Template talk:R from misspelling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is in use by WikiProject Redirect, a project aiming to create and/or fix redirects in Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

I have removed the:

==See also== * [[Wikipedia:List of common misspellings]]

from Template:R_from_misspelling because it makes Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:List_of_common_misspellings basically unusable, and doesn't really add any value to those redirects when it appears in them. Noel (talk) 22:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Thanks. The way MediaWiki read this type of link changed, so it became indeed useless. -- User:Docu

[edit] Trip to WP:TFD

[edit] Automated correction

While fixing a list of links to redirects that use this template, I noticed a problem that prevents automating the process. It's not always possible to get the best replacement for a misspelling.

For example, the misspelling redirect Castillian language uses this template and redirects to Spanish language, but there's no way for a script to figure out that the replacement should usually be Castilian language.

A possible solution would be to make this template take an optional parameter that indicates the correct spelling. Thus at Castillian language, {{R from misspelling}} would become {{R from misspelling|Castilian language}}. We could leave unchanged the redirects for which the correct spelling and redirect target are identical.

Any comments? Wmahan. 00:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Could the corrected spelling parameter be displayed on the redirect page? If so, it makes sense to me. -- Steven Fisher 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't think that's possible, since MediaWiki doesn't display anything but a message and the link on redirect pages. Wmahan. 06:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a horrible idea!

  1. By definition, the target page is the correct spelling.
  2. So, in the case where it really is a {{R with possibilities}} instead, you have to think. You should not run a bot where you have to examine each link to decide whether the article is talking in context about the spanish language or the castilian variant (or castillian, {{R from alternate spelling}}, not a misspelling, as it corresponds to the spanish spelling).
  3. Likewise, X-box is {{R from alternate spelling}}, there are millions of references to that spelling! Including from Amazon in the first Google page! And Schneier on Security!
  4. Half the listings have the wrong template, some should be {{R from abbreviation}} (Ph.D → Doctor of Philosophy), {{R from alternate name}}, {{R from alternate spelling}} (Encyclopedia of Islam → Encyclopaedia of Islam, a perfectly legitimate pair of spellings), etc.
  5. In summary, these redirects were intended to be looked at by humans, not automatically corrected by a bot.
--William Allen Simpson 05:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
C'mon, tell me what you really think! :) I replied at your talk page. In summary, perhaps "automated correction" was a poor choice of words. I agree that all changes should be reviewed by humans, and I think my proposal could help. Wmahan. 06:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This template is going away

Just a note that it appears this template will no longer be used for technical reasons, though the corresponding category can probably remain. See here. Wmahan. 04:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read the IRC logs and stuff, but is there a solid technical reason to do so? Not because I particularly like this template or anything, it doesn't provide much extra value above a category, but the page you linked to makes a big scare about problems without specifying what most of the problems are. At some websites that would be called FUD. Also, considering that it works like desired now, wouldn't it be better if the current behaviour of the software is made official? Shinobu (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)