Template talk:R printworthy

Please explain
What is the point of this template? The page does not explain what it does so all I can gather from it is it adds Category:Printworthy redirects. Why do we need a template to add a category? Isn't it much easier just to add the category? McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Main namespace
The R unprintworthy template has long been set to be used only in the Main article namespace by using the Main other template. To standardize this template with the R unprintworthy template, I added the Main other template to this template. – PIE  (  C LIMAX   )  18:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirects not marked as unprintworthy
This gives redirects four options: My suggestion is to get rid of printworthy template, mark redirects as unprintworthy if they are, and assume unmarked redirects are printworthy. Currently I don't know what (1) and (4) means. --JBrown23 (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Marked both as unprintworthy and printworthy
 * 2) Marked as unprintworthy only
 * 3) Marked as printworthy only
 * 4) Marked as neither

"Use" how in a print encyclopedia?
I don't understand the intended purpose of this template. It says things like "a title that would be helpful in a printed or CD/DVD version of Wikipedia" but what does that mean? How would the redirect be used in a printed encyclopedia? I supposed I've always imagined that it's something that should appear in the index of the printed copy which then points to the redirect target. Otherwise I'm not sure how I'd be used. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, that is how I've envisioned it, although only limited versions have been released on CDs. CDs and DVDs that have a linking capability would use redirects in much the same way as here online.  If the reader types a word into a search engine, and the word is actually a redirect, it will take them to the target article.  The intended purpose, then, of this rcat and of R unprintworthy is to help the team that puts the offline versions together to determine which redirects are to be included.   Paine   u/ c  05:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how they envisioned that in a CD/DVD version but that is a moot point anyway because the whole concept has clearly become obsolete together with the laser disks. As for the print version, there are indeed certain limitations that would prevent cluttering of the navigation indexes with all the redirects that exist. However, as of 2022 the WP 1.0 project only manages the Content assessment and does nothing about a hypothetical printed version for about a decade (see Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia 1.0), and the explanations on affiliated redirect templates are all obsolete and confusing, sadly. Anyway, even putting aside the print, I believe a way of distinguishing "full rights" redirects from simple ones may be useful, e. g., for neural networks collecting knowledge databases (or will it actually be just a huge table of NN weights?) in the future. Ain92 (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)