Template talk:R from incorrect punctuation
![]() | This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • Template:R from misspelling Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Template talk:R from misspelling |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Edit summary January 3
[edit]I meant: Nothing should link to redirects which are "incorrect punctuation". Christian75 (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Should not redirect to R from modification
[edit]@SMcCandlish, Paine Ellsworth, and Christian75: This template should redirect to Template:R from misspelling (incorrect spelling). So the established pattern is to differentiate between alternative and incorrect, with the "unprintworthy-ness" of the incorrect redirect being an important distinction.
Senator2029 “Talk” 23:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that template:R from incorrect punctuation should redirect to a "R from incorrect" ... I was reverted by Paine Ellsworth with the argument that it "broke a lot of redirects" when I tried to retarget the redirect - but I do not know what it broke (it wasn't a double redirect). Christian75 (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- I suppose I've been going with the editors who created some of these and what they originally intended. They seem to have promoted a distinction between "spelling" and "punctuation/hyphenation". A redirect like New Yrok is a misspelling; however, a redirect that is a modification of punctuation/hyphenation, such as New York-Pennsylvania border is more generally a "modification", definitely not a misspelling. So that's why I revert these by saying that all those many redirects have been "broken". I don't see them as "misspellings", I see them as "modifications", just as the originators intended. So if the equating of "misspellings" and "mis-punctuations" can be justified, then the originators and I could be wrong. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 13:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- I !vote for the distinction between alternative/option and incorrect/mistake. That's more important than a distinction between whether the change is alphabetic or non-alphabetic. Most of our punctuation-related rcats redirect to "modification" anyway, so there's no alpha/non-alpha distinction being consistently made anyway. I created some of the incorrect-labeled ones, specifically to distinguish between printworthy and leave alone versus unprintworthy and categorize for cleanup. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
PS: I would propose a maint. category structure of incorrect spelling/misspelling at the top, with subcats incorrect capitalization/miscapitalization and incorrect punctuation, the latter with a subcat of incorrect hyphenation. Or that last could upmerge to incorrect punctuation if we don't care to be so specific. I'm in favor of more specificity because these templates and internal cats. are "cheap". (Unlike this cat, which is very, very expensive.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
So let's come to a conclusion here. It's okay to have this template point to {{R from misspelling}} instead of {{R from modification}}? Senator2029 “Talk” 07:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)