Template talk:R from other capitalisation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Redirect
WikiProject icon 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 never on the talk pages of mainspace redirects. For more information see the template documentation.
 

Title[edit]

The use of "alternate" for "another", "different" or "alternative" is wrong. This page needs to be renamed. — Chameleon 13:00, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

It's the terminology used on the main page on the subject. -- User:Docu
I was referring about the main page on the subject, not this talk page. Wake up. — Chameleon 11:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'll be renaming this page within a week unless someone can put forward arguments for alternate being better than the correct alternative or other. — Chameleon 09:21, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This page (as well as the category) should use "from" instead of "for", like the other redirect templates. ··gracefool | 08:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problem for this one, so I moved it to {{R from other capitalisation}}. I used "other" instead of "alternative" as the later (and "alternate") seem to create lengthy discussions. -- User:Docu
I always thought the answer to that was "alternative" is a noun and "alternate" is not. But "other" is indeed less ambiguous. --Stratadrake 22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

2005 August TfD[edit]

Duplicate templates...[edit]

So how did we end up with eight templates saying the exact thing? It's misleading to say that any one of them redirects to another when this is the case, and couldn't we establish redirects without causing recursion issues? --Stratadrake 22:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about then, now this may be it. There are about 20 redirects to this template currently (r alt caps; R from alternate caps; R from alternative caps; etc.) -MornMore (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for category modification[edit]

{{editprotected}} Hello! As you can tell if you browse through Category:Redirect templates, they've been thinned out into a bunch of subcategories for a while. In keeping with this, whenever someone can get around to it, I'd like for this template to be placed in the following categories: Templates for redirects from a modification of the target name (with a sort key like "Capitalisation") and All redirect templates (with no sort key whatsoever). It should also be removed from Category:Redirect templates. Thanks! \sim Lenoxus " * " 02:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I moved the categories to the doc page, so you can edit them at your own will now. Let me know if you need other changes made to the template. --CapitalR (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Now I have a question... Why does the documentation put the template into the categories Category:Redirects from other capitalisations and Category:Unprintworthy redirects (the ones that it sorts tagged redirects into)? I've seen this elsewhere, but it doesn't quite make sense to me... \sim Lenoxus " * " 18:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the below templates?[edit]

The template contains the sentence "Apply one of the below templates to redirects created for this purpose." What does this refer to? Please explain, or preferable, clarify the text so that mortal being like myself can understand it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It leads to the title in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation?[edit]

Maybe someday, but for now Wikipedia remains a work in progress, and we still have many pages under non-standard titles, including cases where the title in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation unfortunately redirects to an incorrect title. Until we believe that we have completed the task of fixing these, I would prefer that the template text not give undue legitimacy to the status quo. Thank you - Walrus heart (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Associated category up for CSD[edit]

The category linked to this template is currently up for deletion here. If anyone from here has anything to add to the discussion, especially if anyone can provide original or current purposes that the category and/or template serve, the input would be greatly appreciated. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error[edit]

The word "capitalisation" is an incorrect spelling. The word is "capitalization." Can we correct this? --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 13:13, 23 May 20

wikt:capitalisation. So no. Rich Farmbrough, 05:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC).
One of those cases where those of us with US-only spellcheckers get caught. *sighs and hits "Add to dictionary" in his browser*. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Creating redirects with bot[edit]

Please, check this Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BOTijo 2 (again). emijrp (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Ost316, 10 August 2011[edit]

Change categorization of printworthiness from "[[Category:Unprintworthy redirects]]" to "[[Category:{{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|printworthy||Un}}printworthy redirects]]" to allow flagging valid alternate capitalizations as is done on {{R from plural}}. The auto-categorization as unprintworthy was also brought up above. —Ost (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ucucha (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for multiple edits: Interwiki link hack[edit]

This request is for the five template pages listed below. Please prefix links with [[w:]], and use a piped link when appropriate, in the following redirect templates, similar to my change to “Template:R from short name”.

See WT:Template messages/Redirect pages#Redirect display text for background and aborted version of this edit request. This is a workaround for Bugzilla:7304. Vadmium (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC).

All done. Ucucha (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What are the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalization?[edit]

As the template says, the page that uses the template leads to the title of the same page page in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalization. But what are those naming conventions? That should be clear from the text that is inserted, or a link to a list of such conventions should be given.

For example, the page Learning vector quantization redirects to Learning Vector Quantization, as it claims that the latter is better capitalization, but it does not say which naming convention is used to determine that. Most other articles for scientific methods are not capitalized in this way, and I feel that this article is being inconsistent in that way. If possible, I would like to delete the redirect page in order to be able to make a move on the article and change the capitalization to make it consistent. —Kri (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The naming conventions are at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters (MOS:CAPS). Adding a link to this template seems like a good idea to me. As learning vector quantization is not a proper name, the title has been corrected to lower case. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
But the hatnote at MOS:CAPS says For the style guideline on capitalization in article titles, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization).
This template populates Category:Redirects from other capitalisations, which says: "The pages in this category are redirects from alternative capitalisation, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)". Wbm1058 (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done – I updated the template to add a link to the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalization. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Code cleanup[edit]

I've compressed the code a lot, at Template:R from other capitalisation/sandbox. Compare it before and after. Big enough change it's worth sandboxing this and seeing if anyone detects an error in it. Seems to work fine for me.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

To SMcCandlish: The only "error" I detected was that there were two category links. This was easily fixed by a parser function in the "name=" parameter. Pretty impressive! Things to consider might be that the sandbox code also subdues the text that follows the first sentence whenever "of=" or "reason=" is filled. That text would still apply even if not subdued and, in my humble opinion, is needed. I would also want to include a second unnamed parameter to coincide with the "of=" and "reason=" named parameters. That would make this functionality work when this rcat is called by the {{This is a redirect}} template by use of its "n#=" parameter. The only other thing I can think of right now is that {{Redirect template}} was designed to be used twice in each rcat, and while this interesting method of using only the one instance of the template with "embeds" strategically inserted where needed may be functional, it might be something we would want to consider very carefully before implementation. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 08:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Code fix[edit]

The code has been repaired – there were two primary problems and one secondary one:

  • The code left a superfluous "(space)to(space)" at the end of the first sentence when either the "of=" or "reason=" parameter was used,
  • the code subdued critical text when either the "of=" or "reason=" parameter was used, and the secondary issue that
  • this "of/reason" functionality was not able to be deployed when this rcat used the {{This is a redirect}} template to tag redirects.

All fixed. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 06:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Is this in reference to my sandbox code, or the "live" template?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Forgive me for my lack of clarity – this describes what I did to the live template. The only thing I fixed in the sandbox was the double link to the category. It all works fine except for the considerations I noted above. – Paine  18:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Can redirects to sections qualify as other capitalization?[edit]

See specifically PubMed Identifier and previous discussion at User talk:Senator2029#PubMed Identifier redirect. Senator2029's response suggests that any relevant template documentation needs to make our decision explicit.

(I disagree somewhat with the redirect being unprintworthy, because all the links coming from {{cite journal}} would make the impression that we don't care about cleaning up unprintworthy redirects. Also, I don't see where the capitalized "Identifier" is declared officially incorrect; on the other hand, this section of PubMed's official FAQ does capitalize "Identifier." But I digress.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)