Template talk:R from list topic
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 | Template:R from list topic is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here. |
Cat removals
[edit]To editor DexDor: Just wanted you to know that your recent edits that updated the parent cats of rcat categories were very sound, I think. What I question are your removals of cats on the /doc pages, both this one and the R from antonym/doc pages. It's standard practice to install rcats at the TOP of the categories that they populate. (And if we agree on your rationale for these changes, I can easily change all of them with AWB.) Painius 23:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- With article categories it's clear that templates (and other pages that readers are not expected to navigate to) should not be categorized as articles. For most maintenance categories it's not standard practice to categorize templates in the categories that they populate (e.g. see Category:Unreferenced Texas articles or Category:Use Indian English from June 2013) and such a practice would not work well in cases where one template can populate dozens/hundreds of categories (it would require the template to have dozens/hundreds of category tags); a better solution is to place a note "This category is populated by template..." on the category page. Thus, if rcats contain templates then that's different to the rest of wp. Afaik the only relevant guideline is WP:CAT#T which doesn't specifically cover the case of rcats. Another reason for not placing templates in non-template categories is that it makes it less obvious if a template is not categorized under Category:Wikipedia templates. DexDor (talk) 06:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Very interesting – and while "most" maintenance cats do not hold their populating templates, redirect cats have done so for several years. In the case of rcats, they only populate one or two categories, so your concern about "dozens/hundreds of categories" is also covered. Rcats seldom contain other templates (other than {{Redirect template}}), although they do more often contain parser functions. I don't understand the last concern as stated:
... it makes it less obvious if a template is not categorized under Category:Wikipedia templates.
Would you please explain more fully? The reason I ask is that none of the rcats are sorted directly to that category; however, they are all in a subcategory: - Painius 04:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Very interesting – and while "most" maintenance cats do not hold their populating templates, redirect cats have done so for several years. In the case of rcats, they only populate one or two categories, so your concern about "dozens/hundreds of categories" is also covered. Rcats seldom contain other templates (other than {{Redirect template}}), although they do more often contain parser functions. I don't understand the last concern as stated:
Edit request
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace
|printworthy=yes
by
|printworthy={{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|unprintworthy|no|yes}}
This is done on templates like {{R from stylization}} and others already, and would be useful on the Wealthiest organisations redirect, for instance. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Done firefly ( t · c ) 11:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
