Redirect Template‑class | |||||||
|
Template:R to project namespace 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. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
There is no reason I can think of to ever bother putting this rcat template on anything but a cross-namespace redirect. We already know that all WP:..., Wikipedia:..., and MOS:... redirects stay in project namespace, with the odd exception of a cross-namespace redir, e.g. from WP:something to Help:something. It's a total waste of time and effort, and is pretty close to an impossible task, to catalogue all of these redirects that stay in the same namespace. I create dozens of these things in a single day sometimes, and I'm certainly not going to add an rcat tag to all of them that does nothing but the WP equivalent of telling us that rain is wet. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
R to help}}
, {{
R to user}}
. If someone can come up with a must-have rationale for rcat'ing WP:-to-WP: redirs, then we need a separate template that tracks non-WP:-to-WP: redirs, since those are generally of far more concern for maintenance reasons. Few of them that do not start with "MOS:" should exist from mainspace (do we have any other pseudo-namespaces still in use?), and the few that do exist have probably been hashed out at RfD. We don't even have presumptively obvious ones like
ARBCOM. PS: This change is also consistent with how we use (and instruct the use of) similar templates. E.g. {{
R to talk}}
is not used when we redirect "Talk:Old page name before the move" to "Talk:Post-RM new page name". If someone did that, the next person to see it would remove that rcat as useless belaboring of the obvious. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
This still seems to be unresolved. In practice it's not normally used on WP:FOO shortcuts, and I've been consistently removing it for years. It's a huge block of unnecessary visual noise on redirect pages, and makes rcatting more complicated for no gain, nor has it ever been the case that this rcat has been applied consistently to WP-to-WP redirs. It would serve no purpose whatsoever to have an rcat for every redir "to" project namespace that includes from-project-namespace-already. That's not to project namespace, but within it. It's a confusion about what the word "to" means. The reason to keep track of these things is for examining the appropriateness of cross-namespace redirects. Similarly, we do not have tracking of mainspace-to-mainspace redirs. If we really wanted to track redirs to pages where both are already in the same namespace, some toolserver tool could do that; we have no reason to have it be a category. There is no maintenance need that such a relationship triggers. We have no need of Category:Redirects to project space and Category:Redirects to Wikipedia project pages which are semantically identical in meaning; the latter should be CfDed. There is no maintenance need to look at WP pages that redir to WP pages, as a class. If somebody ever comes up with one, they can use a different tool to get at this, instead of polluting the category system with "cat. trivia" like this. It's a given than almost all redirs in a namespace are going to be to other pages in the same namespace. I am not at all swayed by these "well, it's been that way a long time" or "it's not bugging me" substantively unresponsive responses that I've been getting on this matter (mostly in discussions elsewhere). Anyway, just the fact that the useless category dwarfs the useful (cross-namespace) one helps prove my point. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I have a question for SMcCandlish... just to give two examples, back in 2014 you created {{ R from more specific name}} and in 2015 you created {{ R from work}}. So you must have thought that it was important to categorize, track and maintain those types of redirects. And I wonder why? Why did you go to all the trouble of creating rcats along with their documentation pages (oh, and category pages) and take it upon yourself to track and maintain these two types of redirects? In addition, you have for many years (honestly, thank you very much!) improved several rcat templates and their /doc pages. One example would be {{ R from miscapitalisation}}, and there are others you may have spent even more time improving. So you are someone who knows about the importance of tracking redirects of certain types. That makes me curious as to why you would suddenly decide that one type of redirect, the kind that goes from one project page to another, should no longer be tracked. And then without discussion, you start removing redirects from the Redirects to Wikipedia project pages category every chance you get. I'm afraid you've never garnered a consensus to do that. So why would you? What can this project possibly gain from these bold actions against long-term implied consensus? P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 19:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
@ SMcCandlish: I agree with you that this template is quite unnecessary, but unfortunately, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 1#Category:Redirects to Wikipedia project pages ended with a decision to keep the redirect category. Removing the category from arbitrary pages is not following consensus (and would be without the CfD as well), especially given that the class from which you are removing it is exactly the category Category:Redirects to Wikipedia project pages. You are effectively emptying the category instead of discussing its deletion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We presently have {{R to foo namespace}}
templates for categorizing redirects, for maintenance purposes. These templates are presently documented as intended for use a) on cross-namespace redirects (e.g. {{
R to project namespace}}
goes on
MOS:CAPS, a shortcut in a "MOS:" pseudo-namespace that is really a mainspace page); and b) on within-same-namespace redirects (e.g., put that same {{R to project namespace}}
on
WP:MOSCAPS, which is already in the same "Wikipedia:" namespace as the target page of both WP:MOSCAPS and MOS:CAPS).
Presently the documentation on whether to do this is inconsistent. {{
R to main namespace}}
, {{
R to template namespace}}
, {{
R to user namespace}}
, {{
R to category namespace}}
, and {{
R to draft namespace}}
are only for cross-namespace redirects. {{
R to talk page}}
is a variant of this, in being for redirects to any talk namespace from any non-talk namespace, but not for redirects within a talk namespace or between one talk namespace and another. Only {{
R to project namespace}}
, {{
R to portal namespace}}
, and {{
R to help namespace}}
say to use them also for redirects within the same namespace.
Which of the following is preferable?
I'm RfCing this because there has been sporadic argument about this for several years, without resolution. Notices about this RfC have been posted to all the relevant talk pages I could think of. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC); updated with some details: 19:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm RfCing this because there has been sporadic argument about this for several years, without resolution.
{{R to foo namespace}}
to see what it says, unless you're good at memorizing such things. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 19:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC); rev'd.: 19:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
R within template namespace}}
. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vanisaac (
talk •
contribs) 21:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
R within template namespace}}
to work (and why do we need it? and why can't a toolserver bot making a custom-sortable list take care of whatever the imagined maint. wants are?), then
Category:Redirects within template namespace would have to be not a container cat., but one that is diffused only in the special cases. The current status quo is that most "Template:"-to-"Template:" redirs are not categorized unless they are shortcuts, rcat templates, or some other narrow class. Some editor[s] has/have been incorrectly applying {{
R from template shortcut}}
to thousands of template redirs that are not shortcuts – often same length as the real name or considerably longer, and most often the byproduct of page moves. I undo this miscategorization when I run across it, though it is not something I've been tracking down. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 16:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
R to project namespace}}
– done
[1], at
Template:R to project namespace/sandbox{{
R to portal namespace}}
– done
[2], at
Template:R to portal namespace/sandbox{{
R to help namespace}}
– done
[3], at
Template:R to help namespace/sandbox{{
R to project namespace}}
on redirs already in "Wikipedia:"
[4], 6264 cases{{
R to portal namespace}}
on redirs already in "Portal:"
[5], 326 cases{{
R to help namespace}}
on redirs already in "Help:"
[6], 134 cases{{
R from template shortcut}}
on redirs that are not in fact shortcuts; unknown number but probably several thousand, and probably a long-term manual/AWB/JWB cleanup job. Start
here.An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, but if more discussion may be helpful here I see no issue with letting it run longer. ( t · c) buidhe 12:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
@ SMcCandlish: You removed the open italics and left the close italics in your last edit, and that turned everything after "outside" into italics. Remove two apostrophes after "outside". — Anomalocaris ( talk) 19:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change 'in that project namespace' (presumably an error) to 'in that namespace' or 'in the project namespace'; I'd say the former given the context. J 947 ( c), at 04:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
– 192.183.71.195 ( talk) 02:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Collapse extended content
|
---|
192.183.71.195 ( talk) Further reading[edit]
hide Authority control National libraries • Japan Other • Microsoft Academic <img src="/info/en/?search=Special:CentralAutoLogin/start?type=1x1" alt="" title="" width="1" height="1" style="border: none; position: absolute;" />
See alsoOnline cataloging, through such systems as the Dynix software developed in 1983 and used widely through the late 1990s, has greatly enhanced the usability of catalogs, thanks to the rise of MARC standards (an acronym for MAchine Readable Cataloging) in the 1960s. Rules governing the creation of MARC catalog records include not only formal cataloging rules such as Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition (AACR2), Resource Description and Access (RDA) but also rules specific to MARC, available from both the U.S. Library of Congress and from OCLC, which builds and maintains WorldCat. MARC was originally used to automate the creation of physical catalog cards, but its use evolved into direct access to the MARC computer files during the search process. OPACs have enhanced usability over traditional card formats because: 1. The online catalog does not need to be sorted statically; the user can choose author, title, keyword, or systematic order dynamically. 2. Most online catalogs allow searching for any word in a title or other field, increasing the ways to find a record. 3. Many online catalogs allow links between several variants of an author's name. 4. The elimination of paper cards has made the information more accessible to many people with disabilities, such as the visually impaired, wheelchair users, and those who suffer from mold allergies or other paper- or building-related problems. 5. Physical storage space is considerably reduced. 6. Updates are significantly more efficient. Carl Linnaeus Invented The Index Card ScienceDaily, June 16, 2009 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Template_index&diff=783096226&oldid=780826061 Cite This Page
Jump to navigation Jump to search Bibliographic details for MediaWiki
Citation styles for MediaWiki APA style MediaWiki. (2020, May 26). MediaWiki, . Retrieved 22:14, December 6, 2021 from https://www.mediawiki.org/?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227. MLA style "MediaWiki." MediaWiki, . 26 May 2020, 13:38 UTC. 6 Dec 2021, 22:14 < https://www.mediawiki.org/?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227>. MHRA style MediaWiki contributors, 'MediaWiki', MediaWiki, , 26 May 2020, 13:38 UTC, < https://www.mediawiki.org/?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227> [accessed 6 December 2021] Chicago style MediaWiki contributors, "MediaWiki," MediaWiki, , https://www.mediawiki.org/?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227 (accessed December 6, 2021). CBE/CSE style MediaWiki contributors. MediaWiki [Internet]. MediaWiki, ; 2020 May 26, 13:38 UTC [cited 2021 Dec 6]. Available from: https://www.mediawiki.org/?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227. Bluebook style MediaWiki, https://www.mediawiki.org/?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227 (last visited December 6, 2021). BibTeX entry @misc{ wiki:xxx, author = "MediaWiki", title = "MediaWiki --- MediaWiki{,} ", year = "2020", url = " https://www.mediawiki.org/?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227", note = "[Online; accessed 6-December-2021]" } When using the LaTeX package url (\usepackage{url} somewhere in the preamble) which tends to give much more nicely formatted web addresses, the following may be preferred: @misc{ wiki:xxx, author = "MediaWiki", title = "MediaWiki --- MediaWiki{,} ", year = "2020", url = "\url{ https://www.mediawiki.org/?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227}", note = "[Online; accessed 6-December-2021]" } Behold the magic of mathematics! #stackoverflowknows
Jump to navigation Jump to search The following information is cached, and was last updated 01:11, 20 November 2021. Discuss this special page at Wikipedia talk:Special:WantedTemplates. See also: Template:Specialpageslist Updates for this page are running once a month. Showing below up to 50 results in range #1 to #50. View (previous 50 | next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) 1. Template:Country data Xanadu (13 links) 2. Template:WikiProject 2020s (4 links) 3. Template:", "Template:" ).replace( " (2 links) 4. Template:Country data Nonexisting (2 links) 5. Template:Horrorcore (2 links) 6. Template:Non-existent template (2 links) 7. Template:Osobny artykuł (2 links) The following pages link to Template:Country data Xanadu
Displayed 13 items. View (previous 50 | next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
View (previous 50 | next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) Fwd: [lists.wikimedia.org] Password Reset E-mail 192.183.71.195 ( talk) 02:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC) |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add error checking, to check if the redirect's target is in the Wikipedia namespace e.g.
{{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACE:{{#invoke:redirect|main|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}|{{ns:4}}|<!--Correct namespace-->|<!--Incorrect namespace-->}}
Qwerfjkl talk 12:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
{{#ifeq: {{BASEPAGENAME}}|R to project namespace||
kinda useless if it's already in an <includeonly>...</includeonly>
? ―
Jochem van Hees (
talk) 13:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
To editors 1234qwer1234qwer4, Qwerfjkl and Jochem van Hees: just fyi, the redirect error detection for incorrect targets has been added to the rcats in the {{ Rcat see also}} template. Thank you for your help, and Happiest of New Years to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 14:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
{{NAMESPACE:{{#invoke:redirect|main|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}
correctly produces "Wikipedia" on the page
Portal:Contents/TOC navbar/doc in preview, same as wikitext {{ns:4}}
. —
andrybak (
talk) 16:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
|wikipedia category=Redirects to Wikipedia project pages
and |other category={{sandbox other||Redirects to project space}}
in combination with pagename ending in /doc
. Template {{
sandbox other}} ignores not only sandboxes, but /doc pages too; see
Special:Diff/928982553. —
andrybak (
talk) 16:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I was looking at
WP:CSD and couldn't seem to find the output of {{
R to project namespace}} anymore. This is now
fixed. @
Paine Ellsworth: Just so you know,
this edit did not work as intended since you used {{PAGENAME}}
and not {{FULLPAGENAME}}
. I don't know if you made similar changes elsewhere, so I figured I'd let you know here.
–
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖ 17:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem is, but these recent reverts by @ Paine Ellsworth: have somehow caused WP:PST to be blank (at least for Brave Browser 1.46.144 on Windows 10). Weird thing is the fact that that page is affected but WP:PSTS isn't. ~~ lol1 VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 15:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
When previewing a new redirect with this rcat, nothing is displayed; but it displays on the created page as usual.
{{#invoke:redirect|isRedirect|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}
Presumably, this fails when the page is yet to be created, or isn't yet a redirect. What purpose does this line serve, anyway? jlwoodwa ( talk) 23:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I was expecting {{ R to project namespace}} to be an appropriate rcat template on WT:AWB/GF, which links to Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes, but it throws an error. What would be the appropriate template, or should {{ R to project namespace}} be expanded to include Wikipedia talk? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 14:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Redirect Template‑class | |||||||
|
Template:R to project namespace 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. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
There is no reason I can think of to ever bother putting this rcat template on anything but a cross-namespace redirect. We already know that all WP:..., Wikipedia:..., and MOS:... redirects stay in project namespace, with the odd exception of a cross-namespace redir, e.g. from WP:something to Help:something. It's a total waste of time and effort, and is pretty close to an impossible task, to catalogue all of these redirects that stay in the same namespace. I create dozens of these things in a single day sometimes, and I'm certainly not going to add an rcat tag to all of them that does nothing but the WP equivalent of telling us that rain is wet. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
R to help}}
, {{
R to user}}
. If someone can come up with a must-have rationale for rcat'ing WP:-to-WP: redirs, then we need a separate template that tracks non-WP:-to-WP: redirs, since those are generally of far more concern for maintenance reasons. Few of them that do not start with "MOS:" should exist from mainspace (do we have any other pseudo-namespaces still in use?), and the few that do exist have probably been hashed out at RfD. We don't even have presumptively obvious ones like
ARBCOM. PS: This change is also consistent with how we use (and instruct the use of) similar templates. E.g. {{
R to talk}}
is not used when we redirect "Talk:Old page name before the move" to "Talk:Post-RM new page name". If someone did that, the next person to see it would remove that rcat as useless belaboring of the obvious. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
This still seems to be unresolved. In practice it's not normally used on WP:FOO shortcuts, and I've been consistently removing it for years. It's a huge block of unnecessary visual noise on redirect pages, and makes rcatting more complicated for no gain, nor has it ever been the case that this rcat has been applied consistently to WP-to-WP redirs. It would serve no purpose whatsoever to have an rcat for every redir "to" project namespace that includes from-project-namespace-already. That's not to project namespace, but within it. It's a confusion about what the word "to" means. The reason to keep track of these things is for examining the appropriateness of cross-namespace redirects. Similarly, we do not have tracking of mainspace-to-mainspace redirs. If we really wanted to track redirs to pages where both are already in the same namespace, some toolserver tool could do that; we have no reason to have it be a category. There is no maintenance need that such a relationship triggers. We have no need of Category:Redirects to project space and Category:Redirects to Wikipedia project pages which are semantically identical in meaning; the latter should be CfDed. There is no maintenance need to look at WP pages that redir to WP pages, as a class. If somebody ever comes up with one, they can use a different tool to get at this, instead of polluting the category system with "cat. trivia" like this. It's a given than almost all redirs in a namespace are going to be to other pages in the same namespace. I am not at all swayed by these "well, it's been that way a long time" or "it's not bugging me" substantively unresponsive responses that I've been getting on this matter (mostly in discussions elsewhere). Anyway, just the fact that the useless category dwarfs the useful (cross-namespace) one helps prove my point. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I have a question for SMcCandlish... just to give two examples, back in 2014 you created {{ R from more specific name}} and in 2015 you created {{ R from work}}. So you must have thought that it was important to categorize, track and maintain those types of redirects. And I wonder why? Why did you go to all the trouble of creating rcats along with their documentation pages (oh, and category pages) and take it upon yourself to track and maintain these two types of redirects? In addition, you have for many years (honestly, thank you very much!) improved several rcat templates and their /doc pages. One example would be {{ R from miscapitalisation}}, and there are others you may have spent even more time improving. So you are someone who knows about the importance of tracking redirects of certain types. That makes me curious as to why you would suddenly decide that one type of redirect, the kind that goes from one project page to another, should no longer be tracked. And then without discussion, you start removing redirects from the Redirects to Wikipedia project pages category every chance you get. I'm afraid you've never garnered a consensus to do that. So why would you? What can this project possibly gain from these bold actions against long-term implied consensus? P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 19:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
@ SMcCandlish: I agree with you that this template is quite unnecessary, but unfortunately, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 1#Category:Redirects to Wikipedia project pages ended with a decision to keep the redirect category. Removing the category from arbitrary pages is not following consensus (and would be without the CfD as well), especially given that the class from which you are removing it is exactly the category Category:Redirects to Wikipedia project pages. You are effectively emptying the category instead of discussing its deletion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We presently have {{R to foo namespace}}
templates for categorizing redirects, for maintenance purposes. These templates are presently documented as intended for use a) on cross-namespace redirects (e.g. {{
R to project namespace}}
goes on
MOS:CAPS, a shortcut in a "MOS:" pseudo-namespace that is really a mainspace page); and b) on within-same-namespace redirects (e.g., put that same {{R to project namespace}}
on
WP:MOSCAPS, which is already in the same "Wikipedia:" namespace as the target page of both WP:MOSCAPS and MOS:CAPS).
Presently the documentation on whether to do this is inconsistent. {{
R to main namespace}}
, {{
R to template namespace}}
, {{
R to user namespace}}
, {{
R to category namespace}}
, and {{
R to draft namespace}}
are only for cross-namespace redirects. {{
R to talk page}}
is a variant of this, in being for redirects to any talk namespace from any non-talk namespace, but not for redirects within a talk namespace or between one talk namespace and another. Only {{
R to project namespace}}
, {{
R to portal namespace}}
, and {{
R to help namespace}}
say to use them also for redirects within the same namespace.
Which of the following is preferable?
I'm RfCing this because there has been sporadic argument about this for several years, without resolution. Notices about this RfC have been posted to all the relevant talk pages I could think of. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC); updated with some details: 19:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm RfCing this because there has been sporadic argument about this for several years, without resolution.
{{R to foo namespace}}
to see what it says, unless you're good at memorizing such things. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 19:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC); rev'd.: 19:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
R within template namespace}}
. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vanisaac (
talk •
contribs) 21:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
R within template namespace}}
to work (and why do we need it? and why can't a toolserver bot making a custom-sortable list take care of whatever the imagined maint. wants are?), then
Category:Redirects within template namespace would have to be not a container cat., but one that is diffused only in the special cases. The current status quo is that most "Template:"-to-"Template:" redirs are not categorized unless they are shortcuts, rcat templates, or some other narrow class. Some editor[s] has/have been incorrectly applying {{
R from template shortcut}}
to thousands of template redirs that are not shortcuts – often same length as the real name or considerably longer, and most often the byproduct of page moves. I undo this miscategorization when I run across it, though it is not something I've been tracking down. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 16:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
R to project namespace}}
– done
[1], at
Template:R to project namespace/sandbox{{
R to portal namespace}}
– done
[2], at
Template:R to portal namespace/sandbox{{
R to help namespace}}
– done
[3], at
Template:R to help namespace/sandbox{{
R to project namespace}}
on redirs already in "Wikipedia:"
[4], 6264 cases{{
R to portal namespace}}
on redirs already in "Portal:"
[5], 326 cases{{
R to help namespace}}
on redirs already in "Help:"
[6], 134 cases{{
R from template shortcut}}
on redirs that are not in fact shortcuts; unknown number but probably several thousand, and probably a long-term manual/AWB/JWB cleanup job. Start
here.An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, but if more discussion may be helpful here I see no issue with letting it run longer. ( t · c) buidhe 12:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
@ SMcCandlish: You removed the open italics and left the close italics in your last edit, and that turned everything after "outside" into italics. Remove two apostrophes after "outside". — Anomalocaris ( talk) 19:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change 'in that project namespace' (presumably an error) to 'in that namespace' or 'in the project namespace'; I'd say the former given the context. J 947 ( c), at 04:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
– 192.183.71.195 ( talk) 02:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Collapse extended content
|
---|
192.183.71.195 ( talk) Further reading[edit]
hide Authority control National libraries • Japan Other • Microsoft Academic <img src="/info/en/?search=Special:CentralAutoLogin/start?type=1x1" alt="" title="" width="1" height="1" style="border: none; position: absolute;" />
See alsoOnline cataloging, through such systems as the Dynix software developed in 1983 and used widely through the late 1990s, has greatly enhanced the usability of catalogs, thanks to the rise of MARC standards (an acronym for MAchine Readable Cataloging) in the 1960s. Rules governing the creation of MARC catalog records include not only formal cataloging rules such as Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition (AACR2), Resource Description and Access (RDA) but also rules specific to MARC, available from both the U.S. Library of Congress and from OCLC, which builds and maintains WorldCat. MARC was originally used to automate the creation of physical catalog cards, but its use evolved into direct access to the MARC computer files during the search process. OPACs have enhanced usability over traditional card formats because: 1. The online catalog does not need to be sorted statically; the user can choose author, title, keyword, or systematic order dynamically. 2. Most online catalogs allow searching for any word in a title or other field, increasing the ways to find a record. 3. Many online catalogs allow links between several variants of an author's name. 4. The elimination of paper cards has made the information more accessible to many people with disabilities, such as the visually impaired, wheelchair users, and those who suffer from mold allergies or other paper- or building-related problems. 5. Physical storage space is considerably reduced. 6. Updates are significantly more efficient. Carl Linnaeus Invented The Index Card ScienceDaily, June 16, 2009 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Template_index&diff=783096226&oldid=780826061 Cite This Page
Jump to navigation Jump to search Bibliographic details for MediaWiki
Citation styles for MediaWiki APA style MediaWiki. (2020, May 26). MediaWiki, . Retrieved 22:14, December 6, 2021 from https://www.mediawiki.org/?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227. MLA style "MediaWiki." MediaWiki, . 26 May 2020, 13:38 UTC. 6 Dec 2021, 22:14 < https://www.mediawiki.org/?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227>. MHRA style MediaWiki contributors, 'MediaWiki', MediaWiki, , 26 May 2020, 13:38 UTC, < https://www.mediawiki.org/?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227> [accessed 6 December 2021] Chicago style MediaWiki contributors, "MediaWiki," MediaWiki, , https://www.mediawiki.org/?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227 (accessed December 6, 2021). CBE/CSE style MediaWiki contributors. MediaWiki [Internet]. MediaWiki, ; 2020 May 26, 13:38 UTC [cited 2021 Dec 6]. Available from: https://www.mediawiki.org/?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227. Bluebook style MediaWiki, https://www.mediawiki.org/?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227 (last visited December 6, 2021). BibTeX entry @misc{ wiki:xxx, author = "MediaWiki", title = "MediaWiki --- MediaWiki{,} ", year = "2020", url = " https://www.mediawiki.org/?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227", note = "[Online; accessed 6-December-2021]" } When using the LaTeX package url (\usepackage{url} somewhere in the preamble) which tends to give much more nicely formatted web addresses, the following may be preferred: @misc{ wiki:xxx, author = "MediaWiki", title = "MediaWiki --- MediaWiki{,} ", year = "2020", url = "\url{ https://www.mediawiki.org/?title=MediaWiki&oldid=3878227}", note = "[Online; accessed 6-December-2021]" } Behold the magic of mathematics! #stackoverflowknows
Jump to navigation Jump to search The following information is cached, and was last updated 01:11, 20 November 2021. Discuss this special page at Wikipedia talk:Special:WantedTemplates. See also: Template:Specialpageslist Updates for this page are running once a month. Showing below up to 50 results in range #1 to #50. View (previous 50 | next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) 1. Template:Country data Xanadu (13 links) 2. Template:WikiProject 2020s (4 links) 3. Template:", "Template:" ).replace( " (2 links) 4. Template:Country data Nonexisting (2 links) 5. Template:Horrorcore (2 links) 6. Template:Non-existent template (2 links) 7. Template:Osobny artykuł (2 links) The following pages link to Template:Country data Xanadu
Displayed 13 items. View (previous 50 | next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
View (previous 50 | next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) Fwd: [lists.wikimedia.org] Password Reset E-mail 192.183.71.195 ( talk) 02:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC) |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add error checking, to check if the redirect's target is in the Wikipedia namespace e.g.
{{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACE:{{#invoke:redirect|main|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}|{{ns:4}}|<!--Correct namespace-->|<!--Incorrect namespace-->}}
Qwerfjkl talk 12:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
{{#ifeq: {{BASEPAGENAME}}|R to project namespace||
kinda useless if it's already in an <includeonly>...</includeonly>
? ―
Jochem van Hees (
talk) 13:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
To editors 1234qwer1234qwer4, Qwerfjkl and Jochem van Hees: just fyi, the redirect error detection for incorrect targets has been added to the rcats in the {{ Rcat see also}} template. Thank you for your help, and Happiest of New Years to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 14:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
{{NAMESPACE:{{#invoke:redirect|main|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}
correctly produces "Wikipedia" on the page
Portal:Contents/TOC navbar/doc in preview, same as wikitext {{ns:4}}
. —
andrybak (
talk) 16:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
|wikipedia category=Redirects to Wikipedia project pages
and |other category={{sandbox other||Redirects to project space}}
in combination with pagename ending in /doc
. Template {{
sandbox other}} ignores not only sandboxes, but /doc pages too; see
Special:Diff/928982553. —
andrybak (
talk) 16:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I was looking at
WP:CSD and couldn't seem to find the output of {{
R to project namespace}} anymore. This is now
fixed. @
Paine Ellsworth: Just so you know,
this edit did not work as intended since you used {{PAGENAME}}
and not {{FULLPAGENAME}}
. I don't know if you made similar changes elsewhere, so I figured I'd let you know here.
–
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖ 17:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem is, but these recent reverts by @ Paine Ellsworth: have somehow caused WP:PST to be blank (at least for Brave Browser 1.46.144 on Windows 10). Weird thing is the fact that that page is affected but WP:PSTS isn't. ~~ lol1 VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 15:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
When previewing a new redirect with this rcat, nothing is displayed; but it displays on the created page as usual.
{{#invoke:redirect|isRedirect|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}
Presumably, this fails when the page is yet to be created, or isn't yet a redirect. What purpose does this line serve, anyway? jlwoodwa ( talk) 23:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I was expecting {{ R to project namespace}} to be an appropriate rcat template on WT:AWB/GF, which links to Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes, but it throws an error. What would be the appropriate template, or should {{ R to project namespace}} be expanded to include Wikipedia talk? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 14:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)