Template talk:R to section

message: Please review Talk:NetWare#Purpose: R to anchor for a discussion about the exact meaning of  and a proposal to add  to distinguish "free" anchors from alternative anchors nearby section headings in order to ease maintenance.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exact semantics of R to section. Proposal to add R to alternative section anchor 

message: I respectfully disagree with your recent revert.  The phrase "click here" as link text may be in common use, but for both stylistic and user accessibility reasons it is not recommended by organizations such as W3C (Don't use "click here" as link text), National Institute on Aging (Making Your Website Senior Friendly), Microsoft (Creating accessible Word documents (subsection: Use hyperlink text that is meaningful)), the American Foundation for the Blind (How to Make Your Blog Accessible to Blind Readers), Penn State (Accessibility and Usability at Penn State: Microsoft Word Tips), WebAIM (Introduction to Web Accessibility), the Nielsen Norman Group (Accessible Design for Users With Disabilities), UX Movement (Why Your Links Should Never Say “Click Here”) and others (see also Mystery meat navigation). This link phrase is also now discouraged by Google's indexing algorithms as noted by Wordtracker (7 top tips to avoid a Google Penguin penalty in 2014) and Powered By Search (7 Types of Anchor Text You Can Use to Avoid a Google Flag). Using the phrase is unprofessional and lazy, especially when the sentence can be easily rewritten to use a more contextually accurate link text. Slambo (Speak) 20:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it's not specifically mentioned in a WP style guide that I could find today, WP:LINKCLARITY notes that the link text should "correspond to the term showing as the link as closely as possible given the context."  My interpretation of this statement is that "click here" is discouraged because it does not indicate where the link will lead. Slambo (Speak) 20:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What about “List of templates that redirect here”? Personally I hate vague links like “several templates” so much that I would say the “click here” cliché is actually clearer in this case, although still undesirable. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 21:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Thank you.  That wording or the phrase proposed above is much more clear.  I wasn't aware that the same text was used on all the redirect template documentation pages, which was originally noted as part of the reason for the revert.  I can help out with updating other pages as well (I'm assuming it's the doc pages listed under :Category:Redirect templates and its subcategories).  Slambo (Speak) 17:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's great of you to want to help; thank you very much!  There were other tweaks that were needed, so I went ahead and updated most of them (killed up to ten birds with one stone).  If you come across an rcat I've missed, feel free to make it consistent with the others. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 23:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding "click here" 

message: As the heading says, should this template really be used on every single page that redirects to a section of another? I'm questioning this because many of those aren't really from specific subjects or already have another redirect category that often already states that it can be used for redirects to sections, making this template reduntant in certain cases, such as with Template:R from incomplete disambiguation (see :Category:Redirects from incomplete disambiguations for examples). The reason I disagree with this usage is because the description in R to section (and on its page) make it pretty clear that it is only for subjects that could have their own articles, but are only described in a related "parent" article due to a lack of notability/other reasons (examples being Barron Trump and Weavel); it is not to be put on redirects that are not from real subjects and don't lead to sections that describe, such . Likewise, you don't put Template:R to disambiguation page on every redirect to a disambiguation page. I'd say this applies to redirects that are both tagged with R to section and Template:R to list entry as well, since that's reduntant. Any thoughts? Geolodus (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you've reverted some of my recent additions of  on pages that already had , so I reread the documentation .  Could you please quote where you see the description you've mentioned above?  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not in the template's documentation; I'm simply going off the fact that :Category:Redirects to sections is a subcategory of :Category:Redirects from subtopics, which creates issues considering that they are then assumed to be, well, topics. Redirects from incomplete disambiguations are clearly not. Geolodus (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

text: Besides, there's nothing that says this redirect category should be used so liberally. Geolodus (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this really be used on ''all'' redirects to sections?

message: Change:
This is a redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to a section of a page on the subject.
to:
This is a redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to a Section of a page on the subject. For anchors not associated with section headers, use  instead.
Reason:
to be clear that the word "section" here is not just a synonym for "part"
– see Category talk:Redirects to sections#Are  and  intended to be mutually exclusive?
Jim Craigie (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , well mostly. I also linked to an explanation of "embedded anchors", and I left out the part about not being associated with section headers, because as I explained on the category talk page, sometimes anchors are found within section headers. Thank you very much for your help! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 23:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 9 November 2020 

message: How to use a magic word to redirect to a section?.
For example, 
#redirect 
to go to the section of the current year in the UNCCC article?:
United Nations Climate Change conference#2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoldLuis (talk • contribs) 11:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Year