Template:R from alternative scientific name is permanently
protected from editing because 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 template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template 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. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
Tree of Life Template‑class | |||||||
|
Redirect Template‑class | |||||||
|
The companion, Template:R to alternative scientific name needs to be created.-- Auric talk 15:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
In response to a suggestion at WT:PLANTS#Redirects and categorization, I have modified this template to allow an unnamed parameter which can be set to the type of organism involved and will then place the redirect tagged with this template into a subcategory.
Currently I've coded this somewhat redundantly, to make it easier to undo or alter. As of now, {{R from alternative scientific name|plant}}
will categorize the redirect into
Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names of plants; values other than "Plant" or "plant" are ignored. Further subcategories can be added if this approach is thought to be useful.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 10:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
The documentation says that this template is to be used on a redirect that "targets the scientific name that is correct". In practice that correct scientific name is often a redirect to a common name, to which the alternate name must also direct. An example is Gerbilliscus kempi and Gerbilliscus gambiana both redirecting to Kemp's gerbil. Is my understanding correct? I just came across Caprimulgus vociferus and Antrostomus vociferus. I suppose one could think of it as conceptually targeting the correct name, then being adjusted to avoid a double redirect. William Avery ( talk) 12:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This template puts this text on the redirect's (or synonym's) page:
But there is no category link on any of the pages I opened that have this, what does it mean? MicroPaLeo ( talk) 02:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
This is what I see:
Acrocercops rhombiferella From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Redirect page
Acrocercops rhombiferellum This is a redirect from an alternative scientific name of an organism to the accepted scientific name. For more information follow the category link. Categories (++): (+)
And, logged out, I see this:
Acrocercops rhombiferella From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Redirect page
Acrocercops rhombiferellum This is a redirect from an alternative scientific name of an organism to the accepted scientific name. For more information follow the category link.
I already have hidden categories selected in my preferences. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 06:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
If you mean the category of thousands of redirects, this does not belong in what is called article space as a link,
"This is an administration category. It is used for administration of the Wikipedia project and is not part of the encyclopedia. It contains pages that are not articles, or it groups articles by status rather than content. Do not include this category in content categories. This is a hidden category. It is not shown on its member pages, unless the corresponding user preference 'Show hidden categories' is set. This is a tracking category. It builds and maintains a list of pages primarily for the sake of the list itself. Pages are added to tracking categories through templates."
It should just be a hidden category, but the text implies there is some additional information about the organism at topic by clicking a category link, yet there is no visible "category" for the reader, just hidden editor categories. If the editor is savvy enough to have hidden categories, why tell them a link is the hidden category, instead o a category. You don't put notes in the middle of articles abou editing it, "John Smith was a farmer, if you disagree with his profession, follow this link, which is secretly an edit tab, in order to change the information." MicroPaLeo ( talk) 07:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I state the problem in my initial post, there is no category link– but there is a category link, i.e. a link to a category. It just doesn't look like one – on that we agree.
There also is no more information– but there is more information at the link: there's a fuller explanation of what the category is, how to use it, what its subcategory is, plus lists of what articles are in the category and subcategory, etc. So I can only repeat that if your concern is that the message isn't clear, because it's not obvious what the "category link" is, I agree with you. But if you are saying that the link should be removed, then I don't agree with you. Ordinary readers won't be looking at the redirect page, because the redirect is automatically followed. Information on redirect pages is for editors creating and amending redirects, and the link is important to them. Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much, MicroPaLeo, for all the edits you've made and for the ones you describe above. We'd like to help you, but I for one am still unclear about the problem(s) you describe. As you have been told, there most certainly is a category link, at least one, for every redirect template ( rcat) that is used to tag redirects. The fact that it is a bolded link with descriptive wording, which may seem to some to be not so intuitive, has for all these years never been an expressed problem until now. There may be other ways to do it, but it seems to me that there would be little benefit to change all of the many rcats to make all their category links more intuitive. Then you say that you have "Show hidden categories" checked in your user preferences, but you still cannot see hidden categories at the bottoms of redirect pages. You are not the first editor to have this problem, and it's usually the browser you use that somehow disables this feature. You may try using a different browser, or try running your browser with no add-ons. If that does not work, then you may ask technical questions at Wikipedia's Village pump. I sincerely hope that this helps and that you will reach a level of understanding that helps you to better edit this encyclopedia. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
This template was designed to be used for a redirect from an alternative scientific name to the accepted scientific name, i.e. from one scientific name to another. {{ R to alternative scientific name}} is an alias, although not ideal as a template name because it doesn't clarify the directionality, namely from what is currently a synonym to the accepted name.
The current pattern is:
Three clear cases; three templates and corresponding categories.
A change to the auxiliary template, which I've reverted, would have changed the wording to allow its use for a redirect from an alternative scientific name to the common name. At present {{ R from scientific name}} is used for all redirects from scientific names. I don't support this change.
Most importantly, the change would mess up the pattern above. "Scientific name → common name" cases would be mixed with "scientific name → scientific name" cases.
There would also be updating problems. If an article is at the accepted scientific name, then if this changes and the article is moved, redirects to it will be updated as well in the normal course of events. But if the article is at the common name, and the accepted scientific name changes, although the article may be updated, it seems to me much less likely that redirects to it will have their categorization changed to show which is now the accepted name and which a synonym. Peter coxhead ( talk) 18:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
During the discussion at WP:PLANTS, I'd intended to raise the issue at WikiProject Redirect, but didn't do so til several months later (and now it's been several months since I did bring it up at WP:REDIRECT). Tagging alternative scientific name redirects to common names as "R from scientific name" may be the best choice (though I find it counter intuitive). For the most part, I've been refraining from tagging redirects of that sort at all. There are plenty of other redirects in need of tagging where the category is clearer (and among plants, there are only number of alternative scientific name redirect to common names is relatively tiny). It is a little problematic that the redirect categories pertaining to organisms largely assume that the scientific name will almost always be the article title (redirects to/from monotypic taxa also get messy when common name article titles are involved). There doesn't seem to be any perfect solution though. Plantdrew ( talk) 22:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
From\To | Accepted sci. name | Common name |
---|---|---|
Accepted sci. name | – | "R from accepted scientific name to common name" {{ R from scientific name}} |
Alt. sci. name | "R from alternative scientific name to accepted scientific name" {{ R from alternative scientific name}} |
"R from alternative scientific name to common name" {{ R from scientific name}} |
Common name | "R from common name to accepted scientific name" {{ R to scientific name}} |
??? |
|plant
for these templates, but again, is this worthwhile?
Peter coxhead (
talk) 14:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)#REDIRECT [[(target article title)]] {{Redr||printworthy}}
#REDIRECT [[(target page name)]] {{Redr}}
#REDIRECT [[(common name)]] {{Redr|to common name|p1=plant|printworthy}}
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I spend quite a bit of time making redirects from alternate scientific names for fungal taxa. I'd appreciate it if this template could be expanded so that {{R from alternative scientific name|fungus}} would place these in a separate category, similar to what is already done for plants and fish. Thanks, Sasata ( talk) 02:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This template supports several switches for more specific groups of organisms. I'd like to see it support {{R from alternative scientific name|crustacean}}. I've mocked up the needed changes at Template:R_from_alternative_scientific_name/sandbox.
This pertains to discussion at Template_talk:R_from_synonym about the purpose of that template. Many of redirects using "R from synonym" are "alternative scientific names", and many of those are crustaceans. If Plantdrew ( talk) 02:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I've mocked up adding insects as a group in the sandbox, and checked testcases. There are a ton of insects in the main category, and a lot more that have likely never been tagged. I've created the category for the pages to be sorted in to already. M. A. Broussard ( talk) 02:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
{{
R from alternative scientific name}}
, {{
R to scientific name}}
, {{
R from scientific name}}
, {{
R to monotypic taxon}}
and {{
R from monotypic taxon}}
(have I missed any?). It seems sensible for them to have the same set of switches; certainly this would be less confusing to editors. So any case for a new switch should be acceptable for all these templates.{{
R from alternative scientific name/sandbox}}
, {{
R to scientific name/sandbox}}
, {{
R from scientific name/sandbox}}
, {{
R to monotypic taxon/sandbox}}
and {{
R from monotypic taxon/sandbox}}
). If there's consensus I can copy the sandboxes over to the live templates. Going forward, the easier solution would be to replace these with a single Lua template so we don't have to worry about them getting out of sync. --
Ahecht (
TALK{{
R from alternative scientific name}}
, {{
R to scientific name}}
, {{
R from scientific name}}
and {{
R to monotypic taxon}}
, but seem to have missed the monotypic taxon templates. The existing templates have different numbers of switches as well.{{
R from species to genus}}
redirects to {{
R from subtopic}}
at the present time, so it may be a moot point? I have to say that {{
R plant with possibilities}}
doesn't tell me much by its name, and it was only by looking at the text on the redirects that I understood what it was for. I feel that the species to genus template would be a better one if it were still its own entity. Since there are less than 50 articles using this template (all species redirects linking to the genus-level article), could this template be resurrected?
I tried this in the sandbox, but the preview keeps redirecting. Anyway, theoretically any page using this template should be in italics, so i thought it should just be in the template. I’m not sure on the placement. And ideally, there would be a parameter to turn it off in those rare exceptions, but I am not sure how to code that. Input? -- awkwafaba ( 📥) 04:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
The redirect Template:Redirect asn has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 23 § Template:Redirect asn until a consensus is reached. Plantdrew ( talk) 02:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Why is this template called what it is, as opposed to "r from taxonomic synonym" or "r from unaccepted scientific name"? It seems like an odd phrasing. Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Template:R from alternative scientific name is permanently
protected from editing because 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 template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template 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. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
Tree of Life Template‑class | |||||||
|
Redirect Template‑class | |||||||
|
The companion, Template:R to alternative scientific name needs to be created.-- Auric talk 15:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
In response to a suggestion at WT:PLANTS#Redirects and categorization, I have modified this template to allow an unnamed parameter which can be set to the type of organism involved and will then place the redirect tagged with this template into a subcategory.
Currently I've coded this somewhat redundantly, to make it easier to undo or alter. As of now, {{R from alternative scientific name|plant}}
will categorize the redirect into
Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names of plants; values other than "Plant" or "plant" are ignored. Further subcategories can be added if this approach is thought to be useful.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 10:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
The documentation says that this template is to be used on a redirect that "targets the scientific name that is correct". In practice that correct scientific name is often a redirect to a common name, to which the alternate name must also direct. An example is Gerbilliscus kempi and Gerbilliscus gambiana both redirecting to Kemp's gerbil. Is my understanding correct? I just came across Caprimulgus vociferus and Antrostomus vociferus. I suppose one could think of it as conceptually targeting the correct name, then being adjusted to avoid a double redirect. William Avery ( talk) 12:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This template puts this text on the redirect's (or synonym's) page:
But there is no category link on any of the pages I opened that have this, what does it mean? MicroPaLeo ( talk) 02:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
This is what I see:
Acrocercops rhombiferella From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Redirect page
Acrocercops rhombiferellum This is a redirect from an alternative scientific name of an organism to the accepted scientific name. For more information follow the category link. Categories (++): (+)
And, logged out, I see this:
Acrocercops rhombiferella From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Redirect page
Acrocercops rhombiferellum This is a redirect from an alternative scientific name of an organism to the accepted scientific name. For more information follow the category link.
I already have hidden categories selected in my preferences. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 06:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
If you mean the category of thousands of redirects, this does not belong in what is called article space as a link,
"This is an administration category. It is used for administration of the Wikipedia project and is not part of the encyclopedia. It contains pages that are not articles, or it groups articles by status rather than content. Do not include this category in content categories. This is a hidden category. It is not shown on its member pages, unless the corresponding user preference 'Show hidden categories' is set. This is a tracking category. It builds and maintains a list of pages primarily for the sake of the list itself. Pages are added to tracking categories through templates."
It should just be a hidden category, but the text implies there is some additional information about the organism at topic by clicking a category link, yet there is no visible "category" for the reader, just hidden editor categories. If the editor is savvy enough to have hidden categories, why tell them a link is the hidden category, instead o a category. You don't put notes in the middle of articles abou editing it, "John Smith was a farmer, if you disagree with his profession, follow this link, which is secretly an edit tab, in order to change the information." MicroPaLeo ( talk) 07:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I state the problem in my initial post, there is no category link– but there is a category link, i.e. a link to a category. It just doesn't look like one – on that we agree.
There also is no more information– but there is more information at the link: there's a fuller explanation of what the category is, how to use it, what its subcategory is, plus lists of what articles are in the category and subcategory, etc. So I can only repeat that if your concern is that the message isn't clear, because it's not obvious what the "category link" is, I agree with you. But if you are saying that the link should be removed, then I don't agree with you. Ordinary readers won't be looking at the redirect page, because the redirect is automatically followed. Information on redirect pages is for editors creating and amending redirects, and the link is important to them. Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much, MicroPaLeo, for all the edits you've made and for the ones you describe above. We'd like to help you, but I for one am still unclear about the problem(s) you describe. As you have been told, there most certainly is a category link, at least one, for every redirect template ( rcat) that is used to tag redirects. The fact that it is a bolded link with descriptive wording, which may seem to some to be not so intuitive, has for all these years never been an expressed problem until now. There may be other ways to do it, but it seems to me that there would be little benefit to change all of the many rcats to make all their category links more intuitive. Then you say that you have "Show hidden categories" checked in your user preferences, but you still cannot see hidden categories at the bottoms of redirect pages. You are not the first editor to have this problem, and it's usually the browser you use that somehow disables this feature. You may try using a different browser, or try running your browser with no add-ons. If that does not work, then you may ask technical questions at Wikipedia's Village pump. I sincerely hope that this helps and that you will reach a level of understanding that helps you to better edit this encyclopedia. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
This template was designed to be used for a redirect from an alternative scientific name to the accepted scientific name, i.e. from one scientific name to another. {{ R to alternative scientific name}} is an alias, although not ideal as a template name because it doesn't clarify the directionality, namely from what is currently a synonym to the accepted name.
The current pattern is:
Three clear cases; three templates and corresponding categories.
A change to the auxiliary template, which I've reverted, would have changed the wording to allow its use for a redirect from an alternative scientific name to the common name. At present {{ R from scientific name}} is used for all redirects from scientific names. I don't support this change.
Most importantly, the change would mess up the pattern above. "Scientific name → common name" cases would be mixed with "scientific name → scientific name" cases.
There would also be updating problems. If an article is at the accepted scientific name, then if this changes and the article is moved, redirects to it will be updated as well in the normal course of events. But if the article is at the common name, and the accepted scientific name changes, although the article may be updated, it seems to me much less likely that redirects to it will have their categorization changed to show which is now the accepted name and which a synonym. Peter coxhead ( talk) 18:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
During the discussion at WP:PLANTS, I'd intended to raise the issue at WikiProject Redirect, but didn't do so til several months later (and now it's been several months since I did bring it up at WP:REDIRECT). Tagging alternative scientific name redirects to common names as "R from scientific name" may be the best choice (though I find it counter intuitive). For the most part, I've been refraining from tagging redirects of that sort at all. There are plenty of other redirects in need of tagging where the category is clearer (and among plants, there are only number of alternative scientific name redirect to common names is relatively tiny). It is a little problematic that the redirect categories pertaining to organisms largely assume that the scientific name will almost always be the article title (redirects to/from monotypic taxa also get messy when common name article titles are involved). There doesn't seem to be any perfect solution though. Plantdrew ( talk) 22:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
From\To | Accepted sci. name | Common name |
---|---|---|
Accepted sci. name | – | "R from accepted scientific name to common name" {{ R from scientific name}} |
Alt. sci. name | "R from alternative scientific name to accepted scientific name" {{ R from alternative scientific name}} |
"R from alternative scientific name to common name" {{ R from scientific name}} |
Common name | "R from common name to accepted scientific name" {{ R to scientific name}} |
??? |
|plant
for these templates, but again, is this worthwhile?
Peter coxhead (
talk) 14:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)#REDIRECT [[(target article title)]] {{Redr||printworthy}}
#REDIRECT [[(target page name)]] {{Redr}}
#REDIRECT [[(common name)]] {{Redr|to common name|p1=plant|printworthy}}
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I spend quite a bit of time making redirects from alternate scientific names for fungal taxa. I'd appreciate it if this template could be expanded so that {{R from alternative scientific name|fungus}} would place these in a separate category, similar to what is already done for plants and fish. Thanks, Sasata ( talk) 02:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This template supports several switches for more specific groups of organisms. I'd like to see it support {{R from alternative scientific name|crustacean}}. I've mocked up the needed changes at Template:R_from_alternative_scientific_name/sandbox.
This pertains to discussion at Template_talk:R_from_synonym about the purpose of that template. Many of redirects using "R from synonym" are "alternative scientific names", and many of those are crustaceans. If Plantdrew ( talk) 02:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I've mocked up adding insects as a group in the sandbox, and checked testcases. There are a ton of insects in the main category, and a lot more that have likely never been tagged. I've created the category for the pages to be sorted in to already. M. A. Broussard ( talk) 02:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
{{
R from alternative scientific name}}
, {{
R to scientific name}}
, {{
R from scientific name}}
, {{
R to monotypic taxon}}
and {{
R from monotypic taxon}}
(have I missed any?). It seems sensible for them to have the same set of switches; certainly this would be less confusing to editors. So any case for a new switch should be acceptable for all these templates.{{
R from alternative scientific name/sandbox}}
, {{
R to scientific name/sandbox}}
, {{
R from scientific name/sandbox}}
, {{
R to monotypic taxon/sandbox}}
and {{
R from monotypic taxon/sandbox}}
). If there's consensus I can copy the sandboxes over to the live templates. Going forward, the easier solution would be to replace these with a single Lua template so we don't have to worry about them getting out of sync. --
Ahecht (
TALK{{
R from alternative scientific name}}
, {{
R to scientific name}}
, {{
R from scientific name}}
and {{
R to monotypic taxon}}
, but seem to have missed the monotypic taxon templates. The existing templates have different numbers of switches as well.{{
R from species to genus}}
redirects to {{
R from subtopic}}
at the present time, so it may be a moot point? I have to say that {{
R plant with possibilities}}
doesn't tell me much by its name, and it was only by looking at the text on the redirects that I understood what it was for. I feel that the species to genus template would be a better one if it were still its own entity. Since there are less than 50 articles using this template (all species redirects linking to the genus-level article), could this template be resurrected?
I tried this in the sandbox, but the preview keeps redirecting. Anyway, theoretically any page using this template should be in italics, so i thought it should just be in the template. I’m not sure on the placement. And ideally, there would be a parameter to turn it off in those rare exceptions, but I am not sure how to code that. Input? -- awkwafaba ( 📥) 04:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
The redirect Template:Redirect asn has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 23 § Template:Redirect asn until a consensus is reached. Plantdrew ( talk) 02:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Why is this template called what it is, as opposed to "r from taxonomic synonym" or "r from unaccepted scientific name"? It seems like an odd phrasing. Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)