Template talk:R from incomplete name

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus(talk) 20:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:R from an incomplete name → — to conform with every other redirect template.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  05:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge/Redirect proposal
This template, R from incomplete name, should be merged with the template R from short name and made into a redirect to it (Rcat), due to the great similarity between the two in meaning. Either of these templates could easily be mistaken or misinterpreted for the other, as they are so nearly identical in both purpose and meaning, and therefore the two should not exist as completely separate redirect templates. Since this template is a subcategory of R from short name, the redirect should be from here to the latter.&emsp;&mdash;  | J  ~  Pæst  |   00:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, is used when the name is officially considered incomplete (but not outright incorrect) despite being sufficient to unambiguously identify the subject.  is when the short name has some official approval. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To  | J  ~  Pæst  |  & SoledadKabocha:  I have been wondering the same as you, JPæst, because as I look at the entries in the two cats, it seems as though most editors don't know the difference.  The same goes for R from shortening and its cat.  SoledadKabocha, the difference you cite seems to be too subtle for most editors to discern.  If I may, I suggest that all three be combined to R from short name and its cat.  This would eliminate the anomaly you cite below, as well. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 09:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am neutral as to any merge. But I realize that I may have been a little sloppy in explaining originally. From what I understand of the fact that "incomplete" categorizes as unprintworthy while "short" does not, the distinction is primarily of whether the short name follows the usual printworthiness guidelines. I assume that a merged template would require users to manually specify "r printworthy" or "r unprintworthy" to make any claims of (un)printworthiness? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a correct assumption – at this point I see no reason why a default printworthiness is needed. Thank you! –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 09:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm restoring this template, and strongly recommend keeping these cases distinct, as per . While short names may be printworthy or not, these ones clearly aren't. More importantly, while links to a proper short name may be kept, these ones should be replaced by the correct, full name. I came here, quite irritated to see being redirected to . Don't know if everybody understands the difference, but if not, this might be, because we didn't explain it well enough. Similar templates are often listed and the difference explained on the transcluded template, and there's no reason why we can't do the same here. If some still don't get the the difference, this is no major problem, and in fact it's better to have 50% of these redirects correctly categorized, than none. --PanchoS (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Unprintworthy or not
The template categorizes articlespace redirects as unprintworthy. However, the displayed instructions say "It is not necessary to replace links to this redirect with piped links." Are these contradictory, and what should be done if so? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)