Template talk:R template index

Template: R from move

This one gets used quite a bit. Either I'll move a page, or I'll come across page moves by other editors, and the REDIRECTS need Rcats. So I thought I'd add it to the bottom with the page-merge Rcats. If there are any others that you use a lot and feel they should be on this template, either add them yourself or discuss them here on this page.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  02:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of UNDO

This date I had to undo an editor's good-faith edit. As cited above, this page was up for deletion, and the result was to keep it as is. Deleting by redirecting it is not an option. So please, editors, keep the spirit of the Tfd, and do not delete the format of this page. Or at the very least, discuss it here first.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  18:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Archived discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion below. It appears that we don't mind keeping some pages in the template namespace that are not, strictly speaking, templates. - GTBacchus(talk) 05:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Template:R help → Help:R help — This page is not a template. The justification given for keeping it in the template namespace has been to preserve its ability to be searched for conveniently, but this could be accomplished with a redirect. Is there any reason this solution would not address any concerns about moving the page? --Bsherr (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Well, for one thing, you were a participant in the above Tfd, and that decision was to Keep. For another, you moved the page without discussion, which may constitute vandalism. I suggest that you proceed carefully, Bsherr. Such behavior has been known to get editors blocked from Wikipedia.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Please review WP:BRD and remember to assume good faith. Also, noticed that your edit summary reverting my move was "unauthorized deletion of template". You may not know this, but moving a page is not deleting the page, it's merely renaming it so that it appears in a new location. There is no "authorization" process for moving a page. Controversial moves can simply be reverted and a discussion like this one started instead. Also, to quote WP:VAND#NOT, "Bold edits, though they may precede or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism." If there's anything else that concerns you, do let me know, but I believe this covers my edits. Let me know if you have any questions. --Bsherr (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC) You stem your argument on a technicality, that of "moving a page is not deleting the page". If you were to discuss it with the admin who made the decision to keep the page, you might find that, since moving the page was discussed at the Tfd, it is not an option anymore. It is this part of your editing behavior, and the part where you moved the page without discussion, that may constitute vandalism. Please proceed carefully. You have made too many good edits for you to be lost to Wikipedia because you were blocked. I sincerely would not want to see that happen. Please proceed in the spirit of the Tfd, and stop this disruptive editing.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Strong oppose. This template just underwent a Tfd, and to move or redirect the page was discussed. Since the outcome of the Tfd was to "Keep", neither redirecting nor moving the page is an option. Also, converting the template to a cross-namespace redirect will likely get it deleted on sight. None of this is in the spirit of the decision made by the Tfd.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  21:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Only crossnamespace redirects from the article space are speedy deleted. The TfD never addressed the possibility of a crossnamespace redirect. Could you explain why it wouldn't work? (And, since keeping the page in template space is also a contravention of the guidelines, wouldn't the crossnamespace redirect be a better IAR solution. If not, why?) --Bsherr (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Please cite a reference for your first sentence. The Tfd most certainly DID address the CNR possibility. Who are you? and what have you done with editor Bsherr? Maybe you missed that conversation, but CNRs were definitely discussed. As for any other arguments you may have, please address the administrator who made the decision with the following: “ The result of the discussion was keep. It is safe to say that the utility of this page has been sufficiently proven, therefore delete is not an option. While the argument to move said page is compelling, I'm also compelled to believe that moving this template might hamper the efforts of the everyday editor who is used to referring to it. While keeping this page where it is is likely a violation of the spirit/purpose/whatever of the template namespace, leaving it where it is causes no problems. JPG-GR (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC) ”  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  21:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC) JPG's not here yet, but I can notify him. The only speedy deletion criterion concerning crossnamespace redirects is R2, and that's only for redirects from the article namespace. If consensus is for a crossnamespace redirect here, it will exist until an RfD decides otherwise. I reviewed the discussion, and I can't find any explanation as to why a crossnamespace redirect won't satisfy your concerns. Assuming it were permissible, why would a crossnamespace redirect not address your concerns? --Bsherr (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC) According to the summary about cross-namespace redirects, the consensus following long debate is that new ones are deleted on sight, whether speedily or by the discussion process. It does not matter whether it's article CNRs/WP CNRs/whatever, the new ones get deleted, which is what you wanted in the first place, eh? You have lost the deletion argument, Bsherr. I've been on Wikipedia for several years, and I've won some arguments and I've lost some. You have to know when to move on. The Tfd cited in the tag at the top of this page, after in-depth discussion, decided to KEEP this page just like it is. Please respect that decision and advance to better edits.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  16:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC) This isn't about winning or losing. It's about finding the best solution. If you're worried about the crossnamespace redirect being deleted, we can convert this to an RfC to establish it. Would that address your concern? --Bsherr (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Okay. It's not about winning or losing. However it is about keeping a useful reference. I use this reference page almost every day. The only suggestion you've made that would not lose its utility for me is the CNR, and new CNR's get deleted. If you want to convert to an Rfc, that's fine with me.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC) And there we are! Ok, let me make inquiries about the best way to go about setting up a durable crossnamespace redirect. --Bsherr (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Ok, so, WP:CNR discusses only redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia: (project) namespace. WP:R#DELETE number five refers only to redirects from the article space. And speedy deletion R2, which I mentioned above, refers only to redirects from the article space. I can't find any authority that says crossnamespace redirects from the templae namespace are deleted. I suggest we redo the move of this page to the help namespace, leaving the crossnamespace redirect in place, and then monitor it to make sure it's durable. The alternative is that we immediately put the redirect up for discussion at RfD proposing it be kept, and then we'd have consensus to keep right away. If the redirect is deleted after that process we can restore the status quo. How does that sound? --Bsherr (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Aside from this discussion, your usage of stars (*) to indent instead of colons (:) makes this Talk page section exceedingly long. Please use colons instead of stars. If you want to begin an Rfc, then please do so. I have not changed my mind. Wikipedia:CNR states that "The term (cross-namespace redirect) is most often applied to redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia: (project) namespace." "Most often", to me, means that it also applies to all other types of CNRs. So this is where the argument to turn this page into a redirect to the Help: namespace loses its validity. The Tfd at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 9#Template:R help, in which you and I both participated, returned a decision to Keep this page just as it is. I respect that decision just as I would have respected any other decision that it might have returned. All I ask is that you respect that decision, too.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Paine, that's just an essay. If you read it, all of its contents apply only to redirects from the article space. Your point about it's meaning it's right, but it's not deliberate, it's just poor drafting. I've edited the essay to fix the problem. Does that address your concern? If not, I'm pleased to redraft any part of this essay that still concerns you. --Bsherr (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC) That is *not* just an essay, Bsherr, it is a summation of a long-running debate on the subject of cross-namespace redirects. And I'm glad to see that you discussed your edit with the original scribes who wrote the important lede of that summation. You did, didn't you? In my opinion, the lede writers sharpened and honed that lede over several years, and if they wanted that "clarification" in the lede, then they would have put it there themselves. If you did not consult with those scribes, then I suggest that you do a self-revert. Please show respect for the administrator who made the decision in the above-referenced Tfd, respect for the decision to Keep this page just like it is, and respect for the Tfd process itself, and cease and desist. This is a useful page just as it is formatted, title and all. How would you feel if you had a Wikipedia editing tool that you used almost everyday, and some editor came along and tried to get it deleted? The administrator who decided that this template should NOT be deleted, NOT be moved, NOT be converted into a CNR said it all with the final words of the KEEP statement: "leaving it where it is causes no problems". We both have better things we could be doing, so please leave this useful template alone, and let's get on to higher purposes... please.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  05:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Paine, those debates focused entirely on crossnamespace redirects from the article namespace, not from the template namespace. And it is an essay. If someone reverts my change, I'll take that as indication that it needs to be discussed. The summary to which you refer was not written by some great Wikipedia scribe; it was written in 2007 by Mersaran, who was subsequently blocked by the ArbCom for sockpuppetry. Do you understand why crossnamespace redirects are discouraged? It's to preserve the lines between the namespaces. But apply that to this situation. It's far more egregious to have a help page in the template namespace than it is to have a redirect to a help page in the template namespace. It's entirely bizarre to insist that a crossnamespace redirect will be deleted with any more vigor than a help page in the template namespace moved. It seems you keep suggesting that I'm trying to delete the page here. I'm just trying to move it. If you're confused about the difference between moving and deleting, I can explain again. I'm not trying to take your tool away from you; I'm trying to create a crossnamespace redirect to appease you. I consulted JPG, the closing admin from the TfD, who I've worked with on several projects before, and who I do greatly respect, and, while I don't want to speak for him, he says he did not intend his close to recognize a consensus against a page move, with or without a crossnamespace redirect. You can see the thread on his talk page. But that notwithstanding, you seem focused on objecting to this discussion, when, instead, you and I could instead be focused on the merits of a solution. I understand your only objection to a crossnamespace redirect is that you think it will get deleted. I again reiterate that there is no policy or guideline preventing a crossnamespace redirect from the template space to the help or project space. Would you object to trying it? If it gets deleted, I promise I will immediately revert the page back the status quo. As an alternative to this, I can create the crossnamespace redirect and then immediately propose it for discussion at RfD. Then we will have a consensus on whether it is allowed or not. This will be faster and more specific than an RfC. Which do you want to do? --Bsherr (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC) I read your conversation with JPG, and I respect the character opinion given. Your BRD would have been "bold" if you had done it prior to the Tfd. Deletion is always a "last resort" on Wikipedia. There are other avenues, such as the one you now propose, to consider before a Tfd. When you do such things as blank a page and turn it into a redirect, as you first did when you redirected the page to Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages, when you move a page, as you did next, and then it gets redirected to the move page, when you do such things after a Tfd, it just makes you look like an angry newbie who edits disruptively. I've already stated multiple times the outcome that I wish. And allow me to ask you a question: What difference does it make? Whether {{R help}} stays like it is or you turn it into a CNR, it will STILL be (by your reckoning) a "non-template" in template namespace, wouldn't it? So what's the difference? It won't change anything. All it will do is make the page a risky CNR and maybe get it deleted, which is unconscionable. Please just leave it alone. It doesn't hurt anything to leave it here. Why are you so adamant about doing this? It most certainly does not represent an improvement to Wikipedia.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  04:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC) First, "It's far more egregious to have a help page in the template namespace than it is to have a redirect to a help page in the template namespace." Second, the page causes confusion here (people think it's actually an R template). Third, because it is where it is, the page is an WP:Orphan. None of these likely would be so if the page were moved. That's why I'd like to do something about it. I've tried to convince you that there's no policy or guideline that would support deleting the crossnamespace redirect. Even if it were nominated, you and I could both defend it at RfD, I believe successfully. I thought my offer to try it, and immediately revet back to the status quo if it's deleted, was a fair one, and addresses your only stated concern with the outcome of moving the page. You've already said you have no objection to a durable crossnamespace redirect as the solution for this page, but you won't do anything to achieve it, even though there is no risk in doing so (because we can always revert to the status quo). I don't understand that position. Perhaps you could explain it? --Bsherr (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC) So we can say, then, that your above response depicts why you are so adamant about moving this page's contents to the Help: namespace and converting into a CNR. It's Christmas day, and as I sit here with thoughts about last evening's family gettogether and watch the young ones open their presents (always the best part for me), I can only hope that I can make you understand why I am even more adamant about leaving the page as is. You say, "It's far more egregious to have a help page in the template namespace than it is to have a redirect to a help page in the template namespace." I do not agree with this, mainly because I cannot find anything offensive about this page, nor could many of the editors who participated in the recent Tfd, to include JPG. JPG reiterated on his Talk page precisely what he meant when he wrote his closing to the Tfd. Remember, too, that he added a link to WP:IAR when he wrote leaving it where it is causes no problems. You, of course, do have the right to be offended for whatever reason by this page. I'm sorry you feel that way, but there were not enough editors who agreed with you at the Tfd. The page is in a namespace where it does not belong. Fine, it has a use. But, it would be less offensive if it was merely a redirect to the namespace where it actually belonged. And no utility would be lost in doing so! --Bsherr (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC) You also say that the page "causes confusion", and that "people think it's actually an R template". Never have I read this from any other editor, not here on the Talk page, not during the Tfd, never anywhere on Wikipedia. I have no idea where you got this idea from. It would take a real "bumbler" to be confused about this page. The moment one arrives at this page, one immediately sees what it is: A useful reference for the most-often-used "R from" templates. Who, exactly, to your knowledge, is confused by this page? JPG, the admin who closed the TfD, was confused when I recently discussed the template with him. He thought at first it was a R template. So did a bumbler close the TfD, or are intelligent users readily confused by this page? --Bsherr (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I did not expect that, so my term "bumbler" was obviously ill-conceived. Certainly no offense meant. I still fail to see how any bit of confusion that might arise could possibly be offset by the pages utility just as it is.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC) You state that the page is an orphan. This is not a good reason to make the page less useful to those editors who use it as a reference. Many pages on Wikipedia are orphaned, yet not deleted because they are still valid search terms and/or still useful to editors. This page is both a valid search term and useful to editors. You said yourself that the page would be equally useful as a CNR. It's orphaned because positioning it here divorces it from the other documentation of the R templates. --Bsherr (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC) The main reason you cannot convince me is that I am fully aware of the ongoing debate about CNRs, and your altering the lede of the essay that makes people aware of this only makes me more convinced that conversion to a CNR could be a very bad thing. I suggested that you revert that edit, because you can't possibly read the minds of the authors of that essay, and your obvious refusal to revert only convinces me more that a CNR conversion would not be good for the searchable aspect of this page. I explained to you that the lede of that essay was written by a user who was later blocked for abuse, so I can't contact that user to find out his or her intent in writing that. But no one's stepped forward to change my clarification back. So, what would it take to convince you that I'm right? Just tell me, and I'll see to it. --Bsherr (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC) The reason that I will do nothing to achieve this page as a "durable" CNR is that I am convinced that it is impossible to make this page a durable CNR no matter what you try. You have absolutely no sound basis for your opinion that this page, as a CNR, wouldn't be deleted. If you did, then you wouldn't even suggest a Rfd to find out. So begin a Rfd if you want, however there will be no support from me to change this page from its present format. I have explained my position over and over, and it does not seem to matter to you what I think, what many of the editors at the Tfd think, not even what the closing administrator thinks (from JPG's Talk page: "It should not be deleted. Where it is located does not concern me as long as it remains located somewhere other than the trash can."). My position is that the page should remain just like it is. There is no reason to go to the time and trouble of risking the possibility that this page might be deleted for any reason in the future. This page does not do ANY harm right where it is, right like it is. That's my position explained as best as I can do. Happiest of holidays to you and yours!  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I've inserted my replies directly into your comments for convenience. Please pardon the refactoring. Really, I'm just interested in knowing what I have to do to convince you that I'm right that this "CNR" won't be deleted. I give the suggestions that I did, trying it and seeing what happens or an RfD, because I cannot otherwise prove a negative to you. Instead, could you tell me what would convince you? --Bsherr (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I have answered this question several times. My answer remains unchanged: You have not convinced me that there is no way that this page could become a CNR and then not be deleted. Honestly, I haven't a clue how to tell you to do that. I presently feel that the possibility of deletion of this page, however large or slight, is unacceptable. Therefore, I cannot support any variance of the Tfd's decision. That decision should stand on its merit.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Well, even if you cannot, I think of a few things that would surely convince you of the propriety of a CNR. But they take time to accomplish. Meanwhile, on with the RM. --Bsherr (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose that just makes no sense. It would have to be Help:R templates 65.95.13.158 (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC) That would be fine by me. --Bsherr (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I'm rather surprised by the amount of virtual ink that's been spent on this question. Does it matter that much? It looks to me like a template documentation page, and those generally reside in template space. If it's helpful in practice for people to find it here, I don't see any harm in keeping it in this namespace. --Kotniski (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC) New Year's resolution? As we appear to be locked in an impasse, I have asked for editor assistance. My request is a very first step in dispute resolution, and appears listed on this page.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  00:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC) I don't think dispute resolution is appropriate when there is an ongoing process, WP:RM, on the subject a third party is being asked to weigh in on. It would be better for any interested third party to weigh in as part of the normal process. --Bsherr (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC) I thought about asking for a third opinion, since only one other editor has entered the discussion, but technically, that one other editor is already considered that "third opinion". I agree that it would be better if editors would start weighing in on this subject, but since they have not yet done so, and since you and I just keep going around in circles, I just thought I'd get a little experienced counsel on all this. As a mild and soft beginning to a resolution of our dispute, it appears to me to be appropriate. Surprise! We again disagree. I don't know what it is, Bsherr. I've read several of your arguments on other issues, and I've actually found myself in agreement with you on most of them. Yet on this particular issue, we cannot seem to get our heads together. So another opinion from any direction would be welcome.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  02:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC) No hurry to get it, though. The proposed move is listed at WP:RM. At the least, an admin will come here to close it. That'll be a few weeks from now, anyway. If it closes no consensus, then we can go 3O, but better one process at a time, I think. Meanwhile, I'll try my best to bring you around. :-) Merry Christmas. --Bsherr (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Backatcha on the Merry Christmas! and thank you! While learning more about you, I came across your move log, and I noted that you really do like to move pages! I made a few notes and changes to the World Wide Molecular Matrix article and to it's Talk page. I also noticed that when the REDIRECT page was formed by the move, the appropriate Rcats had not been added. It would be helpful and improve the encyclopedia if you would take care of this when you move pages (it only takes a few seconds). At least one Rcat, the {{R from move}} template, should be placed on every REDIRECT that results from a page move in the following manner... #REDIRECT [[Title of page that was moved]]{{R from move}} There's no reason to be concerned about your past moves, because somebody will soon come along and add the Rcats (don't know if there's a bot, yet, that does this), however it wouldn't take hardly any time at all for you to add at least the {{R from move}} cat to any future page moves you make. Thank you very much!  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  04:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC) I thought that {{R from move}} was only for redirect pages with useful page histories. "This page was kept as a redirect to the main article on the topic it names, in order to preserve the page's edit history after its content was moved to the other article." That's not the case with World Wide Molecular Matrix, because the page history moved with the article. Shouldn't it be {{R from misspelling}}, or something like that? I do, though, take your point that I shouldn't be lazy and should apply a template. --Bsherr (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC) As you can tell when you go to the Talk page, I found that one external link shows the WWMM as "World Wide . . ." and the next two links show it as "WorldWide . . .". That doesn't make it easy to tell which is correct, does it. So I thought it best to land the {{R from alternative spelling}} on the WW M M redirect. As for {{R from move}}, the template page suggests what you have gleaned above, but it's not the whole story. That Rcat lands its pages into the Category:Redirects from moves, where it explains further that the cat wants redirects that are used to avoid breaking links that may have been made externally, which is another reason for holding on to redirects. {{R from move}} is appropriate to use anytime a page is moved. Can and should be used on the Talk-page redirects, too, but I seldom remember to do so. I really am hoping for a bot to be designed for the purpose.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  07:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Definition of "template" Comment.  All of this, the Tfd, the "bold" edits following the Tfd and this present requested-move strategy, is based upon the definition of "template" found at Help:Template. The nom states that this template, {{R help}}, is not a template by that definition so it must be either deleted or moved. There are many templates that do not precisely fall under the definition at Help:Template. Are we to delete or move them all? As one editor noted above, "It looks to me like a template documentation page, and those generally reside in template space." There are also many other templates that are not explicitly created for transclusion, such as those that were created subject to substitution. It is time to end this proposal to move, isn't it?  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  18:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal

This page should be redirected to Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. I know this has been discussed before but the discussion never really went anywhere and people said it should be kept just because it's "helpful". Cross-namespace redirects are allowed to exist in certain circumstances so that is not an argument against redirecting this. The simple fact is that this page is just a copy of Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages but with less templates. In what way is this page more helpful than the other? If anything, it's harmful because editors may find this page and pick one of the several templates listed here when a better one is available but isn't listed here. If this page is kept, I think the information should be expanded to include examples of when and when not to use certain templates – in other words, the content should be substantially different to Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. McLerristarr | Mclay1 17:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

How about we just slap {{disambiguation}} on here than cite the requirements to be minimalist and easy to use for keeping it? — Dispenser 22:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I use this page almost everyday, because I'm always coming across redirects that need Rcats. This is a functional index as opposed to the alpha index at Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. And it houses the Rcats that are most often needed, the ones that I come back to time after time after time. When I come to this page, as I do very frequently, I do so to get the exact wording of an Rcat so I don't type it in wrong and then have to do it over. When I come to this page, if I remember that there might be a better Rcat that's not on this page, then I click over to the alpha index to look for the better Rcat. This is a necessary page just like it is. It has survived both a deletion discussion and a move discussion. At those discussions, several editors were involved, and the consensus was to leave this page as is. Please, my friends, let's just move on to better things, can't we?  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  14:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Those discussions were not particularly deep. I still don't think it's necessary to have a separate page for a slightly different order of the same list of templates. However, I now plan on expanding the information of this page at some point. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see if there are some Rcats that you feel you will use often that you expand this page with them, and try to maintain the structural/functional basis of the page, if you would. Also, even though I'm not certain that the {{This is a redirect}} template is up to full utility, I've added it to the See also section, so editors can benefit from all of your hard work!  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  12:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Substitution cat

Mclay1, I like what you've done regarding examples. That will definitely help editors and alert them to other associated Rcats. I must disagree with you on one point, though. This template is an "index" template and is not meant to be transcluded nor substituted. So it does not belong in Category:Wikipedia substituted templates any more than it would belong in Category:Wikipedia transcluded templates. So please do not revert my next edit, which will be to remove this index template from the sub-temp cat. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  16:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that message box template should not be substituted, especially with all the parser functions. If you feel the template is inappropriate for this page, remove it entirely or edit it so it fits. Also, I changed "organize" to "organise" because we already have British spellings on the page and the spelling on a page must be consistent. Since the redirect templates use British spelling, it seems more appropriate to make the whole page British rather than making it American and listing redirects for the templates. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  03:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2

Archived discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the move request was: no sign of consensus to move after a very long time of trying Kotniski (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Template:R help → Help:Redirect templates — This page is not used as a template and does not fit any of the descriptions given on Wikipedia:Template namespace. The only arguments I have seen so far for not moving it have been "it's useful", which is something it will continue to be (I don't see why its name makes a difference), and "we've already had this discussion", which is true; however, the TFD was a deletion discussion and renaming was never really discussed and the previous requested move only focused on these previous two arguments. Let's forget about previous discussions and start anew. Why should this be in the template namespace? It is not transcluded or substituted and it is the only page of its kind (all the others are in the Wikipedia namespace). If we turn this page into a help page for redirect templates (as well as keeping the current lists), it will make it substantially different from Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Keep very strongly! I disagree with you, McLay1. If you go back again and look at the Tfd discussion— I mean, really look at it, you will find that renaming was most definitely discussed. Several editors including myself (and if I recall correctly, you were also involved) !voted to KEEP this index page just as it is. We stand on these arguments and their conclusions. Please give it a rest. We don't want to turn this page into a cross-namespace redirect and then see it eliminated as a new CNR. We want to be able to type "t" into the search field and come up with this page PRONTO. I use it all the time, almost every single day, and I would not want to lose it. So no, we should stand on the previous decisions in both discussions which were: Keep this page as is and improve it as you and I and others have been doing. Thank you very much, and again, Please give it a rest! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  18:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Moving was never properly discussed at the TFD and since it was a deletion discussion it was never seriously considered. I don't understand your argument. Firstly, cross-namespace redirects are not automatically deleted and, in fact, recently, there seems to have been a shift in people's thinking and cross-namespace redirects are no longer deleted just because they are cross-namespace. Secondly, even if this was deleted, having been moved, it would still exist just under a different name. What difference does its name make to finding the page? The fact is this is not a template and this is the only page in the template namespace (that I know of) that isn't a template or template documentation. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC) You are making statements without backing them up with reliable sources, Mclay1. You say "never properly discussed", and I say that moving this page was definitely and "properly" discussed at the Tfd to the point that the closing administrator made the observation: “ The result of the discussion was keep. It is safe to say that the utility of this page has been sufficiently proven, therefore delete is not an option. While the argument to move said page is compelling, I'm also compelled to believe that moving this template might hamper the efforts of the everyday editor who is used to referring to it. While keeping this page where it is is likely a violation of the spirit/purpose/whatever of the template namespace, leaving it where it is causes no problems. (italics mine)— JPG-GR ” Further, you say that new CNRs are no longer immediately deleted. I have cited a source numerous times that says that new CNRs are immediately deleted. Nobody has yet to reliably contradict this. Please cite a reliable source that contradicts this. Otherwise, this page should stay just as it is so it won't be immediately deleted or soon be deleted as a CNR. In accordance with the Tfd and the first move request, editors want to be able to type the letter "t" in their Wikipedia search engine and be able to come to this page immediately with one click. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Just look at the many RFDs (in which I often take part) of cross-namespace redirects. There is nothing wrong with CNR anymore, if there ever was to begin with. The idea that this page should not be moved because an editor is used to the current name is, frankly, ridiculous. Big deal if you have to access it a few times with its new name before your browser brings it up first in the search bar by typing the first letter. That is barely a problem and is easily fixed. If you actually read the TFD, you'll see a few editors wishing for it to be moved and only you opposing that suggestion. Your reasoning was that it is "useful". How is it not useful in another namespace? If moved, the page itself will be exactly the same, just with a different name. The closer of the TFD did not move it because, like I said, it wasn't properly discussed. Neither is it being properly discussed now, since only one other person has commented so far. Perhaps I should contact the other participants of the TFD. McLerristarr | Mclay1 23:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC) So your reliable source for CNRs no longer being at risk are "the many RFDs of CNRs". How about linking to just one of these? Rather than making those of us who are trying to follow you on this hunt them down? I honestly don't know myself what the big deal is or was about CNRs. All I know is that I can point you directly to a reliable source at Wikipedia:CNR that describes a long-running debate about CNRs. It cites that the "present consensus" is to hold on to the older CNRs and to delete new CNRs on sight. That is why this page should not be moved. And thank you so much for being so sensitive to other editors who feel that one way to improve Wikipedia is to make the manual editing process as effective and efficient as possible so editors can spend time editing rather than in hunting down the useful tools they need. I was not the only editor who opposed the move at the Tfd. In fact, that is ludicrous to think that the closing admin would disallow the page move based only on one editor's opinion. As soon as other editors read about the CNR problem, they saw the wisdom in leaving this index page just as it is. It is you who should "actually read the Tfd", Mclay1. The "useful" argument was made only, ONLY to show why this template should not be deleted. It was the CNR problem that kept this template from being moved. Please follow your own good advice! Contact whoever you like, Mclay1. Until you can target specific and plausible sources that confirm that this template, if turned into a CNR, would not soon be deleted, then to move it would not only go against the wisdom and good sense of two previous administrative decisions, but it would also make it more difficult for those of us who use this index all the time to find it. You have not made any new argument to move this page. It makes no sense to open a Move Request every few weeks and then use the same argument (the losing argument) that was used before. The reason this template was initially created was so that we would not have to hunt through the alphabetical index all the time for "just the right Rcat". This index puts those Rcats right at our fingertips right when we need them. To risk this page's disappearance is just plain unacceptable. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  05:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC) In the TFD, you said the page's "usefulness far outweighs any definition problems". That was the reason for it not to be deleted but if it is moved, then there will be no definition problems and no reason to delete it. Everybody wins. I just fail to see the problem of this particular page name being deleted. However, the CSD for CNRs only applies to redirects from the main namespace to another namespace other than the category, help, Wikipedia, template and portal namespaces. So basically, CNRs can very rarely be speedily deleted and definitely cannot in this case. If a deletion discussion was initiated, you and I could summon all these arguments as reasons to keep. Basically, there are two arguments here: this page should be moved because it is not a template so being in the template namespace is silly and this page should not be moved because there is a possibility that this redirect to the new name will be deleted and the few editors who use it will have to remember a new name. I know which one outweighs the other. For proof that CNRs are not deleted on sight, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 12. Some of the CNRs were deleted because no one but the nominator commented; some were deleted for reasons that do not apply here; however, the ones that were actually discussed concluded that CNRs are not always harmful. See also, WP:RFD#KEEP – navigational usefulness is an acceptable reason to keep a redirect. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Again, you are making the same arguments that were not effective at the Tfd, nor were they effective in the first move request. If you'll check the history of Wikipedia:CNR, then you will find that the part about only a certain kind of new CNR that would be deleted was added by the nominator of the first move request! That editor made a change to that essay to justify the move request! So I wouldn't put too much stock in that statement, which was not part of the original essay. And again, you are saying all the things that were said at the Tfd and at the first move request. All you are doing is you're compelling me to say the very same things in rebuttal that I said before. It appears that the link you provided shows several examples of a special category of CNR. Those are CNRs from the main namespace to the project namespace that were (or are) evidently used as shortcuts. So they do not constitute good examples as pertains to this index template. You cannot guarantee that if this template is turned into a redirect from Template namespace to the Help namespace, that it would not then be deleted as a new CNR. Both previous discussions ended by taking this important fact into consideration and to keep this page just like it is. It is sincerely hoped that this will again be the case. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  01:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC) PS. We note that you, McLay1, created a new cross-namespace redirect titled Help:Redirect templates probably in anticipation that this new move request would be approved. Should we place a Speedy Deletion template on that new CNR to see how long it would stick around after it's brought to the attention of Wikipedia administration? I never cited WP:CNR so I don't know why you're telling me that. That essay is just words – words mean nothing if the actions don't match. Just because the writers of that essay have some incomprehensible beef with CNRs doesn't mean that the consensus at RFDs matches that. Not all the redirects at the RFD I linked were shortcuts. CNRs are deleted if they are illogical and unhelpful. The fact that you want to keep this page at its current location means that the current title is useful to at least one person and that is a good reason not to delete it. Template:Editnotices is a redirect to the Wikipedia namespace just like this would me (but you already knew that because you've written on its talk page). But the simple fact is you don't want this page to be moved, despite all logic saying this isn't a template, because you can't be bothered typing in a new name into the search bar. I don't see that as a reasonable reason to defy the purpose of the template namespace. I created Help:Redirect templates because its a useful redirect. McLerristarr | Mclay1 02:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC) I mentioned the CNR essay because when you wrote: "However, the CSD for CNRs only applies to redirects from the main namespace to another namespace other than the category, help, Wikipedia, template and portal namespaces," you pretty much quoted the new edit to that essay, which was made by the nom of the first move request. I really don't get you, McLay1. You are involved with editing an encyclopedia. In fact, recently you've involved yourself very effectively for the most part in the improvement of several templates, including this one, many of which affect a huge number of pages in this encyclopedia. And yet there you are, saying things like, "That essay is just words . . ." Words are always very important, even when they don't seem to be, McLay1. Words are our "stock in trade". They are a major medium of communication, especially as they apply to an encyclopedia. I'm not the only one who uses this template and would not like to risk its demise. Just once again check the two previous discussions, the Tfd and the first requested move, to find others who seriously involved themselves with this index template and the keeping it just like it is. I am not alone, as you would lead other readers and editors to believe. You, yourself, must have some tools you use. How would you feel if someone just stepped in and tried to yank one of your useful tools away from you? Would you just sit idly by? But heck, you obviously don't care about yanking the tools away from others, do you. Hopefully, you won't be any more successful than the other editors who tried to get this template adiosed. Maybe you'll even see the error of your ways? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  05:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC) "Like" a /doc page This template is an index template. It is very much like any {{documentation}} template page. Documentation pages are not "true" templates, either. The only place they get transcluded to is the template they "document". And many of them are "<noinclude>d" on the template page itself. This index template is very much like any other documentation template. It "documents" the usage of Redirect Category (Rcat) Templates that are frequently used. It "documents" the usage of those Rcats functionally rather than alphabetically. It is just as valid a "template" as any other documentation page. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC) When I said "the CSD for CNRs only applies to redirects from the main namespace to another namespace other than the category, help, Wikipedia, template and portal namespaces", I was paraphrasing the actual criterion for speedy deletion. I'm not trying to get anything taken away from you. The only change will be the name at the top of the page. Nothing is lost except your browser cache. What I meant by the "essay is just words" is that it's just the opinion of a few editors and their opinion doesn't matter if it's just written. What matters is if the opinion is supported by the consensus at RFD and I don't think it is. If index templates exist, then this is the only one. Perhaps we should move it to a /doc sub-page and apply it as the documentation to every redirect template. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC) I respect what you think, McLay1, but what you think is very much like "original research" when editing an article. You have not been able to "back it up" with solid Rfd examples. All you have done is to try to belittle the consensus that was described in the CNR essay. "Their opinion doesn't matter if it's just written." Their opinion is not what that essay's about. Did you read that essay? That essay's about the Wikipedia community consensus as regards CNRs, and that consensus is presently that old CNRs are probably worth keeping, at least for now, and new CNRs should be speedily deleted. Simple as that. New CNRs should be speedily deleted. It doesn't matter what namespace they're in nor what namespace they target. All that matters to the present community consensus is that they are new CNRs, so they should be speedily deleted. I never said this was a candidate for /doc status. This is not a Documentation template. During the previous move request another editor brought out the fact that this index template is very much like the template /doc pages, which reside in Template namespace, and so should be left alone just as it is. I am just echoing that editor's opinion. This index is very much like template /doc pages, but it is not actually a /doc page. There is no need to turn this into a /doc page for every redirect template. It is readily available when it's needed in its present form. No need for any change that might get it deleted. Let's just leave it alone and get on with improving Wikipedia! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  14:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, template documentation is kept in the template namespace but being like template documentation doesn't mean it should be in the template namespace. I have given you plenty of reasons and examples but you're choosing to ignore them. 1) The RFD page I linked 2) Template:Editnotices 3) WP:CSD: "Redirects, apart from shortcuts, from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces." – therefore, it's Wikipedia policy that no other CNRs can be speedily deleted. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC) I do not ignore your references, Mclay1. I would never do that. I simply choose to see them as of insufficient relevance to this index template. They do not instill confidence that new CNRs are not deleted as per community consensus. You boldly say, ". . . therefore, it's Wikipedia policy that no other CNRs can be speedily deleted," but that is just your opinion, one editor's opinion. Your opinion stacked up against the opinions of all the other editors who participated in the Tfd and in the first move request, who felt that this index template should stay just like it is, your opinion stacked up against the present Wikipedia community consensus as regards new CNRs. Your opinion is, of course, important. However, the overriding factors must be the community consensus and the sound judgements of two admins in the two previous discussions. Hasn't too much time been spent on this? Please close this move request, and let's move on to more productive struggles to improve Wikipedia. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  16:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Perhaps you are misunderstanding the difference between deleting quickly and speedily deleting. For something to be speedily deleted (deleted without discussion), it must meet the speedy deletion criteria, which this page would not. If this page was moved, there is only a small chance someone with a vendetta against CNRs will find the redirect and there is an even smaller chance that the consensus will be to delete, especially considering people who support moving this page, including me, want the redirect to remain. PS I can't close this discussion. We need an administrator and considering it's currently 2 against 1 in favour of moving, it may end in the page being moved. PPS I don't really care but my user name is Mclay1 not McLay1. M is my first initial and "Clay" are the first four letters of my last name. I suspect that most people probably think it's pronounced McLay rather than M Clay. Ah, well. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Perhaps you misunderstand that even a small possibility of deletion is unthinkable and unacceptable, Mclay1 (please accept my apology for miscapitalizing your sig). And you still cannot guarantee that both {{R help}} and {{R from}} (redirect template to the R help index) won't be deleted as new CNRs if this page is moved. Also, we both must remember that, while making these decisions, polling/voting is no substitute for discussion. This discussion, however long and possibly distracting, has covered no new ground. When all the !votes (consensus building) from the Tfd and move requests are fully considered, it is hoped that administration will continue to see this page is not a cause for any harm just where it is and will allow it to remain here. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  12:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Move if Template:R help is left as a redirect of Help:Redirect templates. —mc10 (t/c) 14:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Please see my response to the nom just above. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Just to be clear, as noted above, if this template is left as a redirect that targets another namespace, then present Wikipedia community consensus is to delete that page as a "new cross-namespace redirect" (CNR). If this page is deleted, then those of us who regularly improve redirects by placing them in categories will have lost a very useful tool. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  16:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Just to clear something up, this is the last time I will ask, can you please specify exactly how you will lose this tool if the page is moved? As far as I can see, the tool will still exist just under a different name. McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Just above I explained that if this page is moved and turned into a CNR, we run the risk of it being deleted as a new CNR. You don't seem to be sensitive to the fact that to move this page is essentially to delete this page. It would no longer exist as a search-engine link to the new page in the new namespace. Why is it so hard for you to understand that deleting this page would only make editors have to once again hunt for this information each time they need it? Leave this page alone and it hurts nothing, it harms no one, and it remains as a useful and easily accessible editing tool. Earlier, you said that you recently created the "new CNR", Help:Redirect template, because "it's a useful redirect". How is it useful? If someone were to slap a delete/discussion template on it and begin by saying that: Help:Redirect template is a cross-namespace redirect to Template namespace, and the present Wikipedia community consensus is to delete newly created cross-namespace redirects." ...how would you defend it? There would be no defense that I can see, and your newly created redirect from the Help namespace to the Template namespace would be deleted. Unless you could effectively defend it, your new creation would be adiosed right in front of your eyes. So how exactly is your new creation "useful"? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  05:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC) I still don't follow your logic. If someone wants to find this page, then they must already know the page exists; therefore, they will not have to "hunt around". On the other hand, if someone does not know the page exists, there is zero chance they will search for Template:R help. Help:Redirect template is a must likelier search term. If it was nominated for deletion, I would defend it using the many arguments I have presented above, including that fact that it is harmless and the fact that it is useful, which is a valid reason not to delete according to Wikipedia policy. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC) The logic is in the loss of search engine usage. That's how I find this page when I need it. Since I use this master index template almost daily, the {{R from}} redirect to this page is at the top of the drop-down list of my Wikipedia search field. Delete this page and that utility that I and who knows how many other editors enjoy is "toast". And thank you for the part about "harmless and the fact that it is useful" as regards your new baby CNR. That pretty much makes the same case to keep this page just like it is. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  17:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC) No, it makes the same case to keep this page as a redirect but there is no case to keep this page under its current name. I hope the closing administrator will realise that this not being a template outweighs the argument that you will temporarily lose this page as your most searched term in the unlikely scenario that the redirect is deleted. This page is not a "master index template" because you made that up. This is the only page of its kind. That is my summary and I think it is perhaps time to end this conversation and wait for closing since we are both just repeating the same things now. McLerristarr | Mclay1 02:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC) We've been repeating the same things over and over for quite some time now, and not just things in this discussion but the points made in the previous discussions as well. As I said, you have brought up nothing new. Even your argument that this is not a template is not new. Of course it's a template. By what definition are you saying it's not a template? Can you produce any document that specifically excludes this kind of template? No, you cannot. It's just your opinion that this isn't a template. This is indeed a master template under the definition brought out in the Tfd discussion. This is indeed an index template because it brings together several often-used templates by function. I agree that we've again wasted enough time here. As you said yourself, since this page is both harmless and useful, this "is a valid reason not to delete according to Wikipedia policy". To move this page unnecessarily risks this page's deletion as a new CNR. Why can't you just respect and accept the sound closing decisions of the two previous discussions? You write as if I'm the one making waves here, but I'm not the one who continues on this mysterious campaign to get this page moved/deleted. I'm just the one who, among several other editors who have entered these discussions, wants this page to stay just like it is, so that when I need it, it will be as handy as typing the letter "t" in my Wikipedia search engine. You would move it, turn it into a redirect, and risk its deletion. And why? all because you feel it's not a template. Here's a flash for you, Mclay1: This page is a template. It resides in template namespace, therefore it is a template, and it will remain a template whether it becomes a redirect or it continues to be a functional index template that houses the most-often-used redirect category templates. The only way to remove this page from template namespace is to have it deleted. So why else would you or anybody else be so adamant about moving this page and turning it into a vulnerable CNR? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC) PS. It is my sincere hope that the closing admin will see that there is no reason to risk this page's deletion by turning into a cross-namespace redirect, that the closing admin will see the good in the previous admins' decisions to keep this page just as it is. Wikipedia:Template namespace says, "Templates duplicate the same content across more than one page. You can change a template in one place and it will immediately propagate to the pages that use it." This page does not match that definition. Templates are either transcluded or substituted – this does neither. Saying it's a template because it's in the template namespace is the most illogical argument ever. This page could be called Portal:R help but that doesn't make it a portal; it means it's in the the wrong namespace. It is not just my opinion that this isn't a template. It isn't a template; it's a list of templates, which should be in the Wikipedia namespace with every other list of templates or in the help namespace if we put some help on the page as well. Harmless and useful are reasons not to delete a redirect, not anything else. Besides, this is harmful because it's misleading by being in the template namespace. Someone could try to use it as a template for whatever reason. If this page name became a redirect and was deleted, it wouldn't take long before you could bring up the page under its new name by typing in the first letter. It's not that much of a hardship, is it? McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Again, you respond with the same points that have been made already in the other discussions. Whether or not this is a template is a matter of opinion, as recognized by the admin who closed the Tfd. That admin said, ". . . While keeping this page where it is is likely a violation of the spirit/purpose/whatever of the template namespace, leaving it where it is causes no problems." It is as you say a list of templates, an important template index. It is not a list of anything else, it's just a functional index of the most-often-used redirect category templates. So it does belong in template namespace, and even if it might not belong in template namespace, it doesn't do any harm. The harm that you suggest it does, that it misleads people, is just your grasping at straws. Any page on Wikipedia can be transcluded or substituted, so any page can be turned into a template (as you well know, since you've been working with templates). As far as what you said about hardship, thank you for noticing that it would indeed be a hardship. Whether that hardship lasts a day, or a week, or a month, the question remains: Why would you want to put your fellow editors, who rely heavily on this index template, through any hardship at all? Why would you want to do that while fully knowing that leaving this page just like it is will not cause us any hardship at all? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  14:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC) PS. You may be thinking, 'Yes but, turning it into a CNR won't get it deleted.' You don't know that for certain, do you. You can't know for certain that it won't be deleted as a new CNR. Nobody can know for certain, and this point has also come up repeatedly in these loooong discussions. Please just leave this page as is. PPS. Please let's get our heads together by use of the Reasonability Rule? Reasonability Rule In an effort to resolve this amicably for all parties, let me recommend... Application of the Reasonability Rule that will aid us in dispute resolution possibly beginning with asking for a third opinion or asking at Wikipedia:Editor assistance (this was used in the previous discussion) might be more appropriate I would be happy to begin the process if editor Mclay1 deems it necessary. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  17:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC) I doubt moving or not moving this page would be considered unreasonable or unacceptable. But I think it's best to contact an administrator anyway because looking at the amount of Wikipedia:Requested moves still open, it may take a while for them to get around to this one. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure what you mean by "contact an administrator". What I suggested was just to either get an opinion from an objective third party editor, or to get other opinions by asking for editor assistance. Apparently, you do not want me to seek other editors' opinions but go straight to an admin. If admins are backed up, the last thing they probably want to hear is one of us pressing them for a decision. If you still feel as I do, that you and I are at an impasse and neither one of us has changed our original position, then we should probably just be patient and wait for this to rise to the top of the admins' list. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  02:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Fine. I already contacted two other editors a while ago but neither have responded. That's the problem with pages outside of the main namespace. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC) In this case it's probably more a function of all the long, drawn-out discussions we ask them to plow through before they can land upon the right decision. First, an editor tries to get this page deleted. After a long discussion including a suggestion to move rather than to delete, the choice is made to keep this page as is. Then an editor opens a move request, but not until that editor first goes against the Tfd by deleting this page (I undeleted it) and then moving this page (I moved it back). Then, not long after that move request results in the decision to keep this page as is, yet another editor (yourself) opens yet another move request without providing one, single new reason for this proposed action. It's too bad that you feel we need more opinions, when there have already been ample inputs from several editors in the previous discussions (and at least two admins) who felt that this page was perfectly okay to remain in template namespace. I wonder how many more opinions will you need before you realize that this page is harmless to remain right here in this namespace? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  15:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Ploughing through discussions is part of the discussion process. I ploughed through the previous discussions and, no, I have not brought anything new to the table but I wanted to have a discussion without silly arguments, which I think we've mostly achieved. The previous requested move failed because only two people !voted – you, who opposed it because the page just underwent a TFD, which is not a reason to not have another discussion, and an IP editor who opposed the move because he thought there was a better name, but I'm not going to get into how annoying that is. My plan was to have a thorough discussion, which we have had. Now, no matter what the result of this requested move is, the name or existence of this page does not need to be discussed again. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Interesting thoughts, Mclay1. I would have thought that the Tfd was enough. But I was wrong, obviously, because another bold editor went to extremes to make his point, and yet still the page remained unmoved. I would have thought that those two discussions were enough, but I was wrong again. For here you are, first proposing to delete this page by redirecting it to the alphabetical index (see your proposal above) and now once again proposing to move this page to another namespace, while leaving behind a vulnerable cross-namespace redirect. It was this "new CNRs get deleted" that has kept this page from being moved in two prior discussions. It is hoped that the possibility of losing this page will once again keep it just like it is: Harmless, useful, easily accessible to all editors who need it and use it often. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  04:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC) PS. Even when I use the {{This is a redirect}} template, which I use now almost exclusively (see this question), I still come back to {{R help}} to get just the right redirect category templates. The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit conflicts

Editor Mclay1, please stop your edit war our edit conflicts. The Mbox you keep installing attempts to dictate to other editors what they may or may not do in an authoritarian manner. You are an editor like me, and it is not our place to tell other editors what they may or may not do. The existing Ombox makes the point exceedingly well, so please leave it in place. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  18:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• PS. Some of the other edits you've made are good, and I have left the good ones in place. Other edits you've made are just plain unnecessary. For example, you keep changing the first sentence to "This list of templates is furnishes editors with a practical tool . . .". Can't you see the double-verb you keep putting there? And this is an "Index Template", therefore it should be called what it is.

OK, first of all, I reverted once because your missing the point of what my edit did. The message box is what will be transcluded if someone accidentally uses this template as a redirect template. It could quite easily be used by accident instead of Template:R to help. Secondly, "is furnishes" is just a typo. And thirdly, you made the term "index template" up. It's just a list of templates. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, they're redirect templates not redirect category templates – you're the only one who calls them the latter and seems to be just so you can use the abbreviation "Rcat". McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that it will be so easy to mistake the two templates. That's what hatnotes are for, and the existing box will work just as well in the event of an accidental transclusion. Let's not quibble about typos, please, this entire conversation is keeping you from your work improving the Rcats that have been protected. What's holding that up, by the way? Yes, I made the term "index template" up, because this is a functional index of redirect category templates. I didn't make "Rcat" up, though, that term's been around longer than I have. When you read WP:RCAT, you'll find that the terms "redirect category template" and "redirect template" are used interchangeably. These Rcats place redirects into categories, so I prefer to use the longer term, "redirect category template", or shorten it to the acronym "Rcat". Please continue improving this index template, and please leave the lede as it is. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• PS. I'm beginning to get the feeling that the real reason behind your want to move this page is so you can turn {{R help}} into a shortcut for {{R to help}}. Is that correct?

No, I do not wish to redirect this page to Template:R to help. I just think that the name of this page is like the name of a redirect template so it could easily be used by accident (obviously not if the editor looks at this page first). I just think it would be better to just transclude a message box rather than the entire page. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

PS Do not accuse me of vandalism. I am certainly not vandalising. Also remember, it takes at least two to edit war. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism? I don't recall using that word in any of this discussion. I informed you that you were approaching the edge of the 3RR policy, that your edits might be considered disruptive, that you and I have been quibbling about small things when we both have larger fish to fry, but you are not a vandal, no, far from it. I think you are a very dedicated person just like I am, both of us dedicated to improving this encyclopedia. We just have different styles, that's all. I respect your style, just as I hope you respect mine. It seems very hard to accept it when we're not right about something, and I think you've been wrong about some things where this index template is concerned. However, when it comes to all the other improvements you've made, to other pages and even to this one, you are right far more often than you've been wrong. I noincluded most of this page, so if an editor mistakenly transcludes it, just the box and lede will show up in the diffs. I sincerely hope that this and the hatnotes will meet your concerns about accidental transclusions. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  23:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I became more sensitive to your concern, here, Mclay1. I have adjusted the warning box to include your more attention-getting Mbox and a message about incorrect placement, especially on Redirects. Please forgive me for my previous confusion. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  17:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad we can agree on something finally. Just to clear something up, I had only reverted once when you gave me the warning about edit warring. Also, my comment about you accusing me of vandalism came from one of your edit summaries: "this is beginning to border on vandalism". But no matter. It seems we have solved this argument. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Rcats

• Transferred from Template talk:R from by – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  00:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  

Mclay1, I see you're busy at work once again trying to make my life miserable. The alternative name Rcat is widely used in both the template and project namespaces, and used some in other namespaces, as well. Just click on "What links here" and limit the search to the namespaces to see that. So "R from other name" is definitely not limited to article namespace. As for the shortcut, okay, I'll give you that one. No big deal. Sheesh. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  04:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't take this stuff personally. I really don't think there is any point in categorising a redirect to a template as a redirect from an alternative name. All redirects to templates are alternative names for their respective targets. Most redirect templates should only be used in the main namespace because that's the only place that they're at all useful. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

And once again we find ourselves in complete and total disagreement. Surprise! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  10:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• PS. You should check out my user page. There you will find a user box that always compels me never to be arsed. <g>

I have a very similar userbox, although it would be quite an accomplishment if you could find mine, since my user page in an absolute mess. I guess we're at yet another stalemate. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You are an excellent editor, Mclay1, and I always find it difficult to be in contention with such editors. As in the past and no matter what particular debate we might find ourselves in, I continue to wish the best of everything to you and yours! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  08:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

R from former name

Why is {{R from former name}} not listed? Is it deprecated? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not deprecated. There are many redirect templates missing from this list. At the moment, it's meant to list the most used template but, even then, it's missing some. We'll finish it eventually. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Please remember that if you frequently use an Rcat that's not on the list, any editor can add an Rcat to the list. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  08:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Which would *you* use?

I'm wondering (small poll) which would other users here use?

I created a "Template:Legislatures of the Americas". Basically it just uses "The Americas" standard template and auto creates "Legislature in (place name)" links for both independent and non-independent nations. Needless to say "Legislature in the United States" isn't the actual title. It would be "United States Congress" therefore "Legislature in the United States" forwards to "United States Congress", but it doesn't stop there. Legislature in the Anguilla" forwards to "Legislative Council in Anguilla" and "Legislature in Barbados" forwards to "Parliament of Barbados". As you can see there are a wide array of legislature names through-out the Americas. Leading me to my question. What forwarding "redirect template" would you recommend or use in this case? "Legislature in the United States" isn't even close to really being an alias but I can't name the template "Parliaments of the Americas", "National Assemblies of the Americas", "Legislative Councils of the Americas", or "Congresses of the Americas" since that leaves out some. The only common thread is their all legislatures by different names. CaribDigita (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I checked out the Legislature in the United States, and as you see, it does not exist. So I viewed your {{Legislatures of the Americas}} template and found that "United States" is actually linked to Legislature of the United States, which is REDIRECTed to "United States Congress". Before tackling your question, first you need to know that using REDIRECTs in templates reduces their effective value. If you use REDIRECTs, then the subject will not be in bold when the template is placed on the subject page. To illustrate, go to the United States Congress article and view the "United States Armed Forces" template at the bottom. You will see in that template that the article title, United States Congress, is in bold. If that link had been redirected, it would not be in bold. So avoid using REDIRECTS in templates.

Now to your question. You will want to choose the "best" or "closest" Rcat (redirect template) to categorize the REDIRECT in the "most correct" category. If I were to come across the Legislature of the United States REDIRECT, I would place the {{Redirect from alternative name}} and the {{R printworthy}} Rcats on it (as I just did, in fact). If you disagree and think another Rcat is better or closer, then by all means improve on my edit. I hope this helps. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  16:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

OK to use more than one?

I am wondering whether it is sometimes appropriate to use more than one of these templates for a single redirect. For example, if a redirect is both a name without diacritics and a member of a group, is it OK to include both {{R from title without diacritics}} and {{R from member}}? If that is acceptable, can we put some note in the article to explicitly say that? —BarrelProof (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is acceptable: besides your examples, there are often cases when an {{R to section}} or a {{R to list entry}} will also be a {{R with possibilities}} - and several other combinations are commonly found.

The most that I've seen is three (or maybe four), but I don't see why more might not be used, provided that every one is appropriate. Current convention is to put each one on a separate line, although technical restrictions which existed a few years ago mean that you occasionally see them all strung together on the first line. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps that is more apparent to some people than it was to me. What do you think of the idea of adding, as the third sentence on this page, the following: "When applicable, more than one of these templates can be used on the same redirect page."? —BarrelProof (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It's stated - but not in those words - at WP:TMR, last paragraph before the table of contents. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. What is the difference in purpose (if any) between WP:Template messages/Redirect pages and Template:R template index? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarrelProof (talk • contribs) 20:08, 16 March 2013‎

Hi. The more obvious differences are that the WP page lists Rcats alphabetically and this index lists them functionally, as well as this index is for Rcats that are used frequently. We are still working on the WP page to make it as complete as possible with every known Rcat. Also, this index is designed to be helpful while editing redirects. It can be used in the preview screen (usually using a shortcut, such as {{R to}}) as a reminder when an editor is not quite certain which Rcat to use. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Bluebook redirects

So I just created a bunch of redirects to law journal articles from their Bluebook abbreviations. An example would be Loy. Consumer L. Rev. redirecting to Loyola Consumer Law Review. How should these be categorized? Also, would it be appropriate to create a new redir subcat for Bluebook or other publication short titles? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You could use {{R from abbreviated title}}, or perhaps {{R from abbreviation}} (which has a different target). --Redrose64 (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Initialisms and acronyms

If the first row is just for initialisms, why doesn't acronyms have its own row immediately after? Also would be worth distinguishing the difference between the two terms on the page, for reference. czar · · 06:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Good idea!  Partly done. The terms are explained in the articles and on the Rcat pages, {{R from acronym}} and {{R from initialism}}. This page is just an index, a pointer page to more info. When there is time, though, I shall add an example or two (or you can add one or more, if you like). – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

misunderstood R templates

I don't understand recent changes to some of the values for the {{This is a redirect}} templates:

• from Wikipedia:Law_source to Wikipedia:Law_sources_as_reliable_sources looks to me like it should be "from short name" and not "from shortcut".
• from Wikipedia:Law_source_as_reliable_source to Wikipedia:Law_sources_as_reliable_sources should include "to plural". The value of "mod" can't be a shortcut to an R template, since {{Mod}} is meant to implement a math operator. Maybe "from modification" was meant, but I don't understand how this redirect counts as a "re-arrangement of words".
• from Wikipedia:Law_source_as_RS to Wikipedia:Law_sources_as_reliable_sources, besides the "mod" issues, how it's not an initialism is unclear, since the R template index includes part-initialisms, such as "Member states of the UN".
• from Wikipedia:Law_sources_as_RS to Wikipedia:Law_sources_as_reliable_sources is also unclear as to why it's not an initialism.

Calling some of these shortcuts ("rsh") apparently because they're simply shorter (thus within the scope of "from short name") seems redundant or inapropos. I've used the term shortcut for the kind of redirects that get added to boxes on pages and that are usually in all capitals; while there are some exceptions, simply being shorter doesn't usually seem to be one of them.

A mention in the Edit Summaries to C:WRONG is fine as a justification, but a "see" reference implies an explanation when the category page doesn't give much of one. Perhaps someone would like to add a specific set of explanations there but that would likely be a lot, so maybe omitting the "see" word would be better.

If I'm misunderstanding the R categories, especially if other editors seem to also, I suggest editing the doc for {{R template index}}. Or perhaps how templated redirects automatically land in C:WRONG should be reviewed for consistency with {{R template index}}, meaning a review of programming somewhere. All of that may be beyond my present expertise. I hope I'm not inconveniencing anyone much by adding the templates, compared to not using them. I'll try to do them right, if I'm not now.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I explained some of this for you elsewhere... taking your second bullet Wikipedia:Law source as reliable source as an example, it has {{This is a redirect|mod|to project|rcon}} - that isn't a short form of {{mod}}{{to project}}{{rcon}} but a short form of {{R mod}}{{R to project}}{{R rcon}}. Since Template:R rcon doesn't exist, that's when it uses {{rcon}} instead. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Nick – The category at CAT:WRONG gets populated by redirects that have been tagged with the wrong templates. {{R to plural}}, for example, can only be used in main article namespace, so if it is placed on a project redirect like Wikipedia:Law source as reliable source, then instead of populating Category:Redirects to plurals it will populate Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace (C:WRONG). "Hatnotes" in italics have been placed on most of the Rcat documentation pages just below the "Usage" header that indicate the limitations on where the Rcats can be used to tag redirects. Please note this at {{R from initialism}}, which is another Rcat that is only used in main article namespace. This page, {{R template index}}, also has hatnotes that inform editors to:

• Check each Rcat's template page to see in which namespace(s) it may be used.

If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 08:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

PS. I have just added an explanation at CAT:WRONG, Nick. Feel free to clarify it where necessary. PS added by Paine Ellsworth

I think I see my problem. I use a one-stop-shopping system, in part because I edit offline where I don't have Internet access, then come to where I have Internet access during limited hours to edit according to steps I prepared. So I keep text copies of some pages, such as Template:R template index. You're right that I should have paid attention to the instruction to check namespace restrictions. Not doing so was my fault. But I'm not clear that most users follow links for each different R template. I wonder if a single doc could not be written for all of them, making all of the information for all of the R templates and the {{This is a redirect}} template visible at one reading and probably reducing editorial maintenance of the doc over time. A similar solution is already applied to hatnote templates, which share {{Hatnote templates documentation}} for the doc. With "mod", I forgot that in order to read a particular {{This is a redirect}} template for its values I should unstrip a leading "R" with a space. Thanks for adding to C:WRONG. In general, I guess my sense is that some of the key docs are written more for experts so that those of us who apply these templates relatively infrequently are more likely to make mistakes, which I try to avoid doing. I'll try to get it right next time, because I don't want y'all to have to keep spending time correcting my redirects. Thank you very kindly. Nick Levinson (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nick, I think the thing you should try to remember here is that Wikipedia, along with all its support pages/documentation, is a work-in-progress. Anybody can edit it and few if any of us are "experts" in all facets. There is still much to be done and you are welcome to help. While it's always good to try to avoid error, it's also true that sometimes making mistakes is a way to learn without forgetting. What we are dealing with is a community effort of staggering proportions, and an encyclopedia that has grown to ever larger size over the years. Overall, it's a very rewarding experience for those who keep at it. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 00:06, 17 December 2013 (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 ^CLIMAX! 23:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Add {{R from sort name}}

I would like to add {{R from sort name}} to this template. You you have a good idea about where to put it please say so or add it to the template yourself. If you think it should not be added to this template, why not? —  AjaxSmack  21:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"Scientific name" versus "technical name"

The documentation of the R templates as well as of the corresponding categories makes clear that {{R to scientific name}}, {{R from scientific name}} and {{R from alternative scientific name}} are only meant to be used for organisms, although not unreasonably editors quite often use them for redirects to/from other kinds of scientific name. I've separated out "organisms" from "technical" in the table in the hope that this will help to avoid such errors. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead {{Rcats}} :CarboniADV (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Which R from tag to use for redirecting from non-romanized and from/to romanized names

Which tags should be used to do the equivalent of an R from romanization or R to romanization?

For example: I have Dragon Ball, Doragonboru (romanized), and ドラゴンボール (kanji, non-romanized). Going from kanji to English is {{R from alternative language|jp|en}} but what about going from romanized to English? Would that also be jp|en? What about kanji to romanized as with song titles and albums? jp|jp or jp|unknown ? Does {{R from alternative transliteration}} apply? Or just forget it and use {{R from alternative name}}? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think we definitely need a more elaborate system that would allow us to specify the particular transliteration/romanisation of a redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

To editors AngusWOOF and Uanfala: it appears that the only rcats we have are {{R from transliteration}}, which redirects to {{R from alternative transliteration}}, and {{R from Wade–Giles romanization}}. The former is reserved for alternative English transliterations to more common variations, and the latter is for the Wade–Giles spellings of Chinese words or names to the Pinyin or other preferred spellings. Keep in mind that if a "more elaborate system" entails the creation of more specific rcats and their accompanying categories, then someone will have to monitor those categories and their entries. An alternative would be to use the best existing rcat and category that is available.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
PS.This template is a "functional" index and does not contain all 230 or so rcats that we have. For the full list of rcats, please see the main index. PS added by  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there 

Dotless ISO 4 abbreviations

Requesting some outside input on which Rcat to use for dotless ISO 4 abbreviation redirects: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#Dots and No dots? czar 21:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

To editor Czar: since this page is on my watchlist, and since I'm way behind on my watchlist, I just recently noticed your inquiry above. And I wondered if your question has been answered in the discussion you linked, or not?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the solutions are to use separate {{R from ISO 4}} and {{R from dotless ISO 4}} for the dot and dotless versions, which works for me czar 01:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"Rcat functional index" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Rcat functional index and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 22 § Rcat functional index until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Template:R from native name" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:R from native name has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 4 § Template:R from native name until a consensus is reached. Place Clichy (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

"T:R from" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect T:R from has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § T:R from until a consensus is reached. ^Queenof_Hearts 04:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Missing Rcat?

I found "R from incorrect hyphenation" by just giving it a try. It's not listed in the functional index or in the full list. It doesn't have any documentation, so maybe that's why?   — TARDIS builder^✉     ★       13:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Lots of templates don't have (sufficient) documentation. I see you no reason why this Rcat shouldn't be on there. Feel free to add it, right before {{R from misspelling}}. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done – also, I assume you meant that it's supposed to be in alphabetical order in that section.   — TARDIS builder^✉     ★       05:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

r from rfc/afd

What's the best template to use when a page is redirected due to the outcome of an rfc or afd? Would it make sense to create a template specifically for those cases? Rgrds. --BX (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

If AfD results in a merge, {{R from merge}} would make sense. If AfD results in a redirect, {{R from subtopic}}, {{R to subtopic}}, or {{R to related topic}} probably apply. I imagine some kind of {{R from consensus}} could be useful with parameters like |AfD, |RfC, and/or |discussion=[Talk page location], but it might require people to fill out a bit more info than most other Rcats. -2pou (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

{{R from consensus}} with parameters might be a good idea. I figure whoever would be closing any rfc/afd/etc probably would be experienced enough to fill in the blanks. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)