Template talk:R from related word

Words or phrases?
In a recent efit, User:Instantnood added this template to the redirect Rail gauges and power supply of Hong Kong rails. Which leads me to wonder if this template is applied to the most ridiculous cases. What exactly will the intent of this category or template be, if anything practically long enough to be a sentence still appears here? A look at Category:Redirects from related words shows up a lot more dubious entries. Is this what the template/category is really for?--Huaiwei 11:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit request
Please change 'alternate' to 'alternative'. It is currently incorrect grammar and should be 'alternative' like is used in every other redirect template.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  15:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

R-related redirect
had to revert your good faith retargeting to R to related topic because that rcat can only be used in mainspace. This rcat, the R from related word template, can be used in any namespace, so your edit threw a whole lot of redirects into.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2019
Template:R from related word → Template:R from related term – "Word" is too narrow; this template (or one of many redirects to it) is used on a massive number of multi-word redirects (I wouldn't be surprised if they actually accounted for a majority of the redirects using this template). "Term" is broad enough to include both multi-word and single-word terms, by definition. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The target is a redirect to R to related topic, not R from related word. A move there will result in many improperly tagged redirects. Wug·a·po·des​ 03:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Derp. My bad.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 December 2019
Remove the Requested move template from the top. Thanks. CAPTAIN MEDUSA  talk  16:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)   CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  16:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DannyS712 (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"Template:R from verb tense" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:R from verb tense. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 4 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 30 May 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. This will break a far greater number of redirects than it will potentially fix, and this should be the main concern when renaming templates. No such user (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:R from related word → Template:R from related term – "Word" does not capture that this rcat applies also to related phrases, so "term" is a much better descriptor. The proposed move target currently redirects to Template:R from related topic, but "term" refers to a word or phrase, not necessarily a topic, and could serve as a better differentiation between the similar rcats ("topic" for words or phrases that could be separate articles, "term" for words or phrases unlikely to warrant separate treatment and are not alternative names). The previous requested move above was withdrawn due to fear of miscategorization of redirects, but many redirects are already improperly categorized as R from related topic which would be fixed by this move. In any case, the affected redirects have been boldly retargeted between the two several times over the years apparently without any issue. This move will improve categorization of redirects going forward. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support it should be term, since if it's a pair of words, that a term, instead of a word -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Please see previous RM above. There are about 1200 redirects where the rcat redirect, is transcluded. That redirect presently targets R to related topic, which is very different from R from related word. So if this page move is granted, all those backlinks will need to be fixed. There is no good reason to rename this template to a name that for years has categorized redirects to the very different  (rather than its current ).  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 22:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A term does not a topic make, there are many terms that are not topics in and of themselves, in the Wikipedia sense. Thus anyone using "term" are not clearly requesting topic redirects, so they have always been miscategorized. Any term that is also a topic should have both Rcat templates. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: confusing to users who are unaware of the change and mistakenly tag articles with R from related term &#8213; Qwerfjkl  &#124; 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂 (please use&#32; on reply) 21:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Leaning support: the proposal itself is logical ("from [X] word" is much closer in meaning to "from [X] term" than "to [X] topic"), but someone would have to go and fix all the existing transclusions. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This redirect already shows itself as "From a related word or phrase". As of today, this redirect has been successfully used on 7,533 pages. Taken together, does not seem to be all that much confusion nor lack of clarity as to what this redirect means nor how to use it. Be bold, just add "or phrase" to the Usage column, and perhaps an example of such in the Example(s) column of the entry for this redirect in Template index/Redirect pages. I have not done it right now out of respect for the fact that this discussion is currently underway, but that should cover any concern of a new editor trying to find the appropriate redirect to use in these situations. Jmg38 (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I argue, admittedly without direct evidence, that many (perhaps even a majority) of those ~7500 uses of this redirect occur on redirect pages that should really be categorized as R from related word rather than R from related topic; as I said above these would be fixed via this move. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Perplexing. You want to rename R from related word to R from related term, the latter of which redirects to R to related topic, an entirely different redirect category template. I can confirm after more than 10 years of working with these templates and redirects that the vast majority of backlinks (if not all of them) from the R from related term rcat template are not to related words but to related topics, and all of those would have to be updated if this request is granted. Virtually none of them would be automatically fixed by this move, which would break virtually all of them. Why not read the previous move request above and the section above that. I'm hopeful that info might persuade you to withdraw this request.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 09:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Mdewman6, your response above (00:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)) shows that you agree with me, not sure that is what you intended but does make my point. If, as per your statement, the existing template is correct since "many (perhaps even a majority) of those ~7500 uses of this redirect occur on redirect pages that should really be categorized as R from related word", then I am still not sure why you want to break R from related word and move it to "R from related term". As I wrote earlier, this would mean that your remaining minority of the ~7500 are covered by the fact that the full explanation of R from related word already includes the words "or phrase". I just don't see where any editors are being mislead by the existing R from related word, and would reiterate that adding a few words in the Usage and Example(s) columns of the entry for this redirect in Template index/Redirect pages (many of the entries there have extensive "Usage" and "Example(s)" detail) will provide any remaining guidance to editors who might (but not really) be confused.Jmg38 (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose per Paine Ellsworth and Jmg38. This will break a far greater number of redirects than it will potentially fix. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"Template:R from related concept" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:R from related concept. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 12 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 20:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Outdated move discussion notice
The template still includes the notice about a move discussion, even though it ended on 14 July. Kleinpecan (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ FYI . * Pppery * it has begun... 19:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Redirect to related" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Redirect_to_related&redirect=no Template:Redirect to related] 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. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)