Talk:🔞

Redirect

 * Redirect to List of age restrictions? --Error (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Rcats on soft redirects
I notice you've restored the redirect categories – these shouldn't be used on soft redirects per both WP:RCAT: Soft redirects usually should not be categorized by rcats. Use of Soft redirect with Wikidata item and R category with possibilities to tag soft-redirected categories are presently the only exceptions. and WP:SOFTREDIR: Do not put redirect categorization templates on soft redirects (R category with possibilities and Wikidata redirect are exceptions). Tollens (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * This discussion was already had. There is no actual reason why these types of redirects should not have categories. Please find an explanation other than that piece of incorrect and outdated text which itself has no rational. Gonnym (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not aware of a discussion about this? I don't see any other soft redirects not following these guidelines. If you'd like to change the guidelines, feel free to propose that change. This clearly isn't just something someone forgot to remove from a guideline page – it's everywhere. See, for example, the documentation page for the first template (or any other similar template's documentation), which begins with a header stating not to tag soft redirects with it, or WikiProject Redirect's style guide (which I'm aware is just an essay), which states Do not substitute redirect templates, nor should they ever be used on soft redirects. Tollens (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As someone who works a lot in template space, I can tell you that when templates seem like they are a copy/paste of another template, they are. Basically most of the documentation of any redirect template is a copy page of another one, including any errors and outdated information. At one point, this information have been correct but no one has ever bothered going over 100s of templates and fixing these. Regarding the discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Redirect/Archive_6. But again, just ask yourself, what does it serve to remove these categories? If you can't find a reason, that is a red flag that maybe there isn't. Gonnym (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It makes perfect sense to me – soft redirects are intended to be viewed by readers, while rcat templates are very much not. There is no reason for a reader to see any of the information displayed within that box. I could absolutely get behind manually categorizing the redirects without the template, though. Again, if you want the guideline changed you should propose doing so – others are almost certain to remove the templates again while they are in direct opposition to what appears an established guideline. Tollens (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect templates are obviously meant to be seen by readers, which is why they have text in them. Anyways, I see we aren't getting anywhere here so just to calm you need of any "guideline", take these pieces of text:
 * From your own WP:RCAT:Soft redirects usually should not be categorized by rcats - see the word usually. Not "always".
 * From WP:IAR (a policy): If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
 * I hope this helps you. Gonnym (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. Rcats are meant to be seen by editors of Wikipedia, not those who are purely intending to read it. Someone only intending to read Wikipedia clearly doesn't need to know that When appropriate, protection levels are automatically sensed, described and categorized., or that R from Unicode character shouldn't be used for multiple-character emoji sequences, such as skin tone variants or national flags. I would argue that placing intrusive tags of little to no use to a reader does not qualify as "improving Wikipedia", and that maintenance can be just as easily accomplished by categorizing the redirect without the templates. As for the "usually" in WP:RCAT, this clearly refers to the two exceptions mentioned in the next sentence, which also explicitly states that they are the only exceptions. Tollens (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Mind if I request a third opinion? Tollens (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * sure. Gonnym (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: I agree with @Tollens. The RCAT guidelines are quite clear, and there are only two recognized exceptions right now. I don't see a compelling reason to IAR here, and I agree that the appropriate action to take here is to start a discussion about amending the guideline. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Gonnym? Tollens (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've placed a notice at an actually relevant noticeboard. Gonnym (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * (from WT:RE) On the face of it, I think I’d agree that rcats shouldn’t be used on soft redirects. However, I don’t think this talk page may be the best place to hold a discussion on potentially amending the guideline - if/when such a discussion is held, I imagine it’d be best to take place in a more centralized location.In the meantime, though, I would support removing the rcat templates from this redirect; as per the third opinion and the current rcat guidelines.Best, user:  A smart kitten meow  12:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The reason for refraining from using most rcat templates on soft redirects is admittedly somewhat vague and well-rooted in a sort of WP "antiquity". It stems from tests made back when the Redirect template first began to be used as a meta inside rcat templates. It was found to lead to "unstable" results on soft redirects during tests. So to this day, the exceptional rcat templates that are used to sort category redirects with possibilities and soft WD redirects do not use the Redirect (meta) template, and those rcat templates that do use the meta template are not used on soft redirects. This is binding and not arbitrary. If other sorts are wanted on soft redirects, just make category links such as, and so on.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 15:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the templates with category links. Tollens (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)