Essays Mid‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Redirect Project‑class | |||||||
|
And feel free to speak your mind. Don't hold back, doc, I can take it. – Paine
I've seen various cases of Greek and Latin plural forms that are manually flagged as printable, for example Alumni. To what extent does that represent or contravene current best practices? What about other non-English languages?
(If I skimmed over the essay too quickly and missed the place where this was explained, feel free to clarify.) -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 23:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I really just don't understand all this talk about printworthy? What do you mean printworthy? Its an online encyclopaedia, no one is ever going to print it. Or is that not at all what it means help me :O. EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 08:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I really just don't understand all this talk about printworthy? What do you mean printworthy?
Its an online encyclopaedia, no one is ever going to print it.
One afterthought in closing, certainly more than one hour later:
"While a printed version may ultimately be considered impractical, getting ready for it would still be a good idea." Some of the points made or indicated below are relevant to a print edition alone, in my opinion. And maybe not worthwhile.
Mr Easy. First, the companion bullet listing Mr. Easy needs some parenthetical annotation --eg: (oops, typed a full stop/period after "Mr")-- and this one does not. Second, Mr Easy may be unnecessary for convenient use of our online search, because the target article will show up among the hits, yet be invaluable in print. (There are much better examples of that kind.) Third, what about Mister Easy? Should we anticipate a general instruction at Mister or Mr.
Dr. Seuss and
Doctor Who. First, should we provide general instructions at Doctor or Dr --presumably directing users to Mr or Mister-- or even Mr. if all Mr without a do sort before all Mr. with a dot? Should we tag particular redirects for a context where some such general directions are in place, or try to tag them more generally, to be useful regardless of the other decision? For sure someone will look up Doctor Seuss or Dr Who. Second, in some few cases including these two --unlike all people with PhDs, or all Sirs and Kings-- we should provide at least one entry each under D and S, or D and W. (D alone is sufficient for
Doctor J, perhaps in exception to general instruction about Doctors.) How should we do it? We now sort the article
Dr. Seuss as "Seuss, Dr." and
Doctor Who as "Doctor Who". Some redirect, not the article itself, must carry the second listing: perhaps
Seuss, Dr. sorted as "Dr. Seuss". If not, then
Doctor Seuss sorted there, which addresses both subpoints of this paragraph? (I tagged several Seuss and Geisel redirects this week but dozens of alts and typos remain untagged.)
Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel. First, I have supposed that alphabetical placement is the main point and almost the only one --rather than printworthiness as a junior version of notability, say. We now sort the joint biography under "Canter, Laurence". Thus Laurence Canter is unprintworthy, because it sorts adjacently or nearly so, but Martha Siegel is printworthy. Whatever the main point may be, it occurs to me this is vulnerable to a re-sort under "Siegel, Martha" --with or without renaming as Martha Siegel and Laurence Canter. (The record shows Paine Ellsworth tagged Canter unprintworthy, [1].)
Alice and Martin Provensen. Such article names are common for joint biographies. The criterion of alphabetical placement makes the two personal redirects unprintworthy. Equally, "Alice and Martin Smith" would have two personal redirects both printworthy because so many sortkeys begin "Smith". The rarety of Provensen as a surname also makes "[the] Provensens" unprintworthy, regardless whether we have judged that a redirect is useful. (I recently added Metadata and Categories to the two Provensens personal redirects, and did not tag them unprintworthy.)
The Chronicles of Narnia. The Chronicles of Narnia became an official title of the early 1950s Narnia children's novels. (I don't know when between publication of the second book as Prince Caspian: The Return to Narnia and issue of a boxed set.) We treat the book series as primary topic, sorted under C. Same for the 21st-century film series. We also have an eponymous category, sorted under C. Should we make a couple of redirect, perhaps Narnia books and Narnia films, printworthy in order to carry sort under N? Compare Harry Potter (book series) under H and Harry Potter (character) under P. Existence of such an article pair must alert some readers of the notorious print edition. Compare Nancy Drew is under D, and the lead sentence identifies a fictional character only, but it is really about the series and the franchise as much as the character. Along lines covered in this paragraph the question is which incoming redirect to make printworthy with sort under N. (Just now I re-sorted the multivocal article under N in its two series categories.)
Concerning template {{ R from writer}}, P.E., you commented in edit summary a few months ago "unprintworthy at least half the time", [2]. I infer a criterion that is a junior version of notability. All of the pages, or nearly so, point from writer to work, so the two pagenames that are entirely unrelated.
-- P64 ( talk) 22:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
A paper version seems increasingly non-viable, and a digital disk can include all redirects at (relatively) low cost. Is there any real benefit to investing editor time on categorizing printworthy vs nonprintworthy? Alsee ( talk) 22:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
As you yourself have noted, desecrating tree corpses is not an issue anymore. The criteria behind printworthyness/printability are of interest, though. Basically, the question is whether a redirect is "encyclopedic".
The distinction is about being informative to the reader. We place articles at the most frequently used titles in the reliable literature about a topic. After that, we normally want redirects for all titles in use in the literature, reliable or not, because a reader normally encounters a topic not in the reliable literature, but somewhere else. The exception from this general rule are synonyms from non-English languages, like Teilchenbeschleuniger (particle accelerator). This in turn has its own exceptions, like official names and topics strongly connected to a language.
There are three classes of non-encyclopedic redirects.
The above should cover all article space redirects.
Regards, 85.178.220.97 ( talk) 23:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
If a printed book had an index...
Dpleibovitz ( talk) 22:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 5#Template:R to anchor 2 (for merger to Template:R to anchor, and fixing of code causing it to auto-categorize things as unprintworthy unless explicitly told not to. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Headbomb: has objected to the "Redundancy" section of this essay here ( permanent link). This is a continuation of this previous discussion (using only permalink to avoid pinging another user whose involvement is insubstantial).
I am involved, but I am not the one objecting.
I have no further comment. I'm mainly curious whether there is any previous discussion about said section to which we should refer. -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 01:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Should shortcuts be marked as unprintable? ― Qwerfjkl| ✉ 09:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Dead tree Wikipedia is practically impossible, and hardly desirable even if it were possible. Any digital offline version should be searchable and therefore would benefit from even most "unprintworthy" redirects.
Nor would including all redirects take up too much space in an offline archive. A redirect takes up very very little space compared to an article above stub-class, and could be stored even more efficiently in an offline digital version by just making a database table to store redirect names instead of storing the wikitext.
I can understand that makers of offline archives might legitimately want to exclude some particular specific categories of redirects like CamelCase legacy redirects a la HomePage and cross-namespace redirects like MOS: redirects or Administrators noticeboard [ sic] - since those are actually never going to be useful. Even with those, the CamelCase ones do no harm, and the cross-namespace ones would be excluded anyway since that's obvious - but I could understand classing those as unprintworthy through their rcats and leaving it at that.
On the other hand, encouraging the spending of volunteer effort to to categorise navigational redirects eg. Mr. Easy as unprintworthy when they would be just fine in any real offline Wikipedia archive seems strange. CharredShorthand ( talk) 16:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
It's full of confusing tongue-in-cheek references (wiki editor in-jokes) and phrases like "answer the heavenly question, PITA boy". Since it's a help page in Wikipedia_talk, it should be written in clear, professional, respectful language understandable by all. 2A00:23C5:FE56:6C01:D055:A2C3:378D:6737 ( talk) 15:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Essays Mid‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Redirect Project‑class | |||||||
|
And feel free to speak your mind. Don't hold back, doc, I can take it. – Paine
I've seen various cases of Greek and Latin plural forms that are manually flagged as printable, for example Alumni. To what extent does that represent or contravene current best practices? What about other non-English languages?
(If I skimmed over the essay too quickly and missed the place where this was explained, feel free to clarify.) -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 23:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I really just don't understand all this talk about printworthy? What do you mean printworthy? Its an online encyclopaedia, no one is ever going to print it. Or is that not at all what it means help me :O. EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 08:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I really just don't understand all this talk about printworthy? What do you mean printworthy?
Its an online encyclopaedia, no one is ever going to print it.
One afterthought in closing, certainly more than one hour later:
"While a printed version may ultimately be considered impractical, getting ready for it would still be a good idea." Some of the points made or indicated below are relevant to a print edition alone, in my opinion. And maybe not worthwhile.
Mr Easy. First, the companion bullet listing Mr. Easy needs some parenthetical annotation --eg: (oops, typed a full stop/period after "Mr")-- and this one does not. Second, Mr Easy may be unnecessary for convenient use of our online search, because the target article will show up among the hits, yet be invaluable in print. (There are much better examples of that kind.) Third, what about Mister Easy? Should we anticipate a general instruction at Mister or Mr.
Dr. Seuss and
Doctor Who. First, should we provide general instructions at Doctor or Dr --presumably directing users to Mr or Mister-- or even Mr. if all Mr without a do sort before all Mr. with a dot? Should we tag particular redirects for a context where some such general directions are in place, or try to tag them more generally, to be useful regardless of the other decision? For sure someone will look up Doctor Seuss or Dr Who. Second, in some few cases including these two --unlike all people with PhDs, or all Sirs and Kings-- we should provide at least one entry each under D and S, or D and W. (D alone is sufficient for
Doctor J, perhaps in exception to general instruction about Doctors.) How should we do it? We now sort the article
Dr. Seuss as "Seuss, Dr." and
Doctor Who as "Doctor Who". Some redirect, not the article itself, must carry the second listing: perhaps
Seuss, Dr. sorted as "Dr. Seuss". If not, then
Doctor Seuss sorted there, which addresses both subpoints of this paragraph? (I tagged several Seuss and Geisel redirects this week but dozens of alts and typos remain untagged.)
Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel. First, I have supposed that alphabetical placement is the main point and almost the only one --rather than printworthiness as a junior version of notability, say. We now sort the joint biography under "Canter, Laurence". Thus Laurence Canter is unprintworthy, because it sorts adjacently or nearly so, but Martha Siegel is printworthy. Whatever the main point may be, it occurs to me this is vulnerable to a re-sort under "Siegel, Martha" --with or without renaming as Martha Siegel and Laurence Canter. (The record shows Paine Ellsworth tagged Canter unprintworthy, [1].)
Alice and Martin Provensen. Such article names are common for joint biographies. The criterion of alphabetical placement makes the two personal redirects unprintworthy. Equally, "Alice and Martin Smith" would have two personal redirects both printworthy because so many sortkeys begin "Smith". The rarety of Provensen as a surname also makes "[the] Provensens" unprintworthy, regardless whether we have judged that a redirect is useful. (I recently added Metadata and Categories to the two Provensens personal redirects, and did not tag them unprintworthy.)
The Chronicles of Narnia. The Chronicles of Narnia became an official title of the early 1950s Narnia children's novels. (I don't know when between publication of the second book as Prince Caspian: The Return to Narnia and issue of a boxed set.) We treat the book series as primary topic, sorted under C. Same for the 21st-century film series. We also have an eponymous category, sorted under C. Should we make a couple of redirect, perhaps Narnia books and Narnia films, printworthy in order to carry sort under N? Compare Harry Potter (book series) under H and Harry Potter (character) under P. Existence of such an article pair must alert some readers of the notorious print edition. Compare Nancy Drew is under D, and the lead sentence identifies a fictional character only, but it is really about the series and the franchise as much as the character. Along lines covered in this paragraph the question is which incoming redirect to make printworthy with sort under N. (Just now I re-sorted the multivocal article under N in its two series categories.)
Concerning template {{ R from writer}}, P.E., you commented in edit summary a few months ago "unprintworthy at least half the time", [2]. I infer a criterion that is a junior version of notability. All of the pages, or nearly so, point from writer to work, so the two pagenames that are entirely unrelated.
-- P64 ( talk) 22:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
A paper version seems increasingly non-viable, and a digital disk can include all redirects at (relatively) low cost. Is there any real benefit to investing editor time on categorizing printworthy vs nonprintworthy? Alsee ( talk) 22:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
As you yourself have noted, desecrating tree corpses is not an issue anymore. The criteria behind printworthyness/printability are of interest, though. Basically, the question is whether a redirect is "encyclopedic".
The distinction is about being informative to the reader. We place articles at the most frequently used titles in the reliable literature about a topic. After that, we normally want redirects for all titles in use in the literature, reliable or not, because a reader normally encounters a topic not in the reliable literature, but somewhere else. The exception from this general rule are synonyms from non-English languages, like Teilchenbeschleuniger (particle accelerator). This in turn has its own exceptions, like official names and topics strongly connected to a language.
There are three classes of non-encyclopedic redirects.
The above should cover all article space redirects.
Regards, 85.178.220.97 ( talk) 23:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
If a printed book had an index...
Dpleibovitz ( talk) 22:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 5#Template:R to anchor 2 (for merger to Template:R to anchor, and fixing of code causing it to auto-categorize things as unprintworthy unless explicitly told not to. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Headbomb: has objected to the "Redundancy" section of this essay here ( permanent link). This is a continuation of this previous discussion (using only permalink to avoid pinging another user whose involvement is insubstantial).
I am involved, but I am not the one objecting.
I have no further comment. I'm mainly curious whether there is any previous discussion about said section to which we should refer. -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 01:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Should shortcuts be marked as unprintable? ― Qwerfjkl| ✉ 09:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Dead tree Wikipedia is practically impossible, and hardly desirable even if it were possible. Any digital offline version should be searchable and therefore would benefit from even most "unprintworthy" redirects.
Nor would including all redirects take up too much space in an offline archive. A redirect takes up very very little space compared to an article above stub-class, and could be stored even more efficiently in an offline digital version by just making a database table to store redirect names instead of storing the wikitext.
I can understand that makers of offline archives might legitimately want to exclude some particular specific categories of redirects like CamelCase legacy redirects a la HomePage and cross-namespace redirects like MOS: redirects or Administrators noticeboard [ sic] - since those are actually never going to be useful. Even with those, the CamelCase ones do no harm, and the cross-namespace ones would be excluded anyway since that's obvious - but I could understand classing those as unprintworthy through their rcats and leaving it at that.
On the other hand, encouraging the spending of volunteer effort to to categorise navigational redirects eg. Mr. Easy as unprintworthy when they would be just fine in any real offline Wikipedia archive seems strange. CharredShorthand ( talk) 16:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
It's full of confusing tongue-in-cheek references (wiki editor in-jokes) and phrases like "answer the heavenly question, PITA boy". Since it's a help page in Wikipedia_talk, it should be written in clear, professional, respectful language understandable by all. 2A00:23C5:FE56:6C01:D055:A2C3:378D:6737 ( talk) 15:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)