Template talk:R from incorrect name

New redirects

Note to JPaestpreornJeolhlna… Just curious as to why you feel that this Rcat (redirect category template) needs so many redirects? – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 19:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Paine. My reasoning for creating so many of these is that redirect templates should each have a multitude of redirects to them, so that a user placing an Rcat on a redirect both has a variety of choices for specifying the characteristics of the redirect and is unlikely to place on it an Rcat that does not exist. This template, of course, is rather specific in its title already – unlike R from modification and others with wide ranges of purposes – so I can see why it might seem odd for the template to have this many redirects. However, there is nothing wrong with supplying a large number of redirects (see WP:CHEAP) to any page, and in doing so, users who contribute by placing Rcats on various redirects are benefited, thus so is Wikipedia. If, however, this is causing any problems, please let me know! — |J~Pæst| 22:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Please understand, JPæst, I have been Rcatting redirects for two or three years, and the job is so huge that those of us who work on these types of gnomish tasks can use all the help we can get. My question was not to deter you from creating redirects to Rcats. I was just curious. I had retargeted two redirects from this Rcat to another more appropriate Rcat recently, so I was watching it for awhile. The "What links here" page only had two redirects the other day, and now all of a sudden there are a lot more. So I just wondered. Please consider, though, that while redirects are relatively inexpensive to the Wikipedia server time, creating a "multitude" of redirects defeats that, doesn't it? One redirect is cheap, but many, many redirects are not so cheap. Also, why are a "variety of choices" needed when one or two choices will do the job? An Rcat populates one or two categories and only those categories no matter how many different redirects go to that Rcat. I do appreciate that you are here to benefit people and Wikipedia, so these are just thoughts for you to please consider. The most important Rcat task is to apply them to redirects, which categorizes the redirects so they can be correctly sorted. It's not an easy job, nor will you get any barnstars or other accolades for doing it. It's totally a "behind-the-scenes" job, so one has to be a dedicated WikiGnome to categorize redirects. Joys! – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 18:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Examples are terrible

The examples given are mostly not actually incorrect names. Most of them should not be categorized as incorrect names:

• UK Cycling versus British Cycling - UK and British are commonly used as synonyms, so the UK should be {{R from alternate name}}, not an incorrect name. Also, this, without a doubt, does belong in a print encyclopedia.
• The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past Four Swords versus The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past/Four Swords - again, not an incorrect name. In fact the name is entirely correct, just with slightly different punctuation, so it should be {{R from punctuation}}

I can't speak to the name of the railroad.

A better example might be William Marcy Tweed -> William Magear Tweed - the middle name Marcy is flat out wrong, but commonly used in sources.

Ego White Tray (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

To editor Ego White Tray: May we take your objections one-by-one? Firstly, "British Cycling" is the name of the governing body for cycle racing in Great Britain. The name of that body is not "UK Cycling", so that is decidedly an incorrect name. I have converted that redirect to the {{Redr}} template to be able to use its e# parameter to clarify.

Secondly, I see that this redirect, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past Four Swords has a different target specified: The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past & Four Swords instead of "The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past#A Link to the Past/Four Swords", for which a search take us to the TOP of The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past since that section name, "#A Link to the Past/Four Swords", is not found in that article. So the correct name is:

• The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past & Four Swords, vs. the redirect:
• The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past Four Swords

It may not be obvious to others, however to me, the redirect is still an "incorrect title" for the game. Or should I say "games", since the article is about two games, A Link to the Past and (&) Four Swords. It is not about one game called "A Link to the Past Four Swords", a very confusing misnomer. So confusing, in fact, that I have removed it from the documentation. If you would like to add in your example, that would be very welcome!

Thirdly, the recent removal of the embedded Unprintworthy category:

I restored it to status quo so that we may discuss the ramifications of its removal before actually turning this into a case-by-case situation. This rcat is transcluded to more than 1,500 redirects. If the printworthy= parameter is not set to "no", then all of those will have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. I would like to see more examples of printworthy incorrect names before I would agree with removal of the default Unprintworthy category. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 01:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

My main objection, I suppose, is the fact that they get listed as unprintworthy. I've also heard it mentioned that such a tag excludes titles from search, but I'm not sure if that's the case. That said, UK Cycling is such a likely redirect, and so different than the correct title, that in undoubtedly needs to appear in search results here, and in print if in a book. I don't have a problem with the tag on UK Cycling if it is not tagged unprintworthy. I'm sure there are a huge number of such examples, which is why a case-by-case basis is better for this template. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

We need a lot more discussion on this than the rarity that people actually monitor this page, BTW. Would an RFC be in order? Ego White Tray (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure there are a huge number of such examples

With respect, if more examples to give some idea what percentage are printworthy aren't listed, it isn't easy to agree with a case-by-case basis, specially since there are so many that would have to be studied. Since you do feel so sure, then what can be done is to continue with the unprintworthy default and allow for a manual category switch to printworthy using the 2nd unnamed parameter. That way, when an editor comes across a printworthy incorrect name, it can easily be changed. I see this as similar to the R typo situation from awhile back. Some misspellings were actually the correct spellings of other subjects "with possibilities". So that had to be accomodated in a similar way. Are you okay with that? (I'm neutral in regard to an RFC.) – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 00:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

To editor Ego White Tray: I went ahead and put the option in to change from unprintworthy to printworthy. Since the 1st parameter was already used to show the correct name, I used the 2nd parameter for printworthiness. The /doc has been updated, and if you have questions, feel free to ask. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 19:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - this is an excellent solution. Ego White Tray (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Pleasure! – Paine

Edit request

All of the other redirect templates' |from= fields use a determiner/article such as "from an acronym" or "from a longer title", whereas this one only uses "from incorrect name". Although a minor change, I couldn't make it since the page is template-protected; could someone update that field to be "from an incorrect name"? Thanks, Brantmeierz (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

"Template:R from incorrect hyphenation" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:R from incorrect hyphenation. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 4#Template:R from incorrect hyphenation until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)