Template talk:R to section

R to subtopic

My gut feeling is that there is little substantive difference between Template:R from subtopic and Template:R to section. What is unfortunate is the merger of concepts underlying Template:R from subtopic and Template:R with possibilities as it is a truism that almost all tolerated titles and named concepts have the possibility of becoming an article though there might be a very small probability of this taking place. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd never heard of Template:R from subtopic(edit talk links history) before this, but I agree. There's maybe a gnats eyelash of difference between the two. In general, I've been tagging the section linked to with {{Redirectstohere}} as well, so there's an back notation (no link) suggesting changing the title is a bad idea! You might think about working the aliased name into the redirects documentation page. Cheers! // FrankB 03:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Observation: As explained at Help:Anchors, changing the title of a linked section doesn't affect anything as long as you simply include a "div" tag of the original title. Maybe Template:Redirectstohere should mention that? IMHO, it should always be done when renaming a section anyway. --DocumentN (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: Template:Anchor preserves section anchors, even when the section heading changes. It also obviates the need to use HTML markup or code comments to preserve redirect link integrity. Template:Redirectstohere was deleted in July 2008.

Template:R with possibilities is a qualitative assessment, not speculation. It implies that the topic should be developed further. Sometimes a disambiguation page is warranted. Obviously, not all redirects have development potential (e.g., name variations).

As for subtopics and sections, the answer is codified in the redirect category hierarchy:

• Category:Redirects to related topics
  • Category:Redirects from subtopics
    • Category:Redirects to sections

A redirect template adds a redirect to a category. Just as in other categories, only use the ones that are the most specific. Placing a template in a specific category implies its membership in the more general categories. —Ringbang (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

←

What's the current consensus on whether redirects to sections are presumed to be subtopics? That is, does {{r to section}} make {{r from subtopic}} superfluous? For example, I made this edit knowing full well someone would probably disagree.

The discussion above doesn't seem entirely relevant now that {{redirectstohere}} no longer exists. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for a bot

Since you an always tell from syntax if a redirect is to a section or not, isn't the job of marking redirects as such best left to a WP:BOT? The bot could also categorize redirect to sections that are borken, i.e. the section got renamed w/o changing the redirect or including a div to keep the old section name valid, which honestly, I've not seen anyone use. Pcap ping 02:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've wondered about this, too. Maybe categorising redirects isn't important enough to devote the computational resources? It would be nice to know. Ringbang (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

SELECT page_title
FROM page
JOIN redirect ON rd_from=page_id
LEFT JOIN categorylinks
       ON rd_from=cl_from AND cl_to="Redirects_to_sections"
WHERE page_namespace=0
AND   rd_fragment!=""
AND cl_from IS NULL;

That's 390,160 uncategorized redirect, but we can access it problematically. — Dispenser 17:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Exact semantics of R to section. Proposal to add R to alternative section anchor

Please review Talk:NetWare#Purpose: R to anchor for a discussion about the exact meaning of {{R to section}} and a proposal to add {{R to alternative section anchor}} to distinguish "free" anchors from alternative anchors nearby section headings in order to ease maintenance. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding "click here"

@Paine Ellsworth: I respectfully disagree with your recent revert. The phrase "click here" as link text may be in common use, but for both stylistic and user accessibility reasons it is not recommended by organizations such as W3C (Don't use "click here" as link text), National Institute on Aging (Making Your Website Senior Friendly), Microsoft (Creating accessible Word documents (subsection: Use hyperlink text that is meaningful)), the American Foundation for the Blind (How to Make Your Blog Accessible to Blind Readers), Penn State (Accessibility and Usability at Penn State: Microsoft Word Tips), WebAIM (Introduction to Web Accessibility), the Nielsen Norman Group (Accessible Design for Users With Disabilities), UX Movement (Why Your Links Should Never Say “Click Here”) and others (see also Mystery meat navigation). This link phrase is also now discouraged by Google's indexing algorithms as noted by Wordtracker (7 top tips to avoid a Google Penguin penalty in 2014) and Powered By Search (7 Types of Anchor Text You Can Use to Avoid a Google Flag). Using the phrase is unprofessional and lazy, especially when the sentence can be easily rewritten to use a more contextually accurate link text. Slambo (Speak) 20:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Although it's not specifically mentioned in a WP style guide that I could find today, WP:LINKCLARITY notes that the link text should "correspond to the term showing as the link as closely as possible given the context." My interpretation of this statement is that "click here" is discouraged because it does not indicate where the link will lead. Slambo (Speak) 20:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What about “List of templates that redirect here”? Personally I hate vague links like “several templates” so much that I would say the “click here” cliché is actually clearer in this case, although still undesirable. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 21:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC).

If this most recent edit is okay, I shall start updating other rcat /doc pages later today. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 10:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That wording or the phrase proposed above is much more clear. I wasn't aware that the same text was used on all the redirect template documentation pages, which was originally noted as part of the reason for the revert. I can help out with updating other pages as well (I'm assuming it's the doc pages listed under Category:Redirect templates and its subcategories). Slambo (Speak) 17:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's great of you to want to help; thank you very much! There were other tweaks that were needed, so I went ahead and updated most of them (killed up to ten birds with one stone). If you come across an rcat I've missed, feel free to make it consistent with the others. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Should this really be used on all redirects to sections?

As the heading says, should this template really be used on every single page that redirects to a section of another? I'm questioning this because many of those aren't really from specific subjects or already have another redirect category that often already states that it can be used for redirects to sections, making this template reduntant in certain cases, such as with Template:R from incomplete disambiguation (see Category:Redirects from incomplete disambiguations for examples). The reason I disagree with this usage is because the description in R to section (and on its page) make it pretty clear that it is only for subjects that could have their own articles, but are only described in a related "parent" article due to a lack of notability/other reasons (examples being Barron Trump and Weavel); it is not to be put on redirects that are not from real subjects and don't lead to sections that describe, such H (album). Likewise, you don't put Template:R to disambiguation page on every redirect to a disambiguation page. I'd say this applies to redirects that are both tagged with R to section and Template:R to list entry as well, since that's reduntant. Any thoughts? Geolodus (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Geolodus: I see you've reverted some of my recent additions of {{R to section}} on pages that already had {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, so I reread the documentation {{R to section}}. Could you please quote where you see the description you've mentioned above? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not in the template's documentation; I'm simply going off the fact that Category:Redirects to sections is a subcategory of Category:Redirects from subtopics, which creates issues considering that they are then assumed to be, well, topics. Redirects from incomplete disambiguations are clearly not. Geolodus (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Besides, there's nothing that says this redirect category should be used so liberally. Geolodus (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 November 2020

Change:
This is a redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to a section of a page on the subject.
to:
This is a redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to a Section of a page on the subject. For anchors not associated with section headers, use {{R to anchor}} instead.

Reason:
to be clear that the word "section" here is not just a synonym for "part" – see [[Category talk:Redirects to sections#Are {{R to section}} and {{R to anchor}} intended to be mutually exclusive?]]
Jim Craigie (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor Jim Craigie:  done, well mostly. I also linked to an explanation of "embedded anchors", and I left out the part about not being associated with section headers, because as I explained on the category talk page, sometimes anchors are found within section headers. Thank you very much for your help! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

оорриириоирррррророррооошшллооолошлллллггшшшшшшшшшгггггггогггг 93.124.76.211 (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Current Year

How to use a magic word to redirect to a section?. For example,

#redirect [[United Nations Climate Change conference|{{CURRENTYEAR}}]]

to go to the section of the current year in the UNCCC article?:

United Nations Climate Change conference#2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoldLuis (talk • contribs) 11:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Ьолоооолррлооллоооллллььббьллолллоллллльлоьоооольльллльллллдллддлддбблллллллллддддббдбдбббддльббллллльлльлбблбддддбдддюююдююююжжироо 93.124.76.211 (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)