Wikipedia talk:Redirect

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

Before or after section title?

The current instructions under WP:TARGET appear to contradict the instructions in the {{anchor}} template. Namely, WP:TARGET says to substitute the anchor before the section title, whereas {{anchor}} says to substitute it after. I opened a discussion under Template talk:Anchor#Before_or_after_section_title? if anyone here would like to comment further. — Umofomia (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2022

Hi, my name is Mridul. I am here to request you accept my editing request so I can start editing and publish articles on Wikipedia page and let people know about various places, things, plants, companies, etc. Mridul TS (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

 Question: What edit do you want to make? Just saying you want to make an edit isn't helpful. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf My guess is that Mridul thinks they need to ask for permission before starting to edit Wikipedia. Not "Can you make this edit which I won't give any details about" but more "Can you grant me my request for editing privileges?" CapnZapp (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mridul TS: If you read this: you don't need to make a request before you start "editing and publishing" Wikipedia. It's just that some pages (such as this one) is protected against new editors because many new accounts (not you) are only created for the purpose of vandalization. CapnZapp (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

You're a bit late. They were blocked 29 days ago. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

better example of "insignificant or minor redirects can skip [bolding term]"

The current example is

• obsolete - density of water no longer redirects to the lead of properties of water. I'm guessing when the example was written, that lead did mention "density of water" and so the question whether to bold it or not was a constructive question to ask. But now that the lead doesn't mention "density of water" any more someone has (rightly) changed the redirect to go directly to a section, and the example falls apart
• not phrased correctly. The reader is expecting the example to first recreate the (part of) the lead that showcases the right (or wrong) behavior, and then find a paragraph expounding on that usage. But the density of water incorrectly conflates the two: the sentences Density of water redirects to Properties of water. There is no need to insert a bolded density of water sentence in the lead section... looks like they exemplify but they don't. They actually contain the expounding paragraph right away, and they even manage to bungle the use of bold: using it precisely when the point is to not use bold! (If the text were an authentic example, it needs a variation on the correct/incorrect formatting, such as the one seen in Styletips:

Unit symbols: figures

Unit symbols/abbreviations are preceded by figures, not by spelled-out numbers.

Incorrect: five miles (eight km)

Correct: five miles (8 km)

Read more ...

If someone could find a proper example of a redirect leading to the lead of an article mentioning the redirected term but where it is appropriate to not bold the incoming term, we could make this section's example much better. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

is it can or must, in the phrase "insignificant or minor redirects can skip [bolding term]"

Are exceptions to the rule permissible?

Would it be appropriate to bold canter on the Cant (road/rail) page. It is a natural incoming alternative search term, except camber the page (Camber) is a pseudo-disambiguation page where camber in the context of cant(road/rail) is only one possible meaning.

Still, even though camber doesn't redirect to the article, it feels natural to assume its readers might have searched for "camber" expecting to reach the appropriate section of the article: Cant (road/rail)#Roads and/or Cant (road/rail)#Camber.

CapnZapp (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Another possibility is "should", implying a recommendation (unlike "can") but no obligation (unlike "must"). Certes (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

There's a few things here - you should create a topical redirect such as camber (road/rail) or whatever is appropriate, and use that on the disambiguation page (MOS:DABREDIR). At that point, the use of "camber" in the lead section should switch from a link to a bolded term, and that link in turn should be moved elsewhere so it's more explicit (MOS:BOLD, WP:EGG). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Fireworks?

Best of everything to you and yours this holiday season! and...

Happy New Year!
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and its redirects, and
have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, Best Ever, in 2024!

P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 05:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Norwegian Bokmål

Norwegian Bokmål has ISO language code 'nb', and so works in {{R from alternative language}}, but does not categorise to Category:Redirects from Norwegian-language terms. Instead it goes to the broader Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms. What to do?

Note: Category:Redirects from Norwegian Nynorsk-language terms exists; Nynorsk (from looking at the wiki page, I don't know Norwegian myself) seems to be similar to Bokmål in what it is. Should there be a similar category for Bokmål? Furthermore, should those two be subcategories of Category:Redirects from Norwegian-language terms? CharredShorthand (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@CharredShorthand: This should really have been raised at Template talk:R from alternative language. That aside, the category name is generated by Template:R from alternative language using a conversion from language code to language name performed by Module:Lang. This uses the list at Module:Language/data/iana languages, where I see an entry for ["nb"] = {"Norwegian Bokmål"}, and so I wouldn't expect Category:Redirects from Norwegian-language terms to be used, but Category:Redirects from Norwegian Bokmål-language terms instead. That's a redlink, so I think the problem is simply that Category:Redirects from Norwegian Bokmål-language terms doesn't exist. If created, I think that it should contain these two lines:

{{Redirect from alternative language category|nb}}
{{emptycat}}

and nothing else. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the help; I created Category:Redirects from Norwegian Bokmål-language terms so I guess we will see if it gets populated now. Given that Bokmål and Nynorsk are the two written standards for Norwegian, is it ok to make the categories for those subcategories of Category:Redirects from Norwegian-language terms? (Between them, I imagine they should technically cover all almost Norwegian-language redirects, even if actually the 'no' code is used most often.) CharredShorthand (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not populating, and I don't think that it will. I have difficulty with some Lua coding, and I misread part of Module:Lang; it seems that it strips out the word "Norwegian" and so the missing category is Category:Redirects from Bokmål-language terms. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

At sometime in the past for reasons that are now lost to the past, the decision was taken to shorten the language names:

Norwegian Bokmål → Bokmål

Norwegian Nynorsk → Nynorsk

Perhaps this is because the articles about those languages are Nynorsk and Bokmål but who knows? The provenance of the original Module:Language/data/wp_languages is unclear. The shortening occurs in this section (lines 158 & 160) of Module:Lang/data.

{{R from alternative language}} uses Module:Lang to fetch the language name associated with the language subtag in {{{1}}} of the template call. {{Redirect from alternative language category}} in the category redirect templates Category:Redirects from Norwegian Bokmål-language terms and Category:Redirects from Norwegian Nynorsk-language terms extracts the language name from the category title (via {{PAGENAME}}).

It seems to me that for the avoidance of confusion, Category:Redirects from Norwegian Bokmål-language terms and Category:Redirects from Norwegian Nynorsk-language terms should be deleted because they are unnecessarily redundant to Category:Redirects from Bokmål-language terms and Category:Redirects from Nynorsk-language terms and these latter names are in keeping with the language article names and the names from Module:Lang and thus with the name used by {{R from alternative language}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, both the former two should be deleted. The Norwegian Nynorsk one was extant, the Norwegian Bokmål one I created in error just now due to the confusion.

After Redrose pointed out the issue, I instead created Category:Redirects from Bokmål-language terms, which I think is working (it's not yet populated at the category page, but redirects from 'nb' language code do seem to have it eg. Et dukkehjem). CharredShorthand (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@CharredShorthand: If you created a category page yourself, and now want it deleted, best thing to do is to add {{db-author}}. You could also remove the {{emptycat}} too, just in case. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. And the correct category Category:Redirects from Bokmål-language terms has finally populated, so all is good. Thanks for the help. CharredShorthand (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Subtopic mentioned in lead: use targeted or untargeted redirect?

If there is a subtopic that is mentioned in the lead of a page, should the redirect for the subtopic go to the lead or subsection about the subtopic? Generally, I find that the lead provides me overview of how the subtopic fits in with the overall topic. With a targeted redirect to a subsection, I'm usually wondering

1. What page am I on, what am I doing here
2. What is being talked about, because I missed the big picture overview in the lead, and the subsection assumes I read it

If there is no mention in the lead, I agree a targeted redirect is best.—Bagumba (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

When I am reading an article, I prefer that links take me to the details rather than to a lead that mentions the topic in passing. YMMV. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN and links directly on quotes

Regarding this edit whereby one of the edits consists of changing links of "Cultural Appropriation" to "cultural appropriation", I changed it to comply with the WP:NOTBROKEN fixing of "Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect." section. However, that page mentions nothing about what happens to links on direct quotes, such as this...

Online media outlets reported on the content of his YouTube videos, such as "In Defense of John Lasseter" and "In Praise of Cultural Appropriation", as well as those showing support for the controversial Gamergate harassment campaign.

So, how are these types of links like "Cultural Appropration" handled? I also did some discussion at User_talk:Qwertyxp2000#Redirects about the confusion I was getting. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a matter of interpretation. Both [[Cultural Appropriation]] and [[Cultural appropriation|Cultural Appropriation]] take the reader to the right page and display a capital A, so neither is broken. The first simplifies the wikitext, but the second pre-empts any future error if the title-case name gets usurped for a new article on a film etc. called "Cultural Appropriation". Personally, I'd be conservative and wouldn't change either to the other. Certes (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qwertyxp2000#Redirects

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (June 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

120.29.77.74 (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Bold 120.29.77.74 (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)