Wikipedia talk:Redirect/Archive 2010

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 2005 ← Archive 2008 Archive 2009 Archive 2010

Avatar (film)

Comments on a proper redirect are requested here. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hypertext style: Cool URIs don't change

Hi, shall we include some extract (or the initial quote) from this w3c page? It seems pertinent to the section "do not delete". tankmiche feedback? 08:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki links

Should redirects contain interwiki links to other-language Wikipedias? I am thinking of cases where an article on the English Wikipedia is merged and redirected, but an article on the same topic on another Wikipedia still exists. Thanks, –Black Falcon (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Categorization and Assessment

I had a question concerning the assessment of redirects. I was sifting through some redirects for the Percy Jackson Task Force and found that some are assessed, like this one. I've also seen some which have their talk pages redirected to the article's talk page. I'm leaning towards categorizing the redirects so the project can keep tabs on them, but I have no idea if there is a right or wrong way to go about this. What do you recommend? Thanks, Airplaneman talk 04:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In general, the talk page of a redirect should be used for discussion (or assessment, if appropriate) concerning that redirect (e.g., its target, its history, its necessity, its potential as an article, any templates applied to it). In particular, the talk page of a redirect should not be redirected to the target page's talk page if the former contains useful content, such as discussion (e.g., Talk:The Ultimate Guide#Merger proposal) or a project assessment as 'Redirect-class'.
As for a "right or wrong way" to perform assessment of redirects... I'd say it's up to each project whether the want to:
  1. Assess as 'Redirect-class' and categorize any redirects under the project's scope; and
  2. Assess as 'Redirect-class' and categorize all redirects under the project's scope (for example, a project may want to categorize redirects from fictional character names, but not redirects from misspellings).
I was a bit surprised to see an importance assessment attached to a redirect, but I suppose that is also something that each project should decide based on its needs. I hope this helps you somewhat. –Black Falcon (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that clears things up immensely! Thank you, Airplaneman talk 19:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Enforcing WP:R2D?

How should WP:R2D be enforced? There is a user who has simply ignored the messages asking them not to 'fix' redirects that are not broken. I have issued them a final warning. Is it a blockable offense? Taking the matter to ANI usually results in some supportive statements but an overall 'meh' attitude (e.g.). –xenotalk 23:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately I don't see any alternative to what has been done there. Start with a request, then a stronger request, then a mild warning and, as you gave the editor in question just now, a final warning that a block will follow if they continue. I think it's as blockable as any other unhelpful behaviour when it starts to become disruptive, which this has. I don't see any need for an explicit mention of blocking here though, because that is always there in the background. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete all lowercase -> uppercase redirects

There is currently a proposal under discussion over at Village pump (proposals) that all redirects from the lowercase version of a proper noun, such as George w. bush, be deleted as redundant since the system automatically redirects search queries to George W. Bush where the redirect is not present. See the discussion for a more detailed rationale. Please respond over there. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 00:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Shortcut SUPPRESS

I've changed WP:SUPPRESS to WP:R#SUPPRESS, to avoid confusion with WP:SUPPRESSION (oversight).

The shortcut was only in use used on a tiny handful of pages, mostly archived now (from 2009); I'll relink those to WP:R#SUPPRESS too and add a hat in case anyone is confused.

FT2 (Talk | email) 11:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. –xenotalk 13:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirect talk pages

Hi, I just wondered if there are any policies or guidelines regarding when a redirect's talk page may contain talk items or banners, and when it should simply redirect to the talk page of the redirected article. I couldn't see anything on WP:RDR. The specific examples I'm thinking of are Talk:Grimsby Town Football Club (which has a banner and some talk items) and Talk:Sir Robert Charlton (has just a project banner). I'm wondering whether they should be converted to talk page redirects to match the article redirects, or just left alone. Thanks in advance for any input. --Jameboy (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, no policies or guidelines. There hasn't been any consistency established. Some feel they should be redirected to consolidate discussion & have it occur on a talk page that is more likely to have a higher level of participants. Others think discussion of the redirect should be on the redirect's talk page. Others think they should just be deleted. It's pretty much up to the involved editors to decide how to handle it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It might be useful to retain the talk page of the redirect for use of talk page templates.—RJH (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Changing direct links to redirect links

"There is nothing inherently wrong with linking to redirects. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to remove the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, it is generally an unhelpful exercise, and it can actually be detrimental."

Q. Is the converse true or false? I.e. if a link is configured to point directly to an article, is it appropriate to change it to the redirect matching the link name? I find myself dubious about it because I've seen multiple instances where a redirect gets changed to point to a disambiguation page. This introduces ambiguities everywhere that the redirect is linked (and a redirect change seems far less likely to get caught and restored).—RJH (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Depends. In the case you describe, no, that obviously doesn't help. However, there are other cases where a specific topic is redirected to a more general topic as we don't yet have a page on the specific topic. In that case, changing a [[general|specific]] to [[specific]] may make sense if it's likely the specific page may be turned into an article. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
True. But to me, changing to a redirect instead of directly to the intended topic just adds risk. (Say you decided to change the link to a redirect of a word or phrase that has multiple meanings [in separate articles]. This link could then be unintentionally misdirected because another group later decided to change the redirect to, say, the more frequent use of a word.) I think it would help to mention in WP:NOTBROKEN that the converse (changing a direct link to a redirect) may not always be a good idea, and perhaps list some cases. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Note that Wikipedia:Linking#Piped links says "do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text. For example, let's assume the page "Poodle" is a redirect to the page "Dog", and while you're editing some other article, you want to add a link to the word "poodle". You may be tempted to avoid the redirect by directly linking to it with a pipe like this: [[Dog|poodle]]. Instead, write simply [[poodle]] and let the system handle the rest." The "Linking" page indicates that such uses of redirects help make links more specific, and of course some such cases might eventually become separate articles. I have added a see also link to Wikipedia:Linking#Piped links to the guideline text DES (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
In other words, redirects are generally encouraged (though I'm sure that going around making mass changes of this nature without reason would likely be considered equally as disruptive and mass bypassing redirects). But for an example, see Eyewall replacement cycle. It used to redirect to Eye (cyclone)#Eyewall replacement cycles but an article was put there yesterday. It already has 30 incoming links (and not because someone linked a lot of articles - they were already present). –xenotalk 22:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The situation is not symmetrical. As the text says, there is "nothing inherently wrong with linking to redirects". On the other hand there is something inherently wrong with pipes. OK, that's a little strong — unquestionably there are situations where a pipe is the least bad solution (avoiding links to disambig pages, avoiding tedious repetition of state names when listing cities, a few others).
But a pipe breaks the connection between the term that the user sees in blue, and the search term linked to. This is in itself a bad thing. The extent to which it is bad ranges from almost harmless (alternative spellings with no possible other interpretation) to really really terrible (a link I recently changed in Robert Burns that had the word Irvine linked to an article about Burns's sojourn there). But inherently always at least a tiny bit undesirable.
Pipes should be thought of as analogous to goto statements in structured programming languages: There are times to use them, but they're never the first tool you reach for. I am not aware of any case where I consider a pipe to be justified, when a natural redirect exists that accomplishes the same function. --Trovatore (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Your reasoning doesn't appear to take into account dynamic trends within wikipedia. A particular redirect may be considered "more desireable" at a point in time, but later it can become a problem when the redirect is changed to a new path or an article on a different topic is inserted into the redirect. The former redirect has now become more undesirable than a pipe. A certain amount of caution should be exercised when changing a piped link to a redirect term that can have multiple meanings.—RJH (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I disagree. Pipes are uniformly worse than redirects. The situation you mention can certainly happen, but it ordinarily means that the redirect should really be a dab page, and when it's changed to a dab page, then gnomes and their semi-automated tools will see it and clean it up. The other possibility is that the term has a primary meaning, and either the initial or the final target of the redirect is wrong. Again this is a matter of correctness and cleanup. --Trovatore (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

R2D and "pre-fixing" links to potential disambig pages

I'm curious to hear what others think of the argument presented by Djsasso here: User talk:Djsasso#WP:R2D. I had mentioned R2D in connection with his changing [[NHL]] to [[National Hockey League]NHL]], since NHL redirects to National Hockey League. His response was that such a change is helpful because NHL could become a disambiguation page in the future (in his view, this "very likely" will happen). While I can see the argument here, I don't think that speculation about the future disposition of articles is a particularly compelling reason to ignore the guideline here, particularly since we could just as easily speculate in the other direction. (That is, we could say that NHL may become more commonly used than "National Hockey League", so we should preemptively make changes in anticipation of such a day.) I'm certainly willing to entertain the possibility that I'm wrong here, though, and I'm very curious to hear what others think. Croctotheface (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In a round about way the guideline actually talks about this situation. It mentions you shouldn't remove redirects because it could be helpful to future page creation. In all the cases I have changed NHL and National Hockey League are the exact same thing, and will never be split to two seperate pages in the way mentioned in the guideline because the proper name of the league will likely (though you never know) always remain the National Hockey League. However, what is more likely is that some other organization, product, subject will come along and also use the acronym. By removing the articles that are clearly about the National Hockey League (while doing other edits) it removes any possible disambig that would need to be done in the future if the page were turned into a disambig page. I actually find the guideline supports this, although the example it uses is in the opposite direction. -DJSasso (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The guidelines do not support this. The redirects are not broken. Usage of the redirect NHL to mean National Hockey League is one of the indications that the National Hockey League is indeed the primary topic of "NHL". You seem to have an eventual goal of turning NHL into a disambiguation page. The sequence there should be a request to move NHL (disambiguation) to NHL, and, only after that has consensus (if it does), then change the incoming links to the now-dab base name to point to the correct target. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Not even sure why I didn't notice that page existed...*sigh* You are right. -DJSasso (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Moves and Redirects not playing nice with each other?

  • So I recently changed Joyride (Video Game) to Kinect Joyride as this is the now the games name, however after moving it I'm having a bit of a problem. Wikipedia doesn't seem to recognize that a move occured, when I try to link to the Kinect Joyride page the wiki link assist tool tells me that no such page exists, ditto all the categorys listed for Kinect Joyride show up as appearing only for Joyride (video game) I don't know if I'm doing something wrong or if this is a bug. I'm not too woried about it as a similar thing happened when I moved the article Miss Me Yet? BUSH BILLBOARD to Miss Me Yet? and it corrected itself in about a day. But it's still rather annoying, and probably should be looked into. --Deathawk (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I still don't know how to redirect pages.

I still don't under stand how to make redirects. I even looked at the page but still coudn't find out how. SeanWheeler (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You edit the title you want to be a redirect and include the text #REDIRECT [[Target page]]. Tell us what you're trying and what you're seeing, and we can make specific suggestions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Piped redirects?

I recently came across a redirect page "Lincoln Hawk" with source of the form: 

#REDIRECT [[Over the Top (film)|Lincoln Hawk]

This pipe name of the link appears to serve no function whatever. I contacted the editor about this and he agreed with me that using the pipes don't make sense. The redirect guideline does not presently mention to not do this. (I can't think of any reason why it should be done either.) If there are no objections, I think it is worth a sentence is the guideline saying "redirects never use piping", or something to that effect. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a sensible suggestion. -- Ϫ 01:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Redirects need never use piping. If a redirect uses piping (which can happen easily enough with page moves -- what was a pipe link becomes a redirect pipe link when the target page is moved), it is still not broken unless there's some other problem with it. Nevermind. I misread the description of the problem. Yes, the link in the redirect page shouldn't use piping. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Deprecated Templates

The policy seems to apply to bluelinks. Would templates be subject to this policy too? Why should it be?

For example: {{otheruses4}} redirects to {{about}}. Changing one template to another will not affect the appearance of the link, or hint. Should we make it clear that these cases are exempt?199.126.224.156 (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

For me it's clear that this policy has nothing to do with templates. This policy refers to redirects inside wikilinks. I 'll write probably more on the matter later. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The policy applies to redirects in general. When we want to replace all uses of a template with a different one, we do that by a bot job. When there is consensus not to replace the old template, at there is with otheruses4, we don't want people going around changing it "just because" it's a redirect. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I think there is a confusion between two different things here:
  • The R2D policy has to do with piped links. The reason we have this policy is that a redirect to an article is a potential article in the future. Most of the times we redirect to something because we don't have a better article for the first term.
    • Redirect to templates will never become templates themselves and even if they do it would mean we had to reconfigure the parameters in them so in fact we had to replace the template to its page it's transcluded.
    • Under this spirit, we do template replacements every day. Replacing "Fact" with "Citation missing" is almost a daily job of SmackBot and generally accepted by the community.
  • I agree that we shouldn't bypass redirects to templates if there isn't a good reason to do it.
  • I agree that solely replacing a redirect to template is useless and should be avoided.
  • My disagreement with Carl is if we have consensus to deprecate {{otheruses4}} or not. So our disagreement is more on a specific subject. Maybe it would be better if we discuss this part in Template talk:About or somewhere more central.
  • I don't encourage any mass edits on solely replacing {{otheruses4}}. It was my mistake to believe that there was a consensus on that. ::::*I suggest that we hear more opinions on the matter. Right now is like we are mainly three people (me, Carl and the anonymous IP) opening the same discussion in various places and getting no real feedback. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
When the IP user began replacing otheruses4 in bulk, we started a deletion debate to see if the template should be kept. The outcome is pretty clear that many people felt the redirect was both fine and actively used ("While definitely not unanimous, there is a clear belief that this is actively being used, and is likely to remain popular.") There is nothing in that closure that suggests the redirect should be bypassed, and nothing in the closure to suggest it is deprecated in any way.
Since then, it has come out that the IP user who started this thread is actually the same banned user as the IP user who opened the RFD.
In general terms, WP:R2D is not just about piped links. Piped links are just one example. The second paragraph of that section refers to piped links, but the first paragraph is about redirects in general. That is, replacing [[redirect]] with [[target]] is just as discouraged as replacing it with [[target|redirect]].
Here's my general position:
  • If there is consensus to delete a redirect, we will bypass it with a bot and then delete it. This is done all the time.
  • If there is consensus that a certain redirect should be kept but not left in articles, we should be able to get consensus to run a bot to replace its uses automatically.
  • If there is not consensus that a bot should go through and replace a certain redirect, then editors should not make large-scale edit sequences whose purpose is to replace the redirect. Because, if there was consensus to do it, it would be done by a bot.
— Carl (CBM · talk) 12:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the three cases. It's clear that we aren't in case 1. We only have to agree if we are in case 2 or 3. My impression is that we are in case 2 because some people discussed for "keep for now" and then some other people came to AWB's talk page to request replacement similar to the Fact->Citation missing one. Of course, we can wait for more opinions on that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't follow BOTREQ very closely, but I believed based on this comment that the outcome there was against having a bot do the replacements (that is, against #2). So I think we are in case #3. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
R2D is not just about piped links. It's about the fact that redirects are inherently not broken. They are not there to be fixed. They are not something to be done away with. Template redirects do not need to be replaced, and certainly shouldn't be replaced as the sole reason for an edit. Edits such as this are distracting to other editors and commit edits for no good reason. –xenotalk 13:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
There are some times that templates need to be replaced in order to help readability. This is something we already generally do in some cases. I don't like continuing a general discussion on the matter. It's better if we focus in the specific case and/or wait for more opinions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Xeno, your position is obviously wrong because that is not what the policy says and also completely irrelevant. As Magioladitis has stated above, {{fact}} is changed to {{citation needed}}. There is no reason {{otheruses}} (forexample) should not be change to {{about}}. The argument is that it IS confusing, because there are few, now, templates that are in the template:otheruses series.
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_11#Template:Otheruses4: The reason the outcome was "Keep" was because there was no EXPLICT policy on this situation. People misinterpreted the 1st para, as like CBM said. JLaTondre is right that if there is a VALID reason to link directly to the mother template, then that should be done. This situation, as proven, has happened and is happening. This should continue, but as stated, we need to insert a section write-it-on-paper.
Note policies are written of what we DO on wikipedia, not what ONE editor wants to do.
I want to state again that template-redirects are completely different from internal links/bluelinks, which I believe we have a policy for that. CBM's arguments are relevant to bluelinks: we can see why it is not advisable to replace piped links with the mother page. Magioladitis has outlined that above, and I will not go into detail in that topic.199.126.224.156 (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:R2D is as applicable to template redirects as it is to article redirects. The rationale for "other reasons to make the change" differs, but the basic principle stays the same. Nothing I said should be taken otherwise or as an argument for this specific case. If there is debate for whether are valid reasons to replace this redirect or not (personally, I see nothing confusing in it), that is not really a topic about this page itself. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
"WP:R2D is as applicable to template redirects as it is to article redirects." That's where I see you are wrong. As outlined above, template redirects are not the same: The reason: Versus piped links, template links add nothing contentwise, and are hidden (taking the case we have, since otheruses4 redirects to about, the only way you can know this is if you search for template:otheruses4).
It is a topic about this page because the only argument put forth (with merit, if applicable) NOT deleting this template is this policy.199.126.224.156 (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above about template redirects not being the same boils down to the "other reasons to make the change"; not about the applicability of this section. Also, my reading of RFD debate is that it was not based on this section, but on #5 of WP:R#KEEP. People objected to you replacing the redirect based on this section, that they didn't argue on keeping it based on this section. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any actual disagreement in the positions outlined here. This section says don't replace redirects simply because they are redirects. It doesn't say redirects should never be replaced. Rather, it explicitly states "This rule does not apply to cases where there are other reasons to make the change." One shouldn't replace a template redirect simply because it is a redirect, but in a case such as the redirect being renamed because it's been deemed confusing by the community, that is a valid reason to replace. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. In this case, however, the community decision at the RFD was to keep the template and not replace it. If the RFD had come out "delete" then of course we would replace the template before deleting it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The majority of the discussion was in generalities and only went back to the specific case after my comment. My point is that there is nothing in this discussion (general or specific) that requires a modification to the guideline. It is impossible to quantify "other reasons to make the change" in a way to remove all debate. By the way, the RFD discussion was about the redirect, not the template. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't go around changing {{otheruses4}} to {{about}} without making any other constructive changes to the articles. However, I think it is equally pointless, if not more so, to go around changing {{about}} to {{otheruses4}}, or to wholesale rollback edits which included such changes (without looking to see what else was included in the edit in question). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that the IP user 199.xxx is actually the banned user 100110100. The banning policy is clear that banned editors are not permitted to edit in any way, good or bad, and their edits can be reverted on sight. As far as I know, this is also the only editor who is currently going around making massive changes of otheruses4 to about. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Except "when reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons" (WP:BAN). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
If the user was making just a few edits, or even if they were using edit summaries, that might be reasonable. In this case, the right response is just WP:RBI. There is no reason to enable this banned user's activities because some tiny fraction of their edits might be construable in terms of neutrality. That language in WP:BAN is intended to apply to banned editors who come back to fix a glaring problem in a BLP, not to editors like the one here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The IP editor was using the edit summary when correcting POV issues. This is now wandering way off topic, so no need to argue about it here. In my opinion, editing with the primary objective to change the redirect to a link (or the redirect to a link) is entirely pointless per NOTBROKEN. This includes reverts as well. It just clogs up the edit history and is an entire waste of time. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
To get back on subject: A difficulty is that, if the inappropriate edits are not reversed, people use that as evidence in deletion discussions. The reason the otheruses4 template/redirect was not deleted during the RFD was because people actively use it. However, if editors go around removing all uses then of course it will be unused, and then those same editors will use this as evidence that the template/redirect should be deleted. I have seen this several times in practice, and it was exactly the strategy that the IP editor was employing here.
Within our system, the only way to show that someone still likes a template is to undo these unilateral removals (which, in this case, run exactly counter to the RFD outcome not to orphan the template/redirect). That is, with our BRD system, as long as editors are free to make bold edits to remove the template/redirect, other editors have to be free to reverse that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

R from misspelling, when the target is actually a word, just not the one wanted

I came across a curious corner case regarding the redirect callous. I'm tempted to stick {{R from misspelling}} on it, because it is a misspelling if your intent is a hardened patch of skin.

On the other hand, it's not a misspelling if you mean the adjective callous, as in harsh or unfeeling. But that search term is never likely to have a WP article.

Any thoughts? Should there be some sort of Wiktionary link available somehow, for those users who really might be expecting an article on the adjective? --Trovatore (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What does this really mean?

I just had reason today to read the entry below from the page more closely:

10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject. In these cases, it is better that the target article contain a redlink pointing back to the redirect.

At first glance I thought I understood what it meant, but then the second sentence made no sense to me. When and how would a redlink ever point back to the redirect? For a real example that triggered my closer examination, User:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden created a redirect from Andrea G. Radke-Moss that was a redirect to Brigham Young University with the reasoning that she was a recent PhD in the up and coming field of LDS studies. But the university article makes no mention of her, thus it seemed inappropriate to redirect readers to that article. I had at first interpreted this to mean that if there is potential for there to someday be an article about Andrea G. Radke-Moss, it would be better if there were not a redirect to some other article with little information (or in this case none) about the person. It would be better for the persons name to remain as a redlink on whatever articles it is on as a clear indication that Wikipedia does not have an article on this subject. But then I saw the second sentence, which threw me for a loop. Can someone explain this? older ≠ wiser 21:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Good query, older-wiser!<smiles> (Just as a clarification, though: Ms. Radke-Moss was hired as an assistant professor at BYU.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it's supposed to concern a situation where the subject is mentioned (but with almost no information) at the "target" article. In that case the subject would be redlinked both in the "target" article and in any other articles in which she might also happen to be mentioned.--Kotniski (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
That's what I think also, but then is the language about the "redlink pointing back to the redirect" simply mistaken? older ≠ wiser 00:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess so. A redlink can't be pointing to a redirect, by definition (unless it means a former redirect that got deleted).--Kotniski (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I've reworded the sentence so it makes a bit more sense (though I've never been certain what this criterion means exactly, or whether we need it at all).--Kotniski (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The sentence would probably benefit from an example, but your edit is better than what was there before. I think the idea behind the criterion is that when there is potential for a redirect to be developed into an article in it's own right, then rather than redirecting to an article with little or no information on the subject it is better for the redlink to remain visible as an indicator to editors that an article is needed. older ≠ wiser 21:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Foreign languages

There is absolutely no discussion on WP:REDIRECT about foreign language terms. I brought this up at WT:CSD#R3 is not clear, when trying to determine why a foreign language redirect should or shouldn't be deleted. It seems, with almost certainty, that these are the cases for foreign language redirects:

Since there is nothing on this policy page qualifying the usefulness or plausibility of foreign redirects, I think this information should be included. Thoughts? — Timneu22 · talk 17:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually there are several points in there, search terms, old links etc, how would you identify which foreign language terms were and were not used that way? Incidentally I think we should put something in about redirects as a way of preventing the creation of unnecessary forks. Remember if a search term is redirecting people to an article people are much less likely to start a new article under a different name. ϢereSpielChequers 18:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't care as much about correcting any existing redirects that violate this. I mean, we could find those eventually, but my goal is to prevent further redirects from being created in this manner. If someone found an existing redirect in another language, they could always then cite the policy (that I'm proposing here) as a valid reason for deletion. There may be some random voiture->car type redirects now, but my sampling showed all proper titles. — Timneu22 · talk 19:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
But how do you differentiate between redirects that are not used in search terms and those that are? Also English is a language that absorbs many non-english words, and a word that you might consider non-English might be in common parlance in some English dialects. And remember that redirects are cheap, but our supply of active admins is dwindling, so something that increases both the number of redirects to be deleted and the number of articles to be deleted really needs justification. ϢereSpielChequers 19:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
There's no way to know what's a search term. I just want a policy. We shouldn't have random translations created as redirects. Why is this hard? What would be the purpose of keeping them? — Timneu22 · talk 19:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
We already have policy, I think what you want to do is change the policy. If you don't know which of these are search terms that some people are using how would you separate these between the harmless but not particularly useful and the useful ones? ϢereSpielChequers 20:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
There's no policy. Search WP:REDIRECT for "foreign". Useful=foreign language linking to proper noun. Not useful=random defintion. Why is this so hard to grasp? — Timneu22 · talk 00:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I think WP:REDIRECT#KEEP is reasonably clear especially point 5, and as you've said yourself "There's no way to know what's a search term". So if you can't tell the ones that are used from the ones that aren't why delete any of them? ϢereSpielChequers 07:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Timneu22, that is also what I think, why is this so hard to grasp for you. It is not black and white (or as you state it 'Useful=foreign language linking to proper noun. Not useful=random defintion'). Indeed most redirects to proper nouns are fine, but there are always other ones which are, for some reason, useful. Voiture is indeed an example which is unlikely, but others may be. In chemistry one example which does make sense is Toluol (German), which redirects toToluene (a solvent; similarly, Benzol is a disambig which also contains the link to Benzene). And Category:Redirects from alternative languages does contain some, like Catur, Chlor, Dressuur (which to me look like they are specific to a certain subject area, and there used). What I mean to say is, that in some areas, the 'random' foreign word may be of use, while if we would put it here in a rule, that redirect could be deleted since 'it is not a redirect to a proper noun'. That is not something that can be put into policy. We could consider as a guideline 'generally, redirects in foreign languages to common nouns are discouraged, except when they are of general use in the field of the subject', but we can't state 'redirects in foreign languages to common nouns should never be created and be deleted on sight' (and that is in line with the current WP:R3). And what looks like random to you, may be useful to someone else, see, as was added in just before while I was edit-conflicted, WP:R#KEEP. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Bullshit. You want me to go prove a point and translate the whole fucking encyclopedia and create French redirects? I'm going just say fuck this and move on. Holy shit WP is a mess right now. — Timneu22 · talk 10:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Unless you can explain why this is 'bullshit', and explain me why there are, and will be, no expectable exceptions to 'do not create foreign language redirects to pages which title is not a proper noun' (and while you are at it, also give examples of the statements you made earlier, e.g. about admins deleting redirects of this kind all the time), I expect you to retract that statement per WP:NPA, and then try to explain where we miss the point: what is the problem with a foreign language redirect to a common noun, what would be the problem with making a redirect from Voiture to Car. Why do you think that type of redirect should not exist. Because maybe I do indeed completely miss the point, but I do not see the problem here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
It's bullshit that there's a category with thousands of redirects from alternate languages, yet there's no policy or even guideline that explains why they should exist. That's a fucking joke. I'm here trying to correct it, and you're being all bureaucratic about it. I just want to help clarify why that category exists at all. You offer the filibuster. Oh, and please cite where I attacked an editor. — Timneu22 · talk 10:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Calling someones remarks bullshit .. is not exactly an argument on my contributions, it is an argument more on the person making the contribution.
Redirects from alternative languages exist because someone finds them useful. The category exists, because then they are easier to find. Why do we have articles on Rye bread, [[Bread roll], and Toast]], because someone finds them useful, why do we have a category Category:Breads, because then the different types of bread are easier to find. And that is here, it is explained why we have redirects, and some of those are from foreign languages .. do we also have to explain here exactly why we have those, or for that matter, other 'groupable' redirects from a certain sort. I still don't see the problem, why should we not have the redirects, and why should we not have the category. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that it isn't clear. I edit a bazillion pages, and I have no idea what the foreign redirect policy is. Or even a guideline. So I'm here trying to clarify, and you offer a stonewall. WP:REDIRECT should explain useful cases for foreign redirects and offer guidelines so that things are clear. They're not. — Timneu22 · talk 11:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The policy seems clear to me, what is unclear is the difference between a useful redirect that people are using in searches and a harmless one that no-one is using. But unless you are a deletionist why would you need or want further clarification? Redirects are cheap, deletion takes time and thought to get right. If someone were creating lots of these you could try asking them why they are doing so, but if they continue to arrive in a trickle then I would be inclined to assume that the ones we have exist because someone somewhere found them useful. ϢereSpielChequers 13:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not even talking about deletion. I'm talking about a guideline on WP:REDIRECT that would suggest random word translation isn't typically the type of redirect that is useful. — Timneu22 · talk 13:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Well you started this discussion off on talk speedy deletion. But I'm still not convinced that random word translation is taking place, as opposed to people creating redirects that are useful in their searches. What makes you think that we have a phenomena here, and that that phenomena is a problem? Can you provide diffs? ϢereSpielChequers 14:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I just want a guideline to be available to users. Period. Why such debate? — Timneu22 · talk 15:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
You've already got your guideline. See WP:REDIRECT#KEEP especially point 5. ϢereSpielChequers 16:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
That's a cop-out. There should be a general guideline about foreign redirects. Besides that, I may find that trash can's blue brother is a useful redirect to recycling bin. Just because I find that useful doesn't mean it is actually useful. — Timneu22 · talk 21:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be a guideline because useless redirects have no particular benefit but also cause no particular harm. It — let me say this slowly &mdash d o e s n ' t   m a t t e r whether they are there or not. Creating them is waste motion; so is deleting them.
When redirects cause an actual problem, even a small one, that's different. Examples of problems are when the redirect goes to the wrong page, or when it goes to a plausible page but excludes a different plausible page, or when it's tendentious but not a recognized name for the concept (some tendentious redirects can't be deleted because they are known, even though loaded, terms for the subject matter).
Finally, some argue that having too many unneeded redirects clutters up the namespace and makes completion in the search box harder to use, and that's at least a small point.
The only problem that applies to foreign-language redirects in general is the last one, and frankly I think it's kind of trivial. Usually the foreign word doesn't overlap enough with English spelling to be a problem there.
So bottom line — don't create them, don't delete them, don't bother with a guideline. Just leave it be. --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a whole category with foreign redirects but no indication why they would be necessary or "useful" to a general audience. There's a entire page discussing redirect, but no indication why foreign redirects would be necessary or useful. There's a speedy deletion reason that specifically states to not delete foreign redirects, but no indication why not, as there's no policy describing what makes a valid or invalid redirect, one that's deletable or not, and/or why they should be kept. I just am asking to place a description to clarify, but people here vehemently oppose, for absolutely no reason. I don't understand you people. — Timneu22 · talk 22:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
What you haven't explained is why it's useful to have a guideline. Useless guidelines are much worse than useless redirects. --Trovatore (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you serious? Here's why it's useful to have a guideline: There's a whole category with foreign redirects but no indication why they would be necessary or "useful" to a general audience. There's a entire page discussing redirect, but no indication why foreign redirects would be necessary or useful. There's a speedy deletion reason that specifically states to not delete foreign redirects, but no indication why not, as there's no policy describing what makes a valid or invalid redirect, one that's deletable or not, and/or why they should be kept. — Timneu22 · talk 22:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and please explain why a foreign redirect is useful, and why it isn't. — Timneu22 · talk 22:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Did I stutter? It does not matter whether they are there or not. Therefore don't delete them, and don't ask for a guideline. --Trovatore (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
What a pointless discussion. Thanks for wasting my time, everyone. — Timneu22 · talk 22:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
We wouldn't have had the pointless discussion if you hadn't made the pointless suggestion and then pointlessly insisted on how important it was. --Trovatore (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey attacker, back off. How ridiculous is it to have a category of thousands of foreign redirects, but the word "foreign" doesn't even appear on the redirect policy. That's a joke. All I did was try to help to clarify things, but you want things muddy. Unbelievable. I mean really. Tell me where I did something unconstructive here. You're just filibustering. — Timneu22 · talk 22:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
We don't bloody need policies (or even guidelines) for everything that happens. So it's not ridiculous at all. The guideline is silent because there is nothing useful to put in the guideline about it. Just back away from the horse. --Trovatore (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Bypassing redirects feedback request

See Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 37#Bypassing redirects with accent characters. — Dispenser 21:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture

I have added the picture at the right to illustrate what a redirect looks like. In case anyone objects this, please let me know at my talk page. --Diego Grez (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of commas in creating redirects

I was wondering what the policy/guideline is on making redirects that take the form of "topic, subtopic" or "topic, adjective" or "surname, first name". It is similar to what you find in the back of educational books, which often list on what pages topics or terms in the book appear. Some recent examples that I have come across are Antiquities, Biblical, Archaeology, Christian and Archæology, Christian. I checked the redirect project page and all of the archives of this talk page, and apparently it has never come up before, at least not at this project. This is very surprising to me, as I have run into this type of redirect on many occasions. Perhaps it has come up at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, and the policy has just never been formalized here.

I do not think that this type of redirect is necessary, and that it should be speedily deleted if no other article links to it, no article is likely to ever link to it and the redirect is not somehow a term in itself. I know that there is some hesitation in deleting redirects that have been around for a long time, redirects that have links to them and several other issues. Although, these redirects rarely have links to them, and the ones that do are usually linked to project lists like Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia topics/A (the only link to "Antiquities, Biblical" and the only redirect listed above that is linked to). Project lists like the Catholic Encyclopedia project are probably the cause of the majority of these redirects. Anyway, I do not know if deletion is compatible with Wikipedia redirect policy. If the consensus is to not delete them or to send them to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, which is a bit of a hassle if it is done one redirect at a time, then perhaps the redirect project page could at least discourage the creation of additional redirects of this type, assuming they are not considered beneficial somehow.

When dealing with lists like the Catholic Encyclopedia topics, it would be very easy to change the links to "adjective topic" and to automatically alphabetically reorder the list with a word processing program. It would be easier to do this before adding the list to the project than after, but it is still not that difficult to do on a list the size of the Catholic Encyclopedia project. However, it appears that most of the proper terms already appear on the list and that links just need deleting before someone creates an unnecessary redirect, which is now too late in many cases. -- Kjkolb (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall coming across many "topic, subtopic" redirects but "surname, first name" definitely exists (Category:Redirects from sort names {{R from sort name}}) and those redirects are useful as links in references that use the format of listing the last name first, and some do have many links to them. -- Ϫ 11:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposing new exception to WP:NOTBROKEN

I'd like to see wording discouraging use of redirects on dab pages. The reason has to do with using navigation popups to disambiguate terms. Here's a scenario explaining the issue I see:

His ancestor was John, a 13th-century king of England.

I think it would be better to have a direct link on Foo of England, since the link is being changed anyway. Thoughts? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Why would the direct link be better? One of the points of WP:NOTBROKEN is that "changing redirects to direct links does not significantly improve performance anyway". -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Lots of dabpages link to a redirected term in order to make explicit the relationship between the disambiguated term and the target page. Changing that for the sake of a tool that's barely maintained currently seems like a bad idea. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The main point here is that in any case, rather than allowing the bluelinked John to be piped to John of England, it is usually better to spell out John of England in the text. Links should not be used as a substitute for explicitness in the text itself. Imagine the phrase his ancestor was John without any hypertext, and think whether that would be a useful thing to say. --Trovatore (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
That does not appear to be the main point of Auntof6's post. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Didn't say it was. --Trovatore (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, you meant you were suggesting a new point, not clarifying the main point. Yes, to your new point, I agree that keeping the article text clear is a good idea, but also not in need of a new exception to WP:NOTBROKEN (this discussion's main point). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, there are some good points in there, so I won't pursue this. Thanks for the feedback! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this question is already covered at WP:PIPING. JonH (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Categorizing redirect pages

It is some time since I created a redirect, and I was under the impression that all redirects should include one of the Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. But now I am confused.

This page says "Most redirect pages are not placed in any categories", but for every redirect there seems to be an appropriate redirect template. Are all or some of these templates now deprecated? JonH (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that line is actually referring to article content categories rather than specifically redirect categories. I don't know if any of the redirect templates are deprecated, I don't think so, but I can tell you that there's certainly no requirement to place them on every single redirect. -- Ϫ 22:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

shortcut to exception - when to fix a redirect

Can we create a visible shortcut to WP:R#Bypass redirects in navigational templates? I had to click the Edit button to find the anchor there. This would be a common reference in an edit summary. Set theorist (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure why not. What would you like to call the shortcut? -- Ϫ 15:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not experienced enough to be familiar with shortcut naming patterns. Is there a guideline? --Set theorist (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
No, nothing official. Just whatever you think would be convenient. Most shortcuts though are one-word and all upper-case. -- Ϫ 14:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Template redirects and WP:NOTBROKEN

With regards to WP:NOTBROKEN and this recent addition (partially reverted as it represents a point of view in an ongoing dispute), is it acceptable or desirable (or "always beneficial") to replace template redirects with their targets? Should it be the sole reason for editing a page? –xenotalk 15:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope that in the short future the API will automatically bypass template redirects on save. This will make the whole debate obsolete. Now, on the current problem itself: I believe that clear, easy understandable code helps newbies to understand how wikicode works and which template produces which text. Moreover, it's easier for some not skilled programmers to make cleanup scripts for WP:AWB if they don't have to worry for the various redirects. Template redirects are there to help editors easy update pages. This doesn't imply that they are the easier to read. I think these are the main arguments of the two sides to say. One side claims that editors must be enabled to add templates the way the find easier and the other side is more concerned of the readability and the possible scripts that can be made. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Readability is a problem with some template redirects, not with most of them. Citation Needed is just as readable as Citation needed, Cleanup is just as readable as clean-up or clean up. As for the scripts: as long as template redirects are allowed, scripts wil have to take them into account. This isn't that difficult, I'm currently adding lots of template redirects to an AWB xml I use, which leaves the template names as they are. Considering that according to Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups/About fixing redirects, "A recent benchmark showed that fixing a redirect is approximately ten thousand times more expensive for the server than following that redirect.", I don't believe that changing template redirects to their target is worth the effort. Fram (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
My take is that it's useful to bypass pure redirects as part of minor fixes in a useful edit, but not worth it on its own, unless there is a specific TfD-type task going on. Rjwilmsi 13:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Why? What use does it have, considering that new instances of these redirects are added every day anyway, making this a perennial useless cleanup task which only fills the "diff" screen, making it harder to find the actually useful or meaningful edits done in the same edit. We have e.g. 54,000 transclusions of template:fact[1]. Are we really going to remove these, just so a few scripts can be simplified? 15,000 transclusions of Imdb should be replaced with Imdb name? Perhaps we need to cut down on unlikely, rarely used templates, through TfD, and impose some restriction on the creation of new redirects to templates. But the removal of clear, easy to remember, muxh used templates for the sake of a few scripts seems to me to be a backwards solution. Fram (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Some template redirects, especially ones with obsolete numbers, such as {{Main2}}, no longer have any use but are used in many page histories so cannot be deleted safely. Removing any remaining instances of these prevents confusion. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
True, but that's what we have TfD for, no (or RfD, wichever fits best). Establish consensus that this redirect does more harm than good, then replace all instances of it, and then delete it. Perfect, no problem, no opposition from me. But that can hardly be a reason to do the same for redirects that are not deprecated or unwanted, like "imdb". Fram (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
But bypassing them does no harm, as long as the edit makes other more constructive edits. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
"Recent" in this case is nearly 5 years ago. And ten-thousand page hits is a relatively modest amount. And we are not supposed to worry about performance, even if we were talking about performance. And that is about page redirects anyway, and redirect-only-fixing-edits. Rich Farmbrough, 15:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

Underscores for article sections with spaces, anyone?

I'm new to Wikipedia's editing tools, so maybe this is dumb, but shouldn't this page discuss how to redirect to a section of an article that contains spaces? I tried going to this page and the Help:Section page, but in the end, I just had to figure it out on my own, first trying "%20", which didn't work, and then trying an underscore (i.e. "_"), which did work, to link to sections of an article with spaces. I'm sure someone has mentioned this somewhere, but shouldn't this basic and very useful syntax information be included on this page? Lenschulwitz (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You just use normal spaces. Underscores also work but don't look as good. If it wasn't working, it was probable something else you were doing wrong. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The fourth sentence of the page reads, "It is also possible to redirect to a specific section of the target page, using the #REDIRECT [[Page name#Section title]] syntax." If you see something written in that different-looking font, it's (or at least should be) written exactly as it should be entered. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, let's say I want to link to our current discussion. If I create the url: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Underscores for article sections with spaces, anyone?" it won't work unless I replace the spaces with underscores: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Underscores_for_article_sections_with_spaces.2C_anyone.3F" Lenschulwitz (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The double-bracket syntax works without underscores: Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Underscores for article sections with spaces, anyone?. If you want to use the single-bracket syntax, there ae much more sever issues than spaces: many characters, including all characters with diacritics, have to be changed. The legal character set for URLs is very limited. The easiest way to get a link in that syntax is to copy the link target from the table of contents. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Redirect/Archive_2010&oldid=1137434267"