Jump to content

Template talk:R from historic name

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Text mods

[edit]

{{editprotected}} This template's verbosity is almost comical. I will leave it others to suggest how the start of the 1st para may be improved - however I suggest that the final phrase 'suffered from a name change over time' is replace by 'experienced a name change'. I can't see why a name change should be suffered and 'over time' is just plain redundant. Saga City (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the wording per your suggestion. Woody (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} To add the following:

See also

[edit]

-- OlEnglish (Talk) 19:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it should go within the noinclude tags? It wouldn't be appropriate to transclude it, would it? On further thought, why not enclose the whole text in noinclude tags, because it isn't even displayed on redirect pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template description text is displayed only when viewing it as a diff in the revision history. I don't think it matters much whether to transclude the see also link text but most other see also links I've seen on redirect templates are also within the tags.. and it's usually meant for only when viewing the template itself. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 22:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not make sense to put all this information on Category:Redirects from historic names as this is where a reader would likely go to find out what the category is about? Just a thought. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would help, all these redirect categories and templates are very unorganized and unmaintained in my view. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 08:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historic vs. former

[edit]

This is confusing. And what about names that are neither regions/states or organizations? "Entities" looks like a catchall, but then why mention organizations? I suggest using both for anything, with the distinction that "historic" have had wide usage, whereas "former" names may have enjoyed relative obscurity. Paradoctor (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've been using {{R from former name}} for most situations, and only use {{R from historic name}} for those names with especially historic significance, but even then it's just a subcategory of 'former names'. Perhaps the two categories, Category:Redirects from historic names and Category:Redirects from former names should be merged. -- Ϫ 11:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improve info value

[edit]

As "verbose" as this Rcat may have been at one time, since {{R to historic name}} redirects here, the informational value of the text would probably double just by the addition of two words...

  • This is a redirect from a title that is another name . . .

becomes...

  • This is a redirect to or from a title that is another name . . .

Of course, we could always use the "R to . . ." template to populate a new Category:Redirects to historic names, but evidently this has been thought to be unnecessary.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  18:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Printworthy

[edit]

Wouldn't it be safe to say that redirects either from or to an historic name would be printworthy? I'll wait a few days to see if any discussion ensues before I go with the {{Editprotected}} template. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  13:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Printworthy category

[edit]

{{Editprotected}} Please add the Printworthy redirects category to this Rcat. Present ending: 

[[:Category:Redirects from alternative names]].<includeonly>
[[Category:Redirects from historic names]]
</includeonly><noinclude>
{{documentation}}
</noinclude><!-- end Template:R from historic name -->

Please modify as follows: 

[[:Category:Redirects from alternative names]].<includeonly>
[[Category:Redirects from historic names]]
[[Category:Printworthy redirects]]
</includeonly><noinclude>
{{documentation}}
</noinclude><!-- end Template:R from historic name -->

Added is the [[Category:Printworthy redirects]] on the third line in the above. Thank you very much! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  22:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)`[reply]
Thank you, Skier Dude! and the /doc page has been updated. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  14:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main other template

[edit]

This is a case where an Rcat is utilized both in the Main article namespace and other namespaces. In order to categorize only the Main article redirects as "printworthy", the following modification is needed.

  • From this:
[[Category:Redirects from historic names]]
[[Category:Printworthy redirects]]
  • To this:
[[Category:Redirects from historic names]]
{{Main other|[[Category:Printworthy redirects]]}}

Apply the "Main other" template and ensure that only historic-name redirects that are in the Main article namespace will populate the Printworthy redirects category. Thank you in advance for your help to modify this protected template! – PIE ( CLIMAX! )  14:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Tra (Talk) 18:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add another example that is not geographic

[edit]

The current template wording places undue weight on historic geographic names. I suggest adding the following words (adapted from the blurb at Category:Redirects from historic names:

…historic past. For example, a name having an appearance in older references has been taken over by a synonymous newet term. Or, a region, state…

� (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paine Ellsworth is probably the best person to assess this request. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Godsy, and to �, it's  done.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  20:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:R_from_historic_name&oldid=1235364323"