Template talk:R from misspelling/Archive 1

Removal of "See also"
I have removed the:

Automated correction
While fixing a list of links to redirects that use this template, I noticed a problem that prevents automating the process. It's not always possible to get the best replacement for a misspelling.

For example, the misspelling redirect Castillian language uses this template and redirects to Spanish language, but there's no way for a script to figure out that the replacement should usually be Castilian language.

A possible solution would be to make this template take an optional parameter that indicates the correct spelling. Thus at Castillian language, would become. We could leave unchanged the redirects for which the correct spelling and redirect target are identical.

Any comments? Wmahan. 00:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Could the corrected spelling parameter be displayed on the redirect page? If so, it makes sense to me. -- Steven Fisher 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I don't think that's possible, since MediaWiki doesn't display anything but a message and the link on redirect pages. Wmahan. 06:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a horrible idea!
 * 1) By definition, the target page is the correct spelling.
 * So, in the case where it really is a R with possibilities instead, you have to think. You should not run a bot where you have to examine each link to decide whether the article is talking in context about the spanish language or the castilian variant (or castillian, R from alternate spelling, not a misspelling, as it corresponds to the spanish spelling).
 * 1) Likewise, X-box is R from alternate spelling, there are millions of references to that spelling! Including from Amazon in the first Google page!  And Schneier on Security!
 * 2) Half the listings have the wrong template, some should be R from abbreviation (Ph.D → Doctor of Philosophy), R from alternate name, R from alternate spelling (Encyclopedia of Islam → Encyclopaedia of Islam, a perfectly legitimate pair of spellings), etc.
 * 3) In summary, these redirects were intended to be looked at by humans, not automatically corrected by a bot.
 * --William Allen Simpson 05:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * C'mon, tell me what you really think! :) I replied at your talk page. In summary, perhaps "automated correction" was a poor choice of words. I agree that all changes should be reviewed by humans, and I think my proposal could help. Wmahan. 06:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This template is going away
Just a note that it appears this template will no longer be used for technical reasons, though the corresponding category can probably remain. See here. Wmahan. 04:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've read the IRC logs and stuff, but is there a solid technical reason to do so? Not because I particularly like this template or anything, it doesn't provide much extra value above a category, but the page you linked to makes a big scare about problems without specifying what most of the problems are. At some websites that would be called FUD. Also, considering that it works like desired now, wouldn't it be better if the current behaviour of the software is made official? Shinobu (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirects displayed in different color?
Right now, we only have broken red links and working blue links. It would be helpful to have additional colors, maybe purple (as halfway between red and blue) to indicate a legitimate redirect, and a bright orange for an unwanted redirect from misspelling that should be corrected asap. -- Matthead Discuß   10:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a bot that simply listed existing links to redirects that are to correct misspellings would be better. Changing the color is only going to confuse readers, who outnumber editors by at least a thousand to one.  And most editors aren't going to know what the new color means without some sort of mass education program - effort that would be better spent actually fixing the errors themselves, since even if an editor does know what a purple link or an orange link means, he/she may well not be interested in fixing it (or have time to do so).  With a list, editors at WikiProject Redirect, and other interested editors, could simply fix bad links.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 16:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Trip to WP:TFD

 * This template was listed on templates for deletion, but there was no consensus to delete. See the log. (archive entry) Courtland 00:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Reading the log, it would appear to be more precise to say that there was consensus to keep. The one  dissent, that it was a job for categories not templates, was rebutted with the claim that this template offers needed functionality not supported by categories. -- ToET 03:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hidden parameter, and need for conditional text
The template has a parameter (detectable only by viewing the markup, or blindly inserting one), for when the correct spelling is not given by the target. A case of this is
 * (1) Dsquare

which should Rdr to Dean and Dan Caten but state the correct spelling, probably as Dsquared (the way the NYT spells it, 20:1), or else Dsquared2: e.g. . But the text of the accompanying tl assumes (irrespective of the parameter) that what is misspelled is the article's title, not the title of, e.g., an R from other name, R with possibilities, or R from related word  Rdr page. In the case of
 * (2) Dsquared2

the tag is indeed undefined, which says
 * It is not necessary to replace these redirected links with a piped link.

(and may, BTW, thereby invite assuming all alternative names are equally good; of this i'll say no more). For
 * (3) Dsquared

i am adding the same tag; for Dsquare (1 above),. But the accompanying R from misspelling tl says
 * Pages using this link should be updated to link directly to the redirect target, without using a piped link that hides the correct details.

even if the parameter is used; in this case the message implies the misspelling (via mis-hearing) "Dsquare" should be replaced by Dean and Dan Caten, rather than just correcting the spelling (and thus keeping valid the singular verb likely to follow it, and more subtle aspects of the enclosing article, which may be much trickier to correct than grammar is). That's bad, so i suggest that the accompanying template I'd rather have support at least as strong as a concurring opinion and a week of assent by silence, before making these changes. --Jerzy•t 07:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) be supplemented by a typical template /Doc page, which would draw attention to the parameter and demonstrate its usage, and
 * 2) make the rendered text read, when the parameter is used, along these lines:
 * Pages using this link should be updated to correct the spelling, thereby continuing to link indirectly to the redirect target, and changing any piping of the link only by correcting the spelling.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that a /doc should be implemented immediately to document the parameter. I disagree with your suggested change in usage.
 * Why? If you like the current text, what am i misunderstanding? --Jerzy•t 09:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with your proposed change and came here to suggest such a thing, not realizing that it had already been proposed. Note that the optional argument of this template is documented at Category:Redirects from misspellings.  Once this is done, robotic repair of double redirects should be changed to log those cases tagged with  (but lacking the argument) as it redirects them.  Automatically fill the argument with the old target would be a bad idea, as the redirect might have been pointing elsewhere than the correct spelling when the retaretging robot arrived. -- ToET 04:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

move docs to /doc
Documentation should be located at template:R from misspelling/doc - please move it there and transclude it using doc. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. — RockMFR 21:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirects from other pronounciations
Would it be correct to use this template in situations such as more popular phonetic spellings redirecting to uncommon proper spellings? Or mayne create a new template such as Template:R from pronounciation or Template:R from phonetic spelling?? -- &oelig; &trade; 01:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Double messages concerning space
I've not used this template before (not having observed the existence of redirect templates); therefore, I'm earnestly trying to understand its documentation. However, I'm a bit confused on whether or not to employ a space directly before the template.

WP:TMR has the following to say about inserting spaces:
 * One or several of these templates may be placed on a redirect page. Here's a hypothetical presentation of the redirect page WySiWyG:


 * As demonstrated in the example, please separate templates using either a carriage return or nothing at all. Inserting one or more spaces between the templates produces an unnecessary and unsightly bordered gap.
 * As demonstrated in the example, please separate templates using either a carriage return or nothing at all. Inserting one or more spaces between the templates produces an unnecessary and unsightly bordered gap.

On the other hand, the documentation of this template does suggest the use of a space; its examples are
 *  , and

I'm not sure about the "unsightly bordered gap". I found nothing in either documentation indicating that the template should be substed, and I thus haven't substed; the categories but not the documentation text seems to appear on the redirect page, whence no "borders" seem relevant.

Could someone clarify this, or hint at relevant pages where I may read explanations? In particular, should I or shouldn't I put a space before the template? JoergenB (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe the community norm is to leave one space directly after the redirect link and before the template, as in your "Antonie van Leeuwenhoek" example, but it doesn't really matter as, space or no space, it still functions the same, it's whatever your preference. The only one that matters is the spaces between any additional redirect templates. Re the "unsightly bordered gap", it can only be seen in diff view: here is what the page looks like when there are spaces between any additional templates.. notice the two bordered gaps, and this is what the page should look like without the spaces between the templates. Also, no they should not be subst'd. Hope that was helpful. -- &oelig; &trade; 16:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks; a space before the first one, but no spaces between the messages; I should have been able to deduce that from the examples...
 * However, I do not understand how and why you make the current version look different when viewed as a history diff or directly (e.g., after using the link provided by the Redirected from... message). This is the most arcane gimmic I've seen from the wikiwizards yet, I think.
 * I usually try to keep down the number of items in the article histories (even if my tendency not to discover misprints in time works in the opposite direction). I sometimes create redirect pages, together with redirect templates, in one single edit, and they often remain remain like that; thus, only the first version exists in the history. In those cases, there is no diff possible. Is it better if I make such redirects in two steps, in order to enable viewing of the template texts? JoergenB (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Unprintworthy category may not be desired
I noticed this template also adds Category:Unprintworthy redirects. There could be instances where a common, notable misspelling would in fact be printworthy, and this category be undesired. It would be beneficial if someone could modify the code to add a parameter that would allow disabling addition of the "Unprintworthy redirects" category. Thanks. -- &oelig; &trade; 16:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. See updated documentation for usage. 28bytes (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested edit
Please edit this template to remove Category:Unprintworthy redirects--it is frequently the case that misspellings are useful for print. In fact, these are one of the few types of redirects that really have to be manually sorted as printworthy or unprintworthy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Why does it have to be removed? You can make a misspelling printworthy just by using the parameter, thusly:


 * I was wrong, Koavf. Using the unprintworthy=no parameter just disables the inclusion of the redirect in the Unprintworthy redirects category.  It does not automatically place the redirect into the Printworthy redirects category.  The modification I've proposed in the previous section will make it so if you add   to the redirect, then it will be categorized into the Printworthy redirects category.  Leaving off the |printworthy and just adding   to the redirect will still automatically add the redirect to the Unprintworthy category. –  PIE  ( C LIMAX  )  11:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done See above. Anomie⚔ 15:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Another Unprintworthy catch
As found on this category page, there are several redirect templates placed in the Unprintworthy category by the R from misspelling redirect template. Since the Printworthy and Unprintworthy categories are reserved for Main namespace redirects, please modify this template as follows: Please note that this has the added advantage of adding the redirect to the Printworthy category if the parameter is used. I shall be glad to update the documentation when this is modified. Thank you very much! This modification will ensure that only Main article misspellings will go into the Printworthy and Unprintworthy categories. – PIE  ( C LIMAX  )  21:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alter this...
 * to this...
 * Yes check.svg Done, but differently. Unnamed parameter 1 is already used for the correct spelling, so we cannot also use it for "printworthy". I've instead added support for yes. So the current situation is:
 * → Category:Unprintworthy redirects
 * → no category
 * → Category:Printworthy redirects
 * Please update the documentation appropriately. Anomie⚔ 15:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You betcha! And thank you, Anomie, that was an excellent catch! – PIE  ( C LIMAX  )  18:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification needed?
To be specific: In it's present state...
 * this template can be used to add redirects from any namespace to the Unprintworthy category, and
 * if a misspelling is considered printworthy, first an editor must subdue the Unprintworthy by the use of the Unprintworthy=no parameter, and then the editor must separately add the R printworthy Rcat.

When this modification is performed... PS. Again, I will be happy to update the documentation page after this modification is performed.
 * this template will not add redirects from any namespace other than the Main namespace to the Unprintworthy category, and
 * if a Main namespace misspelling is considered printworthy, the Unprintworthy will be subdued by adding the printworthy parameter like this:  .  This will add the redirect to the Printworthy category without having to add the R printworthy template separately. –  PIE  ( C LIMAX  )  17:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Misspelling redirect bot
There's a bot being developed that will correct the spelling of of a link to a redirect tagged with R from misspelling. Bot_requests Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC) --Jerzy•t 22:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't thot thru what -- since the correct spelling is hidden in either the article text, or in the tag on an unidentified Rdr lost among those on "What links here" -- cases like the one i discuss in "Correct spelling"? imply for the proposed bot, but offhand those implications seem likely to be drastic.

Hidden commentary
It's annoying that you have to do something to "break" the #REDIRECT directive to preview, or even to verify you spelled the template name right -- and likewise, even after it's saved, to see the text associated with an R from/to tag. I assume more editors would add the tags if it were more like a normal edit, where you try what you (uh, i) remember, and only check the documentation if you get tired of trial and error before getting it right. C'mon, what are computers for anyway? --Jerzy•t 22:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"Correct spelling"?
The hidden commentary says
 * This is a redirect from a misspelling or typographical error. The correct spelling is given by the target of the redirect.

which seems to imply that articles that use the Rdrs i'm creating, from Cheek grass (and Chief grass, and Cheap grass), to Bromus tectorum are improved if the misspelling is "corrected" by replacing the lk to the rdr with a lk to the Latin-name article. But the proper fix is correcting the spelling error the editor made, with, e.g., either a lk to the correctly spelled rdr,
 * [[Cheat grass ]]

or a correctly spelled piped link to the article,
 * [[Bromus tectorum | Cheat grass ]]

(IMO, the corrected Rdr is more valuable than the piped link, e.g. in the event that cheat grass turns out to have been erroneously placed in its supposed genus.) --Jerzy•t 22:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Printworthiness configuration API
Currently, the template description suggests two configuration options: This is confusing because it suggests a large number of configuration possibilities, i.e.: Instead, I suggest that this template remove both the printworthy and unprintworthy attributes since we already have different templates for those. As a result, the set of options would be reduced down to: --JBrown23 (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * - neither printworthy or unprintworthy
 * - printworthy
 * -unprintworthy

Does this apply to numeric typos?
redirects here. However, I am not sure whether incorrect numbers are really considered misspellings.

See for example Nintendo 604 and Nintendo 63 (which are redirects to Nintendo 64), where I ended up using instead. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Request to apply edit 610213044
Please apply edit 610213044, where Petr Matas 15:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) the printworthiness logic is rewritten for code readability (no significant change of behavior),
 * 2) the embed parameter is propagated to the R printworthy and R unprintworthy templates to fix the appearance of.
 * No opposition and seems uncontroversial. So ✅. Sorry for the delay. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Named aliases of unnamed parameters
An alias of 1 named of has just been created. I think that such aliases are unuseful and may even lead to problems. For example, the following code will not work as expected:, because the value   is passed in unnamed parameter 1 (incorrect) instead of 2 (correct).

Also note that it is not necessary to use a named parameter just to work around the equal sign – the following code is fine:. Petr Matas 16:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hidden category issue
This template advises readers "For more information follow the category link"; but the category is hidden. How might this be addressed? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The categories in all the rcats are both hidden and linked. The links are bolded in the text.  Hope this helps! Painius  20:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I changed all to read "For more information follow the bold category link" for added clarity. Painius 16:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do some capitalization rcats redirect here?
R from incorrect capitalization (and "capitalisation" variant) redirect here, even though exists. Is there consensus that this is desired?

I am aware that the present redirects are the result of a manual retargeting (was this an attempt to distinguish "correct" from "incorrect" capitalization differences and/or to make the capitalization rcats support the  parameter that R from misspelling has?). The redirects were subsequently RFD'd, but there doesn't seem to be a clear answer there. If there was an attempt to merge the capitalization and misspelling RCATs, it must still be ongoing.

If the redirects stand as is, the text of this template (R from misspelling) should be clarified: "This is a redirect from a misspelling or typographical error, including an incorrect capitalisation" (emphasis mine). --SoledadKabocha (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 January 2016
Suggest adding another bullet to the template's self-description: ** This template tags redirects with a subcategory of the category, so template R from incorrect name should not be used with this template. by analogy with R from alternative transliteration, which also has a subcategory setup.

David Brooks (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC) PAGE''' ]]) 15:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

Template-protected edit request on 5 April 2018
If is written in a right-to-left script, the correct spelling can end up being displayed wrong, since any terminal punctuation will be on the right instead of the left. Please change  to   to bidi-isolate the parameter. Gorobay (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)