Template talk:R with possibilities/Archive 1

Archive 1

What does that explanation mean, anyway??

"This is a redirect from a title for a topic more detailed than the topic of the page this redirects to."
What?? Does this actually make sense to anyone? - Liberty Miller 26 Jan 2005

This is one of the more common R-templates that I've been including in redirects .. despite the fact that they don't function right now.

To me it means that there is a subtopic that is included in an article that, if there were more information, could be split off as an article in it's own right. Take a facetious example: money. Let's say that I started an article entitled "Money" and there was no article on "US dollar" and I didn't feel like or couldn't add enough information about "US dollar" to justify to myself that it should be included either as a stub or an article. So I write my one line in "Money" about the all-mighty dollar and make a redirect from "US dollar" => "Money" in anticipation that someone might have the wherewithall to say something about the greenback at some point beyond "The US Dollar is the base currency of the United States" .. which is what I said about it in "Money".

I'm not using it for that purpose, really, but for more symmetrical references. For instance, there is an article on Thyroid-stimulating hormone but there is no article on Thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor. In biology saying something about a receptor and it's cognate ligand are two very different things. However, for my present purpose I don't want to start an article on the receptor, so I set up a couple of reasonable redirects around alternate names for the receptor and put what I have at present in the TSH article, where it fits but it's not in the best possible context. I'm not saying anything false by putting the information together as I have, but it's just not the best of all possible configurations. Later, maybe, I'll drop in and write a receptor article ... or maybe someone who works on the receptor will do so. Courtland 03:07, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)

rename to {{R subtopic}}

I'd like to change this tag to be a more precise and better understood "R subtopic".

I've outlined some other changes I'd like made at Village pump/proposals

I also think the title of the template is very strange. I'd rather change the officially advertised title to the one suggested above.--Imz 20:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Agree, after some thought. There are many uses of the template that are do not strictly abide by the topic-subtopic relationship, but these could be considered misuses of the template rather than an opportunity for descriptive revision of the template title and text. Perhaps renaming to the subtopic title will lead more people (myself included) to use the template more narrowly. Courtland 21:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The majority of templates under Category:Redirect_templates also use the word "from" or "to". So, let's use {{R from subtopic}}. Shawnc 13:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Or not, as you moved it twice today! Anyway, this is a bad idea, there are other things in the category than just "subtopics". And it took me a couple of hours to undo the damage today. There's a process for renaming templates and categories, and you didn't follow it. Please don't do that again!

--William Allen Simpson 17:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the template name is unclear, and there has been concensus on renaming the template to something different from "R with possibilities". Users who have prefered a change include User:Ceyockey, User:Imz, User:Pengo. Shawnc 17:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

To deal with redirects from non-subtopics, we could rename this template to cover those as well, such as "R from related topic". How's that? Shawnc 18:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

All uses I've seen of "possibilities" are for subtopics. If there are other cases, these should be delt with case by case (or perhaps these rare, exceptional cases can get another template for "related topic"). It is not desirable to combine "subtopic" and the rare "other possibilities/related topic". Note that my original suggestion was to remove all the "to" "from" and "with" words from all the R template names because they are inconsistant and don't help, but removing these words should be considered separately to this proposal. —Pengo 02:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss rename proposals at Wikipedia talk:Redirect, WP:RM, and WP:VPR. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Songs

Do you suppose this would be a good template to add to song titles that redirect to albums? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest using Template:R from subtopic even though that template redirects here; that template is, as discussed above, a subtopic of this one, actually. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Text disappears

I just added the template to Taiping Christianity, however, the text shows only as I preview the edit. As I save it, the text disappears, leaving only the categorization. __meco (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

cat of template

Please cat to Category:Templates for redirects with possibilities, thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made the request below. McLerristarr / Mclay1 06:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit protected}}

Please change the following section:

<noinclude>
===See also===
;Redirects
*''{{tl|R with options}}
*''{{tl|R with potential}}
*''{{tl|R from subtopic}}

[[Category:Redirect templates|Possibilities]]
[[Category:All redirect templates]]

[[hr:template:privremeno preusmjerenje]]
</noinclude>

to

<noinclude>
===See also===
;Redirects
*''{{tl|R with options}}
*''{{tl|R with potential}}
*''{{tl|R from subtopic}}

[[Category:All redirect templates]]
[[Category:Templates for redirects with possibilities]]

[[hr:template:privremeno preusmjerenje]]
</noinclude>

McLerristarr / Mclay1 14:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

What's the justification for the extra categorization under Category:Redirects to related topics? IMHO this is something that ought to be indicated, where needed, by use of a separate {{R ...}} template. It's either implicit for all redirects, or else it's tenuous to assume that it will be "more true" for a {{R with possibilities}} than an {{R without possibilities}}. I just don't see "scope for further expansion" as implying degree of relatedness. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The category is for redirects that don't fall into other redirect categories. They're not misspellings, modifications etc. but they do not require their own article. All redirects with possibilities fall into this category. McLerristarr / Mclay1 15:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

One second thought, I'll just add Category:Redirects with possibilities as a sub-category of Category:Redirects to related topics. But the other request is still needed. McLerristarr / Mclay1 06:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

What does "Redirect with possibilities" mean? I see this as meaning, "A stand-alone article could be written on this notable topic, when anyone has time and inclination to do so". No more, no less. It implies nothing about this slot and its relation to other articles.

There's a likelihood that articles with links will be related, because relationship does suggest linkage. However that's not a strong implication and it's not certainly not commutative. We link many things just to clarify their distinctiveness, or because they're merely navigational lists imposed from an external set (a list of stations on a railway line implies that each station is related to the line, but not that there's much similarity between the towns).

I don't see any coupling between "has possibilities" and "related topic" Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If something is not related to a topic, then it should not be redirected to it. A redirect with possibilities is not just for the sake of navigation, it's a topic that could become it's own article, but for the mean time, it's redirected to a related topic. 12:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Only to the extent that all redirects are related to their target. The amount of "relation" is in no way indicated by whether a redirect name is independently notable or worthy of future expansion, these are quite separate aspects. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument. If it's related, then it's related. I don't see why there is any reason not to label them as so. It's a related topic as opposed to a related word or just an alternative name or misspelling etc. McLerristarr / Mclay1 03:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If we assume an axiom, "All redirects are to related topics" then there's no need to annotate a particular redirect as "related", because this is simply implicit in the fact it's a redirect. Now we might question this axiom; is it always true?, can there ever be a valid redirect that isn't quite as "related" as we might have first assumed? However that question is somewhat moot, because of my main point: "The amount of future possibility a redirect has is unrelated to its relatedness to its target". Whether we assume all redirects are "related", or only some/most redirects are (and thus we might choose to label them individually), this choice to label doesn't depend on their labelling as having possibilities. The two things are quite separate. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

But it's not just a redirect that related to its direction, it's redirected to a related topic. Category:Redirects from misspellings and Category:Redirects from other capitalisations aren't in Category:Redirects to related topics. It's for things like Autonomist movements which is redirected to Autonomism. It's for redirects with possibilities and similar redirects without possibilities. I don't want the category added to this template anymore anyway; I've added Category:Redirects with possibilities as a sub-category to Redirects to related topics. McLerristarr / Mclay1 10:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Contested edit; re-request the request when consensus supports it. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not contested. This argument is about a request that I've removed, the current reuqest is different. McLerristarr / Mclay1 03:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - I've no contest about the change as currently described. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've split the documentation to an unprotected sub-page, so you can make this edit yourselves. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done McLerristarr / Mclay1 08:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Use stubs in this special type of redirect or not?

I've been using stubs in a few redirects with possibilities (as in the case of some ancient cities pointing to history section of modern cities). But some folks in the stub sorting project insist to never use stubs in redirects, as per this discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#Problem_with_.7B.7BDacia-stub.7D.7D. So what kind of cases you guys had in mind when you wrote perhaps add a stub template or two to the redirect page as well.? I for one, can see the point of your suggestion but I am being stopped from following it. Any thoughts/suggestions? --Codrin.B (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't see a benefit to mixing up stub categories with redirects, they're two different things. I think we should remove that suggestion. -- œ^™ 13:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Any stub templates added to redirects are automatically removed by WikiProject Stub sorting, since it's explicitly stated at WP:STUB that redirects should never be stubbed. As explained in the discussions which Codrinb has pointed to, no other redirect-related guideline or policy page mentions stubbing redirects, and doing so simply clogs stub categories and makes any tallying work done as a general procedure in WP:WSS work much harder, while being of no real assistance to editors. It should be noticed that the suggestion to add stub templates was not part of the original description of this template, but was added later on, presumably without checking to see whether it conflicted with guidelines or standard practices. PS - Sorry Codrinb - I hadn't noticed this note before - I'd assumed when you said that it was mentioned at the template that it would be somewhere in the documentation (surely the normal place to list details of template usage) or on thee documentation's talk page, rather than on the template itself. Grutness...wha? 22:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well that settles it then.. I've removed it. You can do the same if you find this suggestion in any of the other redirect templates. Last thing we need is a WikiWar between WikiProject Redirect and WikiProject Stub Sorting ;P (WikiProject Redirect would've won btw) -- œ^™ 02:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah? ;) Grutness...wha? 22:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Explanatory text on the redirect

Why does nothing of the explanatory text appear on the redirects? The redirects are less intelligible without any text or visible categories. older ≠ wiser 15:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

While the text does not appear directly on the redirects, editor Bkonrad, the text does appear on the Diff pages. So to see the text, go to the history and then click on Compare selected revisions. The Diff page that appears will show the text of the redirect category template. To answer your question, my guess is that administration does not want to load down all the redirects with a lot of text. As they are now, redirects are very efficient and cost the project very little time and money. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  18:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying Paine. The explanatory text does not appear in the diffs of pages where the template is transcluded, where is might be of some use. Diffs of the redirect will show the template, but that is of little help for most users. I can perhaps understand that there might be some overhead with tranclusion of a lot of text, though I'm not sure of that since the redirect page is not rendered unless a person deliberately clicks on the "redirected from" link. But as it is, not even the category appears. Most users on looking at the redirect would not have any indication that the redirect has been marked as having possibilities and in particular, that such redirects should not be "fixed". I'd think that some indication would be preferable to nothing. older ≠ wiser 18:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, Bkonrad, I should have provided an example. Try the Thessaly Periphery redirect.

• Click on Edit to find that the {{R with possibilities}} Rcat has been added using the {{This is a redirect}} template (I used the shortcut {{Redr}}).
• Then click on View history, and you will find two of my recent edits.
• From there, click on the Compare selected revisions button to get to the Diff page.

On that page you will see the text of this Rcat included within the nifty box that's called by the {{This is a redirect}} template. I sincerely hope this clears it up for you, and Best to you! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• PS. The category, Redirects with possibilities is a hidden category, so it cannot be seen by IP editors nor by registered editors who have set their preferences to exclude hidden cats.

Right, I sort of thought that's what you meant. But my point is that the process you describe is not very helpful or intuitive. Also, I'm not 100% positive, but I think the visibility of hidden categories is an opt-in setting for registered users (at least I don't recall ever de-selecting the option). So why is a category like Category:Redirects with possibilities is a hidden category while Category:Redirects to related topics is not? That doesn't make any sense. older ≠ wiser 20:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know "intuitive", however the process has been helpful to me on many occasions. Perhaps it depends on how much one knows about it and uses it. As for what is and isn't hidden, I am not privy to the rationale behind the construction of admin cats. Best to you! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  21:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, I think most experienced editors make frequent use of diffs. But for a redirect template where presumably we want people to know that this redirect has possibilities and the redirect should not be fixed, it seems rather inconvenient to have open the redirect for editing or to examine diffs to see what type of redirect it is. older ≠ wiser 21:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Printworthyness

Wouldn't every "Redirect with possibilities" be a printworthy redirect? If so, then it would save a lot of time if we added the Category:Printworthy redirects to this template, wouldn't it? If no one objects, I'll add an {{Editprotected}} template in a few days. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Please edit this template as follows:

• Present ending...

possibilities]]}}
</includeonly>
<!-- this is Template:R with possibilities -->
<noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>

• Please modify to...

possibilities]]}}
[[Category:Printworthy redirects]]
</includeonly>
<!-- this is Template:R with possibilities -->
<noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>

That will automatically add these redirects with possibilities to the Printworthy redirects category. Thank you very much, and I will be glad to update the Template:R with possibilities/doc page after this edit is implemented. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have completed the edit. If you could update the doc-page that would be perfect. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Diannaa! The Usage note on the /doc page has been updated, and I have notified the Twinkle people. Best to you! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Template unprintworthiness

The edit to add the Printworthy redirects category to this redirect template appears to have gone a little too far. While all the Main article redirects with possibilities are printworthy, the Template redirects with possibilities should not be included in the Printworthy cat. So I propose we add the {{Main other}} template as follows:

• Please change this...

[[Category:Printworthy redirects]] 

• to this...

{{Main other|[[Category:Printworthy redirects]]}} 

This will keep the unwanted templates out of the Printworthy category. – PIE ( CLIMAX )  21:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I would argue instead that anything with future possibilities is also implicitly going to be printworthy. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No argument, Andy, when it comes to Main article redirects, which will be included in a printed version of Wikipedia. Templates, on the other hand, in fact any page in any other namespace besides the Main-article namespace, will not be included in the printed version. – PIE ( CLIMAX )  22:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Done Seems sensible. Anomie⚔ 19:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that rm'd all the templates from the Printworthy cat. Thank you very much, Anomie, again! – PIE ( CLIMAX )  01:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ability to suggest links for building an article

Would it be a good idea to have the ability to embed links where an editor could find more information on the subject (for example a Britannica article)?

An alternative could be to write a new template.

JASpencer (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Better to place such information on the talk page I would think. older ≠ wiser 16:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, I suppose, but wouldn't it be better ordered through templates? Perhaps a template on the talk page giving various hints for filling this up - such as useful wikipedia articles (or article sections) as well as external pages and potenitally allowing projects to latch on to this? I'll try to set up a template and see what happens. JASpencer (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirects

Two points:

• All that are needed are one or two shortcuts. The procedure is, if one wants to include new shortcuts, they should first be created and only then they are added to the documentation page. Otherwise, they will show as red links and may confuse other contributors.
• There are good reasons to show all existing redirects in the Redirects section. They are then available for use by anyone who may want to use them. Also, if an administrator does not want so many redirects and wants to delete some of them, they have a list to use for that work. – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 20:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

TOP Nbsp

Some time ago with this edit the non-breaking space was removed from the TOP of the code with no explanation as to why. The Nbsp is needed to furnish a carriage return and ensure that the text of this Rcat begins on the next line after any previous Rcat's text on a redirect. Yes, it's true that text does not yet appear on active redirects; however, it does appear and is often helpful when a redirect is deactivated for Rfd. To compare, this page shows how it looks at present, and this modified page shows how it should appear. Please restore the non-breaking space to the TOP of the code:

modify this...

----
This is a redirect from a title for a topic more detailed than what is currently provided on the target page, or
section of that page, hence something which can and should be expanded.

to this...

 
----
This is a redirect from a title for a topic more detailed than what is currently provided on the target page, or
section of that page, hence something which can and should be expanded.

Thank you in advance for your consideration! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done I don't recall exactly why I made that eralier edit. By the edit summary, I was evidently hoping (futilely) that the text would display when a reader displayed the content of the redirect. older ≠ wiser 17:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Bkonrad. Actually, it's not all that cumbersome for me. If I want to see the text rendered by any new Rcats I tag on a redirect, I just type a one (1) next to the pound sign (#) and deactivate the redirect on Show preview. Then I try to remember to kill the one and reactivate the redirect before I hit Save page. The devs are still "workin' on it boss" – T16323, and now even the Diff pages don't show text – T44642. I'm still hopeful. Thank you very much! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Request to rewrite the first sentence

I've tried to make sense of the first sentence, and found it difficult to understand. I'd like to change the wording as follows (I've basically changed the order of the ideas, and included the initial words at Wikipedia:Redirects with possibilities):

This is a redirect that potentially could be changed to an article. The topic described by the title is more detailed than what is currently provided on the target page, or section of that page.

Diego (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Done Note: This is an Rcat that can be used in any namespace, not just in article namespace. So the wording as it is now does not use "article" for that reason. You could as easily say, "This is a redirect that potentially could be changed to a template," or a "project page", or a "portal page", etc. Your basic thought is a good one, though. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change "Do not replace these redirected links" to "Do not replace links to this redirect". — Petr Matas 01:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, but I think that the new version, which reads "Do not replace links to these redirects", is not good and I would prefer the wording that I suggested originally. Note that other parts of the template also use the singular form this redirect. — Petr Matas 15:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Done Sorry about that. I misread your post the first time. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggested modification of displayed text

Regarding the displayed text ...

• Do not replace these redirected links with a link directly to the target page. For more information, follow the category link above or see [[Category:Template redirects with possibilities]].

... It took me quite awhile to figure out what the phrase "follow the category link above" referred to in the third indented bullet point (shown above) as it requires the reader to mouse-over a preceding wikilink in the primary bullet point—"[[Category:Redirects with possibilities|expanded into an article]]"—which is initially apparent only as "expanded into an article" before the text which is being referred to—"Category:Redirects with possibilities"—becomes discoverable.

I suggest changing to a more direct, less referential, wording such as the following ...

• Do not replace these redirected links with a link directly to the target page. For more information, see [[Category:Redirects with possibilities]] or [[Category:Template redirects with possibilities]].

... And convert the preceding wikilink in the primary bullet point—"[[Category:Redirects with possibilities|expanded into an article]]"—to plain text. e.g. ...

• This is a redirect from a subject that potentially could be expanded into an article or other type of associated Wikipedia page. The topic described by the title is more detailed than what is currently provided on the target page, or section of that page.

p.s.—Upon reflection, I think many readers likely anticipated the linked phrase "expanded into an article" (as previously used) to have led to a 'how-to' or such regardless rather than an administrative list. So no harm done in moving it down and out in the open.

Also, by-the-way, I used code formatting above because the [hidden] category links disappeared when I tried to render them as active wikilinks.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. — Petr Matas 12:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 11:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll do it. — Petr Matas 14:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Here it is with a bonus of showing the template category only for templates. — Petr Matas 15:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please clarify displayed text "For more information follow the bold category link"

When it says "For more information follow the bold category link" what does it mean ? Information on what (the topic or the R-with-possibilities), and what is the bold category link - is it the bolded name of the redirect ? - please reword to clarify - or just delete the whole sentence ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

To editor Rod57: In most of these rcats there is at least one link in boldface that when clicked will sweep the editor to the category and more information. In this rcat there is only one such link in each of two examples. In the upper {{This is a redirect}} example, it is the "Template with possibilities" link, and in the bottom individual-usage example it is marked by the words "could be expanded". Hope this helps. Happy holidays! Paine  10:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I think what can be confusing is that it is unclear that the bolded terms are categories. older ≠ wiser 12:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks PE for responding - but it doesn't fully solve my problem. Looking at eg Metastatic colorectal cancer there are 2 bolded terms colorectal cancer and could be expanded. Until you hover over could be expanded you can't see it is a category link. Clicking on could be expanded goes to a category list that doesn't seem to explain anything. I'm asking for the sentence to be amended or deleted. To clarify its current meaning I think it should be amended to "For more information on this template/category/type-of-redirect see [[Category:Redirects with possibilities]]" 'Bold' introduces ambiguity/confusion since there are two. Simpler and better IMO just to delete the whole sentence - users can still hover and click on could be expanded. - Rod57 (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Do me a favor and let me apologize to you, Rod57, because I don't understand your problem that needs to be solved. In the example you gave, "colorectal cancer" is not in bold, it is instead the actual redirect target link. The only bold link in the rcat text is the could be expanded link, which does go to the category just as the sentence, "For more information follow the bold category link," promises. There is more information on the category page plus links to pages with even more helpful information. Since as you say, all users/editors need to do is to hover over the bold link or click on it, so I don't understand how there could be any confusion at all. The sentence has been in all the rcats for several years (with the exception of the word "bold", which I added more recently because some rcats have more than one link, and only one link goes to the category – the "bold" link) and this is the first time anyone has challenged it, so please explain further precisely what you find confusing or misleading.  Paine  19:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Documentation headnote "The above text and category links"

If I understand correctly, the Note at the head of Template documentation --the first green color words, with my settings-- should be clarified something liked this:

Note: Both sections above illustrate use of this template in the Template: namespace, for template redirects with possibilities of becoming templates. In other namespaces the text will be different, and the redirects will populate Category:Redirects with possibilities.

--P64 (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, P64! The note in green text has been removed since it no longer applies. The text is the same now on all pages, and the categorization is explained in the rcat text and further down on the /doc page.  Paine  ^u/c 18:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

add "disambiguation page," to the list of possibilities

Very frequently (almost always?) the "R with possibilities" template is used where the topic may naturally become a disambiguation page. E.g. at DeWitt Post Office, which currently redirects to DeWitt Post Office (DeWitt, Arkansas), but which in the future may disambiguate between "DeWitt Post Office"s of various other states. However what's displayed does not suggest the disambiguation possibility, and for some editors this may be intimidating. Make conversion to a disambiguation clearly allowable:

Request is to change displayed text from:

When the target page becomes too large or for any reason a new page would be an improvement, this redirect may be replaced with an article, template or other project page that is carved out of the target page. See also {{R to section}} and use together with this rcat when appropriate.

to:

When the target page becomes too large or for any reason a new page would be an improvement, this redirect may be replaced with an article, disambiguation page, template or other project page that is carved out of the target page. See also {{R to section}} and use together with this rcat when appropriate.

--doncram 01:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

YMMV, but in my experience, this no more likely to be used on titles that will become disambiguation pages than any other title. I think the usage on DeWitt Post Office is erroneous. If there are no other existing articles or topics that are ambiguous, then DeWitt Post Office (DeWitt, Arkansas) should not have been moved. If there are existing articles or topics that are ambiguous, then DeWitt Post Office should become a disambiguation page (unless there is a primary topic). older ≠ wiser 03:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. I agree with Bkonrad that the page should be moved back. The proposed change is likely to be controversial. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

New category

To editor Fayenatic london: is your addition of Category:Category redirects with possibilities an experiment? I only ask because rcats are not supposed to be used on soft redirects, which category redirects always are.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  22:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

To editor Fayenatic london: sorry, but if there is no experiment on your part, the usage to category redirects will have to be removed soon. Usage on categories causes the redirect to appear as a subcategory rather than as a category entry (not really a problem). Template "Redirect template", which is used as a meta in rcats, is unstable when used on soft redirects and can cause unexpected results.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  23:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Thanks for explaining why the category should not be added by using this template. Thank you also for adding the category directly to the category redirects that I had put into the category.

I was indeed experimenting to see if Category:Category redirects with possibilities could prove useful. Your edits allow this to continue, just without using the template. – Fayenatic London 08:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It's my pleasure, Fayenatic london, and since it is actually the {{Redirect template}}, which is used in nearly all of the other rcats, that is unstable on soft redirects, I constructed {{R category with possibilities}} for this application. I've already updated the categories, so feel free to improve them as needed. Be well.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

That's great, thank you! – Fayenatic London 09:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Pleasure! Paine  

Version for future films

I have created a version for future films at Template:R from future film. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply; thanks!)

"Template:R opt" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:R opt. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 August 2019

Please subst: {{tfm|R category with possibilities}} per nomination at TFD. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  12:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 August 2019

Please sync with the sandbox to add support for drafts not located at Draft:{{PAGENAME}}. This feature has been requested in the ongoing TfD discussion. --Trialpears (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Trialpears: It would be better if it validated that the provided draft title is the same as the redirect. Allowing linking to any page is not ideal on pages with few watchers. Wug·a·po·des​ 08:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Printworthy?

So, the text of the template says that, in mainspace, {{Printworthy}} should be used in conjunction with this template. Looking at the code, however, this template seems to automatically categorize redirects as printworthy. Is there a reason that the template says to also use {{Printworthy}}? Wug·a·po·des​ 08:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I just came here because I noticed the same thing. Seems to be automatically adding {{Printworthy}}. Either (A) we don't want that, or (B) we do want it and the documentation is out of sync. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Double redirects to {{r with possibilities}}

If a redirect is created to a page tagged as an {{r with possibilities}}, should this be classed as a double redirect and thus modified to redirect directly to the target of the r with possibilities, or should it be left? It says in the template to leave links to the r with possibilities (there is no mention of this at all in the documentation), but it does not say whether this applies to redirects as well. WT79 The Engineer (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It should probably be redirected directly to the target; {{R avoided double redirect|(redirect page name)}} can be added to the page that was a double redirect. Peter James (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification, will add this to doc. WT79 ^{(Speak to me | account info)} 10:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

On the printworthiness of these redirects

Currently all mainspace redirects with possibilities are printworthy, and I think the assumption there is that these redirects are already at the proper title of the potential article, which would be different from the target article. However, a redirect that I recently looked at is Eurovision Song Contest 2023, which currently just redirects to the main ESC article. This is definitely a redirect with possibilities, however I don't think it's printworthy, because it will now show up when you just type "Eurovision Song Contest" in the search bar. It also wouldn't be helpful in a printed version of the site, because no one looking for info about the Eurovision Song Contest goes to look for the 2023 article specifically. I was wondering if others felt the same about it. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Misbehavior when published draft exists.

This template (and possibly many others) misbehaves when dealing with published drafts. It simply checks to see if the pagename exists in the Draft: namespace. The problem is that when a draft is published, is it moved from the Draft: space into mainspace. That process leaves behind a redirect in the Draft: space. That redirect means that even though there is no longer an active draft (it has been published), there will always be an active draft according to this and other templates that test only for the existence of a draft page. Digging around for a possible solution, I ran across one possible tool: Template:ExistNotRedirect. This seems to be doing the test you should be doing ... if a page exists and is not a redirect. I'll leave it to a template editor to figure out how to incorporate this test in your code, but I thought I'd at least point out the problem and find a possible solution for you. PoundTales (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Further discussion elsewhere has revealed possible issues that would require further investigation. PoundTales (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Help

I'm so confused, can I request training on this info. Kerry condon 2600:1700:4C7C:8080:3974:8E91:3B4A:5E01 (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 October 2022

Please remove the line saying the line saying this will populate template redirects with possibilities when used on a template redirect - this should be in the documentation instead (and is, currently).

Line 5:	Line 5:
|from=a title that {{#ifexist: {{{draft|Draft:{{PAGENAME}}}}}|is in [[WP:DRAFTSPACE|draft namespace]] at [[{{{draft|Draft:{{PAGENAME}}}}}]], so {{red|'''''please do not create an article from this redirect'''''}} (unless moving a ready draft here). You are welcome to improve the draft article while it is being considered for inclusion in [[WP:mainspace|article namespace]]. If the draft link is a redirect, then you may boldly turn that redirect into a draft article[[Category:Redirects with draftspace articles]]|potentially could be expanded into a new article or other type of associated page such as a new template}}. The topic described by this title may be more detailed than is currently provided on the target page or in a section of that page	|from=a title that {{#ifexist: {{{draft|Draft:{{PAGENAME}}}}}|is in [[WP:DRAFTSPACE|draft namespace]] at [[{{{draft|Draft:{{PAGENAME}}}}}]], so {{red|'''''please do not create an article from this redirect'''''}} (unless moving a ready draft here). You are welcome to improve the draft article while it is being considered for inclusion in [[WP:mainspace|article namespace]]. If the draft link is a redirect, then you may boldly turn that redirect into a draft article[[Category:Redirects with draftspace articles]]|potentially could be expanded into a new article or other type of associated page such as a new template}}. The topic described by this title may be more detailed than is currently provided on the target page or in a section of that page
|info=** {{tl|R printworthy}} should be used together with this template when applied to a redirect in [[WP:mainspace|mainspace]].	|info=** {{tl|R printworthy}} should be used together with this template when applied to a redirect in [[WP:mainspace|mainspace]].
** When used on a template redirect, it will automatically populate '''{{Cat|Template redirects with possibilities}}'''.
** When the target page becomes too large, or for any reason a new page would be an improvement, this redirect may be replaced with an article, template or other project page that is carved out of the target page. See also {{tl|R to section}} and use together with this rcat when appropriate.	** When the target page becomes too large, or for any reason a new page would be an improvement, this redirect may be replaced with an article, template or other project page that is carved out of the target page. See also {{tl|R to section}} and use together with this rcat when appropriate.
** If the topic of the redirect is not susceptible to expansion, then use other rcats such as {{tl|R to section}} or {{tl|R to list entry}} ''when appropriate''.	** If the topic of the redirect is not susceptible to expansion, then use other rcats such as {{tl|R to section}} or {{tl|R to list entry}} ''when appropriate''.

Qwerfjkltalk 20:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

To editor Qwerfjkl: been like this essentially for six years since 2016. Seems to dispel confusion for editors and lets them know immediately without necessarily having to read the documentation why a template redirect does not populate the parent Redirects with possibilities category as first noted in the rcat template text. I think to remove it might cause confusion. So why should it be removed after all this time? Has there been discussion and consensus? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 20:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth, my rationale is that it adds unnecessary clutter to an already large template. Given that there are only 181 template redirects with possibility (compared to 79,447 redirects with possibility), the risk of confusion is small. This is just my personal view, and does not reflect any consensus I am aware of. If you disagree, feel free to close this edit request; this change probably isn't worth finding consensus for. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I do disagree. This template at one time exclusively populated Category:Template redirects with possibilities, and editors thought it best not to have two separate rcat templates when one alone could populate either category if coded correctly. I don't think it would be an improvement to remove the clarifying text. Thank you for your explanation! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 21:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)