Template talk:R with possibilities

Use with
This rcat and its documentation state to also use the R printworthy rcat when adding R with possibilities to a mainspace redirect. However, unless I’m missing something, doesn’t this rcat automatically categorise mainspace redirects into Category:Printworthy redirects? Best, A smart kitten (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I’ve noticed other rcats say things like this as well: eg. R to related topic. I’m going to boldly remove the mention of also tagging with R printworthy, given that R with possibilities automatically categorises as such. Feel free to revert if desired. A smart kitten (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops, forgot that this was template-protected. Speaking of which:
 * Please can this text be removed from the rcat template:
 * Thanks, A smart kitten (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Related to this, I’ve asked a query at WT:RE, given how many of these types of statements I’ve found in rcat documentation. A smart kitten (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, A smart kitten (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Related to this, I’ve asked a query at WT:RE, given how many of these types of statements I’ve found in rcat documentation. A smart kitten (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, A smart kitten (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Related to this, I’ve asked a query at WT:RE, given how many of these types of statements I’ve found in rcat documentation. A smart kitten (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;,  ed.  put'er there 05:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Paine Ellsworth Oops, sorry. Should have looked into the history/asked the question before making the edit request. I assumed it was some sort of historical/leftover unnecessary statement in the docs - I was obviously wrong. A smart kitten (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. You are not alone in questioning the need for longstanding procedures on WP. Your questions and actions can actually lead to improvements. I'm going to take a long look at the printworthiness rcat templates to see if they can be more clear about their usefulness to the project. So thank you for your interest and your help to make Wikipedia grow and progress!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 09:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Urdu
salam g kasa ho 116.71.160.72 (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, IP 116+, who are you?  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 13:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 27 November 2023
Description of suggested change: The last bullet point about links to this page should have appended: "For redirects to this page, see R avoided double redirect."

Frankly, the infobox is annoyingly verbose already, but I think the addition is important precisely because it's an unusual special case that many editors may not be familiar with.

As an optional second edit, the order of the points is perhaps not ideal. I'd list the points that apply to all such redirects first, and details peculiar to the template namespace later. Suggested order:
 * When the target page becomes too large...
 * If the topic of the redirect is not susceptible to expansion...
 * Since a new page may be created...
 * R printworthy should be used...
 * When used on a template redirect...

Since the last two points both apply to redirects in a particular namespace, it'd be nice to make their phrasing more obviously parallel, but I'm out of ideas at the moment.

Diff: 97.102.205.224 (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I've implemented these changes in the sandbox. Will wait a few days to see if anyone else has comments before implementing. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * These sound like improvements to the rcat template, so with you on this, editor .  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 21:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you! 97.102.205.224 (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I noticed you used a different wording that I suggested. The sandbox reads "For making redirects to this page...", where the word "making" is an addition.  I presume it's a deliberate addition on your part, so I'm not going to just revert it without discussion, but I'm definitely curious: why add that word?  I think it's clear enough without it (the linked template's documentation explains the details) and brevity is a virtue.  Also, the wording seems awkward.  If you want the word "make", just say "To make redirects to this page...", which both reads better and is shorter.
 * My mental image is an editor who isn't so much trying to create a WP:Double redirect (that's easy), but rather trying to fix the fact that it doesn't work. In the grand Wikipedia tradition, There's A Template For That™; people just need to know what it's called.  Thus, the simple "For". 97.102.205.224 (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Like "To make redirects..." as well. Shy away from "-ing" endings, because "to make" is much stronger than "for making". Powerful words usually get better results. Think "to make redirects" is also better than "for redirects" in terms of clarity.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 23:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Both of you are right about the phrasing; I've switched it to "to make". Will implement the new text in the template now. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)