Template talk:R from modification

Edit request from Vadmium, 4 June 2011
Would like to remove the documentation “content” so it’s just and Template:R from modification/doc can say what it actually does. I already copied the existing categories over so they should still be applied.

Vadmium (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, ✅. Also moved the template to a clearer name, hope that's okay. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Rcats needed
The following Rcats should be added to the R from modification redirect. The following code can be copied to that protected redirect: Thank you very much! – Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  00:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Martin! And I've already defeated the R mod double redirect. –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  15:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. I thought I'd already made a /doc page for R from modification. Am I hallucinatin'? or did it get lost?
 * PPS. Here's another: R from alternative punctuation .  I would defeat it myself, but it's also protected and will need the above Rcats when defeated.

Red links on documentation
Template:R from modification/doc contains several red links. I randomly checked a few for deletion logs and couldn't find any, so I am unaware of any TFD that may have led to the deletion of said templates. Should the redirects be created? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind; it looks like someone just did this. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Rcats needed – 2
The following Rcats need to be added to the Redirect from modification redirect. The following code can be copied to that protected redirect:
 * Please modify from this...
 * to this...

Template Redr is a shortcut for the This is a redirect template, which is itself a shortcut used to add categories to redirects. Thank you in advance! – P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX !  17:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * , Red ! – P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX !  19:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirects
Two points:
 * All that are needed are one or two shortcuts unless more existing shortcuts are found. The procedure is, if one wants to include new shortcuts, they should first be created and only then they are added to the documentation page.  Otherwise, they will show as  and may confuse other contributors.
 * There are good reasons to show all existing redirects in the Redirects section. They are then available for use by anyone who may want to use them.  Also, if an administrator does not want so many redirects and wants to delete some of them, they have a list to use for that work. –  P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX !  06:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A manually-constructed list of redirects can get out of date very easily; however, it's easy to produce a link to an automatically-generated list - [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:R_from_modification&hidetrans=1&hidelinks=1&limit=500 here's one]. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure I follow. I recently created Rcat see also for use with the x-namespace family; however that is used on several Rcats, so it made sense to me.  In this case, each Rcat comes with its own set of redirects, so I don't see the value in making an automatically-generated list :::: or, maybe I am just not following you well? –  P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX !  17:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh hold on! You suggest that a link directly to the What links here page is used?  That's pretty cool! –  P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX !  17:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That will definitely simplify the more complex documentation pages! – P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX !  17:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I have seen it on doc pages... but I can't find any yet. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep looking. You will find them. –  P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX !  18:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 May 2014
The first sentence of the "info" field (in "R from modification" template) refers and links to "R from full name" and "R from incomplete name" templates. Can the sentence be updated to use "R from long name" and "R from short name" instead, since the former terms redirect to the latter anyway?

Jdaloner (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per WP:NOTBROKEN. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, since I was doing other stuff anyway, and the request makes sense. Things do not have to be "broken" to be improved.  The redirects being referred to were wrong for the use intended here (and there is no guarantee they'll remain aliases to the other templates forever; if the output categorization of  and/or  are eventually seen as overflowing (a case can be made already), the natural thing to do would be to subdivide by those aliases and make them into real tempaltes with their own subcategories.  At that point, all things with simply short but not really "incomplete" names would get miscategorized by people following the advice of this template, and so on.  I.e., only names that are actually, truly incomplete should be tagged as such; if you just mean they're short, then say so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Code cleanup
I've compressed the code a lot, at Template:R from modification/sandbox. Compare it [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:R_from_modification&oldid=622560267&action=edit before] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:R_from_modification/sandbox&oldid=622560154&action=edit after]. Big enough change it's worth sandboxing this and seeing if anyone detects an error in it. Seems to work fine for me. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Printworthiness?
I think it makes good sense to make Rcats printworthy-agnostic if we're unsure, but it seems like any time I've applied this one, I've also tagged it as unprintworthy. What are some examples of printworthy redirects from modification? --BDD (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , which default to the cat, are also modifications of their targets.  Where care must be taken in regard to default printworthiness is when two rcats are often used together.  If one defaults to printworthy and the other to unprintworthy, that would put their redirects into both printworthiness cats.  As it is set up now, that doesn't happen too often, and when it does, at least one of the rcats is changeable (soft, rather than hard) so both printworthiness cats won't be populated.  One example of a redirect that applies is, which I just came across while removing malplaced R protected templates from redirects. Painius  22:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

explain/link "rcat"

 * Use this rcat instead of   and    in namespaces other than mainspace for those types of modification.

Instead of just using the opaque term rcat in the display that the template produces, please link it to Categorizing redirects. Thnidu (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅.  This is linked in the documentation; however, a link in the template itself is a good idea, so thank you very much!   Paine   u/ c  03:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * :-D Happy to help! --Thnidu (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I propose that this redirect to [update: now to ] be changed into an actual template, that categorizes into a new category that is a subcat. of both Category:Redirects from misspellings and Category:Redirects from modifications, for accuracy and tracking. We need to sort errors differently from valid alternatives. This will also discourage double- or triple-tagging of such redirs.

We have already done something similar with some other cases. E.g. is a real template, and categorizes into Category:Redirects from miscapitalisations, a subcat. of both Category:Redirects from misspellings (subcat. of Category:Redirects from incorrect names) and Category:Redirects from other capitalisations [in turn a subcat. of Category:Redirects from modifications ]). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: I just noticed that there are also similar template redirs like, , etc. It may be simplest to redirect most or all of these to , unless we actually want to separately track them like we do with . And we should probably rename that  (or capitalisation), for consistency and since "miscapitalization" verges on a nonce word (and one that many people would write with a hyphen after "mis"). I lean toward wanting to separately track hyphenation errors, because it's often unrelated to more general copyediting cleanup and fixing of bad article titles, but a slogging through piles of article titles in a pattern and creating redirs for them.  It's most often about confusion of hyphens and en dashes; for any article which properly uses an en dash in formal writing a hyphen redirect should exist (but usually not vice-versa) for people who are not familiar with the distinction and who thus substitute a hyphen for an end dash. That may even include most American journalists (the Associated Press Stylebook followed by many newspapers doesn't use en dashes for anything, only em dashes in their parenthetical function, and replaces the en dash in its copular role with a hyphen, e.g. "Dunning-Kruger effect" or "Canada-Russia fishing agreement").

Toward making this more useful/manageable
I've gone though the huge list of redirects to this template, and retargeted all the spelling-related ones to (including everything that's a variant of, its more specific variant , and .  However, this just shifts this "help! this mess is too deep to wade through!" problem from one category to it's already large subcategory.

I propose turning these three into separate real templates and categories. They're kind of a glaring omission, when we have already broken out abbreviations, diacritics, ligatures, capitalization changes, parts-of-speech changes, and a dozen other such things.

I also updated both and  to point out that we have many more specific categories (capitals, diacritics, yadda yadda). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 November 2018
Remove the duplicate period after "For example, the words may be rearranged". 185.19.249.90 (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 08:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

"Template:R from incorrect punctuation" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:R from incorrect punctuation. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Purpose of this template
I am slightly confused at the distinction between this template and R from alt spelling. Surely any modification to the title of a page is, inherently, a spelling modification? &mdash; WT79 (speak to me &#124; [//xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia/WT79 editing patterns] &#124; [//xtools.wmflabs.org/globalcontribs/WT79 what I been doing]) 17:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

"Template:R from incorrect punctuation" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:R from incorrect punctuation. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 4 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"Template:R from other punctuation" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:R from other punctuation. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 14 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 March 2024
As R from alternative hyphenation, R from alternative punctuation, and R from alternative spacing have been created, please update the rcat's info param as seen below:

- ~ Eejit43 ( talk ) 14:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This seems pretty redundant (within an already lengthy rcat template):
 * How about:
 * SilverLocust 💬 17:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be much better, thanks! ~ Eejit43 ( talk ) 19:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * .  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 02:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * .  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 02:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 April 2024
Please merge the content of Template:R from modification/sandbox here (see the diff). This change adds the linking to pages provided in the first parameter through no redirect, and also has detection for existing links that would break said template. Because of this, the code is a bit confusing with the parameter aliases, so please let me know if there is anything that could be done to improve this!

Assuming this is accepted, I'll also be implementing this change to R from alternative spelling, R from alternative hyphenation, R from alternative punctuation, and R from alternative spacing. ~ Eejit43 ( talk ) 17:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think this will work in every case, editor, for example, wouldn't it break the R mod at ? Also, many of these 1 arguments would not be redirects and would be red links, if I'm not mistaken. Why would we want to link that parameter's argument?  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 14:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Paine Ellsworth Seems to work on, is there an issue you see? AFAIK, the arguments should always be a page name, and the reason parameter is a misnomer in the current implementation. I think this linking would be helpful, as it is usually only provided at avoided double redirects, where that linking is quite helpful (especially if R avoided double redirect isn't present). ~ <b style="color: #00733f">Eejit43</b> ( talk ) 19:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Looks like you're correct about and some others I've tested. I was concerned about linking over the existing linking, but that doesn't appear to be a problem. I'm still looking at this. I think I had another rcat template in mind that uses title fragments instead of the full title as an argument. As for the reason parameter, we might want to just deprecate it, because it may have been used by editors, and those usages would be broken if we eliminated the parameter.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;,  ed.  put'er there 20:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed,  should be deprecated. Is there a good way to find usages of that parameter without categorizing pages? Not being able to use Special:Search with redirects is a pain... ~ <b style="color: #00733f">Eejit43</b> ( talk ) 21:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

✅ * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 02:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you! ~ <b style="color: #00733f">Eejit43</b> ( talk ) 02:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)