Template talk:R from more specific name

Clarification
I think it would be nice to clarify in the documentation that this template is for use only when the name is more specific and not when the redirect's scope or topic is more specific. For example, this template has been used frequently for redirects created at a species binomial name to an article on the genus when the genus contains many species. Those redirects should be deleted, as redirects are for articles covering the same concept or topic under a different name. Not quite sure how to present that in the documentation, though. Thoughts? Rkitko (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what you mean, Rkitko – isn't a species binomial name a more specific name than a genus name? or am I missing something? – Paine 06:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, a binomial is more specific than the more general genus name, but the two are separate taxa unless the genus is monotypic. WP:R #10 says, "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." Per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, even stubs with very little information on a species are usually kept in deletion discussions. Genus articles usually have "virtually no information" on the species, other than the fact that it is contained in that genus. What use would a list of species (like List of Drosera species) be if many or most links led to the genus article? Sometimes those lists are contained in the genus article, so creating binomial redirects to the genus would just loop those blue links back to the article a reader started on. In general practice, species binomials are not redirected to the genus unless monotypic. Rkitko (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You make a valid point, Rkitko, and it may very well be that this rcat was meant for a different usage. The only way to determine that would be to ask the creator of the rcat, SMcCandlish what the intended usage should be.  Another thing to consider is that all of these rcat templates sort redirects to "maintenance" categories, which are set up to be monitored by contributors for reasons they hopefully make clear.  So the inclusion of speciesRedirect arrow without text.svg might be to show where new articles may be generated. – Paine  19:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Paine. This template certainly makes sense when a more specific name for an equivalent topic is redirected to a more general name, e.g. when Agrínio, Greece redirects to Agrinio. The intended topic of both titles is the same, whereas when a species binomial redirects to a genus, the intended topics are different in scope, even if they are related. It would be like redirecting Agrinio to Aetolia-Acarnania, the city's regional unit; one is a subset of the other. I can understand the use of maintenance categories, but the benefit of creating such redirects for the sake of editors over the utility to readers doesn't seem worth it. Thanks for your thoughts on my comments, and for the suggestion to see what light SMcCandlish might be able to shine on the use of this template for binomial redirects. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I just intended it to be taken at face value, as something more specific than ; it's a sister template to, etc. Agrinio, Greece redirecting to Agrinio needs  or one of its more specific variants. I agree that  should not be used to redirect species articles to genus article unless they're monotypic. Except for that kind of case, species should not redir to genus articles at all, for the link-loop reason given above. If I linked to a species and got a redlink, I would divide that up temporarily like  , so that there is a blue-link present that goes to the genus, but the species name remains redlinked, since there's a general consensus that such redlinks inspire article creation. Looking through "what links here", I can see some uses that don't make sense. Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire isn't a more specific name than Order of the British Empire; titles issued by the order are a subtopic of the order, and so should use .  Same goes for Weighted harmonic mean redirecting to Harmonic mean; that one should use both  and . The template also doesn't belong on Mouillé redirecting to Palatal consonant; it's a subtopic, and should really redir to Palatalization (sound change) anyway. The use of this template on the redirect Big Jake to Big Jake (film) makes no sense at all (and the existence of the redir suggests that the article should be moved, anyway). The redir from Schtick to Schtick (disc game) is the same kind of case.  I've fixed these bad examples as I go.  Good examples of the template's use include King of spades redirecting to King (playing card); the king card has four more specific names, none of which are subtopics from a WP point of view. Military monastic order -> Military order (monastic society) also works, since "military monastic order" is a more specific name for the same thing as "military order" in the monastic sense, which is the primary topic for "military order".  Fifteenth chord -> Extended chord is a good example; it's one of various specific cases of the topic of the general article, but unlikely to become a subtopic with its own section.  A borderline case is redirecting Green chile and Red chile (spelled thus, in the New Mexico way) to Chili pepper, since those actually could be articles in their own right, like Jalapeño pepper, or at least subtopics treated separately, e.g. in their own sections or in a section on Southwestern [US] cuisine. If they were treated separately like that, use  and if appropriate, .  All of Baillon's shearwater, Tropical shearwater, Bannerman's shearwater, Mascarene shearwater and Persian shearwater can use this template to redir to Audubon's shearwater, as they are named populations of that species, not certainly classified as subspecies, nor their own species, and are not separately covered at the article as subtopics, but only mentioned in passing.  I have other stuff to do, but a cursory inspection suggests that about 85% of the uses of this template should be replaced with another one, usually .  Short analogy: "my pets" is a topic; "my cat" and "my dog" are subtopics; "my cat when sleeping" and "my dog in the back yard" are more specific names, in this case for different states of those subtopics. I'll try to update the documentation to forestall more inappropriate uses of this template.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC) PS: Another good example is Western olive sunbird -> Olive sunbird; it's a subspecies not covered in any depth and unlikely ever to be. If that changes and we have a whole section for it at some point, then use . Another bad example is Long-tailed hermit hummingbird -> Long-tailed hermit; that's a case of .  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the detailed response! Much appreciated. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: The species cases really need ; that template alias points to, but the labeling is correct for that case, and the template at some point could be converted to a special template and category for that case specifically. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

"Template:R from subspecies to species" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:R from subspecies to species. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 29 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

"Template:R from subtitle" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:R_from_subtitle&redirect=no Template:R from subtitle] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. &zwj;—&zwj; a smart kitten [  meow ] 09:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)