Template talk:R template index

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion below. It appears that we don't mind keeping some pages in the template namespace that are not, strictly speaking, templates. - GTBacchus^(talk) 05:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Template:R help → Help:R help — This page is not a template. The justification given for keeping it in the template namespace has been to preserve its ability to be searched for conveniently, but this could be accomplished with a redirect. Is there any reason this solution would not address any concerns about moving the page? --Bsherr (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, you were a participant in the above Tfd, and that decision was to Keep. For another, you moved the page without discussion, which may constitute vandalism. I suggest that you proceed carefully, Bsherr. Such behavior has been known to get editors blocked from Wikipedia.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:BRD and remember to assume good faith. Also, noticed that your edit summary reverting my move was "unauthorized deletion of template". You may not know this, but moving a page is not deleting the page, it's merely renaming it so that it appears in a new location. There is no "authorization" process for moving a page. Controversial moves can simply be reverted and a discussion like this one started instead. Also, to quote WP:VAND#NOT, "Bold edits, though they may precede or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism." If there's anything else that concerns you, do let me know, but I believe this covers my edits. Let me know if you have any questions. --Bsherr (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You stem your argument on a technicality, that of "moving a page is not deleting the page". If you were to discuss it with the admin who made the decision to keep the page, you might find that, since moving the page was discussed at the Tfd, it is not an option anymore. It is this part of your editing behavior, and the part where you moved the page without discussion, that may constitute vandalism. Please proceed carefully. You have made too many good edits for you to be lost to Wikipedia because you were blocked. I sincerely would not want to see that happen. Please proceed in the spirit of the Tfd, and stop this disruptive editing.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This template just underwent a Tfd, and to move or redirect the page was discussed. Since the outcome of the Tfd was to "Keep", neither redirecting nor moving the page is an option. Also, converting the template to a cross-namespace redirect will likely get it deleted on sight. None of this is in the spirit of the decision made by the Tfd.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  21:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Only crossnamespace redirects from the article space are speedy deleted. The TfD never addressed the possibility of a crossnamespace redirect. Could you explain why it wouldn't work? (And, since keeping the page in template space is also a contravention of the guidelines, wouldn't the crossnamespace redirect be a better IAR solution. If not, why?) --Bsherr (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please cite a reference for your first sentence. The Tfd most certainly DID address the CNR possibility. Who are you? and what have you done with editor Bsherr? Maybe you missed that conversation, but CNRs were definitely discussed. As for any other arguments you may have, please address the administrator who made the decision with the following:

“

The result of the discussion was keep. It is safe to say that the utility of this page has been sufficiently proven, therefore delete is not an option. While the argument to move said page is compelling, I'm also compelled to believe that moving this template might hamper the efforts of the everyday editor who is used to referring to it. While keeping this page where it is is likely a violation of the spirit/purpose/whatever of the template namespace, leaving it where it is causes no problems. JPG-GR (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

”

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  21:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

JPG's not here yet, but I can notify him. The only speedy deletion criterion concerning crossnamespace redirects is R2, and that's only for redirects from the article namespace. If consensus is for a crossnamespace redirect here, it will exist until an RfD decides otherwise. I reviewed the discussion, and I can't find any explanation as to why a crossnamespace redirect won't satisfy your concerns. Assuming it were permissible, why would a crossnamespace redirect not address your concerns? --Bsherr (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the summary about cross-namespace redirects, the consensus following long debate is that new ones are deleted on sight, whether speedily or by the discussion process. It does not matter whether it's article CNRs/WP CNRs/whatever, the new ones get deleted, which is what you wanted in the first place, eh? You have lost the deletion argument, Bsherr. I've been on Wikipedia for several years, and I've won some arguments and I've lost some. You have to know when to move on. The Tfd cited in the tag at the top of this page, after in-depth discussion, decided to KEEP this page just like it is. Please respect that decision and advance to better edits.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  16:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about winning or losing. It's about finding the best solution. If you're worried about the crossnamespace redirect being deleted, we can convert this to an RfC to establish it. Would that address your concern? --Bsherr (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. It's not about winning or losing. However it is about keeping a useful reference. I use this reference page almost every day. The only suggestion you've made that would not lose its utility for me is the CNR, and new CNR's get deleted. If you want to convert to an Rfc, that's fine with me.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And there we are! Ok, let me make inquiries about the best way to go about setting up a durable crossnamespace redirect. --Bsherr (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so, WP:CNR discusses only redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia: (project) namespace. WP:R#DELETE number five refers only to redirects from the article space. And speedy deletion R2, which I mentioned above, refers only to redirects from the article space. I can't find any authority that says crossnamespace redirects from the templae namespace are deleted. I suggest we redo the move of this page to the help namespace, leaving the crossnamespace redirect in place, and then monitor it to make sure it's durable. The alternative is that we immediately put the redirect up for discussion at RfD proposing it be kept, and then we'd have consensus to keep right away. If the redirect is deleted after that process we can restore the status quo. How does that sound? --Bsherr (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Aside from this discussion, your usage of stars (*) to indent instead of colons (:) makes this Talk page section exceedingly long. Please use colons instead of stars.

If you want to begin an Rfc, then please do so. I have not changed my mind. Wikipedia:CNR states that "The term (cross-namespace redirect) is most often applied to redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia: (project) namespace." "Most often", to me, means that it also applies to all other types of CNRs. So this is where the argument to turn this page into a redirect to the Help: namespace loses its validity. The Tfd at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 9#Template:R help, in which you and I both participated, returned a decision to Keep this page just as it is. I respect that decision just as I would have respected any other decision that it might have returned. All I ask is that you respect that decision, too.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Paine, that's just an essay. If you read it, all of its contents apply only to redirects from the article space. Your point about it's meaning it's right, but it's not deliberate, it's just poor drafting. I've edited the essay to fix the problem. Does that address your concern? If not, I'm pleased to redraft any part of this essay that still concerns you. --Bsherr (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That is *not* just an essay, Bsherr, it is a summation of a long-running debate on the subject of cross-namespace redirects. And I'm glad to see that you discussed your edit with the original scribes who wrote the important lede of that summation. You did, didn't you? In my opinion, the lede writers sharpened and honed that lede over several years, and if they wanted that "clarification" in the lede, then they would have put it there themselves. If you did not consult with those scribes, then I suggest that you do a self-revert. Please show respect for the administrator who made the decision in the above-referenced Tfd, respect for the decision to Keep this page just like it is, and respect for the Tfd process itself, and cease and desist. This is a useful page just as it is formatted, title and all. How would you feel if you had a Wikipedia editing tool that you used almost everyday, and some editor came along and tried to get it deleted? The administrator who decided that this template should NOT be deleted, NOT be moved, NOT be converted into a CNR said it all with the final words of the KEEP statement: "leaving it where it is causes no problems". We both have better things we could be doing, so please leave this useful template alone, and let's get on to higher purposes... please.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  05:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Paine, those debates focused entirely on crossnamespace redirects from the article namespace, not from the template namespace. And it is an essay. If someone reverts my change, I'll take that as indication that it needs to be discussed. The summary to which you refer was not written by some great Wikipedia scribe; it was written in 2007 by Mersaran, who was subsequently blocked by the ArbCom for sockpuppetry.

Do you understand why crossnamespace redirects are discouraged? It's to preserve the lines between the namespaces. But apply that to this situation. It's far more egregious to have a help page in the template namespace than it is to have a redirect to a help page in the template namespace. It's entirely bizarre to insist that a crossnamespace redirect will be deleted with any more vigor than a help page in the template namespace moved.

It seems you keep suggesting that I'm trying to delete the page here. I'm just trying to move it. If you're confused about the difference between moving and deleting, I can explain again. I'm not trying to take your tool away from you; I'm trying to create a crossnamespace redirect to appease you.

I consulted JPG, the closing admin from the TfD, who I've worked with on several projects before, and who I do greatly respect, and, while I don't want to speak for him, he says he did not intend his close to recognize a consensus against a page move, with or without a crossnamespace redirect. You can see the thread on his talk page. But that notwithstanding, you seem focused on objecting to this discussion, when, instead, you and I could instead be focused on the merits of a solution.

I understand your only objection to a crossnamespace redirect is that you think it will get deleted. I again reiterate that there is no policy or guideline preventing a crossnamespace redirect from the template space to the help or project space. Would you object to trying it? If it gets deleted, I promise I will immediately revert the page back the status quo. As an alternative to this, I can create the crossnamespace redirect and then immediately propose it for discussion at RfD. Then we will have a consensus on whether it is allowed or not. This will be faster and more specific than an RfC. Which do you want to do? --Bsherr (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I read your conversation with JPG, and I respect the character opinion given. Your BRD would have been "bold" if you had done it prior to the Tfd. Deletion is always a "last resort" on Wikipedia. There are other avenues, such as the one you now propose, to consider before a Tfd. When you do such things as blank a page and turn it into a redirect, as you first did when you redirected the page to Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages, when you move a page, as you did next, and then it gets redirected to the move page, when you do such things after a Tfd, it just makes you look like an angry newbie who edits disruptively.

I've already stated multiple times the outcome that I wish. And allow me to ask you a question: What difference does it make? Whether {{R help}} stays like it is or you turn it into a CNR, it will STILL be (by your reckoning) a "non-template" in template namespace, wouldn't it? So what's the difference? It won't change anything. All it will do is make the page a risky CNR and maybe get it deleted, which is unconscionable. Please just leave it alone. It doesn't hurt anything to leave it here. Why are you so adamant about doing this? It most certainly does not represent an improvement to Wikipedia.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  04:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

First, "It's far more egregious to have a help page in the template namespace than it is to have a redirect to a help page in the template namespace." Second, the page causes confusion here (people think it's actually an R template). Third, because it is where it is, the page is an WP:Orphan. None of these likely would be so if the page were moved. That's why I'd like to do something about it. I've tried to convince you that there's no policy or guideline that would support deleting the crossnamespace redirect. Even if it were nominated, you and I could both defend it at RfD, I believe successfully. I thought my offer to try it, and immediately revet back to the status quo if it's deleted, was a fair one, and addresses your only stated concern with the outcome of moving the page. You've already said you have no objection to a durable crossnamespace redirect as the solution for this page, but you won't do anything to achieve it, even though there is no risk in doing so (because we can always revert to the status quo). I don't understand that position. Perhaps you could explain it? --Bsherr (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

So we can say, then, that your above response depicts why you are so adamant about moving this page's contents to the Help: namespace and converting into a CNR. It's Christmas day, and as I sit here with thoughts about last evening's family gettogether and watch the young ones open their presents (always the best part for me), I can only hope that I can make you understand why I am even more adamant about leaving the page as is.

You say, "It's far more egregious to have a help page in the template namespace than it is to have a redirect to a help page in the template namespace." I do not agree with this, mainly because I cannot find anything offensive about this page, nor could many of the editors who participated in the recent Tfd, to include JPG. JPG reiterated on his Talk page precisely what he meant when he wrote his closing to the Tfd. Remember, too, that he added a link to WP:IAR when he wrote leaving it where it is causes no problems. You, of course, do have the right to be offended for whatever reason by this page. I'm sorry you feel that way, but there were not enough editors who agreed with you at the Tfd.

The page is in a namespace where it does not belong. Fine, it has a use. But, it would be less offensive if it was merely a redirect to the namespace where it actually belonged. And no utility would be lost in doing so! --Bsherr (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You also say that the page "causes confusion", and that "people think it's actually an R template". Never have I read this from any other editor, not here on the Talk page, not during the Tfd, never anywhere on Wikipedia. I have no idea where you got this idea from. It would take a real "bumbler" to be confused about this page. The moment one arrives at this page, one immediately sees what it is: A useful reference for the most-often-used "R from" templates. Who, exactly, to your knowledge, is confused by this page?

JPG, the admin who closed the TfD, was confused when I recently discussed the template with him. He thought at first it was a R template. So did a bumbler close the TfD, or are intelligent users readily confused by this page? --Bsherr (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not expect that, so my term "bumbler" was obviously ill-conceived. Certainly no offense meant. I still fail to see how any bit of confusion that might arise could possibly be offset by the pages utility just as it is.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You state that the page is an orphan. This is not a good reason to make the page less useful to those editors who use it as a reference. Many pages on Wikipedia are orphaned, yet not deleted because they are still valid search terms and/or still useful to editors. This page is both a valid search term and useful to editors.

You said yourself that the page would be equally useful as a CNR. It's orphaned because positioning it here divorces it from the other documentation of the R templates. --Bsherr (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The main reason you cannot convince me is that I am fully aware of the ongoing debate about CNRs, and your altering the lede of the essay that makes people aware of this only makes me more convinced that conversion to a CNR could be a very bad thing. I suggested that you revert that edit, because you can't possibly read the minds of the authors of that essay, and your obvious refusal to revert only convinces me more that a CNR conversion would not be good for the searchable aspect of this page.

I explained to you that the lede of that essay was written by a user who was later blocked for abuse, so I can't contact that user to find out his or her intent in writing that. But no one's stepped forward to change my clarification back. So, what would it take to convince you that I'm right? Just tell me, and I'll see to it. --Bsherr (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason that I will do nothing to achieve this page as a "durable" CNR is that I am convinced that it is impossible to make this page a durable CNR no matter what you try. You have absolutely no sound basis for your opinion that this page, as a CNR, wouldn't be deleted. If you did, then you wouldn't even suggest a Rfd to find out. So begin a Rfd if you want, however there will be no support from me to change this page from its present format.

I have explained my position over and over, and it does not seem to matter to you what I think, what many of the editors at the Tfd think, not even what the closing administrator thinks (from JPG's Talk page: "It should not be deleted. Where it is located does not concern me as long as it remains located somewhere other than the trash can."). My position is that the page should remain just like it is. There is no reason to go to the time and trouble of risking the possibility that this page might be deleted for any reason in the future. This page does not do ANY harm right where it is, right like it is. That's my position explained as best as I can do. Happiest of holidays to you and yours!

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I've inserted my replies directly into your comments for convenience. Please pardon the refactoring. Really, I'm just interested in knowing what I have to do to convince you that I'm right that this "CNR" won't be deleted. I give the suggestions that I did, trying it and seeing what happens or an RfD, because I cannot otherwise prove a negative to you. Instead, could you tell me what would convince you? --Bsherr (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I have answered this question several times. My answer remains unchanged: You have not convinced me that there is no way that this page could become a CNR and then not be deleted. Honestly, I haven't a clue how to tell you to do that. I presently feel that the possibility of deletion of this page, however large or slight, is unacceptable. Therefore, I cannot support any variance of the Tfd's decision. That decision should stand on its merit.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, even if you cannot, I think of a few things that would surely convince you of the propriety of a CNR. But they take time to accomplish. Meanwhile, on with the RM. --Bsherr (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose that just makes no sense. It would have to be Help:R templates 65.95.13.158 (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. --Bsherr (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm rather surprised by the amount of virtual ink that's been spent on this question. Does it matter that much? It looks to me like a template documentation page, and those generally reside in template space. If it's helpful in practice for people to find it here, I don't see any harm in keeping it in this namespace. --Kotniski (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

New Year's resolution?
As we appear to be locked in an impasse, I have asked for editor assistance. My request is a very first step in dispute resolution, and appears listed on this page.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  00:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think dispute resolution is appropriate when there is an ongoing process, WP:RM, on the subject a third party is being asked to weigh in on. It would be better for any interested third party to weigh in as part of the normal process. --Bsherr (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought about asking for a third opinion, since only one other editor has entered the discussion, but technically, that one other editor is already considered that "third opinion". I agree that it would be better if editors would start weighing in on this subject, but since they have not yet done so, and since you and I just keep going around in circles, I just thought I'd get a little experienced counsel on all this. As a mild and soft beginning to a resolution of our dispute, it appears to me to be appropriate. Surprise! We again disagree. I don't know what it is, Bsherr. I've read several of your arguments on other issues, and I've actually found myself in agreement with you on most of them. Yet on this particular issue, we cannot seem to get our heads together. So another opinion from any direction would be welcome.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  02:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No hurry to get it, though. The proposed move is listed at WP:RM. At the least, an admin will come here to close it. That'll be a few weeks from now, anyway. If it closes no consensus, then we can go 3O, but better one process at a time, I think. Meanwhile, I'll try my best to bring you around. :-) Merry Christmas. --Bsherr (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Backatcha on the Merry Christmas! and thank you! While learning more about you, I came across your move log, and I noted that you really do like to move pages! I made a few notes and changes to the World Wide Molecular Matrix article and to it's Talk page. I also noticed that when the REDIRECT page was formed by the move, the appropriate Rcats had not been added. It would be helpful and improve the encyclopedia if you would take care of this when you move pages (it only takes a few seconds). At least one Rcat, the {{R from move}} template, should be placed on every REDIRECT that results from a page move in the following manner...

#REDIRECT ]{{R from move}}

There's no reason to be concerned about your past moves, because somebody will soon come along and add the Rcats (don't know if there's a bot, yet, that does this), however it wouldn't take hardly any time at all for you to add at least the {{R from move}} cat to any future page moves you make. Thank you very much!

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  04:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought that {{R from move}} was only for redirect pages with useful page histories. "This page was kept as a redirect to the main article on the topic it names, in order to preserve the page's edit history after its content was moved to the other article." That's not the case with World Wide Molecular Matrix, because the page history moved with the article. Shouldn't it be {{R from misspelling}}, or something like that? I do, though, take your point that I shouldn't be lazy and should apply a template. --Bsherr (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

As you can tell when you go to the Talk page, I found that one external link shows the WWMM as "World Wide . . ." and the next two links show it as "WorldWide . . .". That doesn't make it easy to tell which is correct, does it. So I thought it best to land the {{R from alternative spelling}} on the WW M M redirect. As for {{R from move}}, the template page suggests what you have gleaned above, but it's not the whole story. That Rcat lands its pages into the Category:Redirects from moves, where it explains further that the cat wants redirects that are used to avoid breaking links that may have been made externally, which is another reason for holding on to redirects. {{R from move}} is appropriate to use anytime a page is moved. Can and should be used on the Talk-page redirects, too, but I seldom remember to do so. I really am hoping for a bot to be designed for the purpose.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  07:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Definition of "template"

• Comment.  All of this, the Tfd, the "bold" edits following the Tfd and this present requested-move strategy, is based upon the definition of "template" found at Help:Template. The nom states that this template, {{R help}}, is not a template by that definition so it must be either deleted or moved. There are many templates that do not precisely fall under the definition at Help:Template. Are we to delete or move them all? As one editor noted above, "It looks to me like a template documentation page, and those generally reside in template space." There are also many other templates that are not explicitly created for transclusion, such as those that were created subject to substitution. It is time to end this proposal to move, isn't it?

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  18:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no sign of consensus to move after a very long time of trying Kotniski (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Template:R help → Help:Redirect templates — This page is not used as a template and does not fit any of the descriptions given on Wikipedia:Template namespace. The only arguments I have seen so far for not moving it have been "it's useful", which is something it will continue to be (I don't see why its name makes a difference), and "we've already had this discussion", which is true; however, the TFD was a deletion discussion and renaming was never really discussed and the previous requested move only focused on these previous two arguments. Let's forget about previous discussions and start anew. Why should this be in the template namespace? It is not transcluded or substituted and it is the only page of its kind (all the others are in the Wikipedia namespace). If we turn this page into a help page for redirect templates (as well as keeping the current lists), it will make it substantially different from Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep very strongly! I disagree with you, McLay1. If you go back again and look at the Tfd discussion— I mean, really look at it, you will find that renaming was most definitely discussed. Several editors including myself (and if I recall correctly, you were also involved) !voted to KEEP this index page just as it is. We stand on these arguments and their conclusions. Please give it a rest. We don't want to turn this page into a cross-namespace redirect and then see it eliminated as a new CNR. We want to be able to type "t" into the search field and come up with this page PRONTO. I use it all the time, almost every single day, and I would not want to lose it. So no, we should stand on the previous decisions in both discussions which were: Keep this page as is and improve it as you and I and others have been doing. Thank you very much, and again, Please give it a rest! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  18:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Moving was never properly discussed at the TFD and since it was a deletion discussion it was never seriously considered. I don't understand your argument. Firstly, cross-namespace redirects are not automatically deleted and, in fact, recently, there seems to have been a shift in people's thinking and cross-namespace redirects are no longer deleted just because they are cross-namespace. Secondly, even if this was deleted, having been moved, it would still exist just under a different name. What difference does its name make to finding the page? The fact is this is not a template and this is the only page in the template namespace (that I know of) that isn't a template or template documentation. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You are making statements without backing them up with reliable sources, Mclay1. You say "never properly discussed", and I say that moving this page was definitely and "properly" discussed at the Tfd to the point that the closing administrator made the observation:

“

The result of the discussion was keep. It is safe to say that the utility of this page has been sufficiently proven, therefore delete is not an option. While the argument to move said page is compelling, I'm also compelled to believe that moving this template might hamper the efforts of the everyday editor who is used to referring to it. While keeping this page where it is is likely a violation of the spirit/purpose/whatever of the template namespace, leaving it where it is causes no problems. (italics mine)— JPG-GR

”

Further, you say that new CNRs are no longer immediately deleted. I have cited a source numerous times that says that new CNRs are immediately deleted. Nobody has yet to reliably contradict this. Please cite a reliable source that contradicts this. Otherwise, this page should stay just as it is so it won't be immediately deleted or soon be deleted as a CNR. In accordance with the Tfd and the first move request, editors want to be able to type the letter "t" in their Wikipedia search engine and be able to come to this page immediately with one click. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Just look at the many RFDs (in which I often take part) of cross-namespace redirects. There is nothing wrong with CNR anymore, if there ever was to begin with. The idea that this page should not be moved because an editor is used to the current name is, frankly, ridiculous. Big deal if you have to access it a few times with its new name before your browser brings it up first in the search bar by typing the first letter. That is barely a problem and is easily fixed. If you actually read the TFD, you'll see a few editors wishing for it to be moved and only you opposing that suggestion. Your reasoning was that it is "useful". How is it not useful in another namespace? If moved, the page itself will be exactly the same, just with a different name. The closer of the TFD did not move it because, like I said, it wasn't properly discussed. Neither is it being properly discussed now, since only one other person has commented so far. Perhaps I should contact the other participants of the TFD. McLerristarr | Mclay1 23:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So your reliable source for CNRs no longer being at risk are "the many RFDs of CNRs". How about linking to just one of these? Rather than making those of us who are trying to follow you on this hunt them down? I honestly don't know myself what the big deal is or was about CNRs. All I know is that I can point you directly to a reliable source at Wikipedia:CNR that describes a long-running debate about CNRs. It cites that the "present consensus" is to hold on to the older CNRs and to delete new CNRs on sight. That is why this page should not be moved.

And thank you so much for being so sensitive to other editors who feel that one way to improve Wikipedia is to make the manual editing process as effective and efficient as possible so editors can spend time editing rather than in hunting down the useful tools they need. I was not the only editor who opposed the move at the Tfd. In fact, that is ludicrous to think that the closing admin would disallow the page move based only on one editor's opinion. As soon as other editors read about the CNR problem, they saw the wisdom in leaving this index page just as it is.

It is you who should "actually read the Tfd", Mclay1. The "useful" argument was made only, ONLY to show why this template should not be deleted. It was the CNR problem that kept this template from being moved. Please follow your own good advice! Contact whoever you like, Mclay1. Until you can target specific and plausible sources that confirm that this template, if turned into a CNR, would not soon be deleted, then to move it would not only go against the wisdom and good sense of two previous administrative decisions, but it would also make it more difficult for those of us who use this index all the time to find it.

You have not made any new argument to move this page. It makes no sense to open a Move Request every few weeks and then use the same argument (the losing argument) that was used before. The reason this template was initially created was so that we would not have to hunt through the alphabetical index all the time for "just the right Rcat". This index puts those Rcats right at our fingertips right when we need them. To risk this page's disappearance is just plain unacceptable. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  05:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In the TFD, you said the page's "usefulness far outweighs any definition problems". That was the reason for it not to be deleted but if it is moved, then there will be no definition problems and no reason to delete it. Everybody wins. I just fail to see the problem of this particular page name being deleted. However, the CSD for CNRs only applies to redirects from the main namespace to another namespace other than the category, help, Wikipedia, template and portal namespaces. So basically, CNRs can very rarely be speedily deleted and definitely cannot in this case. If a deletion discussion was initiated, you and I could summon all these arguments as reasons to keep. Basically, there are two arguments here: this page should be moved because it is not a template so being in the template namespace is silly and this page should not be moved because there is a possibility that this redirect to the new name will be deleted and the few editors who use it will have to remember a new name. I know which one outweighs the other.

For proof that CNRs are not deleted on sight, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 12. Some of the CNRs were deleted because no one but the nominator commented; some were deleted for reasons that do not apply here; however, the ones that were actually discussed concluded that CNRs are not always harmful. See also, WP:RFD#KEEP – navigational usefulness is an acceptable reason to keep a redirect. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are making the same arguments that were not effective at the Tfd, nor were they effective in the first move request. If you'll check the history of Wikipedia:CNR, then you will find that the part about only a certain kind of new CNR that would be deleted was added by the nominator of the first move request! That editor made a change to that essay to justify the move request! So I wouldn't put too much stock in that statement, which was not part of the original essay. And again, you are saying all the things that were said at the Tfd and at the first move request. All you are doing is you're compelling me to say the very same things in rebuttal that I said before.

It appears that the link you provided shows several examples of a special category of CNR. Those are CNRs from the main namespace to the project namespace that were (or are) evidently used as shortcuts. So they do not constitute good examples as pertains to this index template. You cannot guarantee that if this template is turned into a redirect from Template namespace to the Help namespace, that it would not then be deleted as a new CNR. Both previous discussions ended by taking this important fact into consideration and to keep this page just like it is. It is sincerely hoped that this will again be the case. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  01:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• PS. We note that you, McLay1, created a new cross-namespace redirect titled Help:Redirect templates probably in anticipation that this new move request would be approved. Should we place a Speedy Deletion template on that new CNR to see how long it would stick around after it's brought to the attention of Wikipedia administration?

I never cited WP:CNR so I don't know why you're telling me that. That essay is just words – words mean nothing if the actions don't match. Just because the writers of that essay have some incomprehensible beef with CNRs doesn't mean that the consensus at RFDs matches that. Not all the redirects at the RFD I linked were shortcuts. CNRs are deleted if they are illogical and unhelpful. The fact that you want to keep this page at its current location means that the current title is useful to at least one person and that is a good reason not to delete it. Template:Editnotices is a redirect to the Wikipedia namespace just like this would me (but you already knew that because you've written on its talk page). But the simple fact is you don't want this page to be moved, despite all logic saying this isn't a template, because you can't be bothered typing in a new name into the search bar. I don't see that as a reasonable reason to defy the purpose of the template namespace. I created Help:Redirect templates because its a useful redirect. McLerristarr | Mclay1 02:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned the CNR essay because when you wrote: "However, the CSD for CNRs only applies to redirects from the main namespace to another namespace other than the category, help, Wikipedia, template and portal namespaces," you pretty much quoted the new edit to that essay, which was made by the nom of the first move request. I really don't get you, McLay1. You are involved with editing an encyclopedia. In fact, recently you've involved yourself very effectively for the most part in the improvement of several templates, including this one, many of which affect a huge number of pages in this encyclopedia. And yet there you are, saying things like, "That essay is just words . . ." Words are always very important, even when they don't seem to be, McLay1. Words are our "stock in trade". They are a major medium of communication, especially as they apply to an encyclopedia. I'm not the only one who uses this template and would not like to risk its demise. Just once again check the two previous discussions, the Tfd and the first requested move, to find others who seriously involved themselves with this index template and the keeping it just like it is. I am not alone, as you would lead other readers and editors to believe. You, yourself, must have some tools you use. How would you feel if someone just stepped in and tried to yank one of your useful tools away from you? Would you just sit idly by? But heck, you obviously don't care about yanking the tools away from others, do you. Hopefully, you won't be any more successful than the other editors who tried to get this template adiosed. Maybe you'll even see the error of your ways? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  05:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Like" a /doc page

This template is an index template. It is very much like any {{documentation}} template page. Documentation pages are not "true" templates, either. The only place they get transcluded to is the template they "document". And many of them are "<noinclude>d" on the template page itself. This index template is very much like any other documentation template. It "documents" the usage of Redirect Category (Rcat) Templates that are frequently used. It "documents" the usage of those Rcats functionally rather than alphabetically. It is just as valid a "template" as any other documentation page. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

When I said "the CSD for CNRs only applies to redirects from the main namespace to another namespace other than the category, help, Wikipedia, template and portal namespaces", I was paraphrasing the actual criterion for speedy deletion. I'm not trying to get anything taken away from you. The only change will be the name at the top of the page. Nothing is lost except your browser cache. What I meant by the "essay is just words" is that it's just the opinion of a few editors and their opinion doesn't matter if it's just written. What matters is if the opinion is supported by the consensus at RFD and I don't think it is. If index templates exist, then this is the only one. Perhaps we should move it to a /doc sub-page and apply it as the documentation to every redirect template. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I respect what you think, McLay1, but what you think is very much like "original research" when editing an article. You have not been able to "back it up" with solid Rfd examples. All you have done is to try to belittle the consensus that was described in the CNR essay. "Their opinion doesn't matter if it's just written." Their opinion is not what that essay's about. Did you read that essay? That essay's about the Wikipedia community consensus as regards CNRs, and that consensus is presently that old CNRs are probably worth keeping, at least for now, and new CNRs should be speedily deleted. Simple as that. New CNRs should be speedily deleted. It doesn't matter what namespace they're in nor what namespace they target. All that matters to the present community consensus is that they are new CNRs, so they should be speedily deleted.

I never said this was a candidate for /doc status. This is not a Documentation template. During the previous move request another editor brought out the fact that this index template is very much like the template /doc pages, which reside in Template namespace, and so should be left alone just as it is. I am just echoing that editor's opinion. This index is very much like template /doc pages, but it is not actually a /doc page. There is no need to turn this into a /doc page for every redirect template. It is readily available when it's needed in its present form. No need for any change that might get it deleted. Let's just leave it alone and get on with improving Wikipedia! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  14:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, template documentation is kept in the template namespace but being like template documentation doesn't mean it should be in the template namespace. I have given you plenty of reasons and examples but you're choosing to ignore them. 1) The RFD page I linked 2) Template:Editnotices 3) WP:CSD: "Redirects, apart from shortcuts, from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces." – therefore, it's Wikipedia policy that no other CNRs can be speedily deleted. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not ignore your references, Mclay1. I would never do that. I simply choose to see them as of insufficient relevance to this index template. They do not instill confidence that new CNRs are not deleted as per community consensus. You boldly say, ". . . therefore, it's Wikipedia policy that no other CNRs can be speedily deleted," but that is just your opinion, one editor's opinion. Your opinion stacked up against the opinions of all the other editors who participated in the Tfd and in the first move request, who felt that this index template should stay just like it is, your opinion stacked up against the present Wikipedia community consensus as regards new CNRs. Your opinion is, of course, important. However, the overriding factors must be the community consensus and the sound judgements of two admins in the two previous discussions. Hasn't too much time been spent on this? Please close this move request, and let's move on to more productive struggles to improve Wikipedia. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  16:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the difference between deleting quickly and speedily deleting. For something to be speedily deleted (deleted without discussion), it must meet the speedy deletion criteria, which this page would not. If this page was moved, there is only a small chance someone with a vendetta against CNRs will find the redirect and there is an even smaller chance that the consensus will be to delete, especially considering people who support moving this page, including me, want the redirect to remain.

PS I can't close this discussion. We need an administrator and considering it's currently 2 against 1 in favour of moving, it may end in the page being moved.

PPS I don't really care but my user name is Mclay1 not McLay1. M is my first initial and "Clay" are the first four letters of my last name. I suspect that most people probably think it's pronounced McLay rather than M Clay. Ah, well. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand that even a small possibility of deletion is unthinkable and unacceptable, Mclay1 (please accept my apology for miscapitalizing your sig). And you still cannot guarantee that both {{R help}} and {{R from}} (redirect template to the R help index) won't be deleted as new CNRs if this page is moved. Also, we both must remember that, while making these decisions, polling/voting is no substitute for discussion. This discussion, however long and possibly distracting, has covered no new ground. When all the !votes (consensus building) from the Tfd and move requests are fully considered, it is hoped that administration will continue to see this page is not a cause for any harm just where it is and will allow it to remain here. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  12:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Move if Template:R help is left as a redirect of Help:Redirect templates. —mc10 (t/c) 14:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see my response to the nom just above. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, as noted above, if this template is left as a redirect that targets another namespace, then present Wikipedia community consensus is to delete that page as a "new cross-namespace redirect" (CNR). If this page is deleted, then those of us who regularly improve redirects by placing them in categories will have lost a very useful tool. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  16:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to clear something up, this is the last time I will ask, can you please specify exactly how you will lose this tool if the page is moved? As far as I can see, the tool will still exist just under a different name. McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Just above I explained that if this page is moved and turned into a CNR, we run the risk of it being deleted as a new CNR. You don't seem to be sensitive to the fact that to move this page is essentially to delete this page. It would no longer exist as a search-engine link to the new page in the new namespace. Why is it so hard for you to understand that deleting this page would only make editors have to once again hunt for this information each time they need it? Leave this page alone and it hurts nothing, it harms no one, and it remains as a useful and easily accessible editing tool.

Earlier, you said that you recently created the "new CNR", Help:Redirect template, because "it's a useful redirect". How is it useful? If someone were to slap a delete/discussion template on it and begin by saying that:

• Help:Redirect template is a cross-namespace redirect to Template namespace, and the present Wikipedia community consensus is to delete newly created cross-namespace redirects."

...how would you defend it? There would be no defense that I can see, and your newly created redirect from the Help namespace to the Template namespace would be deleted. Unless you could effectively defend it, your new creation would be adiosed right in front of your eyes. So how exactly is your new creation "useful"? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  05:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I still don't follow your logic. If someone wants to find this page, then they must already know the page exists; therefore, they will not have to "hunt around". On the other hand, if someone does not know the page exists, there is zero chance they will search for Template:R help. Help:Redirect template is a must likelier search term. If it was nominated for deletion, I would defend it using the many arguments I have presented above, including that fact that it is harmless and the fact that it is useful, which is a valid reason not to delete according to Wikipedia policy. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The logic is in the loss of search engine usage. That's how I find this page when I need it. Since I use this master index template almost daily, the {{R from}} redirect to this page is at the top of the drop-down list of my Wikipedia search field. Delete this page and that utility that I and who knows how many other editors enjoy is "toast". And thank you for the part about "harmless and the fact that it is useful" as regards your new baby CNR. That pretty much makes the same case to keep this page just like it is. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  17:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it makes the same case to keep this page as a redirect but there is no case to keep this page under its current name. I hope the closing administrator will realise that this not being a template outweighs the argument that you will temporarily lose this page as your most searched term in the unlikely scenario that the redirect is deleted. This page is not a "master index template" because you made that up. This is the only page of its kind. That is my summary and I think it is perhaps time to end this conversation and wait for closing since we are both just repeating the same things now. McLerristarr | Mclay1 02:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We've been repeating the same things over and over for quite some time now, and not just things in this discussion but the points made in the previous discussions as well. As I said, you have brought up nothing new. Even your argument that this is not a template is not new. Of course it's a template. By what definition are you saying it's not a template? Can you produce any document that specifically excludes this kind of template? No, you cannot. It's just your opinion that this isn't a template. This is indeed a master template under the definition brought out in the Tfd discussion. This is indeed an index template because it brings together several often-used templates by function. I agree that we've again wasted enough time here. As you said yourself, since this page is both harmless and useful, this "is a valid reason not to delete according to Wikipedia policy". To move this page unnecessarily risks this page's deletion as a new CNR. Why can't you just respect and accept the sound closing decisions of the two previous discussions? You write as if I'm the one making waves here, but I'm not the one who continues on this mysterious campaign to get this page moved/deleted. I'm just the one who, among several other editors who have entered these discussions, wants this page to stay just like it is, so that when I need it, it will be as handy as typing the letter "t" in my Wikipedia search engine. You would move it, turn it into a redirect, and risk its deletion. And why? all because you feel it's not a template. Here's a flash for you, Mclay1: This page is a template. It resides in template namespace, therefore it is a template, and it will remain a template whether it becomes a redirect or it continues to be a functional index template that houses the most-often-used redirect category templates. The only way to remove this page from template namespace is to have it deleted. So why else would you or anybody else be so adamant about moving this page and turning it into a vulnerable CNR? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• PS. It is my sincere hope that the closing admin will see that there is no reason to risk this page's deletion by turning into a cross-namespace redirect, that the closing admin will see the good in the previous admins' decisions to keep this page just as it is.

Wikipedia:Template namespace says, "Templates duplicate the same content across more than one page. You can change a template in one place and it will immediately propagate to the pages that use it." This page does not match that definition. Templates are either transcluded or substituted – this does neither. Saying it's a template because it's in the template namespace is the most illogical argument ever. This page could be called Portal:R help but that doesn't make it a portal; it means it's in the the wrong namespace. It is not just my opinion that this isn't a template. It isn't a template; it's a list of templates, which should be in the Wikipedia namespace with every other list of templates or in the help namespace if we put some help on the page as well. Harmless and useful are reasons not to delete a redirect, not anything else. Besides, this is harmful because it's misleading by being in the template namespace. Someone could try to use it as a template for whatever reason. If this page name became a redirect and was deleted, it wouldn't take long before you could bring up the page under its new name by typing in the first letter. It's not that much of a hardship, is it? McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, you respond with the same points that have been made already in the other discussions. Whether or not this is a template is a matter of opinion, as recognized by the admin who closed the Tfd. That admin said, ". . . While keeping this page where it is is likely a violation of the spirit/purpose/whatever of the template namespace, leaving it where it is causes no problems." It is as you say a list of templates, an important template index. It is not a list of anything else, it's just a functional index of the most-often-used redirect category templates. So it does belong in template namespace, and even if it might not belong in template namespace, it doesn't do any harm. The harm that you suggest it does, that it misleads people, is just your grasping at straws. Any page on Wikipedia can be transcluded or substituted, so any page can be turned into a template (as you well know, since you've been working with templates). As far as what you said about hardship, thank you for noticing that it would indeed be a hardship. Whether that hardship lasts a day, or a week, or a month, the question remains: Why would you want to put your fellow editors, who rely heavily on this index template, through any hardship at all? Why would you want to do that while fully knowing that leaving this page just like it is will not cause us any hardship at all? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  14:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• PS. You may be thinking, 'Yes but, turning it into a CNR won't get it deleted.' You don't know that for certain, do you. You can't know for certain that it won't be deleted as a new CNR. Nobody can know for certain, and this point has also come up repeatedly in these loooong discussions. Please just leave this page as is.
• PPS. Please let's get our heads together by use of the Reasonability Rule?

Reasonability Rule

In an effort to resolve this amicably for all parties, let me recommend...

• Application of the Reasonability Rule
• that will aid us in dispute resolution
• possibly beginning with asking for a third opinion
• or asking at Wikipedia:Editor assistance (this was used in the previous discussion) might be more appropriate

I would be happy to begin the process if editor Mclay1 deems it necessary. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  17:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt moving or not moving this page would be considered unreasonable or unacceptable. But I think it's best to contact an administrator anyway because looking at the amount of Wikipedia:Requested moves still open, it may take a while for them to get around to this one. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "contact an administrator". What I suggested was just to either get an opinion from an objective third party editor, or to get other opinions by asking for editor assistance. Apparently, you do not want me to seek other editors' opinions but go straight to an admin. If admins are backed up, the last thing they probably want to hear is one of us pressing them for a decision. If you still feel as I do, that you and I are at an impasse and neither one of us has changed our original position, then we should probably just be patient and wait for this to rise to the top of the admins' list. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  02:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I already contacted two other editors a while ago but neither have responded. That's the problem with pages outside of the main namespace. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In this case it's probably more a function of all the long, drawn-out discussions we ask them to plow through before they can land upon the right decision. First, an editor tries to get this page deleted. After a long discussion including a suggestion to move rather than to delete, the choice is made to keep this page as is. Then an editor opens a move request, but not until that editor first goes against the Tfd by deleting this page (I undeleted it) and then moving this page (I moved it back). Then, not long after that move request results in the decision to keep this page as is, yet another editor (yourself) opens yet another move request without providing one, single new reason for this proposed action. It's too bad that you feel we need more opinions, when there have already been ample inputs from several editors in the previous discussions (and at least two admins) who felt that this page was perfectly okay to remain in template namespace. I wonder how many more opinions will you need before you realize that this page is harmless to remain right here in this namespace? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  15:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ploughing through discussions is part of the discussion process. I ploughed through the previous discussions and, no, I have not brought anything new to the table but I wanted to have a discussion without silly arguments, which I think we've mostly achieved. The previous requested move failed because only two people !voted – you, who opposed it because the page just underwent a TFD, which is not a reason to not have another discussion, and an IP editor who opposed the move because he thought there was a better name, but I'm not going to get into how annoying that is. My plan was to have a thorough discussion, which we have had. Now, no matter what the result of this requested move is, the name or existence of this page does not need to be discussed again. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts, Mclay1. I would have thought that the Tfd was enough. But I was wrong, obviously, because another bold editor went to extremes to make his point, and yet still the page remained unmoved. I would have thought that those two discussions were enough, but I was wrong again. For here you are, first proposing to delete this page by redirecting it to the alphabetical index (see your proposal above) and now once again proposing to move this page to another namespace, while leaving behind a vulnerable cross-namespace redirect. It was this "new CNRs get deleted" that has kept this page from being moved in two prior discussions. It is hoped that the possibility of losing this page will once again keep it just like it is: Harmless, useful, easily accessible to all editors who need it and use it often. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  04:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• PS. Even when I use the {{This is a redirect}} template, which I use now almost exclusively (see this question), I still come back to {{R help}} to get just the right redirect category templates.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.