Template talk:R from alternative name/Archive 1

alternative name
This template should be called "R from alternative name", for two reasons: 1) It's incorrect grammar 2) It's confusing - some redirect templates use alternative, others use alternate. ··gracefool |&#9786; 07:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Bad example: Alternate redirects to Alternative per the Redirect adjectives to nouns naming convention; in the context of this template, "alternative" serves the function of an adjective, which is what the word "alternate" is for. Or we could avoid the whole issue altogether by renaming it with a less ambiguous word such as "other" or "different".  --Stratadrake 22:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

corresponding template
Is there a corresponding template for tagging redirects that are not an alternate name/phrasing for the subject they redirect to? Where we redirect to a particular subject because it's the closest related article we have on a subject? It seems to me that would be a highly useful template to have, since looking at the category page would essentially show you unwritten articles that won't show up as redlinks. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If I understand your intent, the template to use would be R with possibilities. Courtland 23:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Format
This is a hatnote, so it needs to be italicized. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind...I should look before I speak... Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

edit protected
editprotected Add " Do not use this template for incorrect names, instead use R from incorrect name ".--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On second thought, perhaps the editprotected template is inappropriate.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There have bean no objections so far, and I doubt this edit would be opposed, so I am re-adding editprotected.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Jake   Wartenberg  17:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WhatLinksHere is kind of broken, if looking for redirects it will provide backlinks which happen to be redirects but not necessarily the same page. In the past we simply eliminated links on redirect pages; however, people keep reintroducing them. The solution come upon is to interwiki link, so  becomes   removing the links from the pagelinks table. — Dispenser 23:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't really understand this, but ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
This section should be changed:

to

Any alternative name is a printworthy redirect.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  07:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * May I ask why it's necessary to explicitly categorise it as a printworthy redirect when it doesn;t currently categorise as an unprintworthy redirect? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Any alternative name is a printworthy redirect. It would save a lot of time allowing this template to add the redirects to Category:Printworthy redirects rather than adding another template.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  05:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I withdraw my request. Adding unprintworthy pages to Category:Redirects from alternative names could be possible.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  07:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit protected
The template should be instead of This was part of the last edit request, but the should be necessary. Timothy G. from CA (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Andrew Gray (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 May 2013
The comma in the sentence "Do not use this template for incorrect names, instead use " should actually be a semicolon. The correct sentence is: "Do not use this template for incorrect names; instead use ." This is for purely grammatical purposes; the current state of the sentence is incorrect.

&emsp;&mdash; | J  ~  Pæst  |  02:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, so Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2014-0310

 * Someone got careless, please restore the word category with it's proper (more informative) link:
 * 'Category:Redirects from alternative names' or 'category.' That is, paste in one of these:

Category:Redirects from alternative names. or category.
 * The line is also lacking a period or stop.
 * lastly...
 * One cannot see the category when placing the template except by inserting a space after the '#', the template really ought specify that the redirect is explicitly printworthy, which also means externally searchable as a term... which is why I stopped to confirm it's text mentioned it being printworthy...
 * I see some discussion of that above, but see no harm in specifying the point whereas lack of it, means one has to look inside the template to see if unprintworthy is a resultant category, AND THAT takes and wastes peoples time (MINE NOW!!!) when things are unclear, don't cha know! NOT EVERYONE dedicates many every day hours to knowing such fine distinctions, and teh way things change here this past ten years, explicitly stating what only a few well practiced congnizati are sure of is a good thing. I resent both these ommisions when they cost so damn little to think of others! // Fra nkB 17:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. There is already a link to that category in this template, which reads much more informatively as "another name, a pseudonym, a nickname, or a synonym". If you want to change that, you are going to need to get a consensus to do that.  I see a stop at the end of every sentence, so you'll have to be more clear where you think this period is missing.  What do you mean that you can't see the category?  You really lost me there, before you went into your /rant and then I gave up reading.  I look forward to your clarifications.  Happy editing! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 17:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Confusing redirect
redirects to

I cannot find the logic in this as the rendered boilerplate states the category is "from" when I'm expecting it to say "to".

Please advise. Cheers! 02:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't see a problem – can "alternative name" not work both ways? Be prosperous! Paine 20:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit request 2015-11-24
The word "instead" in the second sub-bullet should not be italicized. - Paul2520 (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Several of these rcats italicize certain words for emphasis – curious as to why you would find that objectionable? Paine  08:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

to becomes from
Hello. Why does R to stage name generate boilerplate saying redirect from nickname?

Also, why does R to stage name redirect to R from alternative name? Cheers! 09:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Because a stage name is still an alternative name, and an alternative name is still a stage name.
 * And because we don't have a Category:Redirects to stage names or Category:Redirects to pseudonyms.
 * It appears that when the redirect was created in July 2015, User:Wdchk intended it to "complement Template:R from stage name" and didn't see the need to create it. But I suppose if you feel that it's misleading or confusing readers somehow I don't see any problem with creating the template proper and using a modified version of the Template:R from pseudonym boilerplate text. -- &oelig; &trade; 09:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

/doc edits
noticed your recent changes, some are pretty radical differences from the standard rcat /doc pages. Are you planning to make these changes to all the /doc pages? Some of them might need to be discussed before doing so.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  13:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No plans to make sweeping changes. If it is better reverted, feel free. Your judgement is impeccable.--John Cline (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 June 2019
"should have been used instead" should be chanaged to "should be used instead" as I feel it is more appropiate to use the base form instead of the past participle form of the verb "to be" in this case, and I find the emphasis on "instead" by italicizing it a bit unnecessary. letcreate123 (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ruslik_ Zero 20:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:R other listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:R other. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

"Template:R from slang term" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:R from slang term. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 January 2021
Replace with  or  JsfasdF252 (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thank you for your input!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 00:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Similar edits should be made for rcats that only use named parameters. Also, templates like R from diacritic should accept a parameter for the alternative title. JsfasdF252 (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC); updated 00:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)