doc page (so a big loss for #1). Or am I missing something? I dare say I could find two entirely dissimilar templates in function and name that could be merged in this clever way, but that doesn't mean they should be. Mathglot (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• No comment on the merger for now, but {{tl|R to disambiguation page}} and its associated category should be renamed, since its name is clearly unintuitive as shown by the confusion here. As Tamzin points out, it's not actually for any redirect to a disambiguation page as its name might imply, it's for redirects that have (disambiguation) at the end of their titles. Actual redirects to disambiguation pages get {{tl|R from ambiguous term}} instead. Pinguinn 🐧 06:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• :No that's not right. {{tl|R to disambiguation page}} should exclusively be used for exactly what the name implies: redirects to disambiguation pages. I agree that the bit about only including titles that have "(disambiguation)" appended may be unintuitive. {{tl|R from ambiguous term}} is not exclusively for redirects to formal disambiguation pages; many are redirects to other pages such as broad concept articles; overviews; and set indexes that provide contextual navigation between the ambiguous terms. older ≠ wiser 11:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{tqq|{{tl|R to disambiguation page}} should exclusively be used for exactly what the name implies}} ← Perhaps such a template should exist, but that's not what this template is for. It's the name that's misleading, not the usage. Further, such a template would also be redundant with what can be detected automatically, in that case through Module:Disambiguation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{temp|R to disambiguation page}} is for intentional links to disambiguation pages, e.g. in hatnotes, that should not be disambiguated. {{temp|R from ambiguous term}} is for links that should be disambiguated because a specific topic was intended. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. These templates have different functions. {{tl|R to disambiguation page}} marks a page that is used as an intermediate redirect to redirect to a disambiguation page which has a base name title: explained at WP:INTDAB. {{tl|R from unnecessary disambiguation}} is used in cases where the disambiguator in the title is not required, often after an article has been moved to the base name as a primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. See the KISS principle. {{cat|Redirects to disambiguation pages}} is a subcategory of {{cat|Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation}}, so the former sorts special instances of the latter. It seems that the nom wants this to continue; however, merging these two rcat templates will make the template code more confusing for editors, not less confusing. These should be kept as they are, as they have worked very well for many years. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose in addition to the other points made about how these are fundamentally different, {{temp|R to disambiguation page}} is for intentional links to disambiguation pages for use in e.g. hatnotes; {{temp|R from unnecessary disambiguation}} is for links to articles that are titled more precisely than is currently necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Two distinct templates with two distinct uses. Merge doesn't make sense, even with the potentially difficult to maintain {{Tl|PAGENAME}} check ... one if those cases where "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies. That, and per the merge, tagging a redirect with {{Tl|R to disambiguation page}} when the redirect doesn't target a disambiguation page will cause unintended errors. Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose These two rcats are not related. I do wonder if possibly OP meant to propose combining {{tl|R to disambiguation page}} and {{tl|R from ambiguous term}} - I think the sole Support vote above also may be thinking of {{tl|R from ambiguous term}}. I could see a case for combining these two. But {{tl|R from unnecessary disambiguation}} is not related to either. Bensci54 (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• These two templates have opposing uses, one to a disambiguation page and the other from disambiguation. The possibility of a redirect reasonably using both templates doesn't convince me either, so I strongly oppose this idea. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 20:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :This action is clearly not going to get enough support, so feel free to close this discussion [prematurely]. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 21:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Two entirely different cases; deleting or merging would be harmful for those cases that require it. If deleted, with what category should we tag {{no redirect|Free play (psychology)}} which redirects to ⟶ Free play? Mathglot (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.