Template:R avoided double redirect is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should be proposed here first. 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.

Redirect Template‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Redirect, a collaborative effort to improve the standard of redirects and their categorization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Note: This banner should be placed on the talk pages of project, template and category pages that exist and operate to maintain redirects. This banner is not designed to be placed on the talk pages of most redirects and almost never on the talk pages of mainspace redirects. For more information see the template documentation.RedirectWikipedia:WikiProject RedirectTemplate:WikiProject Redirectredirect pages Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

To editor SiBr4: I've been testing this rcat so I can update its documentation to be more similar to other rcat /doc pages and with an eye toward inclusion in the index. This is a great template and module, long overdue. We never know when the issues will be resolved and double redirects allowed, and in the past I've used the |e#= params in the ((Redr)) template to do what this template does, but this is far better. Just want to thank you very much for an excellent template! – Paine  00:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor SiBr4: wondered why the "updated redirects" cat was removed, since it is standard practice to place rcats at the TOP of all the categories they populate. Painius  02:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I assumed the cat was something I'd added myself when I created the template. I had added PAGESINCAT-based category counts for some maintenance/tracking categories to my sandbox yesterday, and was removing meta pages from the cats. I'll just do this instead. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still learn something new everyday! Joys! Painius  22:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think every time I've tried previewing a page with this template, I get an error message that the other page isn't a redirect. Invariably it is, and the template functions fine when I save. What's causing this? --BDD (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template never gives an error saying the other page isn't a redirect; if that is the case, it assumes the other page has been turned into an article and returns the message "Since page is now a separate article, please update this redirect's target" (unless the page with the template already redirects directly to the other page, which does give an error). Which of the error messages in the module code is/was the one displayed? Did it happen at Robert LaVoy Finicum (which you edited just before posting this), and if so, had you already saved the dependent redirect Robert Finicum when you previewed the template? SiBr₄ (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the response, SiBr₄. (I must not've watched the page because I assumed there wouldn't be one!) Yes, I think that's where it happened to me. To test it again, I replaced my sandbox with #REDIRECT [[Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge#People involved]] ((R avoided double redirect|LaVoy Finicum)) and got the error message Error in Module:R avoided double redirect: This page is not a redirect. I'm reasonably certain that's the same message I saw before, and on several other occasions. Is the problem that "This page", i.e. the one I'm editing, isn't a redirect yet? That would explain it, but still means previewing this template is essentially useless. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. Some magic words/Lua functions always use the saved version of a page, and don't reflect the changes you're previewing. I could look into ways for the module to know whether it's in preview mode and avoid certain errors if it is, but that could introduce the opposite problem (the template working fine in preview, but giving an error when saved). SiBr₄ (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I may say so, I've run into this with other templates, most recently with the ((Talk page of redirect)) template. Let's say a redirect that has been kept at an RfD has a talk page that is also a redirect. I want to add the ((Old rfd)) template to note the decision, so I add that and the Talk page of redirect to the talk page. On preview, it gives an error message because the talk page is still a redirect; then when the page is saved, the talk page is no longer a redirect and the error disappears. Whenever a template is designed to sense what a page is and the page is being changed by an edit, and the template is also designed to give an error under certain conditions, then that error will be seen until the page is actually changed (saved). Just SOP with some templates.  Be prosperous! Paine  15:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS. I've noted this in the Talk page of redirect documentation, so maybe that is all that is needed here? PS added by  Paine  

Ok, this just worked as intended with a preview. If someone fixed something, thanks. For reference, I was previewing Foliage-gleaner, an avoided double redirect to Furnariini, and I just created the latter (I created it before tagging the former). --BDD (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BDDNo edits that affect the template's error-giving behavior had been made since this one on 5 February. In the case of Foliage-gleaner, there wasn't an error because the page was already a redirect before the addition of the template.

I just made this edit, which prevents an incorrect "not a redirect" error when creating a new redirect (though not when turning an existing non-redirect into a redirect). It's probably technically impossible to get the redirect data of the actual previewed version, so any such edits to prevent false-positive errors will create false negatives as I mentioned above. A note in the template documentation about the potential unreliability of the template in preview mode would help in any case (re. Paine). SiBr₄ (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This module fails with the message "page is not a redirect" when it is transcluded into a page that is marked for discussion at RfD (when indeed it is not a redirect). Si Trew (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Si: As you noted, that conclusion is technically correct. There is no simple way for the module to automatically determine if a page is an RfD-ed redirect, short of getting the page contents to search for the RfD template (then again, the same thing is already done to find the redirect target in Module:Redirect).

The error could be hackily avoided by setting either |thistarget=target article or |noerror=1. Both are, however, intended for demonstration of the template, and hence prevent categorization into the three Radr categories. If useful a similar parameter for use in mainspace could be added to the module. SiBr₄ (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SiBr4: I don't think using either of these parameters would be a good hack, because they'd not likely be removed when the RfD closed. In fact, one reason I tend to tag things while the RfD discussion is open (without prejudice) is that the redirect is unlikely to be updated beyond removing the RfD header if it gets closed as keep. So adding the parameter would just put the boot on the other foot, unless a specific check was made for whether the page was in an RfD discussion. The problem is essentially that template code can't access state from the calling (invoking, transcluding) state (i.e. essentially a closure). I guess we could add a parameter like "noerror" that defaults to false but that the enclosing ((rfd)) passes, but since that template is SUBST I am not sure how that would work - it would probably require another level of indirection. Si Trew (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No other template in Category:Redirect templates seems to suffer from this problem. Si Trew (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Few other templates contain any conditional logic to give errors if used on non-redirects. For this template, the criteria for use are relatively strict, and some conditional output is essential, as the message and categories need to change when the other page is no longer a redirect. It was therefore easy to add error checks, though one might question their necessity. SiBr₄ (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was about to start a section about this myself, then noticed there already was one. I just brought myself over to this talk page because of the same error I noticed, where the module doesn’t seem to play nicely during an RfD discussion. Not sure if it’s an error worth fixing though (?). A smart kitten (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template should display the link of the alternative title in boldface. It's an important information and otherwise easily overlooked when several other templates are on the page. Rfassbind – talk

 Done – To editor Rfassbind: The first instance of the alternative title is now in boldface type.  Temporal Sunshine Paine  12:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SiBr4, Paine Ellsworth, and BDD: Some pages have been appearing in CAT:AVOID2RUPDATE even though the avoided double redirect target (i.e. ((R avoided double redirect|X))) is indeed a redirect. I think it may have something to do with the history of the avoided double redirect target. I remedied two of said occurrences (viz. Baron Trump and Making televsion) by applying ((Redirect category shell)) (after some lengthy pondering on potential fixes). I'm not sure why that fixes it, or what is causing what appears to be a problem. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Curiouser and curiouser! Man, I completely missed this one for some reason. Godsy, the cat is empty right now, so I've put it on my daily watch to see if it happens again and to make updates when needed.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference Pal Hermann: In some cases it's possible that the "other target", in this case Pál Hermann, will become an article by way of a page move. There was a recent Requested move on the target's talk page, Talk:Paul Hermann (composer)#Move review request 1 February 2018, that shows this is possible. I added text to Module:R avoided double redirect to fill that need. Happy Publishing!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please sync:

• Template:R avoided double redirect/sandbox --> Template:R avoided double redirect
• Module:R avoided double redirect/sandbox --> Module:R avoided double redirect

Changes:

• Removes |embed= being passed along all the way to Module:Redirect template, from where this parameter was removed long ago. (It doesn't have any effect.)
• Fixes a minor visual bug. See Template_talk:Redirect_template#Visual_bug_with_R_avoided_double_redirect. (work by User:Gonnym, not me).

SD0001 (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks for the ping and for following up on it! --Gonnym (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editors SD0001 and Gonnym: rather than change the ifeq to an if, which essentially does the same thing, what would happen if the redirect were bypassed, as in changing "Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages" to "Wikipedia:Template index/Redirect pages", instead? I had to do that in two other meta templates to fix that index page's length problem recently. PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I understand you correctly, your issue is with ((#ifeq:((FULLPAGENAME))|Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages to be changed to ((#ifeq:((FULLPAGENAME))|Wikipedia:Template index/Redirect pages? If that was what you wanted, that has nothing to do with the issue above. Also, as I pointed out in linked discussion, a better solution would be to add a |doc= parameter. While it requires a parameter, it's much more flexible in allowing other pages to use it and does not require changing code in tons of templates anytime a page name changes. --Gonnym (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, so if we make that change and bypass the redirect in addition to this fix, it won't matter, I get that. But why exactly would we want to bastardize the ifeq function with an if function that does exactly the same thing? How does that fix anything? PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The if parser function does not do the same thing as the if template. One strips white spaces, the other doesn't. One has a visual bug, while the other doesn't. For a more complete breakdown of the issue, see the discussion, as there isn't any real point to repeat it here. --Gonnym (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That makes good sense, Gonnym. So why not go ahead and use |doc= instead of the index page? That sounds like a better long-term fix. Can you show in the sandbox how that should be implemented? PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gonnym, in the If template documentation doesn't it show that for it to operate like the If parser function, the first parameter must be empty? PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 01:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you are correct, however (and I'm sorry I mixed up the terminology above), we are replacing "#ifeq" (and not "#if") with ((If|eq)). Thank you for asking that though, as it seems the "eq" part was removed by accident. --Gonnym (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: ok, I think I've created a working version with the |doc= parameter. If doc= is used, the template does not appear. Please see if I missed anything. --Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor Gonnym: take a look at the sandbox I created at Wikipedia:Template index/Redirect pages/sandbox#A and compare it with the "live" page at Wikipedia:Template index/Redirect pages#A. The former uses your sandboxed version with the |doc= parameter and the latter uses the "live" version of ((R avoided double redirect)). We see that the |doc= parameter does not seem to give the same result as the exclusion code in the "live version" of this rcat. In fact, this template's module is being invoked as can be seen by the added error message about the page not being a redirect. So it seems that, thus far, we must keep the exception code and not use the |doc= parameter, don't you agree? As an aside, I found that the exclusion code, <includeonly>((If|eq|((FULLPAGENAME))|Wikipedia:Template index/Redirect pages/sandbox||((#invoke:R avoided double redirect|main|(({1|))))))}</includeonly>, does work as expected. PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 13:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That just requires either a change to this template or to Template:Tlrow. I added a default |doc=yes parameter to Template:Tlrow/sandbox as that template is always used for documentation, so no need to even use an extra parameter. --Gonnym (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the exception code from ((R avoided double redirect/sandbox)) and tried ((Tlrow/sandbox)) in the Wikipedia:Template index/Redirect pages/sandbox#A, but the module still appears to be invoked. PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 15:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can't remove that part. You might have misunderstood me. If you are using ((Tlrow/sandbox)) to show the template, you don't need to do ((Tlrow/sandbox|R avoided double redirect/sandbox|doc=yes)) (which won't work anyways), as the template will handle the |doc=yes part by itself. Try this again, with restoring the code you removed. --Gonnym (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I see it now. And yes, I misunderstood you to mean that if the |doc= parameter was used in the ((Tlrow)) template, then the exception code would not be necessary. I restored that code just as you had installed it, and it does appear to work to exclude the invoking of the module. So if it does what you originally intended, that was to remove the visual bug you noted at Template talk:Redirect template#Visual bug with R avoided double redirect, then this appears to be ready to go. Are you happy with it? PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there are no other concerns, then this can be done. I'll wait the day and see if someone adds anything to this discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updated all 3 pages. --Gonnym (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Use this rcat template on mainspace redirects only."

Why shouldn't this template be used in other namespaces, and do we need another template for other namespaces if there is any good reasons why this one shouldn't be used? WT79 ^{(Speak to me | account info)} 11:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What useful purpose does this template serve? What is the good reason why it should be used in other namespaces? Frankly I don't see a useful purpose for this in any namespace. This template causes more trouble than it's worth. wbm1058 (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The purpose is to help people find redirects that need to be updated because they were bypassing a double redirect that has been changed. It does seem to raise a few too many errors at the moment, though, and particularly I see no reason to restrict it to mainspace only. Anomie⚔ 03:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's a screenshot of one I found in Category:Avoided double redirects to be updated. It's telling me to make an intentional redirect to the disambiguation page Kill Yourself. At least that page tells me that "Kill Yourself" is a song by Joji (musician), which is more than the bio on the musician tells me. What the heck am I supposed to do with this. It's a damn waste of time. The redirect should just be deleted, rather than managed with time-wasting templates. If I has to work with this for long it might make me want to kill myself, ha! wbm1058 (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No-one forced you to work with this at all; its your choice if you decide not to nominate it for deletion, if that's your wish. Other people find this helpful; It helps us to see which redirects need looking at without having to search through every one of them. WT79 ^{(Speak to me | account info)} 08:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are forcing me to search through hundreds of false-positive ((error))s to find the handful that actually need fixing. wbm1058 (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No-one forced you to do anything. We do appreciate it if we have a smaller selection of false positives to look through than if we had to look through every single redirect. But no-one's forced to do anything. WT79 ^{(Speak to me | account info)} 13:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are three SpongeBob SquarePants pages in Category:Avoided double redirects to be updated at the moment. SpongeBob is an annoying ploague on the 'pedia, IMO. Clean it up. wbm1058 (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, right. No one is forcing me to do anything. Nobody is forced to revert vandalism, nobody is forced to care. Alas, nobody can force anybody else to do anything either, so if ya really want something to get done sometimes ya gotta do it yourself. I just realized that I've been around Wikipedia longer than this template has; this template has kind of snuck up on me. Its function is so far down on my to-do list of priorities that if it were up to me to implement this it would never get done. But I realize we all don't have the same priorities. I would be content if this template went about its business without bothering me, but, it hasn't done that (sorry), so here I am.
Template:R avoided double redirect and Module:R avoided double redirect were both created on 3 April 2015‎ by SiBr4. Was this just boldly done, or was there any discussion prior to its implementation? Was there any discussion about what namespace(s) it should support? It's never been a stand-alone template; the template has always been a shell around the module which does most of the work. After some digging, I've found that Template:Incorrect redirect template puts out that orange stop hand that's causing all the trouble. That template, in turn, is called by Module:Redirect template. Module:R avoided double redirect returns via:

 return frame:expandTemplate({title="Redirect template",
                              args={from=from,info=info,["main category"]=cat,
                                    name="From an avoided double redirect")))

which is equivalent to ((Redirect template|main category=Avoided double redirects))
The others could populate another, new category with the equivalent of: ((Redirect template|main category=Avoided double redirects|other category=Other avoided double redirects))
but I'm not fluent enough in Lua to immediately know the syntax for coding that change in the module. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was this just boldly done, or was there any discussion prior to its implementation?

The Village Pump thread that led to the template's creation is linked in the documentation. Though I made it, I don't think I added it to any page other than the original example page there; its many current uses are the work of other editors who presumably consider it to be useful on those pages.

It's telling me to make an intentional redirect to the disambiguation page Kill Yourself.

It was originally added in April 2019, when "Kill Yourself" was still a redirect to the artist's discography. Its purpose was to monitor that page, so that when an article on the song would be written there, the redirect "Kill Yourself (Pink Guy)" is marked for updating, as it would need to point to the new song article instead. For all the template knows, "Kill Yourself" is now no longer a redirect, so it does its job and suggests retargeting the redirect there.

The template can't be sure that the specified ex-redirect is actually the correct target, although the message can (and probably should) be changed to not be as confident that it is, as Anomie's proposed edit nicely does. I've removed the template from Kill Yourself (Pink Guy), though alternatively its parameter could just be changed to a different possible name for an article on the song. SiBr₄ (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Sorry that my tone above generated some excess heat. I've cleared out Category:Avoided double redirects to be updated and Category:Avoided double redirects/error (except for two "sticky" items) to familiarize myself with how this process works and check out the sandbox version with some live cases. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot for that – fairly big category to clear out single-handedly in one go. Sorry if I was a bit short with you earlier, I know that sometimes it does get a bit confusing with errors that (to humans) seem obviously not a problem. Thanks, WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 08:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restart

The above has gotten a bit too heated for my taste. I've rewritten Module:R avoided double redirect/sandbox to clean up the overabundance of errors, to remove the mainspace-only restriction, and to work correctly when previewing. I also wound up revising many of the messages. You can see the results at Template:R avoided double redirect/testcases. Any objections to making that edit to the live module? Anomie⚔ 20:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anomie: Why the change from "If and when A2 is expanded into a separate article, or its target article is renamed" to "If A2 is expanded into a separate article or its target article is changed? I support every other aspect off the change, apart from that single word 'changed'; it makes it sound as if, every time an edit (change) is made to the current target, the redirect should be recategorised! Apart from that – yes, I entirely support. WT79 ^{(Speak to me | account info)} 22:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thinking of "its target article is changed" referring to the redirect's target being changed. Anomie⚔ 22:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, that sounds more plausible. Perhaps 'or it is retargeted' might prevent further confusion? WT79 ^{(Speak to me | account info)} 08:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, done. Anomie⚔ 15:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anomie's version is now live. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add ((template shortcut|R avoid 2R)) to the top of the page, just inside the <noinclude> tag. This can be seen at Template:R avoided double redirect/sandbox (sandbox version is identical apart from above shortcut and that it uses ((#invoke:R avoided double redirect/sandbox)) instead of ((#invoke:R avoided double redirect)) – beware of this if you simply copy across code from sandbox). Thanks, WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 16:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Izno (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the more frequent usage of this template outside of testcases, a couple of errors have come to my attention:

• When creating a page, the template displays the 'this page is not a redirect' message on preview. The cause of this is fairly clear (although I haven't looked at the module): if a page does not exist (apart from in someone's unpublished browser window), it cannot have any target, according to its (non-existent) metadata. Not quite sure how to fix this; in wikitext I'd use the ((#IFEXIST)) magic word, but I don't know enough Lua to do this in the Module. Presumably the 'not the same target' error message would also need to be changed for the same reasons, not sure about the rest, they aren't so obvious.
• In this template's page, it is displaying the 'broken redirect' error. Not sure how to make the template stop this, but the current method isn't working.

Sorry if that all sounds like a moan, a lot of hard work has gone into this template and it is almost always works very well – but still isn't perfect. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 08:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cannot reproduce your first bullet. If I go to a title that does not exist and enter the wikitext

#REDIRECT [[Foobar]]
((r avoided double redirect|Foo))

and click "Preview", it displays as if the page had been saved with that content. If you're using mw:Manual:Live preview or some gadget/script to do previews instead, it may be a bug in that. Anomie⚔ 13:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I am using the live preview. It works fine if I turn it off – thanks, WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 21:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for the sample display at the top of Template:R avoided double redirect, now I finally see what exactly the |noerror= was for. Fixed. Anomie⚔ 13:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that redirect pages with this template are marked as (redirect page; transclusion), instead of just (redirect page). An example is Francais; the mark can be seen here at Pages that link to "French language". Is this intended? — Goszei (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a side effect of the logic that tests whether the avoided redirect got changed, which would mean the tagged redirect would need updating. The "content" of the avoided redirect gets read, which counts as a transclusion. Anomie⚔ 18:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request to Module:R avoided double redirect has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Three instances of links, split amongst lines 109, 122, and 130, do not have colons before their links, unlike all the other instances before it. This affects File:SNES Ogre Battle - The March of the Black Queen (Densetsu no Ōga Batoru) - Battle Screen.png. To fix it, just go to those lines and add the colon so it looks like lines 103 and 113: [[" to [[:" -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 14:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request to Module:R avoided double redirect has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to sync this template's module with my revision of its sandbox (permalink, diff). I've slightly simplified the logic of the module (by replacing if a then else with if not a then), as well as making it a tad more clear by using elseif in the errors block (which is possible because all of the if statements are guaranteed to return the function). The sandbox version produces the same result as the main version in all of the /testcases. ((Lemondoge|Talk|Contributions)) 23:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Explicitly allow A2R to tag redirects that are related topics with another redirect. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request 6 January 2024

This edit request to Module:R avoided double redirect has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

See the discussion above, for which it seems like there's consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Partly done: editor Aaron Liu, please see the Category:Avoided double redirects; in that category we see many "articles" and also talk pages, templates and such. Since this rcat template is used in namespaces other than mainspace, the usage of "another redirect to the same article" is misleading, so the phrase should remain, "another redirect to the same title". The other phrase, "from an alternative title or related topic of", which expands the scope of this rcat template, has been engaged. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, didn't realize that. Sounds good! Aaron Liu (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]