Jump to content

Template talk:R to project namespace

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's stop pointlessly adding redundant rcats

[edit]

There is no reason I can think of to ever bother putting this rcat template on anything but a cross-namespace redirect. We already know that all WP:..., Wikipedia:..., and MOS:... redirects stay in project namespace, with the odd exception of a cross-namespace redir, e.g. from WP:something to Help:something. It's a total waste of time and effort, and is pretty close to an impossible task, to catalogue all of these redirects that stay in the same namespace. I create dozens of these things in a single day sometimes, and I'm certainly not going to add an rcat tag to all of them that does nothing but the WP equivalent of telling us that rain is wet.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP: redirects can also go to user namespace, and there are a good number that do that. wbm1058 (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, those CNRs can be sorted by {{R to user namespace}}, which is one of five namespace rcats that can only be used outside the namespace they target – the other three can be used inside or outside their target namespaces. Hi, Wbm1058 – for you and others who might be watching this page, there is a generalized discussion about this at WT:RE#Rethinking "R to project namespace" & "R to subpage" if you are interested in giving 2 cents or more. That discussion also avoids WP:MULTI.  Stick to sources! Paine  09:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, wbm1058's objection isn't an objection, but is an observation about a different rcat template.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the bogus instruction that this be used on "Wikipedia:"-namespace redirs to "Wikipedia:"-namespace pages, since it reflects neither common practice nor common sense. Virtually no one ever does that, except rarely and to no useful effect at all. In removing such pointless rcat templates on "WP:FOO" shortcuts and "Wikipedia:Some old name left over from a move" redirects, I've only been reverted on it one time in something like 10 years (and when explained why I was removing it, I then got my removal of it to stick). It's just annoying clutter, and it makes the maintenance category this template feeds into basically useless. The actual utility of that category is (well, should be, if it weren't drowned in redundant browbeating with the obvious) in listing out redirects like MOS:BIO that exist in mainspace and redir. to a WP: namespace page. Or, Help:-namespace or User:-namespace redirs to WP: pages. No one cares if a WP: page redirs to a WP: page – that's the obvious and expected behavior! We only care in odd cases that don't, e.g. various WP: redirs that go to Help: or User: pages, and we'd use a different rcat for that anyway, {{R to help}}, {{R to user}}. If someone can come up with a must-have rationale for rcat'ing WP:-to-WP: redirs, then we need a separate template that tracks non-WP:-to-WP: redirs, since those are generally of far more concern for maintenance reasons. Few of them that do not start with "MOS:" should exist from mainspace (do we have any other pseudo-namespaces still in use?), and the few that do exist have probably been hashed out at RfD. We don't even have presumptively obvious ones like ARBCOM. PS: This change is also consistent with how we use (and instruct the use of) similar templates. E.g. {{R to talk}} is not used when we redirect "Talk:Old page name before the move" to "Talk:Post-RM new page name". If someone did that, the next person to see it would remove that rcat as useless belaboring of the obvious.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I do see your point about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of categorizing WP:-to-WP: redirects, it is neither particularly uncommon nor gets in the way of categorizing non-WP:-to-WP: redirects. I disagree that we need a seprate template since, even now, the template populates two separate categories:
However, I cannot come up with a good rationale for categorizing WP:-to-WP: redirects, except that the relevant guideline states, "all redirects should be sorted into appropriate "maintenance" (non-article) categories whenever possible". It could be the guideline is flawed but I had no part in writing it...​ If this change sticks, then the /doc page will need to be updated and Category:Redirects to Wikipedia project pages will need to be emptied and deleted. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline and the rcats were in place when I first registered more than ten years ago, and unlike other editors, I've never questioned it. The creator(s) apparently had it in mind to track or keep track of specific types of redirects. I don't know why that should come into question now. Unless someone can show that there is no more need to monitor and track redirects, then I continue to see no reason why any existing rcat should come into question. And it is more efficient to have one rcat that does two related jobs than to use two separate rcats. PI Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This still seems to be unresolved. In practice it's not normally used on WP:FOO shortcuts, and I've been consistently removing it for years. It's a huge block of unnecessary visual noise on redirect pages, and makes rcatting more complicated for no gain, nor has it ever been the case that this rcat has been applied consistently to WP-to-WP redirs. It would serve no purpose whatsoever to have an rcat for every redir "to" project namespace that includes from-project-namespace-already. That's not to project namespace, but within it. It's a confusion about what the word "to" means. The reason to keep track of these things is for examining the appropriateness of cross-namespace redirects. Similarly, we do not have tracking of mainspace-to-mainspace redirs. If we really wanted to track redirs to pages where both are already in the same namespace, some toolserver tool could do that; we have no reason to have it be a category. There is no maintenance need that such a relationship triggers. We have no need of Category:Redirects to project space and Category:Redirects to Wikipedia project pages which are semantically identical in meaning; the latter should be CfDed. There is no maintenance need to look at WP pages that redir to WP pages, as a class. If somebody ever comes up with one, they can use a different tool to get at this, instead of polluting the category system with "cat. trivia" like this. It's a given than almost all redirs in a namespace are going to be to other pages in the same namespace. I am not at all swayed by these "well, it's been that way a long time" or "it's not bugging me" substantively unresponsive responses that I've been getting on this matter (mostly in discussions elsewhere). Anyway, just the fact that the useless category dwarfs the useful (cross-namespace) one helps prove my point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, I'd support SMcCandlish, as I'm always against any kind of redundancy. — Mike Novikoff 06:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No redundancy has been shown. There are two very different types of redirects being categorized here. Editors long ago decided to track and maintain two kinds of redirects using three different redirect templates (rcats): {{R to help namespace}}, {{R to portal namespace}} and {{R to project namespace}}. The point appears to be that one editor has come to the conclusion that one type's categorization, tracking and maintenance doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make sense to categorize, track and maintain redirects that go from a help page to a help page, or a portal page to a portal page or a project page to a project page. That seems to be the question: Why do we editors categorize, track and maintain such redirects? Questioning this, to me, is equivalent to asking why we categorize, track and maintain any redirects at all? Why do we? Why? There must be good reasons or the redirect categorization system would not have been created in the first place. So rather than cherry-pick a few rcats and ask "Why", let's apply the question to the entire redirect categorization system. Why do we categorize, track and maintain redirects? If good reasons can be found to do this, then those good reasons will also apply to these cherry-picked rcats and their categories. Mac might be right. If no good reasons can be found to track redirects that go from Help to Help, Portal to Portal and Project to Project pages, then perhaps there are no good reasons to track redirects at all? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 20:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question for SMcCandlish... just to give two examples, back in 2014 you created {{R from more specific name}} and in 2015 you created {{R from work}}. So you must have thought that it was important to categorize, track and maintain those types of redirects. And I wonder why? Why did you go to all the trouble of creating rcats along with their documentation pages (oh, and category pages) and take it upon yourself to track and maintain these two types of redirects? In addition, you have for many years (honestly, thank you very much!) improved several rcat templates and their /doc pages. One example would be {{R from miscapitalisation}}, and there are others you may have spent even more time improving. So you are someone who knows about the importance of tracking redirects of certain types. That makes me curious as to why you would suddenly decide that one type of redirect, the kind that goes from one project page to another, should no longer be tracked. And then without discussion, you start removing redirects from the Redirects to Wikipedia project pages category every chance you get. I'm afraid you've never garnered a consensus to do that. So why would you? What can this project possibly gain from these bold actions against long-term implied consensus? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In short: being more specific with narrow rcats (which are replacements for not additions to very general rcat templates on a redirect page) which pertain to actual content does serve a useful maintenance functionality. Having rcats that do nothing but state the obvious about internal trivia, e.g. that a redirect is in the same namespace, which is where we'd expect it to be, does not serve any function. All it does is add more rcat clutter on redirect pages, and create category chaff for no productive reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! "...for no productive reason" that you can discern? What if there actually is a productive reason that you have yet to find? Maybe look a little deeper. The creators must have had good reasons to use this rcat to discern between CNRs and project to project pages, and then track both types of redirects. What was that reason? Does it still hold true? If so, then we should fuhget about it and move on. If not, then we should go the route you suggest. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 20:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with stop adding the rcats. First of all, it is not redundant, but explanatory. Although this is very common, it is still good to have. There is no need to remove it. --Rqkp (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: I agree with you that this template is quite unnecessary, but unfortunately, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 1#Category:Redirects to Wikipedia project pages ended with a decision to keep the redirect category. Removing the category from arbitrary pages is not following consensus (and would be without the CfD as well), especially given that the class from which you are removing it is exactly the category Category:Redirects to Wikipedia project pages. You are effectively emptying the category instead of discussing its deletion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfD coming to that decision means simply that RfD, under its category deletion rules, didn't immediately have a solid deletion rationale. That doesn't equate to a consensus that this is useful, only to no consensus at that time and place that lack of usefulness was 100% certain.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to see a productive purpose for this, actually put into use. The fact athat Paine Ellsworth can imagine that one is imaginable is neither here nor there. We clearly do not actually need it, and it comes at significant maintenance cost (plus, it this over-templating/over-categorization is not happening consistently, so any potential use for this would be thwarted anyway. Finally, if someone does come up with a plausible reason that this could somehow be useful, there is no particular reason this should be done with categories, about the clumsiest possible approach, rather than something on the toolserver that creates lists on the fly. What we have now is a hammer, and a broke one, while not everything that potentially needs a tool applied to it is a nail in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is turning into more circular argument by the same handful of people, for several years, it is probably best to put this to a formal RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: So, what now? Should we open a TfD and refer to the results of this RfC? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: Started a checklist, below the RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should we categorize redirects to the same namespace?

[edit]
NO CONSENSUS TO CHANGE THE STATUS QUO.
Given the amount of work that would apparently be requied to implement option 1 and the massive number of pages that would be impacted any change needs to be supported by a clear consensus backed by strong arguments. While there are an awful lot of words here there is a shortage of strong arguments and very much no clear consensus. Many of the arguments for option 1 boil down to "I don't personally see a need to do this" and "I don't like this", while there are plenty of arguments for option 2 that are essentially "it's harmless" and "I like it". Considering only the arguments that are stronger than this, there is not much to choose between the two views, although those expressing why they find this useful are slightly stronger than those who saying they don't the latter has the greater support. All this combined means that there is nowhere near a sufficient consensus here to any change to the long-standing status quo. Given the extensive nd numerous previous discussions that have also failed to achieve any consensus to change the status quo, I recommend putting this discussion to one side until either considerable time has passed or there has been some significant relevant change that brings new arguments to the table. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We presently have {{R to foo namespace}} templates for categorizing redirects, for maintenance purposes. These templates are presently documented as intended for use a) on cross-namespace redirects (e.g. {{R to project namespace}} goes on MOS:CAPS, a shortcut in a "MOS:" pseudo-namespace that is really a mainspace page); and b) on within-same-namespace redirects (e.g., put that same {{R to project namespace}} on WP:MOSCAPS, which is already in the same "Wikipedia:" namespace as the target page of both WP:MOSCAPS and MOS:CAPS).

Presently the documentation on whether to do this is inconsistent. {{R to main namespace}}, {{R to template namespace}}, {{R to user namespace}}, {{R to category namespace}}, and {{R to draft namespace}} are only for cross-namespace redirects. {{R to talk page}} is a variant of this, in being for redirects to any talk namespace from any non-talk namespace, but not for redirects within a talk namespace or between one talk namespace and another. Only {{R to project namespace}}, {{R to portal namespace}}, and {{R to help namespace}} say to use them also for redirects within the same namespace.

Which of the following is preferable?

  1. Apply such templates only to cross-namespace redirects.
  2. Apply such templates also to same-namespace redirects.
  3. Different for different cases (please specify, with rationales).

I'm RfCing this because there has been sporadic argument about this for several years, without resolution. Notices about this RfC have been posted to all the relevant talk pages I could think of.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC); updated with some details: 19:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. <inserted> Just reread the RfC nomination and I take issue with the non-neutral final thought:
I'm RfCing this because there has been sporadic argument about this for several years, without resolution.
That is not neutral because it has only been ongoing without resolution in the nom's mind. This issue has been discussed several times in the past and the resolution has been to maintain the status quo. The same-namespace categories were created and designed for good reasons that include tracking and maintaining those redirects (like many other kinds of redirects), keeping track of how many there are, and working from the category lists when future changes in policies or guidelines mean that there are needed changes to all those several thousand redirects. That is why the past resolution of this issue has been to continue to maintain same-namespace redirects in the cases of project space, help space and portal space redirects. I ask the nominator to please rephrase that sentence so it sounds neutral in accordance with correct RfC procedure. Thank you and Happy New Year! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. No utility has ever been shown for categorizing the obvious, a redir within the same namespace. But doing it has significant maintenance costs, is not being done consistently so doesn't produce very usable results even if someone came up with a use for it, and it adds unnecessary clutter to redirect pages. If someone has a genuine need for tracking the thousands of "Wikipedia:"-namespace-internal redirects, or the probably hundreds of thousands of mainspace-to-mainspace redirects, a Toolserver tool that generated filterable lists of them would be much more useful than trying to do this with categories. The complete randomness with which this has been approached (though leaning heavily toward cross-namespace-only, with just project, portal, and help being exceptions) strongly suggests this has not been thought through very well; and, regardless, it results in headaches, like having to keep checking each {{R to foo namespace}} to see what it says, unless you're good at memorizing such things.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC); rev'd.: 19:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Worked on these for many years, especially the WP shortcuts to other WP pages. The only inconsistencies are due to (1) the continuous creation of more shortcuts from WP:, P: and H: pages without the creators taking the time to categorize the shortcuts at the time of creation (not always but sometimes) and (2) the nom arbitrarily removing the {{R to project page}} redirect category template against past consensus, which of course undoes much of the work editors have done to maintain the consistency that the nom expresses as a reason to stop categorizing these same-namespace redirects. What's up with that? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 18:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. Specifically tracking redirects that go into the same namespace is just plain silly. The argument for tracking appears to boil down to "We're doing that not because we have any reason to, but because we've been doing it before." – Uanfala (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. It seems to be a variant of the WP:CONTENTAGE "argument to avoid". I might be more inclined to take a "maybe we'll need it" argument at face value if this were being programmatically done across all the namespaces, but it's just not, and never has been.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am firmly in the option 1 camp, except I think that there is an alternate option 2b that there might be an argument for a set of categories and templates along the lines of {{R within template namespace}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanisaac (talk • contribs) 21:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. The current setup is weird, inconsistent and redundant. Glades12 (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. Waste of resources with no clear gain, and per an analogous previous decision. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • option1 We sould try to keep things simple (at least , relatively simple). DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 and, if someone comes along with a reason why they need a list of same-namespace redirects, use the API or database reports to generate that list. The opinion I expressed in the TfD almost ten years ago hasn't changed. This, that and the other (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2, and it appears that some editors who opt for #1 are unaware of the huge job this will be to change this, and the reasons why this change has not taken place even though the nom has been pushing for this for many years. There are presently ten namespace rcat templates as shown in the index. Most of those rcats were designed to track cross-namespace redirects (CNRs) only. Three namespace rcats, {{R to project namespace}}, {{R to help namespace}} and {{R to portal namespace}}, were designed to do more than just track cross-namespace redirects. Years before I even registered to edit Wikipedia, their creators designed those three rcats to track both cross-namespace and same-namespace redirects, and they do so automatically. The rcats sense when a redirect is or is not in the same namespace, and then they correctly categorize the redirect. So there are actually six categories involved, two each for the Help, Portal and Project namespaces. That means that there are thousands of redirects that would be affected by this change. And it makes me wonder why, if it is no longer important to track same-namespace redirects, why is it important to track any redirect? Of course, there are important reasons to track redirects, but I don't understand why, after all these years, it is no longer important to track this particular type of redirect, the Portal:→Portal:, Help:→Help: and the WP:→WP: type redirects? All of a sudden, we're going to stop tracking thousands of redirects, and I would like to know precisely why? All I seem to see above is "I don't like it" type rationales, and that should not be a valid reason to stop keeping track of these types of redirects. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might actually have a pretty good point about rcats being useless. It really seems that the only reason we have any rcat at all is that some editors at the dawn of Wikipedia created the templates, and their usage is now based mostly on the fact that they have been existing for a long time, even though many might have no use whatsoever. After all, a lot (most) of the Wikipedias don't use any system like that. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who knows? Maybe you're right. Enwiki was ongoing for a few years before redirect categorization templates were first created. So other wikis maybe have it on their todo list but haven't gotten to it yet. It does seem to come in handy to keep track of how many redirects from page moves, redirects with possibilities (redirects from subtopics, redirects from list topics and so on), redirects from miscapitalizations and misspellings, and on and on. So I seriously doubt if anybody would take such a proposal seriously. That in and of itself still makes me wonder why anybody would take this proposal seriously. These rcats have been doing their jobs, both categorizing redirects and informing editors, for almost as long as Wikipedia has been here (Happy 20th birthday WP!), so I cannot easily agree with any proposal to just start getting rid of their functions without any good reason stipulated. No longer needed? Prove it! Senseless and silly? It's one thing to just say that and it's another thing to back it up with facts. WHY is it senseless? WHY is it silly? WHY is it no longer necessary to track same-namespace project, help and portal redirects? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe the actual question is why they were useful in the first place. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • So we're questioning the usefulness of the entire redirect categorization system? For the answer, one probably has to have worked on that system for some years, as I have done. It's not always easy to put into words. Some redirect categories are useful as lists to work from, some are useful for us to maintain a "how many are there" perspective on certain types of redirects. Others are useful so we can easily find and delete useless redirects, and one is useful to help inexperienced editors learn how to do the job. To the vast majority of active editors on Wikipedia, the maintenance of redirects very possibly means nothing at all, so they would be the ones who when faced with a choice of keep or delete, would likely type "delete" (or in this particular case "option 1") in bold typeface and move on. Those of us who have spent years improving rcats, the rcat indexes, template documentation and the system of redirect categorization in general, would more likely be the ones who have accepted the inventions of the creators and would type "keep" in bold typeface. We would not want all our work to be for nought, as they say. We would not want to see our work of ten or more years turn out to mean nothing... nothing at all. No, I think the bigger question here is should we allow one or a few editors get out the big guns and blast all that work right out of its shoes? Or should we staunchly defend the status quo of the creators and designers and continue to monitor things like WP shortcuts, which up to now most often are redirects in the project (WP:) namespace that target other pages in that same namespace. How will we monitor those redirects? How will we keep track of them if we discontinue the one category, Redirects to Wikipedia project pages, that lists them as same-namespace redirects? Over the years I have often !voted for the new and innovative ideas that would become in some cases astounding improvements of this encyclopedia. In this case, however, I with all my heart !vote to maintain the status quo. It in no way improves Wikipedia to smash what the creators and designers set up to track and maintain same-namespace redirects and for that matter all the other millions of redirects, of which most editors are only vaguely aware. It's a dirty job, a Wikignome job, but somebody has to do it! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 23:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • "So we're questioning the usefulness of the entire redirect categorization system?" No. Please read the actual RfC question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • That was in response to another editor, who wrote "You might actually have a pretty good point about rcats being useless." Please read the actual posts to which I was responding! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 20:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • I did. You asked "WHY is it no longer necessary to track same-namespace project, help and portal redirects?", which is addressing the RfC question. The response was "Maybe the actual question is why they [i.e those same three specific types] were useful in the first place." Also on-topic. Your rejoinder was "So we're questioning the usefulness of the entire redirect categorization system?", which is an off-topic straw man, as I pointed out.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm just as interested in your response to that question, because the only answer you give is that it is senseless, pointless, etc., to track same-namespace project, portal and help redirects. Why is there no sense to it? Why is there no point to it? Why do you continue to, without apparent reason, insult the rcats and thereby insult their creators, designers and editors like me who apply the rcats to every appropriate redirect we can find? Questions you've never been able to answer to satisfaction? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • If there was a use, you would be telling it directly. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Firstly, the onus is on the nom and those who chose option 1 to justify the suggestion of the RfC. Option 2 is the status quo, which means that past long-term consensus is for option 2. Secondly, I've already given the justifications to continue with that consensus and the status quo. Those rcat templates and categories serve a purpose, and there are definite reasons to keep them doing the job they've done well for many years. There is no Earthly nor valid reason to stop tracking same-namespace redirects using maintenance categories. "I don't like it" is not an option. "They're sensesless, they're pointless, those are not reasons, they are opinions. Reasons, valid reasons, to delete the categories and make the rcats only recognize cross-namespace redirects and no longer sort same-namespace redirects have not yet been given. Those reasons must be given by those who oppose the categorizations of same-namespace project, portal and help redirects. If there were a valid reason, they would be telling it directly. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 18:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is so tempting sometimes to BLUDGEON some rationales made in a RfC discussion like this. Rather than do that, let me say that each and every argument made here to decategorize same-namespace redirects has been made before and refuted. All one has to do is actually refer to the previous discussions, for example, the one just above this RfC, which is just the most recent. In the past and for good reason, this issue has received little if any sound support. It should not be supported now; option 1 should not be an option! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Disagreed with by me" ≠ "refuted".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Never meant to imply such a thing. Your arguments have been soundly refuted in the past, though, which is why you've spent so many years trying to get this pushed through. And even though it looks like I'm the only one disagreeing with you in this most recent discussion, there have been several other editors who disagreed with you in the past. Maybe they haven't seen this yet, and I'm not about to illegally canvass them, but that doesn't mean they don't still disagree with your premise. They may still consider that same-category sorting serves important purposes such as I've depicted above. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 20:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except not. The entire thread is above, going back to 2016. There is not"sound refutation" of my points in it anywhere. Just you making the same arguments, which really come back to down to what 1234qwer1234qwer4 asked you a bit above, and which you dodged with a straw man, a pretense that finding a lack of utility for same-namespace redirects (and that their imposition is a pointless maintenance hassle) amounts to "questioning the usefulness of the entire redirect categorization system", which is self-evidently false, since every participant here is either silent on the matter or fully supportive of categorizing cross-namespace redirects and many other kinds of rcat. I.e., you're just making stuff up to mischaracterize your opposition, seemingly as some kind of handwave distraction. Jedi mind tricks don't work here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, maybe. After all, I did first question the sense of this RfC by saying if it applies to three rcats then why doesn't it apply to all rcats. Then 1234qwer1234qwer4 countered with "You might actually have a pretty good point about rcats being useless," and "Maybe the actual question is why they were useful in the first place." I agree that the second sentence could have referred to just the three CNR–SNRcats; however the first sentence did not refer to "these rcats" being useless and seemed to refer to all rcats being useless. I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CyberSkull, Tizio, Lenoxus, Rich Farmbrough, Good Olfactory, Cenarium, Anypodetos, Funandtrvl, Mclay1, Vadmium, Anthony Appleyard, Callanecc, DannyS712, Jonesey95, and SD0001: pinging editors of the template and @MJL: additionally pinging users who participated in the earlier CfD for the corresponding category and @Bsherr, DGG, and Garion96: additionally pinging users who participated in this related TfD (all up to duplicates) to ask for broader consensus. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2. I have honestly been aware of this discussion for some amount of time but had refrained from commenting because it seemed like Paine Ellsworth's very serious objections have not actually been taken seriously. No one has actually provided a reason why we shouldn't categorise same-namespace redirects. If you ask me, the three rcat templates we're talking about ({{R to project namespace}}, {{R to help namespace}}, and {{R to portal namespace}}) are the ones I find the most intuitive and easiest to use. With the others, I have to always ask myself if the page I am on is in the right namespace to use it, but with those three I can just add the template without a second thought. At the end of the day, that is probably why the templates have lasted so long (and why Category:Redirects to project space is our most popular WP:CNR rcat). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This amounts to "keep the template we don't need because it's easy to add the useless template". That's not a cogent argument. The fact that some thought is required to use the templates that actually perform a useful function is not an argument against them, or against making other templates useful instead of pointless. Pretty much all of our useful templates off all kinds require some thought in their application.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It amounts to much more than that. I understand, though, because when an editor agrees with you, then they make a perfectly cogent argument, but when they disagree with you, then their argument is pointless, uncogent. That's happened to me more than once I can tell you. So, are you going to trout slap everyone who comes here and disagrees with you, Mac? I guess that's what the {{trout}} is for, eh? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, you're engaging in yet another straw man. (You really should read that article and learn from it. It is not a useful debate technique to criticize exaggerated, fake versions of the arguments or actions of those you disagree with instead of addressing their actual arguments or actions. Everyone can see through that kind of silly finger-pointing.) I've trouted no one in this discussion, and have certainly not suggested that everyone who doesn't agree with with me is not making cogent arguments. I've demonstrated why that particular argument is not cogent (in summary: the ability of a template/category to be applied robotically is not a rationale of its retention. See also WP:MEATBOT: it being easy to do something unhelpful is not a rationale to do it and the ease does not magically convert it to useful.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let's stay on point then. You have once again for the nth time indicated that the same-namespace categories are "unhelpful". So how about stating for the 1st time precisely why, after all these many years of tracking several thousands of same-namespace help:, portal: and wp: redirects, why is it in your estimation unhelpful to this project to continue to monitor and track such redirects? I mean really, make me believe you and I shall change my mind. You've spent several years trying to change the minds of those who oppose such decategorization. Make us understand why you think these redirect sorts are unhelpful. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 02:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 for the same reason that we kept Category:Short description matches Wikidata. It isn't redundant to have categories and categorization of both types of redirects (Rs to project-space from inside and outside — alternatively, Rs from project-space to inside and outside). Plus, it makes tagging redirects easier. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. I think these "R to namespace" categories are of questionable utility anyway, so reducing their scope to cross-namespace redirects seems harmless, especially since, as explained above, a broader list of all redirects to or from a given namespace can be obtained through AWB. --Bsherr (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • AWB has its limitations in this respect. It is far easier to use AWB when there is a category to work with. In fact I tried to follow your instructions above and was unable to duplicate that effort. Is there something in the AWB manual that lists a step-by-step procedure? And just saying that you think a work tool on this encyclopedia is of questionable utility is just an opinion. It is not a "reason" to "reduce their scope". So do you have a reason for thinking that same-namespace redirects should not be tracked and monitored? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Paine Ellsworth: So, it's documented at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/User manual#Make list, though not to the extent of a how-to for specifically producing this kind of list. (I think it might be a fine idea to detail the method somewhere, as SMcCandlish suggests.) Paine, if I can impose on you to say where I lose you with the instructions, it would be useful to me; since we may be giving or documenting these instructions in the future, I want to make sure I can do so clearly. My thinking on reducing the scope is this: tracking XNRs is useful because XNRs are generally undesirable. But I don't know the purpose of tracking all redirects from one namespace to the other besides statistics. In all the discussion, I don't think I see a concrete reason we do it. Now, it's been asserted that lack of a reason to do it is not a reason not to do it. So: (1) It is more work—and I think, at best can only be semi-automated work, at that—with a less accurate result, to add an Rcat template to every redirect indicating the namespace of the target, than it is to use AWB to generate that list; and (2) the namespace of the redirect target is obvious when one is viewing the redirect page, while the other Rcat templates add explanation that is not similarly obvious and readily trackable by alternative means, and having these Rcat templates used for this purpose is a distraction from the other, more useful Rcat templates. --Bsherr (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 Like many things on Wikipedia I'm not convinced of the utility. However neither I nor anyone else is obliged to spend any effort on this, and I see no harm from it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • willing to support option 2 IF Template:Automatic namespace redirect categories is implemented. That would automatise the process to the point that we could as well have XNR and non-XNR categories for all namespaces without any effort (not sure we should have that for non-XNRs in mainspace, but the other types probably make sense). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not persuaded that it matters, but one way in which categorisation may be helpful is that it provides another way for editors to become aware of the distinctions, in this case Rcats, and then to browse and navigate between them. – Fayenatic London 08:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-RfC followup discussion

[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • "Given the amount of work that would apparently be requied to implement option 1": please. All that would be required is to remove the tag from 6600 pages. Actually implementing what is envisaged by the status quo would require more than 125,000 edits. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is required to change the status quo, no consensus defaults to the status quo so the amount of work required by the status quo option is not relevant. If the proposed change was insignificant then I would have regarded a very weak consensus in its favour as sufficient, but (a) it was a significant change, and (b) there was not a consensus it its favour. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As an update, an implementation of User:Elli/rcat standardization could make the inclusion of this rcat trivial. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     21:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And "putting this discussion to one side until either considerable time has passed or there has been some significant relevant change": Both of these have already happened. We let the uncertain status quo sit for several years without resolution, and at this point some people want to effectively make the general direction of the status quo be mandatory (i.e., enact that 125,000+ changes 1234quer points out, versus 6600 – doing so at this point would obviously be a WP:FAITACCOMPLI, i.e. make it too hard to undo). The more sensible thing to do than throw up our hands and say "there's still no consensus and won't be indefinitely" is to take it to a broader venue like Village Pump, so that an actual consensus does emerge.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 20 December 2019

[edit]

@SMcCandlish: You removed the open italics and left the close italics in your last edit, and that turned everything after "outside" into italics. Remove two apostrophes after "outside". — Anomalocaris (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Derp. My eyeballs somehow did not notice that. Danny fixed it before I came back around.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 6 January 2020

[edit]

Change 'in that project namespace' (presumably an error) to 'in that namespace' or 'in the project namespace'; I'd say the former given the context. J947 (c), at 04:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 7 December 2021

[edit]

– 192.183.71.195 (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 07:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse extended content

192.183.71.195 (talk) Further reading[edit]

  • Ian R. Bartky (January 1989). "The adoption of standard time". Technology and Culture. 30 (1): 25–56. doi:10.2307/3105430. JSTOR 3105430.
  • Eviatar Zerubavel (July 1982). "The standardization of time: a sociohistorical perspective". The American Journal of Sociology. 88 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1086/227631. JSTOR 2779401. S2CID 144994119.
  • "World Time Scales". National Institute of Standards and Technology Physics Laboratory. 2002. Archived from the original on July 29, 1997.

hide Authority control National libraries • Japan Other • Microsoft Academic <img src="//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAutoLogin/start?type=1x1" alt="" title="" width="1" height="1" style="border: none; position: absolute;" />

  • Categories: Time scales

See also

[edit]

Online cataloging, through such systems as the Dynix software developed in 1983 and used widely through the late 1990s, has greatly enhanced the usability of catalogs, thanks to the rise of MARC standards (an acronym for MAchine Readable Cataloging) in the 1960s. Rules governing the creation of MARC catalog records include not only formal cataloging rules such as Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition (AACR2), Resource Description and Access (RDA) but also rules specific to MARC, available from both the U.S. Library of Congress and from OCLC, which builds and maintains WorldCat. MARC was originally used to automate the creation of physical catalog cards, but its use evolved into direct access to the MARC computer files during the search process. OPACs have enhanced usability over traditional card formats because: 1. The online catalog does not need to be sorted statically; the user can choose author, title, keyword, or systematic order dynamically. 2. Most online catalogs allow searching for any word in a title or other field, increasing the ways to find a record. 3. Many online catalogs allow links between several variants of an author's name. 4. The elimination of paper cards has made the information more accessible to many people with disabilities, such as the visually impaired, wheelchair users, and those who suffer from mold allergies or other paper- or building-related problems. 5. Physical storage space is considerably reduced. 6. Updates are significantly more efficient.

Carl Linnaeus Invented The Index Card ScienceDaily, June 16, 2009

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Template_index&diff=783096226&oldid=780826061

Cite This Page


Jump to navigation Jump to search Bibliographic details for MediaWiki

Citation styles for MediaWiki APA style MediaWiki. (2020, May 26). MediaWiki, . Retrieved 22:14, December 6, 2021 from https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227. MLA style "MediaWiki." MediaWiki, . 26 May 2020, 13:38 UTC. 6 Dec 2021, 22:14 <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227>. MHRA style MediaWiki contributors, 'MediaWiki', MediaWiki, , 26 May 2020, 13:38 UTC, <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227> [accessed 6 December 2021] Chicago style MediaWiki contributors, "MediaWiki," MediaWiki, , https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227 (accessed December 6, 2021). CBE/CSE style MediaWiki contributors. MediaWiki [Internet]. MediaWiki, ; 2020 May 26, 13:38 UTC [cited 2021 Dec 6]. Available from: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227. Bluebook style MediaWiki, https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227 (last visited December 6, 2021). BibTeX entry 

@misc{ wiki:xxx,
  author = "MediaWiki",
  title = "MediaWiki --- MediaWiki{,} ",
  year = "2020",
  url = "https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227",
  note = "[Online; accessed 6-December-2021]"
}

When using the LaTeX package url (\usepackage{url} somewhere in the preamble) which tends to give much more nicely formatted web addresses, the following may be preferred: 

@misc{ wiki:xxx,
  author = "MediaWiki",
  title = "MediaWiki --- MediaWiki{,} ",
  year = "2020",
  url = "\url{https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227}",
  note = "[Online; accessed 6-December-2021]"
} Behold the magic of mathematics! #stackoverflowknows

https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/553289/could-any-equation-have-predicted-the-results-of-this-simulation?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_overflow_newsletter


Wanted templates


Jump to navigation Jump to search The following information is cached, and was last updated 01:11, 20 November 2021. Discuss this special page at Wikipedia talk:Special:WantedTemplates. See also: Template:Specialpageslist Updates for this page are running once a month. Showing below up to 50 results in range #1 to #50. View (previous 50 | next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) 1. Template:Country data Xanadu‏‎ (13 links) 2. Template:WikiProject 2020s‏‎ (4 links) 3. Template:", "Template:" ).replace( "‏‎ (2 links) 4. Template:Country data Nonexisting‏‎ (2 links) 5. Template:Horrorcore‏‎ (2 links) 6. Template:Non-existent template‏‎ (2 links) 7. Template:Osobny artykuł‏‎ (2 links)

The following pages link to Template:Country data Xanadu

  • External tools: Link count Transclusion count

Displayed 13 items. View (previous 50 | next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

  • Template:Flagicon (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
  • Template:Flagicon/doc (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
  • Template:Flag/testcases (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
  • Template:Flagicon/sandbox (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
  • Template:Flagicon/testcases (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
  • Template talk:Flagicon/Archive 1 (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
  • Module:Flagg (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
  • Template:Flagg (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
  • Template:Flagg/doc (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
  • Template:Flagathlete/testcases (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
  • Module:Flagg/sandbox (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
  • Template:Flagg/sandbox (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
  • Template:Flagdeco/testcases (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)

View (previous 50 | next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

Fwd: [lists.wikimedia.org] Password Reset E-mail192.183.71.195 (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 15 January 2022

[edit]

Add error checking, to check if the redirect's target is in the Wikipedia namespace e.g. 

{{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACE:{{#invoke:redirect|main|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}|{{ns:4}}|<!--Correct namespace-->|<!--Incorrect namespace-->}}

Qwerfjkltalk 12:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 12:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth This looks very useful; can we have the same for the other by-namespace redirect templates? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To editor 1234qwer1234qwer4: yes, I'll see what I can do. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 13:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, isn't the {{#ifeq: {{BASEPAGENAME}}|R to project namespace|| kinda useless if it's already in an <includeonly>...</includeonly>? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Jochem van Hees: I thought the includeonly tags would be enough, too, however they did not keep the error box out of the transcluded {{This is a redirect/rcat}} template. So I had to use the extra parser function to eliminate it just from this rcat template page. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 14:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the error category, I found WP:AC/C/N (redirects to WT namespace). Presumably the rcat should be removed, just checking here. ― Qwerfjkltalk 14:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This rcat template has been replaced with {{R to talk namespace}}. It used to be a shortcut for Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard, which is now a redirect. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 14:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To editors 1234qwer1234qwer4, Qwerfjkl and Jochem van Hees: just fyi, the redirect error detection for incorrect targets has been added to the rcats in the {{Rcat see also}} template. Thank you for your help, and Happiest of New Years to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 14:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This new check seems to be misbehaving on page Portal:Contents/TOC navbar/doc, which currently redirects to Wikipedia:Contents/TOC navbar/doc. It is very confusing and I can't figure out what's wrong. Wikitext {{NAMESPACE:{{#invoke:redirect|main|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}} correctly produces "Wikipedia" on the page Portal:Contents/TOC navbar/doc in preview, same as wikitext {{ns:4}}. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that the new check adds Category:Pages with incorrectly transcluded templates, but Portal:Contents/TOC navbar/doc is categorized into Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace, which is caused by |wikipedia category=Redirects to Wikipedia project pages and |other category={{sandbox other||Redirects to project space}} in combination with pagename ending in /doc. Template {{sandbox other}} ignores not only sandboxes, but /doc pages too; see Special:Diff/928982553. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed: Special:Diff/1067267199 + Special:Diff/1067267253. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed template

[edit]

I was looking at WP:CSD and couldn't seem to find the output of {{R to project namespace}} anymore. This is now fixed. @Paine Ellsworth: Just so you know, this edit did not work as intended since you used {{PAGENAME}} and not {{FULLPAGENAME}}. I don't know if you made similar changes elsewhere, so I figured I'd let you know here.
–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To editor MJL: thank you so much for fixing that! It's the only one that's been altered that way to my knowledge. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 17:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

I'm not sure what the problem is, but these recent reverts by @Paine Ellsworth: have somehow caused WP:PST to be blank (at least for Brave Browser 1.46.144 on Windows 10). Weird thing is the fact that that page is affected but WP:PSTS isn't. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 15:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To editor ­lol1VNIO: edits from the sandbox made by editor Qwerfjkl appear to have fixed WP:PST without affecting WP:PSTS. We'll keep an eye on it. Thank you and Happy New Year to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 16:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, thanks! ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 16:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not displayed when previewing new redirect

[edit]

When previewing a new redirect with this rcat, nothing is displayed; but it displays on the created page as usual.

{{#invoke:redirect|isRedirect|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}

Presumably, this fails when the page is yet to be created, or isn't yet a redirect. What purpose does this line serve, anyway? jlwoodwa (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about Wikipedia talk?

[edit]

I was expecting {{R to project namespace}} to be an appropriate rcat template on WT:AWB/GF, which links to Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes, but it throws an error. What would be the appropriate template, or should {{R to project namespace}} be expanded to include Wikipedia talk?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:R_to_project_namespace&oldid=1250104654"