Template talk:R from file metadata link

Request for documentation inclusion instead of text with links
Dear administrators, as it was agreed at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Redirect pages, links from redirect templates to zero namespace are to be removed as creating ambiguity for toolserver scripts on where the redirect points to. I've moved the text from template to /doc subpage, so could someone please remove all visible content from template page and add instead? Mashiah (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Text that was removed
 This template  lost it's text with  this edit . The text does become visible when a redirect is deactivated for discussion at Rfd, which can be very helpful, and there are two bug reports, ' and ' that are still trying to get the text on redirects activated so that newer contributors will be less confused about a given redirect. Other Rcats have text on them for these reasons. May we please return the text (without links as per above) to this Rcat?
 * please modify this...


 * to this...

&amp;nbsp;

This is a redirect of a wikilink created from JPEG Exchangeable image file format (EXIF) information (i.e. the "metadata" section on some image description pages). Since MediaWiki offers only very limited control over the target of these camera-generated wikilinks, redirects like this are created to make the wikilinks useful.

WARNING: It might appear that no pages link to this redirect. This is because the EXIF links don't show up in these listings. This redirect is most probably not orphaned!

Thank you in advance for your consideration! –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 21:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

See also Template talk:R from duplicated article for a recent and similar edit request. –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 23:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 March 2014
Hi, the name of the category "Redirects from EXIF information" was recently changed to "Redirects from Exif information", and parts of the template updated accordingly. However, there are still two more occurances of "EXIF" remaining, which need to be changed to "Exif" as well. Thanks.

Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done and tested with a WP:NULLEDIT to -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirects
Please replace the instances of Exif with Exif. Thanks, —capmo (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 04:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This edit has been undone per WP:NOTBROKEN. In this case this edit inserted unnecessary text into the code page and made it harder to read.  If the redirect were broken, then this edit would make sense; however, the redirect is not broken. – Paine EllsworthC LIMAX ! 17:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK thanks, — xaosflux  Talk 18:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, but what about WP:BRINT? —capmo (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't get the question. What part of BRINT does the redirect violate? – Paine EllsworthC LIMAX ! 23:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * &larr;

Belated reply, to clarify for future readers: I agree with Paine Ellsworth that no guideline is was violated here, if only because BRINT stands for "Bypass redirects in navigational templates." I am unaware of any reason (or previous discussion) that Rcat templates should be considered navigational templates.

If I am wrong, please feel free to explain. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct, and BRINT would apply to navbars and sidebars, which actually are navigational templates. Redirects should be bypassed in those, because a redirect will appear as a blue link when the navbar is used in a specific article instead of being highlighted and emphasized in boldface type, which is the purpose of the navbar and which would be the case if the redirect were to be bypassed and a direct link were to be used instead.   Paine   u/ c  02:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is moot anyway, because Exif is no longer a redirect (i.e., the redirect in question was reversed). --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Unprintworthy
If we generally consider redirects that need this Rcat to be unprintworthy, as the documentation seems to suggest, why doesn't this template add the unprintworthy category itself rather than requiring it to be applied separately?

Is there ever a circumstance where such a redirect would be considered printworthy? If so, would there need to be a parameter for printability override? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have not come across one of these that would be suitable for a printed version of Wikipedia, so redirects are added to automatically.  The only reason to add R unprintworthy to the redirect is to get the text on the page.  With or without the unprintworthy rcat and text, the redirect will still be added to the Unprintworthy redirects category.   Paine   u/ c  02:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was hinting at the convention I saw with other Rcats like, which add the unprintworthy category themselves. The only reason I haven't boldly requested changes is laziness; it is not because I had doubts. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you've lost me, because this rcat, R from file metadata link adds the unprintworthy category in the same manner as R from other capitalisation.  Paine   u/ c  10:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My mistake; that didn't seem to be the case when I originally posted. I messed up by not doing my research (i.e. viewing source of the template) and thus made this post predicated on incorrect facts. I must have seen a specific file page that didn't seem correctly categorized as unprintworthy (due to a temporary glitch?), but I currently have no idea which one. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've made far worse mistakes. You may have encountered a redirect that was tagged both printworthy and unprintworthy because an editor forgot or didn't know how to circumvent one of them.  There are still a few of those out there.   Paine   u/ c  15:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 December 2020
Please change no to  &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: should insert here that the code used to give the "printworthy" option to an rcat is printworthy.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 19:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Should this be overridable? Ping maybe, for thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you very much, PR! and thank you both for helping with redirect categorization! This redirect categorization template (rcat) has categorized redirects to the category for a long time. I would like to see some examples of these redirects that would be considered suitable for a printed version of Wikipedia (printworthy). I've never come across one that I would tag as printworthy.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 00:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a very rare occurrence when a metadata link outputs something that can also be considered printworthy, but I would say the following would be good examples:, , , and . &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * okay, that answers the question "what?", but it doesn't touch on "why?" There are 1251 members of that have always been tagged as unprintworthy. Why are redirects like the ones you show above suitable for a printed version over all or most or the vast majority of the other 1000+ redirects in the category? Editors will need a way to tell the difference and to adjudge printworthiness, a way that can be added to the documentation in a clear and usable manner.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 14:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My criteria for judging whether we should override the printworthy parameter is that if a redirect would have been made regardless of it being a R from file metadata link, then it probably is printworthy. What I mean to say is, for example, PowerShot is a printworhty R from short name, and the fact it is an is rather incidental. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you mean. How would you word an instruction to other editors that could be included in the documentation? It has to be crystal clear because some editors who want to WikiGnome it and categorize redirects are very new to Wikipedia.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 19:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: request disabled. If there is consensus for this change, please reactivate &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

✅; this capability has been employed and I've updated the documentation. Thank you all very much, and you have our best wishes for the holiday season!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 16:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you!! :D &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on this type of redirect taking place at Administrators' noticeboard
There is a discussion going on at Administrators' noticeboard regarding this type of redirect. I requested an admin make a redirect that I could not because it had a url in the name, and I am being met with a surprising amount of opposition and even one call to delete all existing redirects from file metadata links (1277 total as of now). I am truly surprised at this and don't understand the reason why there is so much push-back for what I thought was an innocuous request to make a harmless and helpful redirect. If anyone has an opinion on this type of redirect, please weigh in on this discussion there. Thanks. -- Yarnalgo talk 17:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed out on this one, I'm actually dealing with a successfully deleted redirect right now at WP:DRV (see below). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

DRV Discussion of a deleted redirect that may be relevant readers here
Please see Deletion review/Log/2023 February 19. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)