Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect/Style guide

Printworthy/unprintworthy redirects
The question stems from the lede of this style guide that goes: The ultimate goal of the guide is to have every redirect categorised in a standard format, as well as having every redirect categorised as either printworthy or unprintworthy. In a printed version, one would expect that only the article pages would actually be printed and not the project or other editorial-page concerns. So the reading on which we need to become more explicit would be whether or not the above needs to be reworded, thus: "The ultimate goal of the guide is to have every redirect categorised in a standard format, as well as to have every main-namespace redirect categorised as either printworthy or unprintworthy." "How think do you?" > Yoda – PIE  (  C LIMAX   )  18:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * PS. I also suggest to change "having" > "to have", a much stronger phrase grammatically.
 * PPS. This may also be discussed on the main project talk page.

Here it is the 11th of January, and so far no particular interest in this one way or another. I'll wait a couple days, and if there still is no discussion, I'll make the changes, and then continue to add the Printworthy and Unprintworthy Rcats only to the Main article namespace. I shall also consider upgrading those Rcats so they will have no effect unless they're added to Main namespace REDIRECTS. – PIE  (  C LIMAX   )  03:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's because this is a talk subpage and so is likely to have few watchers. Perhaps if you had posted at the main talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect it would have received comment. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Redrose! If you'll check it, I mentioned in the "PPS" above that this might be discussed also on the main project talk page.  Yours is the first response on either page, though.  Do you have any thoughts on the need for the clarification itself? –  PIE  (  C LIMAX   )  22:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh dear - I sense a split discussion. Perhaps, per WP:MULTI, we should shift any comments which are present here but not at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect, and then turn this page into a redirect to that one. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, you may do that if you like; however, at this point I don't see any need for it unless people will start to respond to the question of the need for change to the style guide. – PIE  (  C LIMAX   )  12:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday, I made the clarification to the lede, and today I found that the R unprintworthy template has long been set to by used only in the Main namespace by usage of the Main other template. The R printworthy template, on the other hand, had not been so set. So I added the Main other template to the R printworthy template. Now, only main article pages will be categorized as printworthy or unprintworthy. – PIE  (  C LIMAX   )  18:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Updated info
It is no longer true that redirect templates need to appear on the same line as the redirect statement itself (as per this discussion). I have updated the information in regards to this. I have also updated some of the markup to be cleaner and hopefully easier for newbies to read. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

In the same line or after a new line?
This style guide says the opposite of Template:Redirect category: To add a redirect to this category, put R from Unicode after the redirect but on the same line. emijrp (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There used to be software limitations on redirects that meant that any lines after the first were ignored, so everything had to be crammed onto one line. AFAIK those limitations no longer apply: certainly several redirects that I created recently (such as are properly categorised even though the  is on the third line.
 * Therefore I believe that the restriction is outdated, and line breaks may be used. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Categorization of redirects
A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects about a proposed update to one of the sections of that project page. All ideas are welcome! Joys! –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 23:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Explain how to make a redirect printworthy or unprintworthy
The second sentence of WikiProject Redirect/Style guide now reads, "The ultimate goal of the guide is to have every redirect categorised in a standard format, as well as to have every main-namespace redirect categorised as either printworthy or unprintworthy." But then it never says anything about how to cause a redirect to be in one of those categories. For example, does  Template:R from misspelling  or any other template automatically place a redirect in either category? Also, there is a way to prevent redirects from showing up in the pull-down of the article search box. This style guide should discuss this. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Anomalocaris – I added a bit more to the lead to hopefully strengthen the information. There are basically two ways to make a redirect printworthy (or unprintworthy).  A basic redirect's edit page looks something like this:


 * 1) REDIRECT (target page name)
 * ...where the "target page name" is the page to which the redirect points. Then either printworthiness rcat template may be added in the following manner.


 * 1) REDIRECT (target page name)


 * The second way to do this is with the Redr ("This is a redirect") template, which would look like this:


 * 1) REDIRECT (target page name)


 * Of course, the printworthiness rcats are seldom used by themselves. One might see something like this:


 * 1) REDIRECT (target page name)


 * ...or this:


 * 1) REDIRECT (target page name)
 * ...or even this:


 * 1) REDIRECT (target page name)


 * Whether to add rcats individually or with the This is a redirect template is a personal choice. So please read this comparison page to help you with that choice.
 * As you can see there are several varied ways to make a redirect printworthy or unprintworthy. As I added to the lead of this project page, a good place for you to begin to understand more about this is on each of the template pages, R printworthy and R unprintworthy.  After reading those, don't hesitate to ask any questions you have, either here or on my talk page.  Joys! –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 23:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also of note is that yes, some rcats populate either of the printworthiness categories by default and some don't. For example, R from misspelling (or R typo) and R from shortcut add redirects to, while R from historic name and R with possibilities populate the  category.  Each rcat's documentation explains whether or not other categories are populated. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 04:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @Anomalocaris ok Actorshowme700 (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)