Template talk:R from non-neutral name

Printworthiness
This template categorizes redirects as unprintworthy. What is the policy-based argument for that?

The text of the template says, "It is not necessary to replace these redirected links with piped links," which would normally imply no claim of (un)printworthiness. Most unprintworthy RCATs instead say that the redirects should be fixed in any circumstance where the article is not discussing the special meaning or significance of the redirected title itself. Is there a good reason for this inconsistency?

Is it worth adding a printworthiness override? Some redirects of this type could be printworthy, if the non-neutral name differed from the neutral name in a way that substantially changes lexicographic sorting position ("Bar foo sucks" → "Foo bar controversies") or is otherwise not obvious to a reader inexperienced with the topic. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * In the creation edit, the editor just copied the old text over from another rcat and didn't remove or alter the piped link sentence. Good catch, SoledadKabocha, and that has been fixed.  As for "unprintworthy", when the template was converted back in December, I had tagged several redirects with it and had always tagged the redirects with R unprintworthy as well.  So I naturally went to no at the conversion.  I've never come across one of these that I would consider suitable for a printed version, so if you can actually come up with an existing redirect that is or should be tagged with this rcat and that you would consider printworthy, then we could go from there? – Paine  00:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For an example to challenge the assumption of unprintworthiness, the first thing that came to my mind was &rarr; List of U.S. presidential campaign slogans . It's not yet categorized with , and I just want to check that it is reasonable to add such. I'm not 100% sure that it's printworthy either, but I believe at least that it is "not unprintworthy."
 * It looks like you wrote on the template, "These redirected links should be replaced with links that go directly to the target page," without describing any specific exceptions. I know editors are supposed to infer from WP:IAR that exceptions are possible at all, but should we mention the case where an article is specifically discussing the etymology/origin of the non-neutral name? (I have no example handy of this right now.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion, SoledadKabocha, it is important to decide whether or not a redirect should be considered suitable for a printed version. I can appreciate your opinion about the Nobama redirect, that while it isn't necessarily suitable, it's also not necessarily unsuitable.  In a case like this I would probably rely on the target, which leads me to see the redirect as suitable, because as a part of the pres. campaign it might be considered POV if it isn't included in a printed version.  It is definitely a non-neutral name, so this appears to be a good example of a non-neutral name that would be suitable for a printed version.  I'll go ahead and make this a "soft unprintable" rcat (one that defaults to unprintworthy and can be changed with a parameter).
 * That is a good idea to mention possible exceptions such as the one you describe. The documentation would probably be the best place to expose the exceptions.  Joys! – Paine  03:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"Template:R from slang" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:R from slang. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)