Template talk:Redirect category shell/Archive 1

Requested edit to template-protected Redirect-from-shortcut at Rcat shell (Uses deprecated template)
The (template-protected) redirect at Template:Rcat shell uses the deprecated template this is a redirect, which is a bit ironic considering Template:Rcat shell is the very shortcut for Template:this is a redirect's replacement Redirect category shell. The line should be replaced with

Placing the request here rather than at the redirect's talkpage for the sake of visibility (the redir's talkpage currently redirects here anyway) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Train2104 (t • c) 20:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 August 2017
and other similar pages currently contain the text Please do not replace these redirected links with a link directly to the target page unless expressly advised to do so below or elsewhere on this page. This should be amended to Please do not replace these redirected links with links directly to the target page unless expressly advised to do so below or elsewhere on this page, or if the change is supported by a policy or guideline. A lot of redirects are from non-NPOV equivalents of the main article titles, and pages that link to them should generally be changed to use NPOV wording; having a template placed on the redirect pages telling people not to do so is out of line with the NPOV policy. (It's peripheral, but "a link" is also ungrammatical.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: The text in question appears in R semi-protected, R extended-protected, R template-protected, and R fully protected. The first three are unprotected or semi-protected, and you should be able to edit them yourself. I've made the requested edit on the fourth (diff). Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 December 2017
Please remove a misnested tag. Please change

to

Anomalocaris (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- John of Reading (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Arrow in template is confusing
The blue redirect arrow "⤷" (the first thing shown by the template) adds unnecessary confusion to the redirect pages because the Mediawiki software already adds such an arrow before the template. So users see that arrow twice, which adds visual clutter that is surely a tad puzzling to new users, especially since it's indented to be under the Mediawiki's redirect line. I've never really understood the purpose of this template in the first place, but that symbol should be removed from this template. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Template itself in CAT:MISCR
Is this necessary? I plan to monitor CAT:MISCR going forward, and it is easier for me to quickly recognize new pages if it remains empty. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been standard practice for rcats to place them as first entry in their own categories, and I thought I had done that long ago for the shell. Another editor probably removed it for the same reasons you cite, so I'll self-revert that one.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  12:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Godsy , thank you so much for your work with redirects!   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  12:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Pp-pc
Hello. Is it (technical) possible that the template checks for "pending changes protected" too? Like it does for other kind of protection. (It should be coordinated with Pp-pc. Christian75 (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, having just seen . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Confusing
Whatever the red, bold hatnote is trying to convey is just confusing to me. R fassbind – talk  09:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Set R from Namespace automatically?
Hey, so why can't we automatically set things like R to project namespace or R from drafts? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"Rcat shell" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rcat shell. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC on categorizing redirects to the same namespace
Please see: Template talk:R to project namespace

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 January 2021
Paine Ellsworth: I don't understand why you inserted, as this causes a Multiline table in list lint error in the template although not necessarily in every page that transcludes it. Mightn't it make more sense to move  out of  ?

This comment applies to Template:Rcat shell, Template:Redr, Template:Redirect shell. — Anomalocaris (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, and good catch! Thank you very much and Happiest of New Years to you and yours!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 09:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Paine Ellsworth: Thanks, and happy 2021 to you as well! —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 January 2021
Replace  with   (the order can be reversed) and add }}} where necessary. JsfasdF252 (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Is there a discussion supporting the addition of this alias? It means one more thing to support.  – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

New unclear wording
I appreciate you trying to clarify the template's function, but the new wording is somewhat poor. Something like "The following redirect categories apply to this redirect:" would be much better. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 07:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your idea. I actually agonized over using "redirect" twice in the two sentences. You say you think the following would be an improvement:
 * "This page is a redirect. The following redirect categories apply to this redirect:"
 * as opposed to:
 * "This page is a redirect. The following maintenance category templates apply to this redirect:"
 * the first of which uses the word "redirect" three times. The only other major difference I see is the omission of the word "maintenance". All redirect categories are maintenance categories, so the use of that word should actually make things clearer, especially for inexperienced editors. Unsure as to how leaving out "maintenance" makes the clarification sentence more understandable? Also, what follows the text are not really "redirect categories". They are redirect category (rcat) templates, the function of which is to be informative for editors and to sort redirects to maintenance categories. Would be interested to hear what other editors think about it. Thanks again for your input and Happy New Year!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 07:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I do see what you mean though, now that I reread it. Perhaps something like:
 * "This is a redirect. The following category information applies to this redirect:"
 *  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 08:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See, all of this stuff makes sense to an experienced editor - but an inexperienced one has no idea what a maintenance category is. Also, the phrasing is inaccurate. There's "maintenance categories" and "redirect category templates" but no such thing as a "maintenance category template" — this is why it confused me. I call these redirect categories, and I think most other editors do too. While they are added to the page with templates, they are categories, not templates. Maybe this feels like a pointless distinction but... I really think calling them "redirect categories" makes sense more than anything else. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 08:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I suppose newer editors can learn the diff between "article categories" and "maintenance categories" later on in their editings. To keep the number of repetitions of "redirect" to two, maybe we can offer:
 * "This is a redirect. The following redirect categories apply:"
 *  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 08:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * that looks good to me! Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 09:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll make the change soon, allowing time for the server queue to clear some more after my previous edits.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 15:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure I like the new phrasing. While the new phrasing is perhaps more clear in its phrasing, I noticed that the previous phrasing had a (perhaps subtle) flow between words that the current version lacks:
 * Old: This page is a redirect: From an ambiguous title...
 * New: This page is a redirect. The following redirect categories apply: From an ambiguous title...
 * Granted, not all tags seem to respect that (e.g. the ones about page protection), but I just want you to be aware of that concern. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 23:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * fair enough. I prefer the new wording but I can definitely see both sides here. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 01:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * that is a good catch! and I haven't thought of that word flow for many years. We should consider going with something maybe like:
 * "This page is a redirect. The following categories apply to this redirect: From an ambiguous title..."
 * or:
 * "This page is a redirect. The following categories apply to redirects: From an ambiguous title..."
 * My main idea with the added text is to clarify to editors, especially newer ones, what is going on with redirect categorization. And yet I see that the smooth flow of the "This page is a redirect" into the first words of each rcat template is disrupted. Does the above fix sound good to both of you?  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 05:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Just changed the wording to "This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect: From an ambiguous title...". So the flow is better and the needed clarification is still included.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 17:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Double rendering of Wikidata redirect template
With the recent changes made by, every redirect that has both the Rcat shell and the Wikidata redirect templates show two renderings of the Wikidata redirect template. Not happy with that. Looks silly and stupid. The changes should be reverted until a better solution is proposed.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 11:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, that is the whole point of the BRFA. The templates should be removed. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 11:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you put the cart ahead of the horse. These edits should not have been made until the BRFA has been approved. You may not think it's a big deal, but as I've noted, it is.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 11:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * it's better to have two templates than it is to have no templates. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 11:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In my book, both are equally unacceptable with the sole exception that if the bot is approved and ready to do its job, which it is not; therefore, your edits should be reverted until the bot request has been approved.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 11:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * well, feel free to revert, then. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 11:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing BRFA regarding this template and wikidata redirect
Hello all, please see this BRFA: Bots/Requests for approval/ElliBot. This is a proposal to use a bot to automatically this on Redirects connected to a Wikidata item, as it automatically detects such a connection. Additionally, this renders the manual application of the template Wikidata redirect redundant on such pages, and removes them. Please leave your feedback. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 10:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

What if there are important contents in the pages being removed and the bot not realize you seeing as it's not real and all... CACormier (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding Authority Control to this template
I'm struggling with how it should be formatted within the template (because I think simply using  looks pretty poor; though   is worse ), but it would be really cool if this template could just add some form of Authority control to template redirects connected to a WikiData item. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * When would a redirect need Authority control? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why does putting authority control after the template look bad? It looks fine for me. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Intend to delete the arrow image from template
I have mentioned this here before and it generated no discussion but the blue arrow image at the beginning of this template creates terrible and confusing visual clutter. It makes the redirect page have a "double arrow" effect. Redirects should be a simple and straight-forward page that conveys its purpose instantly. But this double arrow thing introduces a major usability issue. See Flamingos for an example of the visual layout I am complaining about.

I don't know if it's technically possible but I wonder if somehow we could have this template override the Media wiki default "redirect-ltr.svg" image with the blue image. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Why would you recommend removing the MediaWiki arrow instead of the File:Symbol redirect arrow with gradient.svg from the template? Would be easier, and presumably make the same solution to what you raise. But on an unrelated note, I'm not the biggest fan, I personally don't think it's as bad as you say. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  14:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I didn't. I am recommending removing File:Symbol redirect arrow with gradient.svg from the template. (I see now that I didn't write that in the body, only the title.) But I did inquire if it would be possible to somehow have File:Symbol redirect arrow with gradient.svg replace the Mediawiki arrow when the template was used because I do like the look of the gradient arrow better. That was perhaps "thinking out loud" so to speak so I've struck that tangent to focus on my main proposal. I simply want to get rid of the arrow in the template. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahh yes, I get what you meant now. I think I had yet another case of editing while I should be sleeping. I should have read the title as well. I can only imagine I saw "override" and thought to myself 'remove'. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  21:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The blame lies with me for not making myself clearer. :-) Do you agree with the removal? Jason Quinn (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

✅ I've gone and removed the arrow. It's been a long time in coming. I suspect it may attract more attention now but I suggest that with two discussions now in the past about removing this without any arguments for keeping it, this should now be considered the status quo and if there's new opinion to add it back, a new discussion should be initiated. NOTE: The Flamingos example given above now doesn't show what it once did. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Fireworks?
 P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 05:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)