Category talk:Unprintworthy redirects

This category was nominated for deletion on 19 July 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

This category was nominated for renaming on 11 September 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Redirect, a collaborative effort to improve the standard of redirects and their categorization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Note: This banner should be placed on the talk pages of project, template and category pages that exist and operate to maintain redirects.
This banner is not designed to be placed on the talk pages of most redirects and almost never on the talk pages of mainspace redirects. For more information see the template documentation.RedirectWikipedia:WikiProject RedirectTemplate:WikiProject Redirectredirect pages

Why?

Can someone explain to me why on earth we would ever want to have a paper wikipedia? Considering the speed and frequency at which articles are updated, the sheer number of articles, and the cost to print one, I'm reminded of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: The reason why it was published in the form of a micro sub meson electronic component is that if it were printed in normal book form, an interstellar hitch hiker would require several inconveniently large buildings to carry it around in. That said, what's the point of this category? --Kbdank71 19:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why paper?

Micro sub meson electronic components have yet to be invented.
Once they are, they'll be expensive and poorly-distributed, with a harder failure mode and shorter lifespan than paper books.
Even those who can afford a Clie' or Sony eBook or whatever replaces them may prefer to make and/or buy a subset of Wikipedia's articles in a form they can flip through, dog-ear, etc.

Why the category? If I'm wrong, and the $100 laptop project is so wildly successful that everyone in the world has a computer in 5 years...and if a core group of stable, well-written articles never emerges in a way that merits the interest of computer non-users...it's still worth the hard-drive space this category occupies to prepare for the possibility that someone might print a few articles out for fun or profit. --Joel 20:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a Paper Wikipedia was ever published, I think trees would go extinct. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yeah. Seems kinda pointless this category, I agree.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needn't be the entire encyclopaedia. Someone might decide to, for example, take all the Pokémon articles and compile them into book form; not an unreasonable possibility. That said, printing out all the Pokémon articles might itself be sufficient to extinct trees. ;-) --213.120.114.7 09:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of the above. on the pokemon thing, the speed at which the article are updated and their perpetual unfinished state means that this will always be a bad idea, for almost any topic. Slam this in WP:CFD Machete97 (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

???

I fail to see the point in this category at all. Not printworthy? Ummm... like so?! This cat doesnt assist editors in any capacity that I can foresee, why would someone have a need to find out what redirects Wikipedia has that we would not print, if we ever did go to print... which we arent. Im baffled. Glen 09:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we go to print, this category will tell people what to leave out. Superm401 - Talk 07:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we wont......Ever...Machete97 (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of redirect would be useful in print?

I mean, assuming a book that doesn't support hyperlinks, what does a redirect accomplish? I don't get it. -- Avocado 01:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To take an arbitrary example, the following entry would be very useful in a print encyclopedia whose articles were ordered alphabetically.

Farsi: See Persian language

—Caesura ^(t) 22:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that does make sense. Thanks! -- Avocado 11:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it seems that the vast majority of existing Wikipedia redirects would be "unprintworthy." Wouldn't it make more sense to tag the minority that are printworthy, rather than the huge number that aren't? --Russ (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Printworthy redirects are categorized in Category:Printworthy redirects. —Caesura^(t) 01:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. So it can be presumed that any redirect not listed in that category is unprintworthy; this category is redundant. --Russ (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, those would be the ones that haven't been categorised yet. :-) --213.120.114.7 09:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - How about just an index with the classic "see under" that tells you what to look your word/phrase up under?Pandemic (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        How about a Category:Uncategorized Redirects ? 78.86.18.55 (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why would you print a redirect in the first place ? you get a page with a title and a single link to another page. Machete97 (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moniker?

Uhm, shouldn't this be called "printunworthy"? I can see that you regret printing something that's unworthy, but how do you unprint something that is worthy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.22.6 (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the opposite of "printworthy", thus "not worth printing". (Compare "unroadworthy" for a beaten-up old car.) Personally, I don't think that non-words like this are a good idea in category names, but I suppose it gets the meaning across. 86.131.90.78 (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude "unprintworthy" from the search box autocomplete/suggestion dropdown

I like the concept of allowing many (even if incredibly uncommon) redirects based on unusual capitalization or pluralization, however has there been any consideration given to excluding these from the suggestion dropdown that shows up when you start to type something in the search box? I think the search suggestion dropdown is very useful, but it becomes less relevant when the box is filled with multiple versions of the same article based on unprintworthy redirects. JCutter^{{ talk to me}} 23:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also posted on WP search engine discussion here. JCutter^{{ talk to me}} 23:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archived to Help talk:Searching/Archive 3#Proposal: Exclude "unprintworthy" from the search box autocomplete/suggestion dropdown. According to that discussion, this request was enabled as of June 2009. Flatscan (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Pardon my crastity, but why the devil would you want to have a category like this?--Launchballer (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will aid in any possible creation of a Paper Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia 1.0. -- œ ^™ 19:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subcat

I've made Category:Redirects from other capitalisations a subcat of this as the whole business of capitalisation isn't much use in print. Please let me know if I've erred in this. Declan Clam (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]