Template talk:R to user namespace

Change of text display suggested

I appreciate this template's implementation of relevant categories, but what it displays as text is excessive. At a soft redirect page, what is displayed, roughly is:

From the template {{soft redirect}}:

This page is a soft redirect

From this template {{R to user namespace}}:

This is a redirect from a page outside the user namespace to a user page (not to a user talk page). This redirect page must be outside the user namespace. For more information follow the category link.

Remember that user talk pages are not in the "user" namespace, they are in a talk namespace. This rcat should never be used to tag redirects to user talk pages – use {{R to talk page}} instead.

Note: If this page is in the user namespace, then it will populate Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace instead.

except that in the display some of the above words or phrases are wikilinks, or are sized differently. (Feel free to improve the represnentation.)

In my view this is excessive, especially at soft redirect pages. It is rambling on with information not relevant for the editor user arriving at a soft redirect page, with stuff that might be directed to the admin/editor of the soft redirect, within documentation in this template's /doc page. I raised this at a new soft redirect, wp:Kaffeeklatsch, that was outcome of an RFD. (See Wikipedia talk:Kaffeeklatsch#Post-RFD discussion, if necessary, about template "R to user namespace".) For a regular redirect page, it does not matter as much, but is still excessive, and the info

I suggest the text be cut down to simply:

This page is a redirect from outside the user namespace to a user page.

in small font. Okay? Simply that, although perhaps part of the phrase could be a wikilink to {{R to user namespace}} where the /doc info is displayed. --doncram 03:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In the past there were occasions when this rcat was used to tag user-space redirects mistakenly, so to deal with that, the extra text was added. Not sure what you need as per soft redirects, as you tagged wp:Kaffeeklatsch directly with categories as you should, and not with this rcat, which mustn't be used to tag soft redirects, anyway. I'm also not sure if editors are ready for a more concise version, but would be willing to make it more concise if you really think it needs it (again keeping in mind that this template should never be used to tag soft redirects). – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 11:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the text is excessive, although most readers won't ever see it. It is probably enough to use doncram's suggestion. Could the template be coded to display the supplemental text as an error if placed in the wrong namespace? Ivanvector (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It possibly could, however I've corrected enough of these similar errors (by monitoring CAT:WRONG) to know that many editors don't even look back at what they've done to see if they've made a mistake, and this kind of error actually does appear when the edit is previewed before saving, and they still don't catch themselves. Those editors just edit and quickly move on. Also, while most "readers" won't ever see the redirect text, many readers who also edit will see it, and it hopefully helps them to remember when they edit redirects that many of these rcats are used only in one namespace. Perhaps a compromise is called for, because the part in the text about categorization to CAT:WRONG has been used only on those rcats that were most "abused" by editors. We can try removing that, and I'll continue to monitor to see if there is any adverse effect. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 07:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The two bottom-bulleted notes have been removed from redirect pages. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 08:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all! Right, I did not notice that instructions stated the template should not be placed on soft redirects, and that resolves the issue for the wp:Kaffeeklatsch soft redirect. Good to reduce the text for regular redirects, though. To close the loop, in this diff, I added instructions to Wikipedia:Soft redirects to cover "Categories to add for cross-namespace soft redirects". Help revising those instructions would be appreciated.

Ivanvector has questioned whether Category:Unprintworthy redirects and Category:Noindexed pages accomplish anything or not, so I did not give any advice to include those. Thanks, --doncram 23:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

To editor Doncram: It's a pleasure! and just FYI, both the Printworthy redirects and Unprintworthy redirects categories are reserved for use only in mainspace. Please see Wikipedia:Printability for more information. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 20:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC on categorizing redirects to the same namespace

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Template talk:R to project namespace#RfC: Should we categorize redirects to the same namespace?
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Redirects from user talk to user namespace

There are currently some 5,846 redirects from user talk to user namespace. Of these, only 18 (0.3% of them) are arbitrarily categorized in Category:Redirects to user namespace. I'm going to remove these as I don't see any usefulness in categorizing them, and, broadly speaking, they are redirects from within user space, not from outside of it. A common reason for these redirects seems to be to avoid redundant placement of {{Sockpuppet}} templates on both the user page and its corresponding talk page. wbm1058 (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable. The User talk namespace isn't quite the same as the User namespace, but it's more user than not user. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

{{Automatic redirect categories}} places such redirects in {{R to user namespace}}; Wikipedia:Template index/Redirect pages#To namespaces documents User talk:Tricky Ed → User:SuperEditor as an example usage. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of those. I see that {{Automatic namespace redirect categories}}, created February 2021, was discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 9#Template:R from template shortcut in February 2021; there it was suggested that this functionality would best be incorporated into the already well-used {{redirect category shell}}. Just pinged again last month at Template talk:Automatic redirect categories#3 years unused. Most of the 5,000+ pages found by my Quarry database replica search haven't been tagged with any templates. They would completely overwhelm Category:Redirects to user namespace, which currently has only just over a thousand pages in it. – wbm1058 (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirects from draft to user namespace

There are currently some 1,050 redirects from draft to user namespace. Of these, only three (0.3% of them) are arbitrarily categorized in Category:Redirects to user namespace. I'm going to remove these as they haven't been systematically categorized. My Quarry database lookup is probably sufficient for finding these redirects. wbm1058 (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirects from template to user namespace

There are currently some 1,243 redirects from template to user namespace. Of these, only 16 (1.3% of them) are arbitrarily categorized in Category:Redirects to user namespace. I've observed that Jonesey95 and Andrybak, among others, have moved many of these from template to user namespace. Many of these are Userboxes. See Wikipedia:UBXNS and Wikipedia:Userbox migration, which says Delete the original template once all incoming transclusions have been taken care of. You will need an administrator for this. wbm1058 (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. Any administrator is welcome to take on the second half of the task. Posting to an admin noticeboard may be helpful. I have found that editors often do not enjoy people modifying their User pages, which is where userboxes tend to be used; replacing a redirect that may not be broken is not a toe I wish to step on. I edit plenty of User pages to fix errors, but I don't know that this situation rises to the level of an error. I will let others decide. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven't worked closely on userboxes for a couple of years now, but I agree with Jonesey95 on every item. You can also ask WikiProject Userboxes what they think about this situation. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)