Template talk:R from incomplete name
| This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Template:R from incomplete name is permanently protected from editing as it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit extended-protected}} to notify an administrator, template editor or extended-confirmed editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here. |
Template talk:R from initialism §Proposed merge from {{R from an incomplete name}}
[edit]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. 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. -- Ϫ 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)
Requested move
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus(talk) 20:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Template:R from an incomplete name → Template:R from incomplete name — to conform with every other redirect template. McLerristarr / Mclay1 05:59, 31 August 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge/Redirect proposal
[edit]This template, R from incomplete name, should be merged with the template R from short name and made into a redirect to it (Rcat), due to the great similarity between the two in meaning. Either of these templates could easily be mistaken or misinterpreted for the other, as they are so nearly identical in both purpose and meaning, and therefore the two should not exist as completely separate redirect templates. Since this template is a subcategory of R from short name, the redirect should be from here to the latter. — |J~Pæst| 00:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- As I understand it,
{{r from incomplete name}}is used when the name is officially considered incomplete (but not outright incorrect) despite being sufficient to unambiguously identify the subject.{{r from short name}}is when the short name has some official approval. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)- To |J~Pæst| & SoledadKabocha: I have been wondering the same as you, JPæst, because as I look at the entries in the two cats, it seems as though most editors don't know the difference. The same goes for {{R from shortening}} and its cat. SoledadKabocha, the difference you cite seems to be too subtle for most editors to discern. If I may, I suggest that all three be combined to {{R from short name}} and its cat. This would eliminate the anomaly you cite below, as well. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 09:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am neutral as to any merge. But I realize that I may have been a little sloppy in explaining originally. From what I understand of the fact that "incomplete" categorizes as unprintworthy while "short" does not, the distinction is primarily of whether the short name follows the usual printworthiness guidelines. I assume that a merged template would require users to manually specify "r printworthy" or "r unprintworthy" to make any claims of (un)printworthiness? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's a correct assumption – at this point I see no reason why a default printworthiness is needed. Thank you! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 09:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm restoring this template, and strongly recommend keeping these cases distinct, as per SoledadKabocha. While short names may be printworthy or not, these ones clearly aren't. More importantly, while links to a proper short name may be kept, these ones should be replaced by the correct, full name. I came here, quite irritated to see
{{R from incomplete title}}being redirected to{{R from short name}}. Don't know if everybody understands the difference, but if not, this might be, because we didn't explain it well enough. Similar templates are often listed and the difference explained on the transcluded template, and there's no reason why we can't do the same here. If some still don't get the the difference, this is no major problem, and in fact it's better to have 50% of these redirects correctly categorized, than none. --PanchoS (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm restoring this template, and strongly recommend keeping these cases distinct, as per SoledadKabocha. While short names may be printworthy or not, these ones clearly aren't. More importantly, while links to a proper short name may be kept, these ones should be replaced by the correct, full name. I came here, quite irritated to see
- That's a correct assumption – at this point I see no reason why a default printworthiness is needed. Thank you! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 09:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am neutral as to any merge. But I realize that I may have been a little sloppy in explaining originally. From what I understand of the fact that "incomplete" categorizes as unprintworthy while "short" does not, the distinction is primarily of whether the short name follows the usual printworthiness guidelines. I assume that a merged template would require users to manually specify "r printworthy" or "r unprintworthy" to make any claims of (un)printworthiness? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- To |J~Pæst| & SoledadKabocha: I have been wondering the same as you, JPæst, because as I look at the entries in the two cats, it seems as though most editors don't know the difference. The same goes for {{R from shortening}} and its cat. SoledadKabocha, the difference you cite seems to be too subtle for most editors to discern. If I may, I suggest that all three be combined to {{R from short name}} and its cat. This would eliminate the anomaly you cite below, as well. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 09:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Unprintworthy or not
[edit]The template categorizes articlespace redirects as unprintworthy. However, the displayed instructions say "It is not necessary to replace links to this redirect with piped links." Are these contradictory, and what should be done if so? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
State State
[edit]36 [[State State]] are short name primary-topic redirects to [[State State University]], not incomplete names.
One (Wisconsin State) also redirects to an educational institution, albeit not one named "State University" – Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee.
12 are either {{R from more specific name}} or {{R from longer name}} redirects to the article about that state, or red links which would likely be the same, if created.
One (Washington State) is a disambiguation, with no primary topic between Washington State University and Washington (state). – wbm1058 (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC) amended 15:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)