Wikipedia talk:Redirect

See also: Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/redirects, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect, and Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/Redirect

Category:Redirects from second-level domains

Looks like this redirect category is missing a corresponding template. Anyone like creating that? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: have you seen this? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Curious there are 134 redirects in this category that are all "hard" categorized instead of using a template, which could have been easily created. Or perhaps an existing rcat template could be used with a parameter? Not clear about what the questioner is asking. Do they not want to get in the way of someone who might already be creating the template? or do they not know how to create an rcat template? (there are lots of examples to go by) What exactly is being asked? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 18:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth Given that {{R from top-level domain}} already exists separately from {{R from domain name}}, I would suggest this be created as a standalone template as well. I have quite a lot of other work to do already and am currently a bit tired from AWB due to a big recent batch, so I would appreciate if somebody else could take on the task of creating the template and replacing the category. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, and  done. Just fyi, there are other categories like this one was, that is, redirect categories that are linked on redirects rather than being applied by rcat templates. I prefer templates because there is so much more that can be done with them, so those categories are on my to-do list. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth Noting that you might want to add Category:HTML entity redirects to that list. Thanks, ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done @1234qwer1234qwer4 @Paine Ellsworth (I requested Category:HTML entity redirects to be renamed as Category:Redirects from HTML entities). The template is {{R from HTML entity}}. ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed redirect template similar to PROD/MERGE

I dislike how redirecting can be a form of a stealthy deletion, with no notifications required. But rather than change the existing rules (which is hard), I would like to propose the creation of an optional template based on WP:PROD/WP:MERGE (Template:Proposed deletion, Template:Merge), which would follow the same principle. It would say that "this article has been proposed for redirecting to [target], because of [rationale]." We don't need to overcomplicate this - there is no need for admin review of intervention. A discussion can be started, there can be a notification template to be added to the target page of the creator, hopefully to be integrated to TWINKLE and like, and after some amount of time with no objections, the redirect can be carried out. Note that this is not intended to replace any current system, but could serve as a form of best practice for the future. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, but I am not very familiar with the whole deletion process. You should probably post this at WP:VPP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

VPP is for policy changes - WP:VPR (proposals) would be better. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CREEP. We already have a plethora of processes and this would be an additional one generating additional complication and confusion. It would exacerbate the issue of "stealthy deletion" because, as a new and unsupported process, it would not be known to the bots which do things like notify projects or the patrollers who attend to the current mergers, redirects and deletions. It would therefore be counterproductive, making matters worse rather than better. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment There is a problem here, but I'm unsure of the best solution. I've even seen the occasional article redirected to the unrelated subject of a SNOW AfD as an "alternative to deletion", and occasionally check for such stealth. (That query currently shows only good-faith edits.) Certes (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Categorising redirects

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Categorising redirects. Qwerfjkltalk 11:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Music video maker

Thanks you so much 175.100.6.92 (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

What is your question? Are you in the right place? ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 23:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Using new R country data

See here for objections. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Buller County, Queensland

What's the point of redirects like this one? ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a redirect to the closest thing to an article until something like Douglas County, Queensland, is created. Under "Purposes" on this page, the closest description is Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Bot to correct miscategorized sortname redirects.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Bot to correct miscategorized sortname redirects.. Qwerfjkltalk 21:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Bot for creating redirects from biographies without middle initial

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 10. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

"MOS:NOTBROKEN" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect MOS:NOTBROKEN and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 25#MOS:NOTBROKEN until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —GMX^(ping!) 04:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

SwiftKey

Flow SwiftKey 81.213.249.75 (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Please discuss the problems you are having. Is there anything specific you would like? 2603:8000:F400:FCEA:D0E7:DC37:BDEE:E7B5 (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)