Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled until July 16, 2024 at 23:18 UTC. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

Wikipedia Help Project‑class High‑importance

This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. High This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Redirect Project‑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 Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

2003–2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I have just stumbled across this for the first time: consensus is that typos in the template namespace, unless they are very common, should remain as red links until they are fixed. This seems incredible to me: I understand leaving typos in talk pages and other discussion pages, but typos in the templates themselves? Anyway, I have a couple of questions: was this consensus the result of a discussion? If so, where? Can anyone give me an example of a template typo that should be (and has been) kept as a result of this guideline? StAnselm (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No no, typo redirects like Template:Cite wev, not actual typos in the text of the template. :) J947 † ^edits 20:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Is there a way to reword it to make it clearer, or it is just me? StAnselm (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The full text is redirects from typos in the template namespace. Although not explicitly stated, it's the (absent) redirects, rather than the typos, that are in Template:. Certes (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RDEL#D8 states: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful." I had inserted "or refers to a subtopic of the main topic" but @A smart kitten thought "this feels like a change that should be made by consensus, rather than boldly, as it widens one of the redirect guideline’s reasons for deletion." Fair enough. I was thinking of cases such as "Kefirah", a term which is not mentioned in the redirect's target page. (It might be related to another redirect, "Kofer", but don't get too hang up on this particular case.) As another example, if Wanda (character) existed as a redirect to Characters of the Mario franchise, it could be deleted, since that obscure character is not mentioned in the target article. fgnievinski (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping @Fgnievinski

From what you’re describing, these sound to me like redirects that may well already result in deletion under the current guidelines. In my (admittedly limited) experience, redirects that don’t have a mention at the target article are often deleted at RfD. To take the example of Wanda (character), if that redirect to Characters of the Mario franchise existed, I imagine it might well be deleted at RfD under D2; as a redirect from a character that isn’t referred to in the target list could cause confusion to readers.

Because of this, I’m not sure if an addition to D8 is necessary to address cases such as the ones you describe (although please tell me if you think I’m wrong in believing this). Given that (for one thing) policy writing is hard, I feel at least slightly reluctant to make a guideline change because of a situation in which the existing guidelines seem to be proving sufficient (per the first bullet-point under WP:PWIH § Things to consider).

I think I might also be inherently (though not insurmountably) cautious of additions to the § Reasons for deleting - for one thing, I’d be concerned about the potential for the added text to be interpreted overbroadly, and/or used to argue for(/justify) deletion in ways that weren’t originally intended.

Finally, I apologise that my edit summary when reverting you (and my revert as a whole) could have been done in a better manner. By way of explanation (not to try to excuse myself), as I mentioned above, I think I might be inherently cautious of expansions to deletion reasons; though I accept I could have definitely been clearer in the edit summary regarding my opinion/potential opposition to the addition (to prevent the revert being one of pure procedure).

I apologise if I’ve worded anything poorly here. If you have queries about anything I’ve said, please let me know. All the best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 22:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let's hear a third opinion. D2 does seem a bit too broad though. fgnievinski (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support the addition. There are many redirects to subtopics that are covered at the target and are very good redirects - we even have ((R from subtopic)). If the subtopic is not mentioned at the target then that's covered by the existing criterion, if the subtopic is mentioned but still doesn't make a good redirect then the reason for deletion is something other than it being a subtopic. If this isn't what you were meaning by the addition, then it needs rewording. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that R from subtopic should stay. The full proposal would read: "If the redirect is is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. For example, it could be a novel or obscure synonym for the main topic or it could refer to a minor undiscussed subtopic of the main topic." fgnievinski (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does that add that isn't in the present wording? It just seems like adding complexity for little benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It extends coverage for redirects from subtopics not discussed in the target. Currently D8 only covers synonyms for the main topic (article name). fgnievinski (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In general, we should keep redirects if and only they are likely to help readers. A synonym or subtopic being mentioned in the article is a strong indication that some readers will use that search term, but it's not black and white. For example, most misspellings are not mentioned in the article, but the redirect from Moskow to Moscow is still useful. Certes (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, proposal updated: "If the redirect is is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful (common misspellings excepted). For example, it could be a novel or obscure synonym for the main topic or it could refer to a minor undiscussed subtopic of the main topic." fgnievinski (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that is likely to be useful to readers should be kept, regardless of why it is useful. Some subtopics that are not mentioned make good redirects, some don't. Giving some examples of redirects that you think should have been deleted but which weren't would help make the case that a change like this is needed. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had given two examples of contentious redirects, Kofer and Wanda (character), please see discussion above. I'm puzzled when you say "Some subtopics that are not mentioned make good redirects" – could you give some examples? fgnievinski (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for examples of redirects that you think should have been deleted but which were not deleted, those two are not examples of that - Kofer has never been nominated for discussion (and I don't immediately understand what the grounds for a nomination would be); Wanda (character) has never existed, but the subject not being mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia is a very common reason for deletion currently so it doesn't demonstrate the need for anything additional. As for subtopics not mentioned, the first example (but likely not best) I can come up with off the top of my head is iPhone recycling → Mobile phone recycling, there isn't any content at the target about iPhones specifically but the majority (at least) of people using that search term will find what they are looking for so the redirect is beneficial. Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least "iPhone" is mentioned in the title of sources cited; furthermore, iPhone recycling existed as an article before being emptied and redirected – some of its contents should have been merged into the more general article, for context. This whole proposal was meant to formalize a justification for nominating for deletion redirects such as Kofer, which is nowhere defined in the target. In both cases, it might be obvious for a select audience the relationship between target and redirect, but we shouldn't assume much about the readership, which forms a global diverse audience. fgnievinski (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLAR suggests it's good practice to add a short notice at the talk page of the target article. Is there a template (e.g. simliar to ((Merged-to))) that we can use to satisfy this? ~Kvng (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, editor Kvng, the only template associated with WP:BLAR that I know of is ((uw-blar)), which is a notice for the talk page of the blanked article's creator. For this purpose the general ((notice)) template can be installed on the target's talk page below any project banners with a short notice about the blank-and-redirect. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm interested in creating something. I wanted to first verify that it didn't already exist. ~Kvng (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure, editor Kvng! If you do create something like ((Blank and redirect notice)) with a shortcut redirect something like ((blarn)), please remember to mention it at WP:BLAR, so other editors will be aware of its usage. Thank you for your edits! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the template based on ((Merged-from)). I'm new at templates and haven't figured out how to use the sandbox yet but I have added it to a couple articles I recently WP:BLARED (see Talk:Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter, Talk:Mortiis) and it seems to be working as expected. I'll wait for any comments on my work here or at Template talk:Blank and redirect notice before updating WP:BLAR to mention this option. ~Kvng (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like your new template has potential! Did a little minor copy editing and such. Very good job, editor Kvng! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having project banners on talk pages of redirects like this, where the target of the redirect has a more comprehensive set of banners, seems pretty useless at best. Would it make sense for a bot to clean up banners in this sort of instance where the banner is present at the target's talk page? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 00:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No cleanup required, because more and more projects have embraced the "redirect class" and sort them to categories to track them. If I'm not mistaken, editors are not supposed to create talk pages just to banner them, but if the talk page is already there, then editors are encouraged to banner them. I've been bannering redirect talk pages for nearly fifteen years. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraging editors to banner all redirect talk pages that exist doesn't sound like a great idea. Since in almost all cases, the redirect page will require the same banners as the target, so bannering it just creates a syncing/completion/redundancy problem, where the target will always have a better set of banners than the redirect. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding banners seems to reduce the syncing problem by making the talk page of the redirect match that of the target. However, the real problem may be that the redirect should not have a talk page at all. Certes (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea is for project members to be able to track appropriate redirects and improve them or delete them as needed. Why would this not be a good idea? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is that a single concept (i.e. the subject of a page) should have only a single centralized record of the talk banners that apply to it, per DRY. That record already exists at the talk page of the target. Having a bunch of copies of it at whichever talk pages for incoming redirects happen to exist, rather than assuming that the same project banners apply, is what creates a syncing problem.

Now, there are some times where a banner might apply to a redirect but not the target. For instance, Florida Tech Magazine (a redirect to the university) could reasonably be tagged with ((WikiProject Magazines)), which would not have been appropriate for the university page. That's why I proposed exempting banners which are not present at the target page.

But in general, we already have enough trouble keeping project tags accurate/complete/up-to-date for 6 million articles, let alone for however many articles+redirects there are. The approach I'm suggesting also aligns with how we approach redirect categorization, which we allow only when there's a category that wouldn't apply to the target. Does that help clarify? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should encourage creating talk pages only to add a banner. However, there is little downside and some potential benefits for projects to be able to track these, especially in cases where the redirect has potential to become a standalone article. older ≠ wiser 20:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Still think these should be discussed at RfD, but I'll page a notice here instead. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § Improper disambiguation redirects. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

((R from alternative hyphenation)), ((R from alternative punctuation)), and ((R from alternative spacing)) all redirect to ((R from alternative spelling)) and the template states that "This is likely to change in the future, so please use the more specific template names.". I am planning on going ahead and creating (or making edit requests to create) those rcats, however I wanted to mention it here per suggestion of @Paine Ellsworth in case anyone disagrees with this change.

@SMcCandlish I also wanted to ping you as you created ((R from alternative hyphenation)), even though it was back in 2012. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Subcategorization should have happened ages ago.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § RfC: enacting X3. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 18:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Wikipedia:→ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 6 § Wikipedia:→ until a consensus is reached. Nickps (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A talk page is just a regular page and can therefore also be a redirect. This is sometimes done when turning a page into a redirect and always done when moving a page since that also moves its talk page. Doing this during a move is fine in my opinion but in almost every other case, redirecting a talk page is a bad practice that should be discouraged. The reason is that if someone retargets one of the redirects but forgets to retarget the other, editors who wish to discuss the redirect will do so at the wrong place. Redirecting the talk page also provides no benefit in comparison with ((talk page of redirect)) which already acts like a soft redirect that can update itself when its page is retargeted. So, my proposal is that we add this to WP:R or WP:TALK:

The talk page of a mainspace redirect should not be redirected unless that was the result of a page move or as specified in WP:TALKCENT. In all other cases, ((talk page of redirect)) should be used instead.

Otherwise we end up with cases like Acts of God (book) where the page itself is a redirect to Acts of God (disambiguation) but its talk page redirected to Talk:Acts of God (novel) before I fixed it. Note that the utility of talk page redirects is much higher in other namespaces. Someone who looks up WT:R probably wants to end up here instead of discussing the redirect itself. So those should be allowed but people should still remember to keep them synced up (not likely that WP:R will ever change but other shortcuts might). I'd also be open to the idea of having a bot sync up such redirects automatically. Nickps (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants of the previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines/Archive_8#Are_redirect_talk_pages_also_redirected?: @Aristophanes68, Thryduulf, Johnuniq, Robertgreer, Flatscan, Redrose64, and Lolifofo. Nickps (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Jameboy and Uanfala from Wikipedia_talk:Redirect/Archive_2018#Talk_page_of_redirects Nickps (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought about it again and I'm going about this the wrong way. I'll just ask at WP:BOTR first and if it gets declined then we should consider this. But, if someone else thinks that the change I proposed above is worth making anyway, they are free to pick this up and even open an RfC. Nickps (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here goes nothing: Wikipedia:Bot requests § Bot to sync talk page redirects with their corresponding page. Nickps (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely recall some cases where a talk page was kept so that its history was retained. That is, the talk discussion had some possibly useful information regarding the now-redirected associated page? Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a subtopic is mentioned in the lead of a page of a larger topic, is there guidance on whether the redirect for the subtopic should be:

• Targeted to a specific section on the page related to the subtopic
• Untargeted, where context of the subtopic's relation to the larger topic is introduced in the lead

Some examples are:

• Kansas City Kings: Redirects to Sacramento Kings § 1972–1985: Kansas City–Omaha/Kansas City Kings, but there is mention of Kansas City Kings in the lead
• Travis McMichael: Redirects to Murder of Ahmaud Arbery. There is a later section Murder of Ahmaud Arbery § People involved, which has an overview of involved people.
• Tou Thao: Redirects to Murder of George Floyd § Tou Thao, but there is mention of Tou Thao in the lead.

—Bagumba (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about any policy, guidance, or essay that answers this specific question. My answer would be to think about where the reader would like to be redirected to and point to that. An easy example is if the subject of the redirect is not mentioned in the lead. In that case, it seems pretty clear to me, you'd redirect to the section where the subject is mentioned. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that if there is meaningful mention in the lead, then being redirect to the top would be preferable to being dropped in the middle of a page, often with no immediate context of where and why you ended up here. —Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]