Talk:🔞

Redirect

• Redirect to List of age restrictions? --Error (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Rcats on soft redirects

@Gonnym: I notice you've restored the redirect categories – these shouldn't be used on soft redirects per both WP:RCAT: Soft redirects usually should not be categorized by rcats. Use of {{Soft redirect with Wikidata item}} and {{R category with possibilities}} to tag soft-redirected categories are presently the only exceptions. and WP:SOFTREDIR: Do not put redirect categorization templates on soft redirects ({{R category with possibilities}} and {{Wikidata redirect}} are exceptions). Tollens (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

This discussion was already had. There is no actual reason why these types of redirects should not have categories. Please find an explanation other than that piece of incorrect and outdated text which itself has no rational. Gonnym (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not aware of a discussion about this? I don't see any other soft redirects not following these guidelines. If you'd like to change the guidelines, feel free to propose that change. This clearly isn't just something someone forgot to remove from a guideline page – it's everywhere. See, for example, the documentation page for the first template (or any other similar template's documentation), which begins with a header stating not to tag soft redirects with it, or WikiProject Redirect's style guide (which I'm aware is just an essay), which states Do not substitute redirect templates, nor should they ever be used on soft redirects. Tollens (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

As someone who works a lot in template space, I can tell you that when templates seem like they are a copy/paste of another template, they are. Basically most of the documentation of any redirect template is a copy page of another one, including any errors and outdated information. At one point, this information might have been correct but no one has ever bothered going over 100s of templates and fixing these. Regarding the discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Redirect/Archive_6#Redirect_templates_on_soft_redirects. But again, just ask yourself, what does it serve to remove these categories? If you can't find a reason, that is a red flag that maybe there isn't. Gonnym (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to me – soft redirects are intended to be viewed by readers, while rcat templates are very much not. There is no reason for a reader to see any of the information displayed within that box. I could absolutely get behind manually categorizing the redirects without the template, though. Again, if you want the guideline changed you should propose doing so – others are almost certain to remove the templates again while they are in direct opposition to what appears an established guideline. Tollens (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Redirect templates are obviously meant to be seen by readers, which is why they have text in them. Anyways, I see we aren't getting anywhere here so just to calm you need of any "guideline", take these pieces of text:

• From your own WP:RCAT:Soft redirects usually should not be categorized by rcats - see the word usually. Not "always".
• From WP:IAR (a policy): If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

I hope this helps you. Gonnym (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. Rcats are meant to be seen by editors of Wikipedia, not those who are purely intending to read it. Someone only intending to read Wikipedia clearly doesn't need to know that When appropriate, protection levels are automatically sensed, described and categorized., or that {{R from Unicode character}} shouldn't be used for multiple-character emoji sequences, such as skin tone variants or national flags. I would argue that placing intrusive tags of little to no use to a reader does not qualify as "improving Wikipedia", and that maintenance can be just as easily accomplished by categorizing the redirect without the templates. As for the "usually" in WP:RCAT, this clearly refers to the two exceptions mentioned in the next sentence, which also explicitly states that they are the only exceptions. Tollens (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Mind if I request a third opinion? Tollens (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

sure. Gonnym (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

3O Response: I agree with @Tollens. The RCAT guidelines are quite clear, and there are only two recognized exceptions right now. I don't see a compelling reason to IAR here, and I agree that the appropriate action to take here is to start a discussion about amending the guideline. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Gonnym? Tollens (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I've placed a notice at an actually relevant noticeboard. Gonnym (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

(from WT:RE) @Gonnym and Tollens: On the face of it, I think I’d agree that rcats shouldn’t be used on soft redirects. However, I don’t think this talk page may be the best place to hold a discussion on potentially amending the guideline - if/when such a discussion is held, I imagine it’d be best to take place in a more centralized location.

In the meantime, though, I would support removing the rcat templates from this redirect; as per the third opinion and the current rcat guidelines.

Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 12:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The reason for refraining from using most rcat templates on soft redirects is admittedly somewhat vague and well-rooted in a sort of WP "antiquity". It stems from tests made back when the {{Redirect template}} first began to be used as a meta inside rcat templates. It was found to lead to "unstable" results on soft redirects during tests. So to this day, the exceptional rcat templates that are used to sort category redirects with possibilities and soft WD redirects do not use the Redirect (meta) template, and those rcat templates that do use the meta template are not used on soft redirects. This is binding and not arbitrary. If other sorts are wanted on soft redirects, just make category links such as [[Category:Redirects with possibilities]], and so on. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I've replaced the templates with category links. Tollens (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Did this change? Cause Enix150 added the templates again. Maybe {{Wdr}} can be added. Web-julio (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the previous version. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

All 3000+ other emojis have redirects whether they be soft or standard, and every one of those redirects utilizes the R from emoji template (I checked). I couldn't see anything that makes this emoji different, so it seems quite odd that this would be the only emoji redirect that doesn't use this template. Enix150 (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that the standard ones shouldn't use the template. That template's documentation, and WP:RCAT, say that it shouldn't be used on soft redirects. I entirely agree that this page shouldn't be any different, but it would seem to me that the solution would either be remove the template from any soft redirects it is currently placed on, or have a discussion about altering the guidance, not ignore the guidance and place the template here. Tollens (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Enix150 the editors opposing adding the templates hold a incorrect assumption that having redirect templates on soft redirects does "something bad". It doesn't. Even the original editor that added the information to the redirect template acknowledged that. Gonnym (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

With respect, how do you know this for certain? Have you run extensive tests? I was informed many years ago that the {{Redirect template}} meta template was extensively tested and that instabilities were found when it was used in conjunction with soft redirects. I see no reason to take chances when all that needs to be done is to place plain category links ([[Category:Foo]]) on soft redirects. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Editors claiming that there are issues are the ones that need to actually show what issues they've encountered. Then those issues can be addressed and fixed. I've yet to see an issue either encountered or described. Gonnym (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a discussion to be had at WT:REDIRECT. The current guidelines are clear. If you want to change them, open a discussion there and we can get others involved. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

One reason for that is that most editors read the template documentation and know not to use most rcat templates on soft redirects. Another reason answers the questions about "what instabilities and where are they?" It appears that the instabilities discovered were to the Mediawiki software, which would probably be problems that only the devs would notice right away. And only the devs might know if there are still problems with the meta template. They would know if any of the many upgrades to the software addressed the instability problems. I haven't read anything to that effect, hence my recommendation to place plain category links ([[Category:Foo]]) on soft redirects. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)