Template talk:R from scientific name

for things outside of biology?
I have started a discussion at the Village pump; please continue it there.— The Great Redirector 18:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The archived discussion can be found here. -- ToET 02:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that Skittleys has created R from systematic name and R from technical name (and their "to" counterparts) for use outside of biology. -- ToET 02:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

request for documentation inclusion instead of text with links
Dear administrators, as it was agreed at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Redirect pages, links from redirect templates to zero namespace are to be removed as creating ambiguity for toolserver scripts on where the redirect points to. I've moved the text from template to /doc subpage, so could someone please remove all visible content from template page and add instead? Mashiah (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ but please note that Category:Redirects from scientific names and Category:Printworthy redirects cannot be moved to the /doc page because these categorise transclusions of this template not the template itself. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Now I see the right sample of how to manage such categories in future. Mashiah (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Text that should be transcluded
I believe that the text "This is a redirect from the scientific name to the common name." should be transcluded when this template is used. If there are no objections in approximately 7 days I will use Edit protected to request that the change be made. – Allen4names 03:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the above editor, Allen4names, neglected to follow through, so I shall do it for him. I agree that there should be no links in the text, but the text itself, the text that was removed, should be restored. – Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  01:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. The same treatment should be made to R to scientific name. Rm the links, but do keep the text.
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, Martin, thank you and... U da MAN! (I have updated the usage notes on both Rcats) –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  18:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits needed
 This protected template  needs to be updated to standardize its appearance with Template:R to scientific name and to ensure that it is only used in mainspace. Please modify it in the following manner: This is a redirect from the scientific name to the common name.
 * from this...

&amp;nbsp;
 * to this...

This is a redirect from the scientific name to the common name.

Thank you in advance! –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 11:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And again, Red rose64, thank you very much! –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 00:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The description of this redirect is inconsistent with the R from chemical name template redirect which goes here
@Any template editor: This should be a pretty simple issue to address; in a nutshell, the scope of the description simply needs to be expanded to include chemical compounds.

R from chemical name is a template redirect which is directed to this page; however, this page's redirect description is currently only relevant to/indicative of the scientific name of organisms; this needs to be revised to include the scientific names of chemicals (e.g., systematic ones like IUPAC or associated trivial names). E.g., diacetylmorphine is a redirect page that uses this template and which redirects a trivial chemical name to its much more recognizable trade name, heroin.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 10:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it would probably just be best to add an optional parameter value instead of revise the default text. Adding the following line to the template source should address the issue:


 * With this change, using either or  would display the text:


 * This is a redirect from the scientific name of a chemical to the vernacular ("common") name. For more information follow the category link.


 * Current template source


 * Proposed template source


 *  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 14:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * According to the table at Template messages/Redirect_pages, the correct template to use for redirects from chemical names to common names is . I've altered the redirect to point to this. Personally, I think it would be better to have a completely separate template for "R from chemical name".
 * I strongly oppose altering this template; it's well-established for the scientific names of organisms – see Category:Redirects from scientific names. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Peter – I wonder if R from molecular formula would be an alternative as a target? – Paine 03:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 06:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit: I didn't follow the link to the redirect table earlier. I only see R from molecular formula listed there, which is a bit different from a chemical name redirect. The former (molecular/chemical formulas) are essentially pages with titles that are a list of elements – e.g., C9H13N, C10H11NO, C2H6O – and are most often a set index article of compounds with that formula (isomers). The latter group (chemical names) come in a variety of forms; a typical chemical name describes its chemical structure by listing the names and relative locations of its component functional groups. As an example, methylphenethylamine (these all have the same chemical formula: C9H13N) is a chemical name and a set index page for 5 compounds which are listed with more precise chemical names that indicate the location where the methyl group is attached. Or, in plain English, chemical formulas and chemical names are different concepts. It would probably be simplest to just redirect R from chemical name back to this page and then create a new redirect category to keep the organism and chemical articles in separate categories. I'm ok with using an alternative solution though.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 04:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi,  Seppi  333  – I tend to agree with PC that this rcat should be reserved for organisms, which I expect to become more complicated as more subcats are added. Maybe the best choice is to have a separate cat for chem. names?  Any idea how many redirects are presently involved and would need to be recategorized? – Paine  05:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A universal category for chem names would be ideal given the large number of compound pages that exist, as every page with a chembox or drugbox is a potential target page for a chem-related redirect. All the chemistry-related redirect templates (including template redirects to a redirect template...) of which I'm aware are:
 * R from trade name (pharmaceuticals)
 * R from molecular formula
 * R from systematic name (the category is mostly populated by astronomy entries, some chemical pages)
 * R from chemical name
 * Probably worth noting that both trade names and systematic (i.e., IUPAC) names are classes of chemical names.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 08:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A universal category for chemical names seems by far the best solution to me. What helped in clarifying redirects among different kinds of organism name (vernacular, accepted, synonym, etc.) was to draw up a to/from table and consider how the entries should be categorized. For example is it most important to categorize based on what the redirect is from or what the redirect is to?
 * (With hindsight, it's a pity that "scientific" name was used for categorizing organism name redirects, but it's far too widely used now to change.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I found this discussion after looking for and noticing that it redirected to this template. What's the current consensus on whether the  redirect is proper? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's wrong. As I noted above, with hindsight this wasn't a good name for the categorization, but it's here now. I've redirected "R from astronomical name" to for the present. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request 30 May 2017
I've mocked up adding insects as a group in the sandbox, and checked testcases. There are a ton of insects in the main category, and a lot more that have likely never been tagged. I've created the category for the pages to be sorted in to already. M. A. Broussard (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 17:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 22:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can switch this template over to use Module:Science redirect, which supports plant, fish, fungus, spider, crustacean, reptile, and insect redirects. I have already switched R from alternative scientific name over, but I wanted to wait a week or so to see if any problems arise with that template before switching any others over to the module. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * Ahecht, it has been a week or so. :D --Izno (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

display text query
"This is a redirect from a scientific name of an organism (or group of organisms) to a vernacular ("common") name"

Wouldn't it always be to a group of organisms? cygnis insignis 17:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This, and similar templates like R from scientific name, used the singular only, until I added the bit in parentheses in 2016. I would prefer "a taxon" rather than "an organism (or group of organisms)". However, it is the case that a species can be thought of in the singular ("this is a Quercus robur"), so maybe this is what was meant originally. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate how you were trying to patch that up. Why not implement that preference, 'a taxon'. it resolves the concern I raised. And the links are unneccessary, the purpose is a redirect; the template exists to 'identify printworthy redirects' (and stop users moving the target over it). cygnis insignis 15:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I would prefer some more editors to agree to this change. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)