Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Main pageTemplatesStyle guideTo doMembers Report Requests Talk page


Wiped/reinstated template?

[edit]

Bumping comment inquiring about the reinstatement of {{R from incorrect hyphenation}} by User:Wbm1058, w.r.t. this RfD. A similar reinstatement was made by User:Eejit43 for {{R from alternative hyphenation}}, but User: Rosguill referenced the same RfD for both blank and redirects (which did not decide on {{R from alternative hyphenation}}, and did decide to redirect {{R from incorrect hyphenation}}). Tule-hog (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{R from incorrect hyphenation}} was created May 2013 as an {{R from modification}}.
It retained that generic status until changed on 19 November 2018 to {{R from alternative spelling}}. I don't really agree with that. The length of a horizontal line is not an a–z spelling matter.
Barely a month later it was boldly upgraded on 29 December 2018 to {{R from misspelling}}.
I reverted on 7 May 2020 back to {{R from alternative spelling}}.
Then it was boldly changed on 14 May 2020 to make it an {{R from incorrect name}}. That was even worse. A cosmetic change in the length of a hyphen does not change a name.
Then came the February 2021 discussion that changed it back to {{R from misspelling}}. That discussion was closed without any administrative analysis or rationale, after another admin had felt the need to relist it to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus – and no further discussion had occurred after the relist. Not a lot of !voting there, more "I have no good answer" than strong opinions.
The last comment there was I agree that this is confusing. We need to decide whether punctuation is spelling or modification. Originally, it was supposed to be modification. But I don't have a problem changing it to spelling if that's the consensus.
Back when I first became active on Wikipedia, in December 2011, I actually started my user page by writing a user essay about hyphens and dashes, which another editor copied a year later to start Wikipedia:Hyphens and dashes.
Tule-hog, I'm wondering if you've read Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings. I've struggled to keep that report under control. Editors continue to get more and more perfectionist in the way they tag redirects, escalating cosmetic things like hyphen lengths to the level of top-priority misspellings. I'm attempting to do something to ease the workload on the gnomes who correct misspellings. That's why I created Category:Redirects from incorrect hyphenation on 5 November 2023. I did not reinstate the redirect to {{R from alternative spelling}}.
I think I can write a bot to "fix" cosmetic horizontal line issues where they've been tagged as incorrect rather than as valid alternatives. My view is that these should not require human scrutiny, so we should not burden gnomes with demands to make these corrections. And presumably, since these have been branded as incorrect, such a bot wouldn't be rejected for making "cosmetic edits" per WP:COSMETICBOT. I just haven't gotten around to writing the bot code yet, as my time is still way oversubscribed. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the in-depth reply - hopefully your reasoning will be useful reference for future contributors to the project.
Would it be going too far to extrapolate from your answer that all 'incorrect' rcats are (eventually) intended for use in a database report (presumably to be 'fixed')? My guess is that is too far, since some templates automatically tag {{R unprintworthy}}, which is useful for different purposes.
In the following, an indented bullet point represents dependency; when labeled with ➝ the page redirects to the parent, if not, it uses a subcategory of the parent. A link to a relevant RFD is provided when it exists.
I see the following are reported via Linked miscapitalizations and Linked misspellings:
The other 'incorrect' rcats (I can find), without database reports (as far as I'm aware), are:
There are a number of aliases for each template, so I have tried to only include significant page names (often marked with possibilities). Extending my previous question, would it be useful to have a Linked misnamings?
As to automating incorrect➝alternative, from the replies of Eejit, Anomie, and Hyphenation Expert, it seems it would be difficult to create such a bot, but the interest is there. Tule-hog (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{R from incorrect hyphenation}} seems like a very valid rcat, usages of hyphens instead of en dashes, for example, are incorrect. I'm not sure exactly what would make something an alternative hyphenation instead of an incorrect hyphenation, but something like -1-1 redirecting to −1 could be an alternative as a hyphen is commonly used in place of the minus sign. I see no harm in having both rcats, but the differences between the two should probably be explained better in their respective documentations. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion or omission of an optional hyphen; e.g., Non-profit organizationNon-profit organization or PreeclampsiaPreeclampsia. Category:Redirects from alternative hyphenations Hyphenation Expert (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed AnomieBOT EnDashRedirectCreator tags all hyphen-to-endash redirects as "alternative" instead of "incorrect" hyphenation, blech. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I believe AnomieBOT is tagging incorrectly there. Thank you for the clarification regarding alternative hyphenations, in that case it seems like all hyphen-to-endash (and similar) redirects should be tagged with {{R from incorrect hyphenation}}, and there will definitely need to be some cleanup of those categories. cc @Anomie ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible exceptions would be in proper names, e.g. an organisation might use a hyphen where our style guide says to use an en-dash or use both interchangeably, similarly with em-dashes. I don't know whether there are any such examples, but its something to look out for. There are definitely examples that have come up at RfD where two hyphens are used in the official name (I want to say Canadian electoral districts, but I might be misrembering). Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eejit43: AnomieBOT used to use {{R from modification}}, until you asked me in April to switch to {{R from alternative hyphenation}}. I can switch it again if it's wanted that every redirect the bot creates for en-dashed titles should be tagged with {{R from incorrect hyphenation}} instead. It seems unlikely I could have the bot know the difference between "incorrect" and "alternative", however. Anomie⚔ 17:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wasn't aware of {{R from incorrect hyphenation}} at that point so sorry about that. I'm not sure exactly how the bot would be able to determine if a redirect is an incorrect or alternative hyphenation. Logic could be made to check if the dash is between two digits and other examples, but that seems too difficult to maintain. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some background: back in 2011, when I was just getting started on Wikipedia, there was a controversy so noisy that I couldn't help but notice it. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting was a discussion mandated by the Arbitration Committee, which resulted in a completed consensual draft for inclusion in WP:MOS. The dissenting view was "This represents a small clique of editors, ignoring two lengthy polls. On both of those polls, half of the editors opposed making dashes mandatory, as this draft proposes.", to which the disingenuous clique leader's rebuttal was "I'm not finding any place where anyone said "mandatory" besides PMA himself... Certainly there has never been a poll about "making dashes mandatory"... someone usually just cleans up after them." Dashes are not found on standard keyboards, making them "difficult" to type. I wrote a user essay about them, as back in 2011, as at the time they were new to this older guy who worked on mainframe machines that only supported seven-bit ASCII, and grew up playing on sixbit (all caps) machines. The idea was, go ahead and use a hyphen if you don't know how to make a dash, that's an acceptable alternative form, which someone may, optionally, later change to a dash. Lately, however, we see increasingly aggressive pushes for perfection, as the drumbeat keeps pushing {{R from alternative hyphenation}} to become the mandatory {{R from incorrect hyphenation}}. What I'm not seeing is members of "the clique" actively helping to make these mandated edits. The ringleader has tried, but they apparently lack to competence to develop acceptable bots to fix the problems automatically, or the patience to slow down their semiautomatic edits to where they can catch and correct the inevitable "gotcha"s. And none of "the clique" wants to burden themselves with manually making the mandated corrections, they just expect "someone else" to do it. Hey, "someone else" isn't stepping up, so that just leaves me. My first bot using the database to make corrective edits is now approved and running; I'll use that as a template for writing a hyphen–dash correcting bot, and I see from the current Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings that an ʻokina-fixing bot is also on my horizon. These wouldn't be my highest priorities if the obsessive clique weren't so aggressively pushing them on me. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about adding do not remove text to Template:rfd

[edit]

There is a discussion about adding do not remove text at Template_talk:Redirect_for_discussion#Can_"do_not_remove_this_notice_before_the_discussion_is_closed"_be_added?. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving category redirects

[edit]

Gonnym and I have been unable to agree over the use of category redirects for template-generated categories on redirect pages, so I am bringing the matter here.

Since 2021 {{R from television episode}} resolves category redirects, and {{R from fictional character}} since 2022. This saves a deal of work if a series category is merged or renamed: instead of having to update the series name on each redirect page, a category redirect is left at the old name, and the rcat template resolves this when placing redirects into a category.

This also works for generic media types that do not match current categories. E.g. 186 redirect pages such as Jade Chan have {{R from fictional character|Animated series}} which generates "Category:Animated series character redirects to lists", but that category page was redirected to "Category:Animated television series character redirects to lists" (as it happens, this was per Gonnym's nomination to rename the category at WP:CFDS last year). {{R from fictional character}} then resolves the category as the correct "Category:Animated television series character redirects to lists".

For an example re episodes, Ymblanter created the redirect "Category:Animated series episode redirects to lists" temporarily after a renaming, but it has proved useful as editors have since created new pages using {{R from television episode|Animated series}}.

Although this is working fine for episode and character redirects, Gonnym is opposing resolution of redirects for location redirects, and has twice reverted me on {{R from fictional location}} as follows:

no, those red categories should be created. Post on the talk pages of those editors that are not doing so.
again, no. There is absoulty no reason to use this template with a value of a series you aren't intending to populate it as a category. Just add the category you do want to populate, leave blank, or don't use the template

As for the option "don't use the template", I believe it is still desirable to use the template to keep the page within Category:All fictional location redirects.

I grant that Category:The Adventures of Tintin location redirects only contains 6 redirects, so it would not be arduous to edit all six combining two of Gonnym's suggested options add the category you do want to populate, leave blank, viz. changing

{{R from fictional location|1=The Adventures of Tintin}}

to

{{R from fictional location}}
[[Category:Tintin locations]]

However, I can't understand the objection in principle that resolving category redirects on fictional location redirects "isn't a valid option", when this works so well on fictional character & episode redirects.

Resolving category redirects also works well on other types of templates, e.g. file namespace templates such as {{Non-free video game screenshot}}.

Is it permissible? Or is it better to require every instance of a non-valid category parameter to be edited? – Fayenatic London 22:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because what you are trying to do is use a template, then break its functionality. You've yet to explain what advantages it gives to use that template without using a valid category. Gonnym (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the other redirects, those probably should be reverted also. Those actually hinder the category system in finding and creating categories. Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The advantages of resolving category redirects within such templates are (i) removing the need for edits on every member page when categories are merged or renamed, (ii) automatically categorising new pages correctly when a predictable obsolete or duplicate category is specified.
You have yet to explain the actual hindrances. – Fayenatic London 11:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But we should edit every member when a page is moved or deleted. Leaving bad code behind is an awful paradigm. Editors that aren't as familiar with the system will write down the text and not understand why the template isn't working as it should. A category redirect in template space is really only needed when we automate things we have no control over, but this isn't that. I'm also pretty sure we do move all article pages when a page moves even though we can leave behind a category redirect on those pages. Gonnym (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gonnym, Fayenatic london, it seems better to me to use {{resolve category redirect}} in cases like this with Category:The Adventures of Tintin location redirects, where the pages can't (I think) be straightforwardly edited, because the new category name doesn't fit in the {{R from fictional location}} naming scheme, and Fayenatic's suggestion of 
    {{R from fictional location}}
    [[Category:Tintin locations]]
would presumably double-categorise the redirects. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you meant by double-categorising – good or bad? And now, Timrollpickering has edited the Tintin category members, omitting {{R from fictional location}}, so they have been removed from Category:All fictional location redirects, where I think they still belong.
As for we should edit every member when a page is moved – not if we can help it. E.g. if a stub category is renamed, we just edit the stub template. If the stub template is renamed, we often leave a redirect at the old name, e.g. {{EastTimor-stub}}. What self-flagellation calls us to edit every page and update the template link, when a redirect works perfectly well? As WP:RFD says, Redirects are cheap. Remember, we are talking about cases that won't be handled by JJMC89 bot III, so every page would have to be edited manually, perhaps with partial help from WP:JWB. I've been implementing CFD for a long time, I've been there and done that in tedious bulk,[1] but I would rather save the effort for anyone. – Fayenatic London 23:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fayenatic london, I think they should retain the {{R from fictional location}} (and the Category:All fictional location redirects) - though the new category is not an rcat category, it's an article category. Probably leaving them at the top level, at Category:Redirects from fictional locations, will be fine. So what I think should be done is use {{R from fictional location}} and then add Category:Tintin locations manually because it is an article category, not an rcat category. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have done as suggested on the 6 Tintin redirects. Meanwhile I have used redirecting again to save work on much larger categories (e.g. Category:NFL team logos, not fictional locations), and am seeking a consensus in support of such use of {{resolve category redirect}} within templates. – Fayenatic London 22:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fayenatic london, I think {{resolve category redirect}} is reasonable when preserving category naming schemes (in this case Category:Redirects from fictional locations). No thoughts on other cases. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Photo requested is another instance where resolving category redirects works very well. As there is no consensus against this practice, I propose to reintroduce the coding for fictional location redirects. – Fayenatic London 17:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need consensus against something, you need consensus for something. Red categories are a valid thing and should not be something we dread and are afraid. They show us that something is missing or incorrectly used. Since ALL usages of these redirects are manually entered by users, there will always be a human decision behind the category selection, which is how it should be done. As a side note, your examples of templates that use this are all templates you edited to use them. I don't think those instances are also good, but I don't gnome that area so don't know enough or care to check. Gonnym (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:How to make a redirect listed at Requested moves

[edit]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:How to make a redirect to be moved to WP:Redirect maker. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Interwiki redirect to Wikidata (not redir with Wikidata)

[edit]

Template:Wikidata redirect currently redirects to Template:Soft redirect with Wikidata item. It doesn't assign tagged pages to a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia interwiki soft redirects. In fact, Category:Redirects to Wikidata was deleted a while ago. There's also Template:R with Wikidata item. I'm inclined to create a Template:Redirect to Wikidata, after Category:Interwiki soft redirect templates. It's being considered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/43rd parallel south. Otherwise, a poor man's redirect to Wikidata would look like this: User:Fgnievinski/test redir to wd. Pinging previous editors: @Maddy from Celeste, Eli, Paine Ellsworth, and Fastily:. Thanks! fgnievinski (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant to ping Elli. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Translated name redirect code

[edit]

Please add the {{code}} for a translated name redirect to the style guide, or a link to the page, because for the life of me I can't remember how to do it and I never bookmarked the template. Guylaen (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 26 § Template:R from non-preferred capitalisation

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 26 § Template:R from non-preferred capitalisation. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Chinese language#Requested move 20 June 2025

[edit]

An editor has requested that Chinese language be moved to Chinese languages, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move of Bahamian Creole to Bahamian DialectBahamian Dialect

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bahamian Creole § Page move proposed. The discussion concerns a proposal to move Bahamian Creole to Bahamian DialectBahamian Dialect, which currently redirects to Bahamian Creole. Outside opinions will be very much appreciated. Thank you in advance! Pineapple Storage (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to/from ampersands

[edit]

I've noticed that there seems to be a lack of specific RCATs to cover redirects to and from titles that use "&" or spell out "and". For instance, AT and TAT and T currently has {{R from alternative spelling}} (along with a notice that a more specific category may be available), Hale & PaceHale & Pace has {{R from alternative punctuation}} (even though an ampersand isn't punctuation), and redirects such as Marks and SpencerMarks and Spencer, Tiffany and Co.Tiffany and Co., Hootie and the BlowfishHootie and the Blowfish, Key and PeeleKey and Peele etc. are uncategorised. Template:R from ampersand and Template:R from &Template:R from & currently redirect to Template:R from railroad name with ampersand, which would be inaccurate if used on non–railway-related redirects such as Vic & BobVic & Bob, Cannon & BallCannon & Ball, Eli Lilly & CompanyEli Lilly & Company, etc. Template:R to ampersand and Template:R to &Template:R to & don't currently exist.

I just created Audie Award for Literary Fiction and ClassicsAudie Award for Literary Fiction and Classics, and I was looking for relevant rcat templates to use; I considered using {{R to ligature}}, but the ampersand is a logogram rather than a ligature (according to Ligature (writing)#Symbols originating as ligatures, Because of its ubiquity, it is generally no longer considered a ligature, but a logogram.) so redirects from "&" to "and" (and vice versa) would be out-of-place in Category:Redirects from titles with/without ligatures.

I'm interested to hear what people think about the possibility of creating {{R to ampersand}}/{{R to &}}, and repurposing {{R from ampersand}}/{{R from &}} for use with non–railway-related redirects (while leaving Category:Redirects from railroad names with ampersands as a subcategory of Category:Redirects from titles with ampersands, which would itself be a subcategory of Category:Redirects from modifications and/or Category:Redirects from alternative spellings). Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That all seems like a very good idea to me, but I'll do my usual ping of Paine Ellsworth who I regard as more expert than me when it comes to redirect categorisations. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good idea to me too. May as well also ping @NE2 who created the redirects to Template:R from railroad name with ampersand and is still active. Anomie⚔ 15:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend creating {{R from logogram}} and {{R to logogram}} as well}, with Category:Redirects to titles with logograms and Category:Redirects from titles with logograms subcategories of appropriate broader categories. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I considered suggesting this, but I couldn't actually think of any other logograms that are used in English. Now that I've given it a bit more thought, maybe @ would count, and potentially currency symbols, but I don't know whether this is supported by sources. Are there any other logograms I'm missing? I think ampersands would probably make up the majority of uses, in any case. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Logogram" seems a lot more difficult to remember than "ampersand" when dealing with a "&". -- Beland (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the proposal that requires you to remembr the word; yould be using the ampersand templates, not the logogram templates. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then what would logogram be used for? -- Beland (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you'd use it for logograms other than the ampersand. For example, it could be added to Chinese character redirects like ㆖㆖. Warudo (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding was that redirects where the title is a single character, like ㆖㆖, @@ or even && itself, use {{R from Unicode character}} (and therefore Category:Redirects from Unicode characters). {{R from ampersand}}/{{R to ampersand}} and {{R from logogram}}/{{R to logogram}} are for when those characters are part of the title, and can be substituted for a spelled-out word (for instance AT and TAT and T redirecting to AT&T, or Vic & BobVic & Bob to Vic and Bob). So the ampersand/logogram categories are for when the characters are used in the title, and {{R from Unicode character}} when the character itself is the title of the redirect. Have I got this wrong? I'm not very familiar with rcats etc., but this is how I've interpreted it so far. Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So yeah, it makes sense to clean up ampersands so the templates aren't weirdly assuming articles are about railroads. "Logogram" does sound related enough to use for Chinese characters, but I'm not sure we'd actually need either from or to templates for that.
I agree {{R from Unicode character}} is probably sufficient for single-character titles. We use English-language names for article titles, or at the very least romanizations, so there shouldn't be any logograms in the titles of non-redirect articles.
Where we redirect from a whole word or phrase in a non-alphabetic writing system, presumably we would use {{R from alternative language}}? Sometimes non-Latin writing systems use logograms but sometimes they use alphabetic letters, like kana, or syllabic systems like hangul. I'm not sure it's all that useful to distinguish what kind of writing system is being used given that we already distinguish which language is being used. We also have {{R to ASCII-only}} to cover non-words.
Category:Redirects from titles without logograms and Category:Redirects from titles with logograms are empty except for the ampersand subcategories; I think these should probably be deleted after re-homing. -- Beland (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some disorganised thoughts from me: (feel free to collapse if this is unhelpful)
For non-English logograms, I feel like (for instance) Category:Redirects from Chinese characters (as a more specific subcategory within Category:Redirects from Chinese-language terms, which currently includes both titles written in Chinese characters and romanizations) would probably be more useful than grouping them in subcategories of Category:Redirects from titles with logograms.
Because of the lack of a list generated by (for instance) {{R from @}}/{{R to @}}, I'm having trouble finding many pages (other than @ sign@ sign and @ symbol@ symbol, which are both currently uncategorised) that contain "@" but aren't just @@. (Is it possible the WP:Search syntax doesn't pick up that character for some reason? It's not a WP:FORBIDDEN character...) By following links from At sign, it seems there are a few Locus (genetics)-related articles that use it (some or all are in Category:Human genes), such as IGL@; in theory, if we could establish that @ is a logogram, then either {{R to @}}/{{R to at sign}} or {{R to logogram}} could be used for redirects to these articles. Similarly, if it were established that ♯ and ♭ are logograms, then redirects like G♯ majorG♯ major (whose target is G-sharp major) could maybe have {{R from logogram}}.
In researching this comment, I've realised that the situation is complicated by Ideograms... According to that article, ideograms are symbols that don't have one specific phonetic reading, and logograms are symbols that do. By that definition alone, I think &, @, ♯ and ♭ could be classified as logograms (as their "pronunciations" are 'and', 'at', 'sharp' and 'flat' respectively). However, if we can't agree on a specific set of characters that count as logograms used in English (ie. where Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms—or more specific subcategories like Chinese characters—wouldn't be relevant), then "logogram"-based rcats feel like a bit of a can of worms. Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small correction, if Category:Redirects from Chinese characters were to be made, it could not be a subcategory of Category:Redirects from Chinese-language terms because Japanese and Korean also use Chinese characters. These are called kanji and hanja respectively. Warudo (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. I guess it would be too clunky to have kanji, hanja and (for instance) hanzi be subcategories of Japanese-language, Korean-language and Chinese-language terms... So Category:Redirects from Chinese characters as its own subcategory of Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms then? Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(To be clear, I think pages in Category:Redirects from Chinese characters should also each have a language category, ie. Japanese-language, Korean-language or Chinese-language terms, as appropriate.) Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it would be too clunky, especially if you consider that hanzi would almost certainly need to be split into traditional Chinese and simplified Chinese categories. We should just put all Chinese character redirects in one category just like Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles does for dab pages. Warudo (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, having a traditional and a simplified Chinese rcat might be useful for editors who want to keep them in sync. Perhaps an {{R from traditional Chinese}}/{{R from simplified Chinese}} pair would be useful (but now I'm getting really off-topic). Warudo (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, this would be a good idea—but a separate discussion is probably needed! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As of the August 20 database dump, there are 1989 mainspace pages with "@" in the title. Not all of these are pronounced "at". For example:
-- Beland (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for listing these, this certainly gives us some further data points to consider! Most of those would be pronounced as "at" (3D@Home Consortium, 3 @ 33 @ 3, @-mention@-mention, @AerLingus@AerLingus, @ladygaga@ladygaga, LHC@HomeLHC@Home, כהן@מושוןכהן@מושון, なあ坊豆腐@那奈なあ坊豆腐@那奈), but my gut feeling is that R@dio BarçaR@dio Barça would be more Category:Redirects from stylizations, and I wouldn't know where to start in terms of categorising $@!%$@!% and ^@^@... Maybe {{R to technical name}}? Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these are covered by {{R from Twitter username}}. $@!% seems like {{R from alternate name}} for Grawlix and ^@ the same for null character. Redirects that simply point to a version of the title where "@" is spelled "at" might form a coherent group, but I don't think all redirects with "@" in them actually do. If anyone needs a list of such, they can simply search the database. But redirect tags seems to mostly be used to make semantic categories rather than typographic ones. For example, it's useful to know if a redirect represents an incorrectly spelled word or a non-English word or a Twitter username when automatically deciding whether or not it is printworthy or should be ignored by an English spell-checker. -- Beland (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This all makes sense! Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Beland Sorry if this is an obvious question but how/where did you make that search? Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to have preprocessed copies of recent database dumps on local disk because I run code for the moss project, including a list of all mainspace titles. You can also try to use the live search engine to look for these pages with intitle:/\@/, but unfortunately the search takes too long and times out before giving complete results. I'm happy to send a full list if anyone needs one. -- Beland (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay! No worries, thank you for explaining. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can also use quarry: if you're familiar with SQL. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per my suggestion, I nominated both logogram redirect categories for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 September 16. -- Beland (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{R from ampersand}}/{{R to ampersand}} and {{R from logogram}}/{{R to logogram}} are for when those characters are part of the title, and can be substituted for a spelled-out word (for instance AT and TAT and T redirecting to AT&T, or Vic & BobVic & Bob to Vic and Bob). After thinking about this more, I realised that this argument ignores that, unlike wikt:@ and wikt:&, Chinese characters like wikt:上 are spelled-out words already. Consider 町町 which targets List of towns in Japan. This character, wikt:町, is the word for town in Japanese. So in my opinion it should be tagged as both {{R from Unicode character}} and as {{R from logogram}} or {{R from Chinese character}}. Warudo (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I think my original wording might have been a bit ambiguous, and there may have been some crossed wires.
Firstly, in my comment above, the ㆖㆖ isn't 上, but a character from the Kanbun (Unicode block) which indicate reading order (see also Kanbun#Terminology). I don't know whether Kanbun have a phonetic reading or whether they're purely visual markers (I don't know much about Japanese unfortunately!), so now that I'm aware of the issue of distinguishing between logograms and ideograms (see above), I actually have no idea whether or not they're technically logograms; the only reason I linked it in my previous comment was because @Warudo had given it as an example.
What I meant by when those characters are part of the title, and can be substituted for a spelled-out word and is "when the logogram in question isn't the whole title, and that logogram by itself can either be spelled out or not". (By spelled out, I mean phonetically using Latin script, because it's the main script in use on the English Wikipedia; when discussing Chinese characters specifically—which wasn't the case above—the more accurate term would obviously be "romanized".)
For example, 町町 is the whole title, and can be romanized as Machi; you might also see this word in titles like 日本町日本町 or Nihonmachi. However, (AFAIK) you're unlikely to see it in a redirect title like Nihon町 or Nihon 町. It isn't common (again, AFAIK) to drop a certain character in the middle of a romanized term; because of this, the distinction between the titles in this case isn't "logogram or no logogram", it's "Chinese characters or romanization", in which case the fact that Chinese characters are logograms isn't as relevant as the fact that it's a non-Latin script.
Meanwhile, with an ampersand, you are likely to see it interspersed with non-logograms in titles; often, the use of an ampersand or the word "and" is largely unpredictable (why is Key & Peele the common name but Jake and Amir is also the common name?), which is why the important distinction is "logogram or no logogram" in that case.
I don't think this explanation is very helpful, because in all honesty, I think I'm more confused now than I was at the beginning of this discussion... But can you see roughly what I mean? Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A crude search on zhwiki and jawiki suggests that mixing Latin characters and Han characters is not as rare as you think it is. Warudo (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but how common is it on enwiki? If it is a frequent format for redirect titles on this wiki—such that it needs its own rcat etc.—then fair enough, I'm not going to question that! As I have said, I don't know a lot about any of this. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I searched the August 20 database dump, and found 2163 titles where English letters (A-Z) are mixed with Unicode characters with class "Lo" which are described as "other letters, including syllables and ideographs". Examples:
Some of these redirect to non-English titles (like the Brazilian football article) with different typography. Many are mixed English/non-English redirecting to English, which would fit {{R to English}}. I see we have Category:Templates for redirects involving diacritics or language change where any new templates to handle character weirdness might belong. Maybe including ampersands? -- Beland (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{R from ampersand}}/{{R to ampersand}} and {{R from logogram}}/{{R to logogram}} are for when those characters are part of the title, and can be substituted for a spelled-out word. This makes sense to me. It is similar to {{R from diacritic}} which is short for Category:Redirects from titles with diacritics. Thus, to/from diacritic and to/from ampersand does not indicate that the diacritic or ampersand is the only glyph in the redirect, rather that it is a defining part. The rule of thumb that it can be substituted for a spelled-out word sounds right, though I haven't thought through every possible exception. Beland's comment about Rcats being semantic categories and not purely typographical is a nice way to think about this. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is a good idea. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf @Anomie @Chatul @Myceteae @Paine Ellsworth @NE2
Thank you for the feedback, it looks like there's general agreement that this is a good idea. What do people think about where Category:Redirects from titles with/without ampersands should be categorised? I think they come under Category:Redirects from modifications, but are there more specific subcategories that should be used as well/instead? For instance, it kind of feels like Category:Redirects from alternative spellings might be an option. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Redirects from modifications looks more appropriate than spellings. Although technically, as I learned from this thread, these are more accurately a subcategory of R from logogram. I'm pretty new to thinking about Rcats so I'm curious what others think. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that redirects to/from any of !, @, #, $, ¢, £, &, *, =, + or -, if they are defined, should be subcategories of logograms. -- ~ ~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chatul (talk • contribs) 12:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought this would touch on any of my areas of interest, but with + and - mentioned, that brings to mind × (multiplication symbol) used in the names of hybrid plants. There are a bunch of redirects for hybrid plants that use the letter x instead of ×, that don't have any rcat that seems relevant to me. Would Musa x paradisiaca->Musa × paradisiaca be an "R to logogram"? Plantdrew (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a "logogram" is referring to the case where the symbol stands for a word or part of the word, not just a stylized letter. So "Foo × bar" ↔ "Foo times bar" or "Foo cross bar" would be an R to/from a logogram, while "Foo × bar" ↔ "Foo x bar" would be {{R from ASCII-only}} or {{R to ASCII-only}} instead. Similarly, something like Ke$haKe$ha → Kesha wouldn't be a logogram, it's correctly tagged as-is with {{R from stylization}}. Things like "@kins" ↔ "Atkins" and "¼maine" → "Quartermaine" would be similar logogram redirects. Anomie⚔ 17:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They do stand for words
  • ! - Excalmation
  • @ - At
  • # - Pound, Number
  • $ - Dollars
  • ¢ - Cents
  • £ - Pound
  • & - And
  • * - Times
  • × - Times
  • = - Equals
  • + - Plus
  • - - Minus
There might be some ambiguity about * and ×, as they have other uses. For all of these, the category should depend on the use, e.g., K@$h@ → Kasha would be stylized but C@ → Cat would be logogram. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with ! in the sense of "exclamation", because when it's used as an exclamation mark it's punctuation (rather than a literal substitute for the word "exclamation"), so {{R from alternative punctuation}} would apply. It's more like a logogram in its other uses such as n!n! and 0!0! (both redirects currently uncategorised), where it stands for the word "factorial".
While we're on the subject, is it worth mentioning {{R from mathematical symbol}}? How does that fit into the equation?[a] Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think the example of "C@" as a substitute for "cat" is probably {{R from stylization}} in most cases (even if it's {{R from logogram}} as well, which I'm not sure about...) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the ping, editor Thryduulf! These all sound like good ideas with just a few wrinkles to be ironed out. Sometimes we don't realize that when we create rcat templates and their associated categories, someone has to monitor those categories. And that can take up a significant amount of an editor's time. It's a commitment. So we ask ourselves, 'How important is it that we keep track of this particular type of redirect?' And then go from there. Thank you all very much for your contributions and your dedication to this reference work! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 15:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Pun acknowledged but not originally intended :)

Help clean up {{R to related}} redirects before it's deleted ⚠️

[edit]

Hi there, could you kindly assist cleaning up the 1,000 transclusion of {{R to related}} since it's getting deleted by TfD? Convert to {{R from related word}} or {{R to related topic}} or other appropriate rcat template.

Thanks! waddie96 ★ (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]