 | Template:R to anchor is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should be proposed here first. 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. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here. |
 | Redirect Template‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Note: Any changes made to this template's content needs to be checked as workable in the tables on the references which include it directly: |
Discussion[edit]
Please review Talk:NetWare#Purpose: R to anchor for a discussion about this rcat. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 00:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I added a proposal to drop unprintworthiness from ((R to anchor)) and two proposals for new Rcats ((R to alternative section anchor)) to distinguish "free" anchors from alternative anchors nearby section headings in order to ease maintenance as well as ((R to potential anchor)) or ((R to anchor with possibilities)) for targeted links with possibilities.
- --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- I fully support dropping the unprintworthiness. Often, these redirects are created for subjects that don't have enough material or notability to get their own article, but that doesn't make the link useless. To me, there's an implication of inherent printworthiness if someone took the time to create an anchor, exactly the opposite of what this template is currently presuming. I also don't think that anchor redirects are exact analogues to shortcuts as the documentation states, as often they are actual words or phrases—not made up abbreviations. —Ost (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- There is a reason for the default "unprintworthy" category sort found in this template. The majority of anchors, such as those made for software metadata redirects for links from images, are unprintworthy. In fact, most anchors are unprintworthy (if they were printworthy, they might have a section, rather than just an anchor, to which to be linked). The fact that there are printworthy anchors is shown by the ability of this template to be changed to sort to the printworthy category by use of a parameter. So rather than remove this useful printworthiness default, why not just use the parameter for those occasional printworthy anchor redirects? – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 05:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- I was not aware of metadata redirects, but if they're prevalent and inherently different than editor-inserted anchors, perhaps there should be a separate classification for one or both types. Editors choose anchors for a variety of a reasons when a section is suitable, including linking to list entries or covering related terms. For me, ((Redr)) is a reason that ((R to anchor))'s default is annoying; anchored redirects may have a secondary categorization, so ((Redr)) would seem like a good fit to an inexperienced editor. With the default, that automatically makes the redirect unprintworthy with no regard for the other categories, and no way to flag it as printworthy without instead invoking the individual templates. —Ost (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, that has been changed recently with the addition of the
|p#=parameter, which allows the same change that using ((R to anchor)) individually has. For example:
- Actually, that has been changed recently with the addition of the
- I was not aware of metadata redirects, but if they're prevalent and inherently different than editor-inserted anchors, perhaps there should be a separate classification for one or both types. Editors choose anchors for a variety of a reasons when a section is suitable, including linking to list entries or covering related terms. For me, ((Redr)) is a reason that ((R to anchor))'s default is annoying; anchored redirects may have a secondary categorization, so ((Redr)) would seem like a good fit to an inexperienced editor. With the default, that automatically makes the redirect unprintworthy with no regard for the other categories, and no way to flag it as printworthy without instead invoking the individual templates. —Ost (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- There is a reason for the default "unprintworthy" category sort found in this template. The majority of anchors, such as those made for software metadata redirects for links from images, are unprintworthy. In fact, most anchors are unprintworthy (if they were printworthy, they might have a section, rather than just an anchor, to which to be linked). The fact that there are printworthy anchors is shown by the ability of this template to be changed to sort to the printworthy category by use of a parameter. So rather than remove this useful printworthiness default, why not just use the parameter for those occasional printworthy anchor redirects? – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 05:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- I fully support dropping the unprintworthiness. Often, these redirects are created for subjects that don't have enough material or notability to get their own article, but that doesn't make the link useless. To me, there's an implication of inherent printworthiness if someone took the time to create an anchor, exactly the opposite of what this template is currently presuming. I also don't think that anchor redirects are exact analogues to shortcuts as the documentation states, as often they are actual words or phrases—not made up abbreviations. —Ost (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
((Redr|from file metadata link|to anchor|p2=printworthy|printworthy))
- That sorts the redirect to Category:Printworthy redirects and subdues the sort to the Unprintworthy category. That addition is so recent that there are probably many editors who are as yet unaware of it. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 17:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for that info; that improvement dispels my concerns about usability. There may be merit in separate categories, but I'm less concerned if editors can readily disable defaults. —Ost (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's a pleasure, Ost! Most rcats do not default to either printworthy or unprintworthy. And not all of the ones that do are readily disabled, as seen in the alphabetical index of rcats. If you come across one that is a "hard" default that you think should be softened so that it can be disabled, just let me know either on my talk page or the talk page of the rcat (I watch all of these). Joys! – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 15:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for that info; that improvement dispels my concerns about usability. There may be merit in separate categories, but I'm less concerned if editors can readily disable defaults. —Ost (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- That sorts the redirect to Category:Printworthy redirects and subdues the sort to the Unprintworthy category. That addition is so recent that there are probably many editors who are as yet unaware of it. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 17:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I am totally confused about what I need to do to make the ((Redirect to anchor)) work correctly. I added ((anchor)) piped with Laguna Canyon Foundation in the Laguna Coast Wilderness Park#Laguna Canyon Foundation section.
And on the redirect page Laguna Canyon Foundation added ((redirect to anchor|Laguna Coast Wilderness Park#Laguna Canyon Foundation)) (I also tried just Laguna Canyon Foundation and not having a variable), but it is displaying messages that seem to mean to me that I made an error.
I sometimes get confused about technical details and it stops me in my tracks. I am having a hard time sorting this out. If you could help me out, it would be much appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth, Ost316, and Matthiaspaul: - I just realized that there hasn't been any activity on this page for some time, so I'm pinging people that have posted on this page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Carole, the anchor was unnecessary, because the section header (of the same title) already worked as anchor. The anchor template is only necessary to embed anchors not matching section headers. Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Yep, thanks, Matthiaspaul, for making the adjustments!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
"Template:R from plausible term/doc" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:R from plausible term/doc. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 16#Template:R from plausible term/doc until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 1 October 2021[edit]
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add "a ((visible anchor|(anchor text))) template" after the mention of ((anchor)). Since May 2021 this template has distinct behavior where the text is highlighted when the anchor is used; I think this justifies a mention separate from ((anchor)). (I've also added a note about it on Help:Link#Specifics.) --Pokechu22 (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
