Template talk:R unprintworthy

Purpose
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:Unprintworthy redirects. Why do we need a template to add a category? Isn't it much easier just to add the category? McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The meaning of the term "unprintworthy" isn't immediately obvious, especially in the context of categorization. There are links like "see here for the complete explanation" which fail to give even a vague explanation.  I did find the phrase  distinguish "good" redirects from "bad" ones  helpful; others might also. Senator2029 ‖ Talk 01:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Documentation
I've created a documentation page at Template:R unprintworthy/doc. Please reference it on this template page. This is a response to the TfD discussion on this template that made it clear that such a page is needed. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  03:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The edit also seems to have removed categorization from the template. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ and categorization re-added. Hope you're also happy with the move. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Can we reverse the undiscussed rename please. There's a naming convention for these templates for use on redirects as . Even if you don't like it, it shouldn't be changed undiscussed. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, reverted for now. I did propose expanding the R once. There is a general move to use template names in clear English so their purpose is as clear as possible. Therefore I thought it would be uncontroversial. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Clearer" is arguable. These templates are only for use from redirects, and templates other than these aren't generally used from redirects. It's a bit tricky under mediawiki to tell if a page is a redirect or not. You can either check this, which is awkward (although the better option, if you have to do this), or you can add another  namespace, which then gets awkward because you have to make the page renderer accept names from either namespace and use them as if they're from the Main namespace. Besides which, WP supports neither of these. So for "the set of templates for redirect" and "the set of templates for non-redirects", the easiest way to distinguish them is to use the names and let the humans check it.
 * As for renaming, then that would need to be done as a global change (which I can't anyway see the benefit of). Having some redirect templates named  and others named   would be really unhelpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved already, apparently. Non admin closure D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  15:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Unprintworthy redirect → Template:R unprintworthy — It is custom that redirect categories begin with "R". This template was "R Unprintworthy until yesterday when it was moved without discussion.-- D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  15:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template upgrade
 This template  – R unprintworthy – needs to be upgraded to the Redirect template code usage in the same manner as is R printworthy. To illustrate the difference I have two non-Mainspace redirects, one that uses this Unprintworthy Rcat and one that uses the Printworthy Rcat...
 * Unprintworthy redirect
 * Printworthy redirect

The Unprintworthy redirect in my user space does not populate the Category:Unprintworthy redirects, and that is an important aspect. When you look at the Printworthy redirect, you see that it performs a similar task (it keeps the non-Mainspace redirect out of the Printworthy redirects category) and also makes the redirect populate Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace, which informs the editor that the wrong Rcat has been used. In order to upgrade this R unprintworthy Rcat, please  edit the source  as follows:
 * Modify this...


 * to this...

To show that the new code will work as expected, I have placed it in the R unprintworthy/sandbox and have placed that sandbox on a non-Mainspace redirect and a Mainspace shortcut redirect...
 * Userspace redirect
 * Mainspace shortcut redirect

As is seen, my Userspace redirect is still kept out of the Unprintworthy redirects category, and now it also populates the Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace. In addition, the Mainspace shortcut redirect is still correctly sorted into the Unprintworthy redirects category. Thank you in advance for effecting this modification! –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 00:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. Rather than a copy/paste from this talk page, it might be better and easier to copy & paste the code directly from the sandbox . Joys! –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX !
 * Done. I created the testcases page along the way.--Salix (talk): 06:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Salix! –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 06:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Somethings gone odd. I don't see any text appearing in any redirect page. Its not just this template though, seem to affect . I've reverting for now. Any ideas?--Salix (talk): 06:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like no text should appear after the redirect per Help:Redirect. So I'm not quite sure what it actually achieves. Applying anyway.--Salix (talk): 09:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, and I gather that it has something to do with WP:1.0. I agree that it doesn't seem to make much sense to include text on pages that wouldn't be published in an offline compendium, but I suppose there might be some issues here I'm not aware of. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Issues? Oh yes. Text and the special markup of the This is a redirect template should be on redirect pages, and shows this has been an issue for a long time. When that bug was initiated, one could at least see the redirect text on diff pages, but even that doesn't happen anymore. See for that little fiasco. At present, the only time one can see anything like that on a redirect is when it's disabled, such as during an Rfd, for example this redirect. I look forward to a day when there is text on redirects to help newer editors better understand what's going on. –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 15:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

message not displayed when template comes at end of line
When the template appears at the beginning of a document on a line by itself it displays the message "This is a redirect from a title that would not be helpful in print format."

When it is added at the end of a line:


 * 1) REDIRECT Bihar People's Party

the message does not appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rybec (talk • contribs) 22:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a long-term ongoing discussion at 14323. It impacts all of the Rcat templates, not just this one. Unfortunately, putting the template before the redirect isn't a solution because that disables the redirect. See also WP:REDCAT. – Wdchk (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Fix redirect loop
Please apply to this template as well. Petr Matas 20:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've looked at this again, and I wish I had thought of this, Petr! Again, though, this edit should probably wait for the TfD close.  Since the change you made to R printworthy does not affect its function in any way, that can stay as it is for now. –  Paine Ellsworth  C LIMAX ! 23:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oops! (✅) –  Paine   12:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Better redirect parameter
It would be nice to add a parameter (e.g. ) that points to a printworthy redirect that makes this one redundant.

Often when there are very similar redirects to an article (such that they are alphabetically next to each other), it only makes sense to make one of them printworthy and the rest unprintworthy. However, it isn't immediately obvious to future editors visiting these redirects why they're unprintworthy, which might result in them unwittingly switching them to printworthy.

The text in the template with the parameter used could be rendered e.g. like so:

"This is a redirect from a title that is too similar to ((other redirect)), a printworthy redirect to the same page, to be helpful in a printed or CD/DVD version of Wikipedia. See Printability for more helpful information." AVDLCZ (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @AVDLCZ 190.5.91.18 (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)