Template talk:R from historic name

Text mods
This template's verbosity is almost comical. I will leave it others to suggest how the start of the 1st para may be improved - however I suggest that the final phrase 'suffered from a name change over time' is replace by 'experienced a name change'. I can't see why a name change should be suffered and 'over time' is just plain redundant. Saga City (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed the wording per your suggestion. Woody (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

To add the following:

Historic vs. former
This is confusing. And what about names that are neither regions/states or organizations? "Entities" looks like a catchall, but then why mention organizations? I suggest using both for anything, with the distinction that "historic" have had wide usage, whereas "former" names may have enjoyed relative obscurity. Paradoctor (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've been using R from former name for most situations, and only use R from historic name for those names with especially historic significance, but even then it's just a subcategory of 'former names'. Perhaps the two categories, Category:Redirects from historic names and Category:Redirects from former names should be merged. -- &oelig; &trade; 11:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Improve info value
As "verbose" as this Rcat may have been at one time, since   redirects here, the informational value of the text would probably double just by the addition of two words... becomes... Of course, we could always use the "R to . . ." template to populate a new Category:Redirects to historic names, but evidently this has been thought to be unnecessary. &mdash;  Paine  Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  18:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a redirect from a title that is another name . ..
 * This is a redirect to or from a title that is another name . ..

Printworthy
Wouldn't it be safe to say that redirects either from or to an historic name would be printworthy? I'll wait a few days to see if any discussion ensues before I go with the Editprotected template. – Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  13:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Printworthy category
Editprotected Please add the Printworthy redirects category to this Rcat. Present ending: Please modify as follows: Added is the   on the third line in the above. Thank you very much! – Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  22:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Skier Dude  ( talk ) 04:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)`
 * Thank you, Skier Dude! and the /doc page has been updated. – Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  14:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Main other template
This is a case where an Rcat is utilized both in the Main article namespace and other namespaces. In order to categorize only the Main article redirects as "printworthy", the following modification is needed.

Apply the "Main other" template and ensure that only historic-name redirects that are in the Main article namespace will populate the Printworthy redirects category. Thank you in advance for your help to modify this protected template! – PIE  ( C LIMAX ! )  14:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * From this:
 * To this:
 * ✅ Tra (Talk) 18:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Add another example that is not geographic
The current template wording places undue weight on historic geographic names. I suggest adding the following words (adapted from the blurb at Category:Redirects from historic names: …historic past. For example, a name having an appearance in older references has been taken over by a synonymous newet term. Or, a region, state… ï¿½ (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Paine Ellsworth is probably the best person to assess this request. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Godsy, and to ï¿½, it's ✅.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  20:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)