File:White x in red rounded square.svg Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
:The result of the discussion was delete
. Thanks to whomever dealt with the transclusions. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = Template:R other }} → :Template:R from alternative name (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:R_other&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2019-06-29&end=2019-07-28&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Template%3AR_other stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Template:R other|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Template:R other closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Template:R other|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Template:R other closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Template:R other|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Template:R other closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Could be confused with {{tl|R other spelling}}, {{tl|R other dab}}, and {{tl|R other capitalization}}. This has about 20 or so transclusions in the mainspace that should be bypassed and this redirect depreciated. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
:Delete per nomination. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- I would prefer disambiguating this rather than deleting it, but I have no substantial arguments for either action. Geolodus (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete or disambiguate (see below). As a redirect it's ambiguous to the point of uselessness. PC78 (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)- Delete Templates shouldnt be disambiguated. When I use templates like this I just guess as to what is the right name. Nixinova T C 01:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes they should if necessary. PC78 (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: This redirect currently has transclusions that need to be bypassed prior to this redirect being deleted or retargeted. Steel1943 (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Disambiguate in case someone types it in while editing. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Retarget to Template:R template index, ambiguous with any number of options listed there. PC78 (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- :I like this if there's a way to keep the navbox from showing up if someone tries to use this as a regular Rcat. I think there should be a way to do this. Any ideas, Paine Ellsworth? --BDD (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- ::I've become a firm believer in making things as easy as possible, especially for newcomers. What is easier than previewing one's edits to see if something weird that you don't want to happen will result when you save the page? IMHO, that traditional way we use to check our edits is still the best way to make sure that one's edit accomplishes what one wants it to do.P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 01:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as is. Barring that outcome, then retarget to {{tl|R template index}}, the functional index of redirect category (rcat) templates. Please keep in mind that {{tl|R other}}, like hundreds of other template redirects, was created as a shortcut, an abbreviated form of its target, and just like most of those other hundreds of shortcuts, it is ambiguous with other rcats. Don't recommend disambiguation because that will set a precedent that most editors will not want to pursue. Then next will come {{tl|R from}}, {{tl|R to}}, {{tl|R with}} and a host of other ambiguous rcat shortcuts. Create all those dab pages and other editors will want to delete them as unnecessary navigation pages. Let the functional index act as a dab page. I personally have no problem with whatever happens to rcat shortcuts, because I no longer use most of them anymore. I use TemplateScript (highly recommended), which gives me the ability to add a fully-named rcat to a redirect with one click. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 01:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- :{{re|Paine Ellsworth}} I am personally offended you don't use WP:Archer (not really lol) because this RFD came about when I was updating it. Also, now I instantly want to nominate those shortcuts as well, but I won't since I'm not trying to start unnecessary discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- ::They are after all just shortcuts. Editors only use them if they know what they are and what their targets do. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 01:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- :::{{ping|Paine Ellsworth}} Not sure what you mean by "setting a precedent"; template dab pages can and do exist. PC78 (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- ::::The precedent I refer to is not for template dab pages, it is for shortcut dab pages. Do we really want to begin creating dab pages for all the cryptic shortcuts on Wikipedia? template or otherwise? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 11:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- :::::I'm not sure that's a useful distinction to make; whether a title was created as a template or a shortcut makes little difference, a template dab would look the same regardless. If it's vague and ambiguous then it's probaly best to disambiguate. In this case, a retarget as proposed above would effectively serve the same purpose. PC78 (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- ::::::The main problem with dabbing a cryptic shortcut is that the shortcut becomes unusable as a shortcut to the editors who use it. Secondly, you dab one cryptic shortcut and some editors will "grab on" to that edit-count-increasing idea to make all cryptic shortcuts into dab pages. Yeah, let's do all the WP: shortcuts like WP:U and WP:WP, and then let's dabify helpspace shortcuts like H:DL and H:H. There are several other targets those could apply to, so let's get busy WikiGnomes! Talk about your slippery slopes. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 02:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- :::::::I dunno, the whole point of dabbing a template page is to make it unusable. This wasn't a partucuarly good shortcut to begin with, and it doesn't seem to have much use. PC78 (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- ::::::::Well, maybe I'm overprotective because it's an rcat shortcut and I've been working with them for many years. I think shortcuts like this have fallen out of usage due to the need for less cryptic applications that new users can understand more easily. Gone are the "good ol' days" when I had to template link a shortcut template (such as {{maroon|{{tl{{!}}R other}}}}) just to see what it targeted, so I could learn what was going on with redirect categorization. And I loved using shortcuts because it greatly shortened the per-redirect time spent categorizing. Modern tools cancel that out now, so utility shortcuts like this, that is, shortcuts that actually do a job rather than just point to a longer-named page, appear to be on the way out. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 12:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. The redirect is vague, I guess all redirects could be "other" than something else. I don't think it's a good idea to retarget to a navbox because we wouldn't want to have a navbox transcluded if someone tries to use it as an RCAT. Because of that, if not deleted it should be turned into an error message or disambiguated. -- Tavix (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
:*All due respect, your rationale needs a little explaining. This is a shortcut and designed to be quick to use rather than to be clear and precise in its obvious meaning. You make it sound as if editors will slap {{tl|R other}} on a redirect and click save the page without even previewing their edits? As I previously stated, editors who use these shortcuts actually know what they do and what rcat they target, and they seldom if ever edit irresponsibly in a manner you appear to suggest. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 04:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
::*If editors who use RCATs know which RCATs to use, they should have no problem using the correct shortcuts instead of this vague, unhelpful one. And yes, I do envision a mistake like this happening if retargeted, so deletion is the better option. -- Tavix (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
:::*I suppose we'll have to differ on this issue, then. I could list hundreds, perhaps thousands of shortcuts on Wikipedia that are just like {{tl|R other}} in that they are vague, unclear and yet correct shortcuts used by editors who know what they target and who know how to use them. I still don't understand the distinction you think you are making. Since nearly all "shortcuts" are like this, what precisely makes this shortcut different from the rest? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 23:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
::::*Other shortcuts may be useful for other reasons, but we are specifically discussing this one. I do disagree that this shortcut is correct though. Redirects may be "other" than something else, and that doesn't mean that it is an alternative name. -- Tavix (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::*Point is, for those editors who have actually used this shortcut, it is certainly and precisely an alternative name, and nothing else. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 08:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, except that the shortcut should be deprecated (systematically removed from use and recommendation) and not depreciated (adjusted in carrying value to reflect implied loss of asset worth due to the passage of time). Note that of the 20 or so transclusions, usage is not consistent. It's clearly intended as {{tl|R from alternative name}} in some cases, as {{tl|R from other capitalisation}} in some, and as {{tl|R from other disambiguation}} in at least one case. So it's not only confusing, it's breaking our redirect categorization scheme. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as too vague. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
