Template talk:R printworthy

Template:R printworthy is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.

Redirect Template‑class

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

This template was considered for deletion on 2010 August 25. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Please explain[edit]

What is the point of this template? The page does not explain what it does so all I can gather from it is it adds Category:Printworthy redirects. Why do we need a template to add a category? Isn't it much easier just to add the category? McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main namespace[edit]

The {{R unprintworthy}} template has long been set to be used only in the Main article namespace by using the {{Main other}} template. To standardize this template with the R unprintworthy template, I added the Main other template to this template. – PIE ( CLIMAX ) 18:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects not marked as unprintworthy[edit]

This gives redirects four options:

Marked both as unprintworthy and printworthy
Marked as unprintworthy only
Marked as printworthy only
Marked as neither

My suggestion is to get rid of printworthy template, mark redirects as unprintworthy if they are, and assume unmarked redirects are printworthy. Currently I don't know what (1) and (4) means. --JBrown23 (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Use" how in a print encyclopedia?[edit]

I don't understand the intended purpose of this template. It says things like "a title that would be helpful in a printed or CD/DVD version of Wikipedia" but what does that mean? How would the redirect be used in a printed encyclopedia? I supposed I've always imagined that it's something that should appear in the index of the printed copy which then points to the redirect target. Otherwise I'm not sure how I'd be used. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Jason Quinn: yes, that is how I've envisioned it, although only limited versions have been released on CDs. CDs and DVDs that have a linking capability would use redirects in much the same way as here online. If the reader types a word into a search engine, and the word is actually a redirect, it will take them to the target article. The intended purpose, then, of this rcat and of {{R unprintworthy}} is to help the team that puts the offline versions together to determine which redirects are to be included. Paine ^u/c 05:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how they envisioned that in a CD/DVD version but that is a moot point anyway because the whole concept has clearly become obsolete together with the laser disks. As for the print version, there are indeed certain limitations that would prevent cluttering of the navigation indexes with all the redirects that exist. However, as of 2022 the WP 1.0 project only manages the Wikipedia:Content assessment and does nothing about a hypothetical printed version for about a decade (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia 1.0), and the explanations on affiliated redirect templates are all obsolete and confusing, sadly. Anyway, even putting aside the print, I believe a way of distinguishing "full rights" redirects from simple ones may be useful, e. g., for neural networks collecting knowledge databases (or will it actually be just a huge table of NN weights?) in the future. Ain92 (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]