Category talk:Redirects from other capitalisations

Is there any value

Seems a good idea - but these are automagically recognisable by any software producing a printed copy, so is there any other value? Rich Farmbrough 14:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What was the original intention

Hmm. My comment is one year and one month and one day after yours. Anyways, I'm wondering if these are meant for redirects with lowercase last names, such as Bill clinton and Derek jeter. If the category and template were taken literally, tens of thousands of not currently tagged redirects would belong in here. However, scanning the entries, there don't seem to be many redirects of that sort. Does anyone know what the original intention was? Picaroon9288 17:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixing double redirects bots

When a bot fixs a double redirect may broke the sense of the template. Solution? --Emijrp (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ask the bot operator to stop it while the bot vandalizes. There is something on the page which the bot doesn't understand, if the operator can't be bothered to use his/her/its time to look at the page, s/h/it should not let the bot vandalize the page. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

I thought that title searching wasn't case sensitive. That is, if someone linked on or searched for an article title with an alternative capitalization, then the user would be taken directly to the correct page. Am I mistaken? If I'm not mistaken, then why go to all the trouble of creating a redirjbhhjhgh khghg khghg jkhgf tuirtrf iy iuyt ect page for something that happens automatically? Rklawton 16:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two cases:

1) If you write "albert einstein" on search box, you will be redirected to Albert Einstein, because all first-word-letters are capitals. Then, Albert einstein redirect ins't useful for search purposes.

2) If you write "vincent van gogh" on search box, you won't be redirected to Vincent van Gogh unless a redirect as vincent van gogh or Vincent Van Gogh exists. These redirects are useful for search purposes. --Emijrp 18:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the latter case; thanks, I'm suitably enlightened. However, the majority of these would seem to in the former category. They don't help with search, and arguably, worsen matters slightly by resulting in an essentially spurious "redirected from" message. They shouldn't be linked to, either, since that would be introducing a capitalisation error into another article, and makes correction of same less likely, due to the spuriously-blue link. If at all possible, we should prevail on people not to bother creating these, and maybe even start to think about deleting some of them. Alai (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Shortening category blurb

13-Feb-2008: The intro blurb for the category filled my screen, so I shortened that intro text by 12 lines. Perhaps it should say, "Refer to doc page for further explanation" of the category. I cut 12 output lines by:

• removed redundant words when the meaning appeared obvious;
• omitted prefix "Template:" to list 7 names on 2 lines (not 4);
• removed ruler lines and blank lines;
• used some small-font (not "<big>") to compress page length;
• converted "See-also" header/section break to one-line "Also see".

Everything was very wordy: I would have called the template "Redirectcaps" as just 12 letters with one spelling, not 8 templates with 30-letter names. When I first saw the template name, I couldn't understand what "R from" even meant, but now I understand a desperation to abbreviate redirect as "R". It is easy to see why U.S. Gov't manuals are written about "standards for naming" to generate a simple name such as "Redirectcaps" before 8 rambling names get concocted. The category is more evidence of how many thousands of rambling names are getting crammed into Wikipedia, in the manner of an ageing bureaucracy. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it

I totally understand the point of capitalization-related redirects. I don't get why this category exists. What's the deal? -Rrius (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

dunno about you but I rarely use the search box, it's usually much quicker to just type www.wikipedia.org/wiki/whatever in the address bar.. firefox even easier because it fills most of it in so you just ctrl+shift+leftarrow then type the title :) but sometimes stuff is missing and then you have to mess around searching --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

I've nominated this category for deletion here. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"The result of the discussion was a clear swing towards keep" at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 4#Template:R from other capitalisation. See there for the arguments-- basically it was because 1/ these redirects are useful for linking, tho they may not be needed for searching and 2/ that it is necessary in order to establish these as Unprintworthy redirects. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Creating redirects with bot

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

Unprintworthy

I've put this category in the larger cat Category:Unprintworthy redirects as I think none but one form of capitalisation is ever likely to be used in print. Please let me know if I've erred in this. Declan Clam (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is something wrong?

Not sure, but something seems to be wrong with the Category page. It freezes up my browser, so I have to "hard-exit". Then I have to login and start all over again. I come across many cat pages, and this one is the first and only one to freeze up my IE8. It's as if there's far too much code on this page. Also, I installed {{R from other capitalisation}} on this Redirect, but it does not appear after saving. Has somebody hidden it? Is something wrong?
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  09:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello? Anybody home?  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  09:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I did the things the MS engineers suggest, and they helped, but there still appears to be something wrong with the delayed loading of this page. It obviously has something to do with the Category template it calls, because that template behaves the same way. So I replaced it with the normally used Template:Category TOC, and everything works fine. I'm going to continue an investigation into what is wrong with tl|Large category TOC.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• PS. At least temporarily, I went with {{LargeCategoryTOC2}}. Revert if you must, however there is still something wrong with tl|Large category TOC.
  

• PPS. I had a problem with another cat, Category:WikiProject Biography articles, and when I did as the MS engineers suggested, which was to >start >Run >regsvr32 actxprxy.dll in the field, run it and wait for the Success box, then restart computer, it helped a little on that cat. However, even after I did this, and even when I ran IE8 without add-ons, this cat still loads extremely slowly, although a little faster than before, but not much. (Note: That applies only to when {{Large category TOC}} is used on these cat pages. When {{LargeCategoryTOC2}} is used, the pages load without any delay.)

Figured it out. The problem ultimately lies with {{Large category TOC/a-z}}. While that subpage template appears innocuous, it gets called for each letter of the alphabet in [[Template:Large category TOC]], and thereby slows the load time tremendously of any other entity that calls the Large category template, such as this category. One has to ask oneself, "Why should all those calls be necessary? How many pages will begin with 'Bq' or 'Pz'?" The work-around is to switch to the usage of {{LargeCategoryTOC2}}, which calls the subpage "/aejot" instead of "/a-z". This gives five (sensible) choices for each start-letter rather than twenty-six (most of which are never used), and it takes way less time to load. So I have converted this cat to the TOC2 template call. End of problem, I sincerely hope.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  05:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• PS. And yes, I figured out the one about the cat not showing up on the Redirect. The {{main other}} template has been installed on the Rcat, so it will only categorize redirects in the Main namespace. Since the Rcat has its own /doc page, I have noted this on that doc so that future editors won't waste a lot of time wondering why the cat doesn't show up on their newly edited redirect.

Since repeated attempts have shown no difference in load time for me and I will not go one page at a time to get to where the non-standard characters may be, I changed it back to TOC. JimCubb (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)