Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Redirect pages
From Freepedia
Contents |
Broken?
The support for redirect templates seems to be broken in MediaWiki 1.4. It seems to work in previews and diffs [1] but not on the actual redirect pages [2] and the categories are empty, containing only the templates themselves, not the redirect pages using them (e.g. follow the Category:Redirects from plurals link in the diff). I noticed that there are no template messages and category links on the redirect pages when I first saw the new layout with large type and redirect.png just after upgrading to MediaWiki 1.4, which looked like a minor display issue, but now I see that the categories are empty, making the entire Category:Redirects hierarchy useless. I assume that was not intentional. Can the old redirect page layout be used until the problem is solved? Rafał Pocztarski 18:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, I’ve read Wikipedia:Bug reports and found Bugzilla:927 bug report. Rafał Pocztarski 18:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Note that "Whatlinkshere/Template:R from whatever" pages do work still. -- Paddu 03:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect from subtopic
Was there at one time a Template:R from subtopic? I used a Template:R from related word for an item that would be better categorized as a subtopic ... Infrastructure in Norway. Courtland 19:47, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
- What you're looking for is probably Template:R with possibilities. BTW I'm not sure whether Infrastructure in Norway should be a redirect to Norway. The information required is not in Norway but in Communications in Norway, Transportation in Norway, Power supply in Norway, .... -- Paddu 03:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, the "R with possibilities" is likely what I'm looking for; I do seem to recall tha the "subtopic" one existed ... I could be mistaken.
- The reasons why I did the norway-related redirect (based on what I'm thinking about now) are a couple in number. First, in order to scale the items under "Infrastructure in Norway" now one needs to edit the Norway article, thereby enriching it. Second, I'm guessing (hopefully rightly) that a typical user will not enter Wikipedia with the query "Infrastructure in Norway" on their fingertips; their first stop will likely be the Norway article, from which now the three existing items are available one click closer than before. Third, which is really "2nd part 2" is that I thought the previous situation unnecessarily extended the link path given Norway as the most likely entry point (my guessing as to the most likely entry point). I actually thought about putting up a "vote for deletion" on the "Infrastructure in Norway" page but thought better of it as there is a dual utility for it's existing: as a machine readable "pseudo-category" embedded in the Wikipedia data structure and as a "release valve" should the categories of infrastructure in the Norway article increase substantially.
- Now all that being said (in quite longwinded fashion) I certainly would not engage in an edit-war on this matter ... if my arguments are not convincing and a person is sufficiently convinced of an alternative configuration, I'd in no way try to stand in the way of a full reversion or revision. I think my use was right, but there isn't a single right answer to these things in general, and in this case specifically as an instance.
- Regards, Courtland 04:08, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
Adjective redirects
Should a "Redirects from adjective" be made? As in, a redirect from the adjective form of a word to the noun form. Like democratic → democracy. -Shoecream 22:02, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Doesn't Template:R from related word fit the bill? -- Netoholic @ 06:17, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
- It could, but "adjective" implies that the article title does not conform to the article titling policy while "related word" carries with it a meaning-oriented intent. Courtland 13:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Suggested change to article text
The opening words of the article currently read
- One or several to be placed at the bottom of a redirect page. This doesn't prevent the redirect from working. Note: This feature is broken right now. See: the explanation and Bugzilla:927 bug report.
I would like to change this to read
- Typically add one on the same line as the REDIRECT command on a redirect page, as
example for a redirect from Glops to Glop
#REDIRECT [[Glop]] {{R from plural}}
- Placement of the template in other positions will either result in the template not being saved or the redirect page not working properly.
Thoughts? Courtland 17:32, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Renaming redirect special tags
While these templates are relatively new and unknown, I'd like to propose renaming the special tags to make them more memorable, better clarified, and more useful.
Firstly, I'd like to remove the word "from". so instead of {{R from related word}} we'd just have {{R related word}}. This would make it easier to remember the tag, as some use "from", some "for", and others "to". I don't think there is any ambiguity, and the full meaning can be understood from the category page.
Secondly, {{R subtopic}} is much more clear than {{R with possibilities}}
Thirdly, instead of categories based on the original list of what redirects are used for, I'd like to make it categories based on what the special tags can be used for. Misspelling, for instannce, is useful in that it lets the reader know that it's not just an alternative name but a misspelling. (unfortunately that information is hidden at present, but I imagine in future the reader will be told they were redirected from a misspelling.) Also in future, perhaps the "what links here" will tell you which redirect pages are misspellings. That's useful documentation. It means links to misspellings cna be found easily, etc.
On the other hand, whether a redirect is counted as an alternate name or alternate language, I think is less generally useful, and only makes it more difficult to categorise redirects. Likewise for whether something is a different spelling, or just using ASCII. So I propose to lump all the "alternates" together, so long as they are all correct alternatives. This would bring the number of tags down from 13 to nine.
Fourthly, make "misspelling" its own tag, which can be combined with others.
E.g. Air's Rock would become:
- #redirect [[Uluru]] {{R alternate}} {{misspelling}}
as it is a misspelling of an alternate name.
Fifthly (ok these ordinal numbers are getting silly), {{R to disambiguation page}} to {{R disambiguate}}. "to disambiguation page" is not really clear, it really means someone should disambiguate the link that lead them there, not only that it redirects to a disambiguation page. And some other minor changes. See list below.
Finally, Any more suggestions? What about redirects from a misspelling of an alternate name? Is there a way to do a heirarchy of these things, like categories?
I don't know how these changes would be implemented. I assume someone would have to write a script, unless there are ways of migrating more elegantly. I also don't know what the appropriate Wikibureaucracy process is to get these changes implemented. I figure someone just has to do it. Comments welcome.
| Existing | Proposed |
| {{R from abbreviation}} | {{R abbreviation}} |
| {{R from misspelling}} | {{misspelling}} * (see 4th point above) |
| {{R from alternate spelling}} | {{R alternate}} |
| {{R for alternate capitalisation}} | |
| {{R from alternate name}} | |
| {{R from alternate language}} | |
| {{R from ASCII}} | |
| {{R from plural}} | {{R plural}} |
| {{R from related word}} | {{R alternate part of speech}} |
| {{R with possibilities}} | {{R subtopic}} |
| {{R to disambiguation page}} | {{R disambiguate}} |
| {{R for as of}} | {{R as of}} |
| {{R from shortcut}} | {{R shortcut}} |
| {{R to sort name}} | {{R sort}} |
| {{R from scientific name}} | {{R scientific name}} |
—Pengo 02:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
What for?
Maybe this is a stupid question, but what are these templates for? I mean, obviously, they're to put on redirects, but why do we need to be able to, say, find all the redirects from postal abbreviations? There are so many untagged redirects, is there a move underway to classify them all? If so, to what end? If not, what's the point of just classifying a few redirects? GTBacchus 06:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- This has been addressed a number of places, but rather than pointing you to them, I'll just put down the abbreviated version:
- to facilitate classification for exclusion from print-Wikipedia
- to facilitate systematic clean-up (for instance, deletion of redirects in the form of "xxx (Axxx) → xxx (axxx)")
- to facilitate and document consensus implementation around naming conventions
- there are several more and these might not be the most important to some folks.
- Regards, Courtland 13:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. So... if I'm working on maintenance, fixing double redirects, creating new redirects and the like, should I be adding these as they come up? Is there a project underway to tag redirects according to type? GTBacchus 16:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- And what about something like Madison Park (Hoboken, NJ)? It used to redirect to Madison Park (Hoboken, New Jersey), but now that redirects to Landmarks of Hoboken, New Jersey. So, should the redirect from Madison Park (Hoboken, NJ) to Landmarks of Hoboken, New Jersey be tagged {{Redir from US postal ab}} or not? GTBacchus 20:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect templates not listed on the page.
While browsing through Category:Redirects, I noticed some redirect templates not listed on the page. These were {{R from ASCII}}, {{R from CamelCase}}, {{R from title without diacritics}}, {{R to decade}}, {{R from UN/LOCODE}}, {{R from shortcut}}, {{R to Wiktionary}} (I also noticed Category:Song-to-band redirects which does not have a template). Is there any reason why they are not listed? Ae-a 00:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
