Category talk:Redirects from ASCII-only titles

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Redirect, a collaborative effort to improve the standard of redirects and their categorization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Note: This banner should be placed on the talk pages of project, template and category pages that exist and operate to maintain redirects.
This banner is not designed to be placed on the talk pages of most redirects and almost never on the talk pages of mainspace redirects. For more information see the template documentation.RedirectWikipedia:WikiProject RedirectTemplate:WikiProject Redirectredirect pages

Merge

Is this not the same as Category: Redirects from title without diacritics? Probably should be merged before anybody gets hurt. – Wikipeditor 21:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Updated description to delineated differences.

--William Allen Simpson 13:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand the distinction. Could you give an example of a redirect that belongs here, and explain why it does not belong in Category: Redirects from title without diacritics? Thanks! –RHolton ≡<– 15:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: perhaps you could look at the category itself for examples.... Or gain some familiarity with ASCII, UTF-8, and diacritic.

--William Allen Simpson 20:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same line requirement is not

"To add a redirect to this category, put {{R from ASCII}} after the redirect but on the same line (The redirect works only if in the first line, and any lines following the redirect line are ignored)."

The same line requirement is not true, at least not true anymore. The template works even if it's on the second line. --Tokek 06:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A recent update to the software. However, leaving the template on the same line helps in other ways, so removed the incorrect historical remark, but left the recommendation.

--William Allen Simpson 13:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarify definition

I still find the description confusing. Am I correct in believing that the majority of pages here actually ARE diacritic issues, and as such shouldn't be here? Would an appropriate article be one with a ligature, such as Ænima? Are there examples besides ligatures, and if so are they few enough that they could simply be listed in the description? Zombiejesus 23:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this category should be limited to titles containing ASCII characters other than the standard alphabet (ASCII printable characters) and diacritics, ie. ligatures and other special characters in the ASCII set. "I ♥ Huckabees" would be a good example of the type of redirects that this category should contain.

Now, I'm not sure if the ♥ character is technically an ASCII character, so maybe the using term "ASCII" would limit this category in some ways. An alternate name for this cat could be Redirects from titles with special characters or "higher-bit" characters? Or we could create a new redirect template for Category:Templates for ISO redirects that deals with special characters, Template:R from ISO 8859 maybe? Category:Redirects from Unicode characters exists however it seems that category is limited to single-character redirects.

But you're right in that almost all of the redirects in this category should be in Category:Redirects from title without diacritics. -- œ ^™ 06:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition still unclear

The difference between {{R from ASCII}} and {{R from title without diacritics}} is still NOT clear, especially since both pages have been modified. One thing that seemed to be clear before was that æ would fall under THIS category and is NOT a diacritic; since then, however, someone has explicitly added æ and other dipthongs to the list shown on Category:Redirects from titles without diacritics.

Perhaps a better question is: what special characters are there besides æ and other dipthongs that have NO ASCII equivalent but are NOT diacritical marks?

And let me be the first to point out that many letters with accents, etc., ARE available in Extended ASCII, which is what a lot of people think of when they hear "ASCII", further confusing the use of these templates.

Can someone please give a CONCRETE definition of the difference between these 2 templates/categories? An example would be appreciated, and do NOT say "just look at the categories" because it's already been agreed that many articles here are miscategorised. Despite many requests over the years, not a SINGLE example has been provided, just comments to "look it up".

I *think* that what the difference is *supposed* to be is best described as:

"set of all articles with true ASCII characters" ⊂ "set of all articles with nondiacritical marks" ⊂ "set of all articles"

and that {{R from ASCII}} has a source page in the first set but a target page in the second. However, this is thoroughly unclear for numerous reasons, not the least of which is because no list of characters is available (and the one that IS available, as pointed out above, is apparently incorrect).

The point of these templates is to correctly categorise redirects. That can not ever be done when these two templates keep getting mixed up. Until a real definition is provided, and until it is explicitly clarified what the {{R from ASCII}} template should be used for, this is a major problem. Given how things stand at the moment, if no clarification is provided, it would be best to merge the templates and categories into {{R from title without diacritics}} for standardization purposes and because it is absolutely useless in its current format.

I'm transcluding this discussion to all the related pages; the main conversation is at Category talk:Redirects from ASCII-only titles#Definition still unclear. — Skittleys (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has been belatedly answered at Template:Redirects from titles without diacritics/Explanation. The en-dash – is non-ASCII but not a diacritic. – Fayenatic London 10:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]