Template talk:R to article without mention

Deletion process
Does this template/category have any current or planned connection with the RFD process? That is, is someone supposed to periodically browse through this category and RFD all the redirects that can't easily be retargeted? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It might also be good to know what this category is meant to imply, if anything, about whether or not a redirect has "possibilities." --SoledadKabocha (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization
It appears that the target article must be capitalized on the redirect page for it to appear in Category:Redirects to an article without mention. Hyacinth (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * First please verify that the redirect, There is no cow level, has a target that begins with a lowercase letter. Then please check the "T" section of Category:Redirects to an article without mention to confirm that the redirect populates that category.  I gave the target, Diablo (video game), a lowercase "d" at the beginning to test this premise.  Then I purged the category, and dummy-edited the redirect to be sure to get a fresh listing.  That redirect still appears in that category in my browser.  If it does not appear in that category in your browser, then you might have to both purge the category by typing  after the url, like this:
 * Then you should perform a dummy edit on the redirect itself. For example, you can place a space between the target link and the redirect category template.  Just be sure you don't type in an edit summary – save the dummy edit without an edit summary.  Then check the category for the redirect.  If it still does not appear in the category, then perhaps you have a browser-specific problem, that is, the browser you use might need some kind of tweak to enable you to see the redirect in the category.  I use IE10 and the redirect appears in the correct category whether or not the target is capitalized. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 00:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you should perform a dummy edit on the redirect itself. For example, you can place a space between the target link and the redirect category template.  Just be sure you don't type in an edit summary – save the dummy edit without an edit summary.  Then check the category for the redirect.  If it still does not appear in the category, then perhaps you have a browser-specific problem, that is, the browser you use might need some kind of tweak to enable you to see the redirect in the category.  I use IE10 and the redirect appears in the correct category whether or not the target is capitalized. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 00:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

To clarify
– Hi, Hy! (sorry, couldn't resist) I wish I had a more meaningful answer for you; when an editor creates an rcat template and makes it conform to one namespace, it is usually because they are only interested in monitoring and maintaining redirects in that one particular namespace. I've checked the history as well as the category and subcats and it appears that this one has not been monitored for a long time. For example, the DATE template was changed years ago to include both the month and year (not just the year), so subbing that template has no effect and the redirects just go to the parent cat. I'm going to evaluate the cats, subcats and associated templates to get this to work correctly again, and I have to tell you that I would prefer to just deal with the mainspace redirects, at least for now. Do you have a particular need for this rcat to be used in other namespaces? –  Paine Ellsworth  C LIMAX ! 16:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be kind enough to clarify something for me? I don't understand why you created the substructure of categories to the main cat. If the whole idea is to go through the member redirects to either find a way to mention them in their target articles or to delete them, then why are the subcats needed? There are only 64 total members in the parent cat and subcats, so why not just go through them and disposition them? I don't see the need for the subcats. –  Paine 

Refining/clarifying usage
This may or may not require any changes to the documentation, but I wanted to get some input. I'm making two assumptions: An example: the redirect Capture of the El Mosquito, a redirect without mention to Capture of the sloop Anne. True, the phrase "Capture of the El Mosquito" does not appear there, but "El Mosquito" is given as an alternate name of the Anne. The related article Roberto Cofresí has sources saying the Anne is popularly thought to have been renamed El Mosquito, even though official documents continued to use the formal name.
 * 1) As a maintenance category, Category:Redirects to an article without mention should ideally be empty.
 * 2) A redirect can be suitable even if it isn't given verbatim at the target article.

In short, Capture of the El Mosquito is a perfectly fine redirect, even though the exact phrase doesn't appear at the target article, and probably need not ever do so. Thus, I'd like to remove R without mention from it.

Any concerns with this action? Are there steps I could take to prevent re-tagging of the redirect? Even if you agree with my interpretation, is this a change that we should document? --BDD (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * first thing that comes to mind would be categorizers having to make a choice based upon your description. Well, it's not mentioned at the target, so is there still good reason to keep the redirect? Could be a head scratcher. When I worked on these, I would either look for a way to mention the redirect title in the target article, even going so far as to tighten the focus to a section and tagging the redirect with R to section, or I would search for another article that already mentioned the redirect or where I could mention it sensibly. So the tagging can already be a climb uphill, and the idea of maybe using invisible comments (which I've also done) to clarify inclusion might just make it a sheer cliff for editors to scale. Think maybe we should apply K.I.S.S. to this?  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 05:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarification needed
Does one apply this template in the following cases: Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 04:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The term is only mentioned on Wikidata as an alias (which can display in the metadata on the Wikipedia page, depending on user settings)
 * The term is only mentioned in the caption of an image
 * The term is only mentioned in the actual image, and is not found by a ctrl-F search (not present as text in the article rendering)
 * The term is only mentioned in a reference title

Also, what are "Obvious omissions"? To whom must they be obvious? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 04:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)