Template talk:R from initialism

meaning of abbreviation

There are cases where it would be useful to include a meaning for an abbreviation because the target article title might not have an obvious relationship to the abbreviation itself, as in the case of SGWU (see Talk:SGWU). Would there be support for adding an optional parameter to this template that would allow the inclusion of a meaning for the abbreviation when it is non-obvious and that would be apparent to editors? Or would folks prefer to keep that information as part of the redirect's talk page (as in the case of SGWU)? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge from {{R from an incomplete name}}

I have proposed that the template {{R from an incomplete name}} be merged into this one (a simple redirect from would suffice). If there are no objections, I will go ahead and do the merger whenever I get around to it (which should be at least a week, and possibly more like a month.) My basic reasoning is that "abbreviation" doesn't just mean initialism, it means all forms of shortening a title, and could certainly be said to include something like B. Franklin (for Benjamin Franklin). There's really no reasons to distinguish the two for categorization purposes. $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 17:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not categorically opposed to the merge (no pun intended.) However, people have associations with the word "abbreviation" that might make this confusing for them. I think it would be logical to merge both categories/templates into a new one called {{R from shortened name}} or something else along those lines. -Dave314159 (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this.Phatom87 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

See {{R from short name}}. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 20:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

support — my initial knee-jerk reaction was "no *&@#**! way!". But Lenoxus is right that the real meaning of "abbreviation" is broader than initialisms and word interrupts (e.g. et cetera → etc.; et alia → et al.). This is an appropriate merger. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

oppose on the grounds that an incomplete name and an abbreviation are completely different beasts. An example of the former would be Byzantine Emperors redirecting to List of Byzantine emperors; another would be Ulysses Grant sending the reader to Ulysses S. Grant. A redirect from USA to United States is an example of the latter. — Robert Greer (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I'll have to say no as well. I think in this case it was meant to be for acronyms and initialism. What would make sense though is to merge Category:Redirects from incomplete names with Category:Redirects from short names. -- œ^™ 22:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Not all incomplete names are abbreviations, and indeed the ones on the first page of "what links here" are not. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion closed as keep. Most editors saw a difference between "incomplete" and "abbreviated". In general though, such discussion should take place at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Debresser (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

links to zero namespace

This template is being transcluded from zero namespace redirects. Any links from here to zero namespace disable the possibility for redirect target identification with use of toolserver metadata.

I've tried replacing such links by external links to wikipedia, but FrescoBot does authomatically replace them back. My view, such a bot behaviour is wrong for this particular type of templates, however...

Could someone unlock or dewikify the template please (and maybe a few more of this type) so that this page and maybe others using similar redurect target recognition technique could contain more relevant data.

Mashiah (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

request for documentation inclusion instead of text with links

{{edit protected}} Dear administrators, as it was agreed at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Redirect pages#links to zero namespace, links from this template to zero namespace are to be removed as creating ambiguity for toolserver scripts on where the redirect points to. I've moved the text from template to /doc subpage, so could someone please remove all visible content from template page and add {{documentation}} instead? Mashiah (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. However I have removed the instruction to substitute this template which was added by User:Logan. That doesn't make any sense to me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove the text output? All the other redirect templates have it.. -- œ^™ 16:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Because this is what Mashiah requested and it seemed to me that the discussion he/she linked showed some support for this. If you want me to revert so that you can discuss then I will do so, but the discussion should probably be held in that more central place rather than here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it seems strange that the "ambiguity" in question is just now becoming a problem. I see nothing ambiguous about a redirect that points to something it relates to, which is categorized with a populating Redirect category (Rcat) template that has links that very most likely will have nothing to do with the target of the redirect.

Secondly, if such ambiguity must be dealt with, then why attack Rcats, many of which contain text with links? It seems that it would be more efficient to find a solution at the origin, i.e., the toolserver metadata software.

Lastly, it was mentioned that the Rcat text is "never actually displayed to anyone". The text is displayed to Wikipedia editors, both when they come to the Rcat itself, and when they click from the history page of a redirect to see an editorial change. That text can be very informative with or without links.

To summarize, it seems that it would be a huge task to find every Rcat that has links and to delete the links or create /doc pages. So a better more efficient solution should be sought. At the very least, the text itself can be informative, so I would like to see at least the text sans the links restored to this template. I will place an {{Editprotected}} template soon, if necessary.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  23:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC) {{editprotected}} Please revert and add the text back in. There is no need for the link in the text; however, since the text is part of the Difference between revisions pages, then it is still needed in these Rcat templates.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  15:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 text restored — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Martin!  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge request

{{edit protected}} Per a recent CFD, please replace content with:

#REDIRECT [[Template:R from initialism]]

{{This is a redirect|to redirect template}}

Thank you. Unprotecting the page would also be good. McLerristarr | Mclay1 02:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Happy to unprotect as well if the number of transclusions is not too high. But I don't know how to check that due to the redirect-transclusion bug. Maybe you can answer that? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes.. how do we get all the existing transclusions of {{R from abbreviation}} into Category:Redirects from initialisms? -- œ^™ 22:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It'll do it automatically. They won't appear to move at first but they have. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It probably takes a null edit to see them. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  04:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Double redirect

This has become a double redirect and must be rerouted to Template:Redirect from initialism. Thank you very much! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  03:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• PS. Shouldn't this talk page be moved to Template talk:Redirect from initialism and redirect there?

Yes, this talk page should be moved to Template talk:Redirect from initialism. The page currently there can safely be overwritten as there is no content or history other than a note directing people to this page. Gurch (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer to move the whole template over there. The history of Template:R from abbreviation goes back to 2004 whereas Template:Redirect from initialism was created in 2010. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The {{R from abbreviation}} template is redirected to {{R from initialism}}, which is now redirected to {{Redirect from initialism}}. So all that needs to happen is to fix the double redirect and move this page to Template talk:Redirect from initialism, isn't that correct? I tried to move it, and evidently the move requires the help of an admin. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  08:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

When merging two templates it is more common to keep the older template as the main template as it has more history and people can see how the template developed. Otherwise this history will be less visible in a redirect. Hope that makes sense, and I think, all is done now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

For the uncountableth time, thank you very much, Martin! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  04:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Red links in documentation

I noticed that the documentation page is showing some red links for the templates that allegedly redirect here. I couldn't find any deletion logs for them, so I assume there is no good reason for them not to exist; should they be created? —SoledadKabocha (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The Rcats will be created soon. — |J~Pæst| 11:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Rcats have now been created. Thank you! — |J~Pæst|  16:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Rcats needed

­{{R from abbreviation}} needs Rcats (redirect categories) added. Please modify it as follows:

• from this...

#REDIRECT [[Template:R from initialism]]

• to this...

#REDIRECT [[Template:R from initialism]]

{{Redr|to redirect template|from alternative name|protected}}

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE MIDDLE LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

Template {{Redr}} is a shortcut for the {{This is a redirect}} template, which is itself a shortcut used to add categories to redirects. Thank you in advance! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

 Thank you very much! – Martin (MSGJ) – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 09:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Text

Change "intitialism" to "abbreviation or initialism"? All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 13:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC).

Template-protected edit request on 27 April 2014

Please add a comma after where the template reads "For more information." Dustin (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Dustin (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 July 2015

A protected redirect, Template:Redirect from initialism, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

• from this:

#REDIRECT [[Template:R from initialism]]

• to this:

#REDIRECT [[Template:R from initialism]]

{{Redr|from move|to redirect template|for convenience}}

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

Template Redr is an alias for the {{This is a redirect}} template, which is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. Thank you in advance! – Paine  08:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hugs and kittens, Redrose64! and {{subst:pell}}

Abbreviation

At Category talk:Redirects from abbreviations#Why is this a container category? I question the wisdom of having {{R from abbreviation}} redirect to {{R from initialism}}. Comments welcome there. jnestorius^(talk) 17:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Andrewa (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Template:R from initialism → Template:R from abbreviation – {{R from abbreviation}} redirects here, yet not all abbreviations are initialisms, but initialisms seem to be all abbreviations, so this makes no sense, the redirects should be inverted, and the categorization sorted accordingly. {{R from initialism}} would become a wrapper that activates the appropriate redirect categorization, while standard abbreviation template would not use the initialism category. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 08:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support I am the nominator. This current scheme is wrong and does not categorize correctly. Abbreviations can be formed by clipping, dropping syllables, etc, which are all not initialisms. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some abbreviations are initialisms, some are acronyms, there are also systematic abbreviations and symbols as shown by subcategories at Category:Redirects from abbreviations. There are a few editors who are trying to work through the detailed mess that these are in, as seen on the various talk pages, including this one, so such a page move is premature at this time. I do applaud the nom for this attempted solution, though.  Paine  ^u/c 11:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Paine. If needed, create a new WP:RCAT to reflect the rationale, possibly overwriting the redirect. Moving the template doesn't seem productive to accomplish additional helpfulness to the project. Steel1943 (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It is definitely needed, and I pointed out why. {{R from abbreviation}} redirects here, and that's categorically wrong. It's why I proposed to reverse the redirect, to fix this glaring error. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Better to turn the redirect into a separate template. Moving won't help to clear up the situation. Plantdrew (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, it might be better to create a separate rcat instead. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose we can create separate rcats for those. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment. A glance at the page history of the R from abbreviation redirect shows that it was moved opposite to this request to this title in June of 2011. Editors have been trying ever since then to make sense of the rcats and the category tree, thus far to no avail. I hope to find editors with some expertise in this area, because to me, it's a true squirrel's nest. More advisories are more than welcome!  Paine  ^u/c 00:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Followup

Pursuant to the above discussion, I have created {{R from abbreviation}}, and updated Category:Redirects from abbreviations. Due to replacement of the {{R from abbreviation}} former redirect with {{R from initialism}}, a lot of category cleanup is going to have to be done (this was what inspired the RM in the first place – miscategorization of thousands of non-initialisms and initialisms). I also note that Category:Redirects from abbreviations includes a lot of acronyms and initialisms, presumably from a combination of manual categorization and mis-application of {{R from abbreviation}} to acronyms and initialisms.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Add "initialism" definition or link

Hi, I particularly like the way Template:R from acronym has done it, with a link in the explanation text to the Acronym article, as well as an explanation of this template using examples that are very easy to understand – no definition parsing needed. Can we add those things to this template as well? — TARDIS builder^✉     ★       14:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)