Redirect Template‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Redirect, a collaborative effort to improve the standard of redirects and their categorization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Note: This banner should be placed on the talk pages of project, template and category pages that exist and operate to maintain redirects. This banner is not designed to be placed on the talk pages of most redirects and almost never on the talk pages of mainspace redirects. For more information see the template documentation.RedirectWikipedia:WikiProject RedirectTemplate:WikiProject Redirectredirect pages Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I think we should merge this and Template:R from singular. They're the same thing really. They could both exist, but with one redirecting to the other.

Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mclay1, please stop removing explanatory text from the template. That info is helpful when an editor looks these up in the index.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  07:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do not design templates for index pages. I didn't remove the information, I just moved it to the documentation. Unnecessary amounts of information about redirect categories can be placed in the documentation and category itself. The templates look better short. More information can be added to the index page if necessary. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree. We design templates for more than just one reason. An index is useful information about the templates, and that information only shows up in the index if it is actually in the template. You did remove the information from the template and the template index. You also removed the category that the template is supposed to populate. Please be more careful.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  07:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• PS. I transferred this conversation from the User talk page.

I'm going to reply here instead of my talk page. Firstly, I did not remove the category, it's part of the template. Secondly, the index can include normal text, you don't have to just include the template's text. We most certainly do not design the templates for the index, we design the index for the templates. The templates look silly with too much information. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you did, now. I still disagree with you about the information and its usefulness in the index for beginner editors. But I'll put that aside for now, because there's a bigger problem. I'm afraid I don't like your {{Redirect template}}. It's far too complicated. I see where you add the R to plural cat at least three times? What's up with that?  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  08:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's all explained in the documentation. {{Redirect template}} is transcluded twice in redirect templates: the first time for use with {{This is a redirect}}, the second time for use without. So the information is repeated twice. In the first half, the category is written again so it links to the first part of the text. Because the parameter that adds the category has to be includeonly-ed, it can't be used to produce the link. But, I've just realised that the category parameter in the first half isn't includeonly-ed anyway so I can simplify it. Thanks. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Yes, much simplifying is needed, for example, the template should only have to be transcluded once in redirect templates, and cats that are to be populated should only require one parameter to be included, not two or three parameters. Perhaps you should be testing these new templates in sandboxes more thoroughly before you "go live" with them?  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  09:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they work perfectly fine so no sandboxes are needed. In my opinion, the two versions are better than one. I had one originally but I thought the second version looks better than the first when not using {{This is a redirect}}. What do you think? Compare User:Mclay1/Sandpit (I'll try to get rid of that whitespace) with User:Mclay1/Sandpit 2. Perhaps the first version should be used even without {{This is a redirect}}? When I simplify the first version to remove one of the parameters, using the template will be easier but the code will be much more complicated. McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the parameter and the excess whitespace. Reading the code now is quite confusing considering its fairly simple application. McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Redirects to plurals leads with "This is not a license to create articles against English language Wikipedia Naming conventions, but is for the rare case where the plural is uncategorically correct.". Which gives that particular category slightly more value than just your typical tracking category as it's actually helping to track discrepant article titles (or rather, exceptions to the rule, Category:Redirects to acronyms and WP:ACRONYMTITLE is another one like this). I think this also bestows a little more responsibility on the part of the user of (at least) this template to not be polluting its respective category by adding every combination of capitalization or spelling variation! For example, "Smart Bookmark" redirects to Smart Bookmarks. Once that gets tagged as a redirect to plural, lowercase "smart bookmark" should NOT be also tagged! This does not help to get an accurate count of how many individual article titles are actually in plural form. It reduces the usefulness of the category IMO. So anyway, in light of this, I propose we include something in the documentation and/or the template page text that can educate editors on this. Any thoughts? @Paine Ellsworth:, I know you specialize in rcats.. would be interested in your comments. -- œ^™ 03:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, œ – looking over this cat, it doesn't appear to conform much to how it was first meant to be. Looking at the example on this subject page, "trouser → trousers", I see a lot of garbage in the cat. To answer your question, it is probably my fault, at least partly, for not including the trouser example on the /doc page. I suppose I figured that keeping it in the rcat text should be enough. No, that's not right either, because most of the garbage probably entered the cat before text was visible on redirects. I really should have included the trouser example. I'll put it and another example on the /doc page, then I'll put the cat on my cleanup to-do list. I'm not sure how good it will be for the task of keeping track of incorrectly named articles, though. A correct count of such articles would only be had after subtracting the redirects that are supposed to be in this category (like "trouser"). Anyway, I'll get right on it. Best of Everything to You and Yours! – Paine  00:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The description seems to imply it's only for incorrect singular forms, but it isn't entirely clear on this? I don't know whether redirects like the above should use this template or {{R from modification}}. Thanks, Rob984 (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:R si and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 6#Template:R si until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]