Template talk:R from synonym

Requested move 28 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Nomination withdrawn — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Template:R from synonym → ? – The current title of this template does not clarify that it refers to the subject of Synonym (taxonomy) and not the subject of Synonym. In fact, I just corrected a few incorrect uses of this template. For this reason, it's probably best to rename this template in a manner to specify that it refers to Synonym (taxonomy) and replace the contents of Template:R from synonym with an error landing page, similar to the current states of Template:OTRS, Template:R from real name and Template:Cc-by. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The description of the template should be changed too. It just says its "a redirect from a synonym of the target page title" and nothing about taxonomy of organisms only. Christian75 (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC) (I see now, that synonym redirects to synonym (taxonomy) but thats not obviously). Christian75 (talk)

(Pinging editors who have participated in related discussions at WP:RFD: Tavix, Deryck Chan, BDD, Patar knight, Paine Ellsworth & Notecardforfree. Steel1943 (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC))

• Comment. Thank you, Steel1943, for your echo. I'd like Plantdrew and Peter coxhead to look at this, too. Not sure if the original purpose for this rcat was scientific or semantics, so asking its creator, Rory096, to come and look, as well. That was 11 years ago, and then about 5 years ago, editor Bwrs created {{R from antonym}} (as complementary?). This definitely needs refinement; however, I'm not sure which is the best way to go, so I'll wait to hear what others think.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  03:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This template has been on my watchlist, but thanks for the ping. I don't know what the original purpose was when this template was created in 2006, but by the time (in 2015) Paine added a specification that it applied to scientific names, it was indeed mostly used for synonymous scientific names. {{R from alternative scientific name}} was created more recently but is more precise and far more frequently used (~63k transclusions vs. ~3k) than this template. Most of the redirects with this template would be batter categorized with the alternative scientific name template. But I'm not willing to commit to the amount of work involved in switching over myself.

I've been mulling over applying for template editor status. One thing I'd like to do with that permission is adding more switch parameters to {{R from alternative scientific name}} in order to support categories corresponding to the various WP:TOL subprojects. Most of the scientific name redirects using this template were tagged by @Stemonitis: and many could take a |arthropod= or |crustacean= if those values were supported by {{R from alternative scientific name}}. Plantdrew (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

As Plantdrew writes, this template should not be used for taxonomic synonyms; this is the purpose of {{R from alternative scientific name}}. The main reason for preferring the latter is that "synonym" has a precise meaning in the nomenclature codes, so some "alternative scientific names" aren't "taxonomic synonyms" but invalid names, typographic variants (i.e. misspellings), mis-applied names, etc. Since readers don't care about these subtleties when searching, it's not helpful to try to distinguish between them, but putting them all under "synonym" isn't acceptable to editors sensitive to taxonomic issues.

So any biological names tagged with "R from synonym" should be re-tagged "R from alternative scientific name".

I also agree with Plantdrew that more subcategories should be added to the latter. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that Mclay1 is the real creator here per this 2011 edit — before that it was just a redirect to Template:R from alternative name (as Patar knight suggests below). I don't really have any opinion on the taxonomy/semantics question (nor can I remember why I made the redirect in the first place). Probably a question better suited to those who used it since 2011. --Rory096 17:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, well it was being used for scientific names while it was still a redirect (e.g here) Plantdrew (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Maybe this should just be redirected to {{R from alternate name}}? That's what a synonym is after all. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support I neglected to address the move in my previous comment. I do think it would be best to treat this like {{R from real name}} for now, with links for (at least) {{R from alternative name}} and {{R from alternative scientific name}}. Once the scientific name are switched over to the other rcat template, this could be retargetted to {{R from alternative name}}. Plantdrew (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Plantdrew's proposal that this template is marked as deprecated now, like {{R from real name}}, at least until the biological names are switched to {{R from alternative scientific name}}. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• I'm personally guilty of making this mistake. Support change. Both Christian75 and Plantdrew's proposals are fine by me. Deryck C. 23:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• I don't remember my exact original intentions since it was so long ago, but it seems clear from what I wrote that it was actually intended for the broad common meaning of synonym rather than the biological one. I agree that the taxonomy redirects should use the other template. However, I don't think this template should be re-purposed from what I originally intended. It's useful for things like Joy → Happiness (that's not a real example). Unless people think that "alternative name" can be used in that context. M.Clay1 (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this template is useful when used for the "broad common meaning of synonym". The documentation should say clearly that it is NOT to be used for taxonomic synonyms. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Nominator comment: At this point, I am in agreement with Plantdrew, and the best solution may be to convert this template to an error page, listing possible intended templates to be {{R from alternative name}} and {{R from alternative scientific name}}. In fact, at this point, I don't see the solution to the problem here to be moving this page since the aforementioned templates seem to cover both possible uses of {{R from synonym}}. Everyone okay if I withdraw the move request? Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine with me. I've begun switching the scientific names over to the more appropriate template. It should take me a week or two to complete that. Plantdrew (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merging categories?

I arrive here after the above RM discussion closed, having been unaware of it. This was brought to my attention because of the {{error}} message that the template now transcludes.

I just want to clarify that the decision here was to merge Category:Redirects from synonyms into Category:Redirects from alternative names? I suppose this makes sense, as there seems to be no clear distinction between the two. I suppose it makes sense for Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names to be a subcategory of Category:Redirects from alternative names.

Note that there are over 2200 transclusions of this and that an editor was recently taken to ArbCom for, among other transgressions, bypassing template redirects. Changing 2200 {{R from synonym}}s to {{R from alternative name}}s seems to me like a whole lot of cosmetic editing. Why not just diffuse the few that belong in the Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names sub-category? – wbm1058 (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Yeah, I am in the process of working out the next steps to make this page a landing page of sorts. On a related note, I'm working on a template that will throw pages with what has been determined to be a transclusion of an ambiguous name (usually in the "Template:" namespace) into some sort of maintenance category separate of transclusions of Template:Error (I recall that we've had such a conversation in the past) that could need cleanup: See Template:Ambiguous template name, my start to doing so. Either way, I'll revert my edits on this page for now until this gets worked out. Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way, could you provide a link to the aforementioned ArbCom discussion? I'm curious to see what happened and the resolution achieved based on the evidence of the issue provided. Steel1943 (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: It's not a "few" that are alternative scientific names, it's the majority (and that's not counting the 500+ that have been switched in the last few days). I'm not excited about working on changing the ones that are synonyms in the linguistic sense. What I was trying to propose during the move discussion was marking this as deprecated until the scientific names had been cleared, then retargetting to {{R from alternative name}} (leaving linguistic synonyms using this template). However, I didn't realize that deprecation made Category:Redirects from synonyms empty out. I was finding it far easier to work on these redirects by going through the category rather than via "What links here". Steel1943, thanks for restoring it to a state that will keep the category populated. I'll keep chipping away at the scientific names while you figure out the best solution for this template in the long term. Plantdrew (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that is what we had agreed: clear out the majority that are alternative scientific names, then make this R cat an alias of {{R from alternative name}}. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with that due to the confusion that happened with this template being used for taxonomic synonym redirects: If it happened in the past, it's bound to happen again. That's why I thought converting this template to an error landing page was the preferred option. Steel1943 (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a significant risk of it happening again. Most of the taxonomic synonyms had this template added before a dedicated template for taxonomic synonyms existed. I know I learn which rcat templates are appropriate by looking at which templates are used on similar redirects. At this point, {{R from alternative scientific name}} is far more frequently used and likely to be encountered by somebody trying to learn which template is appropriate. Clear out the remaining taxonomic synonyms using this template, and I don't think anybody will spontaneously pick {{R from synonym}} as the appropriate template for taxonomic synonyms if there are no other examples suggesting that usage is appropriate. Plantdrew (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't fully agree that "it won't happen again" since it has already happened at least once. That, and if this template is redirected to {{R from alternative name}}, there will be issues for those trying to find {{R from alternative scientific name}}. For example, let's say that an editor transcludes {{R from synonym}} after its redirected to {{R from alternative name}}, but the editor is trying to locate the Rcat now represented by {{R from alternative scientific name}}. This editor would have no guidance to figure out how to do that since transclusions of {{R from synonym}} don't reference any leads towards {{R from alternative scientific name}}. Maybe {{R from alternative name}} will have to be updated to direct editors to use {{R from alternative scientific name}} in the event that {{R from alternative name}} is transcluded incorrectly. In the interim, until a decision is made in this, I'm okay with the "redirect {{R from synonym}} to {{R from alternative name}}" change referenced above, but I may end up taking {{R from synonym}} to WP:RFD afterwards if I still believe there are issues with the title's ambiguity (which I still do right now) to former further consensus on the landing page option. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the arbitration case that I was referring to. An update to the "cosmetic bot editing" policy is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#WP:COSMETICBOT update. There are 88 redirects to Template:R from alternative name. For example, an edit that simply bypasses the {{R other}} redirect is considered a "cosmetic edit", and such edits are frowned upon, when done en-masse. If the ultimate goal is for {{R from synonym}} to be the 89th redirect to Template:R from alternative name, then there is no need to make all of these edits. There is nothing inherently wrong with the tag on a page like Slabberina agata – it's just not as precise as it could be. These shouldn't be that hard to pick out and change. As it would be easy to change to another sub-cat such as {{R comics from alternative name}} – wbm1058 (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

All of the 88 redirects to Template:R from alternative name are equally ambiguous, what's special about {{R from synonym}}? There are many other subcategories of Category:Redirects from alternative names; why single this template out for special attention that we don't give to {{R from manufacturer's designation}} or {{R from railroad name with ampersand}}? Is there a template equivalent of Template:Category diffuse? Template:Template diffuse? wbm1058 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this template is one of my "vodka templates". I've been wanting to do something with it for a long time; however, it was on the back burner. As with other instances of back-burner non-work, it's come around to bite me on the ass, much like vodka can do. This template, unlike the ones you mention, is an ambiguously applied template that has needed the work that is presently going on for a long time. Plantdrew, who has done a great deal of work on scientific redirects has said it will take a few days to apply the scientific rcat appropriately to the Redirects from synonyms category members, and I for one am very thankful for his willingness to do that. After Plantdrew's work is done, I will be fine with whatever editors decide to do with this rcat, and yet I see Steel1943's plan as the best choice. That should keep incorrect future usage to zero.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to show a distinction between this rcat and {{R from alternative name}}. It appears to me that the latter has a much wider scope. Following are examples of alt names that are not semantic synonyms:

• Jove → Jupiter
• Luna → Moon
• Selene → Moon
• "Bazooka" Burns → Bob Burns
• Kebessa → Tigrinyas
• Waiting Women → Secrets of Women

and so on, and so on.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  23:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: I've completed a first pass through the scientific names. Down from 2900 redirects using this template to just over 1000. There are still several hundred scientific names that I don't feel comfortable tagging with {{R from alternative scientific name}} which purports to be targeting "the accepted scientific name". Remaining scientific names with this template target common/vernacular names or are species level names targeting a monotypic genus. You and I have talked about what to do with these before without reaching any (satisfactory to me) conclusions. Leaving these aside for now...

I agree that the examples you've provided aren't really semantic synonyms. What do you have in mind that would be a semantic synonym? Many words are broadly synonyms, but have fine gradations of meaning when parsed more narrowly. Automobile->Car isn't great. Car is the word I almost always use for automobiles (or maybe motor vehicles?), but I also use car to semantically distinguish certain automobiles from those I'd call vans or trucks (and my sense of "truck" includes both personal motor vehicles that I'd sometimes lump in with cars and large commercial motor vehicles that I'd never call cars). Maybe terms that are used in different varieties of English are true semantic synonyms? But there could perhaps be a more specialized category for those? Zucchini/Courgette, Truck/Lorry, Gasoline/Petrol (how does petrol not have an Rcat yet?).

I'm not saying a category for semantic synonyms wouldn't be useful, but I'm not quite sure what would belong there. Leaving aside the remaining scientific names, I think most of the redirects using this template still aren't semantic synonyms. Plantdrew (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

To editor Plantdrew: it may be that the originator of the rcat meant to draw on the definition of synonym in the article, "a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language". So while a word might have other meanings, like "car" might also mean a train car or a trolley car, it is still synonymous with a word like "automobile", and if one of those words redirects to an article about the other word, then it would be correct to sort the redirect to Category:Redirects from synonyms. I use the word "semantic" only to distinguish this type of synonym from the scientific ones. Do you think "linguistic" would be better?

Thank you for the great job you've done with the scientific-name redirects and moving them to the correct category. I've done a few myself, but only those that are obvious to me. There are still some I'd rather leave to you and other editors more expert than I am. Also, the redirect Petrol has been rcatted and sorted, and I was not sure if it should be labeled a "synonym", so I treated it as more of a US/UK English variant and an "alt name".  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I guess my main point is that there's still a bunch of stuff that clearly shouldn't be using this template, while I'm still not entirely sure what should be using it (and not {{R from alternative name}}). Plantdrew (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

And I'm not always entirely sure myself. Take "petrol" for instance. Perhaps that should be tagged with this rcat instead of the alt name rcat? I don't know for sure.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  21:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Late to this party but I too do not see the point of this redirect and its function seems provided by {{R from alternative name}}. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"Template:R slang" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:R slang. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#Template:R slang until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)