Template talk:R from file metadata link

Request for documentation inclusion instead of text with links

Dear administrators, as it was agreed at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Redirect pages#links to zero namespace, links from redirect templates to zero namespace are to be removed as creating ambiguity for toolserver scripts on where the redirect points to. I've moved the text from template to /doc subpage, so could someone please remove all visible content from template page and add {{documentation}} instead? Mashiah (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Text that was removed

This template lost it's text with this edit. The text does become visible when a redirect is deactivated for discussion at Rfd, which can be very helpful, and there are two bug reports, T16323 and T44642 that are still trying to get the text on redirects activated so that newer contributors will be less confused about a given redirect. Other Rcats have text on them for these reasons. May we please return the text (without links as per above) to this Rcat?

please modify this...

<includeonly>{{{Category|[[Category:Redirects from EXIF information]][[Category:Unprintworthy redirects]]}}}
</includeonly><noinclude>
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>

to this...

 
----
This is a redirect of a wikilink created from JPEG Exchangeable image file format (EXIF) information (i.e. the "metadata" section on some image description pages). Since MediaWiki offers only very limited control over the target of these camera-generated wikilinks, redirects like this are created to make the wikilinks useful. 

'''WARNING:''' It might appear that no pages [[Special:Whatlinkshere/{{PAGENAME}}|link to this redirect]]. This is because the EXIF links don't show up in these listings. This redirect is most probably '''not''' orphaned!

<includeonly>{{{Category|[[Category:Redirects from EXIF information]][[Category:Unprintworthy redirects]]}}}
</includeonly><noinclude>
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>

Thank you in advance for your consideration! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

See also Template talk:R from duplicated article#Text that was removed for a recent and similar edit request. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 March 2014

Hi, the name of the category "Redirects from EXIF information" was recently changed to "Redirects from Exif information", and parts of the template updated accordingly. However, there are still two more occurances of "EXIF" remaining, which need to be changed to "Exif" as well. Thanks. Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Done and tested with a WP:NULLEDIT to SONY --Redrose64 (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirects

Please replace the instances of [[Exif]] with [[Exchangeable image file format|Exif]]. Thanks, —capmo (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 04:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

To editors Xaosflux and Capmo: This edit has been undone per WP:NOTBROKEN. In this case this edit inserted unnecessary text into the code page and made it harder to read. If the redirect were broken, then this edit would make sense; however, the redirect is not broken. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 17:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 18:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, but what about WP:BRINT? —capmo (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't get the question. What part of BRINT does the redirect violate? – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 23:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

←

Belated reply, to clarify for future readers: I agree with Paine Ellsworth that no guideline is was violated here, if only because BRINT stands for "Bypass redirects in navigational templates." I am unaware of any reason (or previous discussion) that Rcat templates should be considered navigational templates.

If I am wrong, please feel free to explain. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You are correct, and BRINT would apply to navbars and sidebars, which actually are navigational templates. Redirects should be bypassed in those, because a redirect will appear as a blue link when the navbar is used in a specific article instead of being highlighted and emphasized in boldface type, which is the purpose of the navbar and which would be the case if the redirect were to be bypassed and a direct link were to be used instead.  Paine  ^u/c 02:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is moot anyway, because Exif is no longer a redirect (i.e., the redirect in question was reversed). --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Unprintworthy

If we generally consider redirects that need this Rcat to be unprintworthy, as the documentation seems to suggest, why doesn't this template add the unprintworthy category itself rather than requiring it to be applied separately?

Is there ever a circumstance where such a redirect would be considered printworthy? If so, would there need to be a parameter for printability override? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

To editor SoledadKabocha: I have not come across one of these that would be suitable for a printed version of Wikipedia, so redirects are added to Category:Unprintworthy redirects automatically. The only reason to add {{R unprintworthy}} to the redirect is to get the text on the page. With or without the unprintworthy rcat and text, the redirect will still be added to the Unprintworthy redirects category.  Paine  ^u/c 02:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I was hinting at the convention I saw with other Rcats like {{R from other capitalisation}}, which add the unprintworthy category themselves. The only reason I haven't boldly requested changes is laziness; it is not because I had doubts. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, you've lost me, because this rcat, R from file metadata link adds the unprintworthy category in the same manner as R from other capitalisation.  Paine  ^u/c 10:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

My mistake; that didn't seem to be the case when I originally posted. I messed up by not doing my research (i.e. viewing source of the template) and thus made this post predicated on incorrect facts. I must have seen a specific file page that didn't seem correctly categorized as unprintworthy (due to a temporary glitch?), but I currently have no idea which one. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I've made far worse mistakes. You may have encountered a redirect that was tagged both printworthy and unprintworthy because an editor forgot or didn't know how to circumvent one of them. There are still a few of those out there.  Paine  ^u/c 15:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 December 2020

Please change |printworthy=no to |printworthy={{{printworthy|no}}} –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: should insert here that the code used to give the "printworthy" option to an rcat is |printworthy={{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|printworthy|yes|no}}. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Should this be overridable? Ping @Paine Ellsworth: maybe, for thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

To editors ProcrastinatingReader and MJL: thank you very much, PR! and thank you both for helping with redirect categorization! This redirect categorization template (rcat) has categorized redirects to the Unprintworthy redirects category for a long time. I would like to see some examples of these redirects that would be considered suitable for a printed version of Wikipedia (printworthy). I've never come across one that I would tag as printworthy. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 00:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth and ProcrastinatingReader: It's a very rare occurrence when a metadata link outputs something that can also be considered printworthy, but I would say the following would be good examples: Maxxum, PowerShot, Adobe Photoshop CC, and SP-AI. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

To editor MJL: okay, that answers the question "what?", but it doesn't touch on "why?" There are 1251 members of the category that have always been tagged as unprintworthy. Why are redirects like the ones you show above suitable for a printed version over all or most or the vast majority of the other 1000+ redirects in the category? Editors will need a way to tell the difference and to adjudge printworthiness, a way that can be added to the documentation in a clear and usable manner. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 14:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: My criteria for judging whether we should override the printworthy parameter is that if a redirect would have been made regardless of it being a {{R from file metadata link}}, then it probably is printworthy. What I mean to say is, for example, PowerShot is a printworhty {{R from short name}}, and the fact it is an {{R from file metadata link}} is rather incidental. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. How would you word an instruction to other editors that could be included in the documentation? It has to be crystal clear because some editors who want to WikiGnome it and categorize redirects are very new to Wikipedia. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 Note: request disabled. If there is consensus for this change, please reactivate — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

To editors MJL, ProcrastinatingReader and Martin:  done; this capability has been employed and I've updated the documentation. Thank you all very much, and you have our best wishes for the holiday season! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Thank you!! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on this type of redirect taking place at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request to create redirect page at Matplotlib version3.3.3, https://matplotlib.org/ regarding this type of redirect. I requested an admin make a redirect that I could not because it had a url in the name, and I am being met with a surprising amount of opposition and even one call to delete all existing redirects from file metadata links (1277 total as of now). I am truly surprised at this and don't understand the reason why there is so much push-back for what I thought was an innocuous request to make a harmless and helpful redirect. If anyone has an opinion on this type of redirect, please weigh in on this discussion there. Thanks. --Yarnalgo _talk 17:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Yarnalgo: Sorry I missed out on this one, I'm actually dealing with a successfully deleted redirect right now at WP:DRV (see below). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

DRV Discussion of a deleted redirect that may be relevant readers here

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 February 19#Windows_Photo_Editor_10.0.10011.16384. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)