Talk:🙏

Redirect

I do not like it that Gonnym keeps restoring the categories for this wiktionary redirect. It is not fair for the user. Neel.arunabh (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The redirect since its 3rd edit in 2020 was in the emoji category. That category is very useful in having all the emoji links in en.wiki. Any editor or reader wishing to do any kind of research or find a specific link, can use that to find it. Hiding links by not placing them in the category makes no sense. This isn't a question of fairness. Please note that you should have gone to the talk page after the first revert and not after you reverted 4 times. You've also been reverted by another editor in one of the other redirects. Gonnym (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why it wouldn't have categories; redirects typically do. This is evidenced by the fact that these categories were, in fact, being applied by a redirect template... jp×g 20:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG and Gonnym: soft redirects generally do not have visible rcats - Paine Ellsworth might know more about this than I do. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

To editors Elli, JPxG and Gonnym: you are correct that neither the Rcat shell template nor any other rcat templates are used on any soft redirects due to small instabilities in the {{Redirect template}} meta template. So I've removed them and used category links instead. Also noted that the unicode rcat sorted to the Unprintworthy redirects category and the emoji rcat sorted to the Printworthy redirects category, a completely undesirable situation. I've removed the Rcat shell and rcat templates and replaced them with category links, which of course can be used on soft redirects. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 05:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth Could you elaborate on what instabilities are there with the template? Gonnym (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It's been noted in the template's documentation since 2011, the first year it was created. The template's creator would know more about the instability. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 09:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes I see it's noted, but I also don't see any issues with it being placed. User:Mclay1 can you explain what issues this might cause? Gonnym (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I made the template a decade ago so I really can't remember much about it. The redirect templates have changed a lot since then and I haven't kept up with it. I noted in the documentation that it should only be used on hard redirects, but I didn't specify why. I assume that was because the template was designed to be a base to create other templates that fit the style used for hard redirect templates, whereas soft redirect templates are different. User:Paine Ellsworth added the note about soft redirects in 2018. MClay1 (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mclay1! Been a long time since we last talked. Thanks for jogging my memory. Completely forgot about adding that note. Doncha just LOVE getting older? Anyway, one unexpected result that I remember that resulted in my making that note was that if an rcat template were to be used on a soft category redirect, that redirect would be listed in the rcat's category as a subcategory rather than as a regular entry. That's what led me to add that note to the documentation. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 14:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the redirect templates and I don't see that issue (it also sounds very strange that such a thing is possible). Do you see anything else? Gonnym (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

What I see does not seem to matter to you. For example, by restoring the rcats you once again added the page to both the printworthy and unprintworthy categories. You obviously don't give a damn what I think, so I'm done here. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 04:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Apologies for bringing you back. Just wanted to say you're right – adding category redirects to redirect categories makes them appear as subcategories – that was probably the reason. Category redirects don't really need categorising so that's fine. There doesn't seem to be an issue with other soft redirects, such as this one, having redirect categories. However, you're of course correct that we can't have it in both printworthy and unprintworthy, but you've corrected that. MClay1 (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Glad to come back, Mac. I've corrected several other of these types of redirects (hard emoji) by making them only printworthy, but there are probably several more I haven't found yet. It would certainly be nice if editor Gonnym, who has categorized these, would find them and fix them the way I did with this redirect. All I did was to make the Unicode rcat template recognize its first parameter to change it from its default unprintworthiness to printworthy. That makes these real easy to fix if you know where they all are. Best to you both! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 12:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh and before I forget, when I made the edit to the {{Redirect template}}'s documentation, I was going by the part that I didn't edit that just said that it should only be used on hard redirects as well as by the category redirect problem. I figured that if there was weirdness on category redirects, then there was a good chance there would be weirdnesses on other kinds of soft redirects, too. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 12:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

And same thing has happened at 🥺 also. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)