Template talk:Redirect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Redirect (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon 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 never on the talk pages of mainspace redirects. For more information see the template documentation.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.


first talk[edit]

I'm not sure that the wording of this is as good as it could be. I don't have a concrete alternative to suggest, but I'd be interested in ideas. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

See Template:SilentRedirect for alternate wording. I used this wording on the CVS page. Feel free to copy the wording from that page if you think it's better. 15:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Current formatting/use:
Enclosure redirects here. For other uses, see Enclosure (disambiguation).
Reads like the usual disambiguation wording, so I'd keep it. Personally, I would take out the bolding. template:otheruses doesn't use bolding either. Some wikify the term being redirected from, maybe this template should do that as well. -- User:Docu
I guess the thing I don't like is that it presumes that the reader -- not necessarily a Wikipedian -- understands what we mean by "redirects". -- Jmabel | Talk 03:55, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
"it" = the template/wording/linking of "Enclosure"/bolding ? -- Maybe it's more likely one finds out if the initial term is linked (I wonder where I read that this should be done?). -- User:Docu

I agree with Jmabel | Talk above. The bit about redirecting is awkward, and confusing to people who don't understand the internal workings. I would change the template to just be the For other uses.... part. --RoySmith 12:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No, that doesn't work. The problem is that the term that redirects may be entirely linguistically unrelated to the title of the article. Maybe "You may have reached this page by looking for {{{1}}}. For other uses..." -- Jmabel | Talk 23:01, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


Just made {{redirect2}} for those phrases/acronyms with multiple capitalization that mean the same thing. Prorably a rare occurance, but needed for United NationsFitch 07:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Please add {{redirect2}} as a See Also via noinclude tag -- Zondor 15:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC) As well as {{SilentRedirect}} -- Zondor 15:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Done - Jmabel | Talk 07:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki to Vietnamese Wikipedia[edit]

Please make an interwiki link to Tiêu bản:Redisambig at the Vietnamese Wikipedia (vi:). Thanks. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 08:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Done - Jmabel | Talk 07:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposals for bold[edit]

Hey admins! I like the bolding the reference to the redirected term. It tells the reader that the redirected term is roughly synonymous with the article's title.

Current (as of 02:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC))
:<span class="dablink">'' "{{{1}}}" redirects here. For other uses, see [[{{{1}}} (disambiguation)]].''</span>
with the result…
"Pigeon" redirects here. For other uses, see Pigeon (disambiguation).
Proposal A:
:<span class="dablink">'' '''"{{{1}}}"''' redirects here. For other uses, see [[{{{1}}} (disambiguation)]].''</span>
with the result…
"Pigeon" redirects here. For other uses, see Pigeon (disambiguation).
Proposal B, which links back to the redirected term:
:<span class="dablink noprint plainlinksneverexpand">'' '''"[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{{1}}}|redirect=no}} {{{1}}}]"''' redirects here. For other uses, see [[{{{1}}} (disambiguation)]].''</span>
with the result…
"Pigeon" redirects here. For other uses, see Pigeon (disambiguation).

What do you think?--Mark Adler (Markles) 02:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Since only one person has proposed this, and there seems to have been no endorsement, I'm leaving things as they are for the moment. I have no objection to this if a consensus develops. - Jmabel | Talk 07:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Support proposal A. There's no need for the link because it's just going to go right back to the page. Also, when someone gets to an article via a redirect, the ("redirected from XXX") message is available too. howcheng {chat} 20:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. I guess if there is dissension we will hear about it soon. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, can someone please change it back? I think it looked better the old way. --Khoikhoi 06:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That makes it 2-1 (I myself have no opinion). - Jmabel | Talk 02:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the boldface draws too much attention to the redirect. Non-bold is better. Hairy Dude 17:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't {{otheruses}} generally be used instead?[edit]

Shouldn't {{otheruses}} generally be used instead? "'Term' redirects here" is usually not needed, right? ··gracefool | 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Usually, {{otheruses}} is preferred. {{redirect}} is for the case where the disambiguation is not for the main article title, but for something that redirects to the main article title. - Jmabel | Talk 05:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Automatic brackets for {{{3}}}?[edit]

Currently, the third parameter is not automatically put in brackets, as with every similar template. This is a Bad Thing. Does anyone object to changing this to automatically add brackets, given that I'm willing to convert all the errors that would thus be created (it's not that many pages)? We really should be consistent with syntax. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. If I recall correctly, there is at least one other template that does not use the automatic brackets and I was modeling after it instead. I can't for the life of me recall which one it was, but if you can clean up all the side-effects in a timely manner, please feel free to change this and all similar templates to automatic-bracket mode. — May. 15, '06 [05:47] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Okay, I'm going to get started. I think there are about 60 pages that use the third parameter. Qatter 13:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe that's an underestimate. Anyway, I've been going down the list, and have checked all the articles up to Saiga Antelope. Qatter 14:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. Qatter 17:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Where'd the italics go? Can we bring them back? ({{editprotected}}) - Regards, PhilipR 18:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Bypass your cache. —Mets501 (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for adding interwiki[edit]

fr:Modèle:Redirect, please :) ? 16@r 10:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. - Jmabel | Talk 20:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for a new Redirect[edit]

Currently, Template:Redirect can take in one variable or three, but not two. On more than one occasion I have wanted to use a template that simply takes in two variables, X and Y, and outputs something that looks like:

X redirects here. For other uses, see Y

Could this form be added? —Tokek 11:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

{{Redirect|Foo|other uses|Bar}} produces:
... so I don't think we really need to modify the template for this rare case. - Jmabel | Talk 20:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think at all that such instances are rare. Instead, perhaps usage where the one variable form would be apt is less common. Although as you say, there is always a more manual method available for these templates. —Tokek 12:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
This is rather close: {{This|USE|PAGE}}. It produces: "This article is about USE. For other uses, see PAGE."Tokek 15:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This does the it: {{Redirect|X||Y}}. Note the empty 2nd parameter. —Tokek (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Curly quotes[edit]

Can we please change the straight quote marks " to curly quote marks “ ” in all of the redirect templates? This is a minor thing but the two punctuation marks have distinct uses and will make the template look more professional. Max Naylor 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 23:44Z

I diagree. Because they are italicized, it looks very different and not so professional. They are the same unitalicized. The difference is between quotations and measurements (e.g., 6' 8") " " vs. “ ” Reywas92Talk 15:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so professional? Name one professional publication that does not use curly quotes. Ever typed something up in MS Word? You'll notice that it automatically changes your straight quotes into the right curly quotes. Curly quotes are by definition more professional. SergioGeorgini (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Please change "curly quotes" (“) to regular quote marks ("). Badagnani 01:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of the above. ASCII quotes are more in keeping with normal Wikipedia style, and curly quotes actually look worse than ASCII quotes when italicized. Changed as requested. Alas, this is going to result in a lot of re-rendering, but if not now, when? -- The Anome 12:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they should be curly quotes -- they're simply a part of proper typography. SergioGeorgini (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Add default "other uses"[edit]

Please change:

{{{2|other uses}}}

(etc.) to:

{{#if: {{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|other uses}}

(etc.) which is what {{otheruses4}} does. This allows an empty argument (e.g. {{redirect|foo||Foo (disambiguation)}}) to be changed to "other uses", which is IMO slightly more transparent than using numbered arguments (like {{redirect|foo|3=Foo (disambiguation)}}). Hairy Dude 17:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

YesY Done. --ais523 08:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD notice[edit]

{{Tfd|Redirect|Otheruses templates}}

I've nominated the Otheruses templates for discussion on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. --JB Adder | Talk 14:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Simple "X redirects here" template?[edit]

Is there not an option to have a simple "X redirects here" template, without any extra text after it? I can't find this option among the ones offered here. See my section redirect hatnotes on 20th Century Fox at Fox Film and 20th Century Pictures, for what I'm talking about. I've written those hatnotes out by hand, but would like to use a redirect template instead. Carcharoth 11:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Redirect/doc talks about a Template:Redirectstohere; is that what you were looking for? --DocumentN (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, revised answer: It's probably better to include that text as a comment, since it's mainly of interest to people editing the page. See also Help:Section#Section linking and redirects. --DocumentN (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a need[edit]

I need a redirect template that results in:

"HP3" redirects here. For the Ilford photographic film, see Ilford HP. For the postal district for Hemel Hempstead, see HP postcode area.

...for the top of the Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and similarly for the top of the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix article (for HP5). The redirects themselves have been reverted backwards and forwards between redirects and disambig pages, and this seems to be the best compromise. And I don't know how to create that for myself! -- Roleplayer (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The same is also needed at HP1 and HP2 (both of which redirect to Harry Potter topics). -- Roleplayer (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I notice that template Redirect2 allows a Redirect1 and Redirect2 to identify two incoming redirects to the same article, but doesn't allow a use field to point to a disambiguated article. I'm no expert, so could someone create a template that gives {{Redirect7|REDIRECT1|REDIRECT2|USE|PAGE}}, thus: "REDIRECT1" and "REDIRECT2" redirect here. For USE, see PAGE. In other words, on the article Leasehold estate, I would like a template that can give the wording "Tenant" and "Tenancy" redirect here. For the Roman Polanski movie, see The Tenant. Or am I missing something and another template could do this? Cheers, DWaterson (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


I see that the documentation provides an example of a {{Redirect5|REDIRECT|USE1|PAGE1|USE2|PAGE2}}, but Template:redirect5 is just a redirect to Template:redirect, which doesn’t support multiple uses. How would one produce: “REDIRECT redirects here. For USE1, see PAGE1. For USE2, see PAGE2”? (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I also have this question while adding a redirect message about Lambo in Lamborghini, telling users to find the Reborn! character Lambo please check Lambo (Reborn!), to find Anna Vissi's 14th album please check Lambo (Anna Vissi album), using {{Redirect5|Lambo|the Reborn! character|Lambo (Reborn!)|Anna Vissi's 14th album|Lambo (Anna Vissi album)}}. The result is the same as {{Redirect5|Lambo|the Reborn! character|Lambo (Reborn!)}}. Hope administrators can solve this crucial problem. --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional attributes[edit]


See the new sandbox. This version takes up to 7 parameters to cover additional "for ... see" pairs. This fixes some of the issues described in comments above, and should make no difference to existing deployments. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Class or ID for first parameter[edit]

For those who have a modified view of this template via modifications to personal /monobook.css skins, could somebody please put a class or an ID (I've heard ID is better) around the first parameter? I would really like to bold it in my skin, and yet nobody else will see it obligatorily. For more questions, feel free to leave me a message. Thanks! obentomusubi 10:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

IDs have to be unique, while hatnotes don't. It'd need to be a class, probably. Changing the first part of the sentence to read:
{{dablink|"<span class="target-page">{{{1}}}</span>" redirects here.
should work. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Simple redirect[edit]

I want to spotlight that Kitemark redirects to British standards, at the head of the latter article. This is necessary to explain the otherwise peculiar bolding of "kitemark" in the lead. None of the redirect templates seem to work in the way I want, which is simply to state:

Kitemark redirects here.

Anyone? --Dweller (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Try {{Redirect10|Kitemark}}. It's brand new :) Big Bird (talkcontribs) 18:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Splendid! I'll try it later. Many thanks --Dweller (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Grammar: change "..redirects here. For.." to "..redirects here; for.."[edit]

The form:

  • X redirects here. For other uses, see X (dis)

is problematic as it splits two concepts that belong in the same sentence. The period (.) is best used when separating concepts or breaking up run-on sentences, not to split short statements into terse expressions. The semicolon (;) serves the purpose of indicating a grammatical stop with a logical continuation, and would be a good solution:

  • X redirects here; for other uses, see X (dis)

Most will agree that the semicolon is more accurate. But I do agree with some people that they are ugly, and in particular in contexts like this where the text is prominent, short, and reproduced over hundreds thousands millions of articles. So maybe a semicolon is not the way to go. -Stevertigo 22:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: An emdash would be good sustitute for the semicolon, as its used the same way, but most current typewriters don't have them, and the usage of two dashes (--) is ugly. I forgot the coding for that though: %emdash; $m-dash: <&m-dash>.. Erm:

  • X redirects here --for other uses, see X (dis) -SV

Interwiki to Persian wikipedia[edit]

{{editprotected}} I have appended this editprotected notice to the following old transwiki request. TheGrappler (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[[fa:الگو:تغییر مسیر]]

Thank you. --Wayiran (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Done However, interwiki links for templates should go on the documentation subpage (found at Template:Name/doc). I've added this one. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this in Category:Exclude in print?[edit]

This template clearly shouldn't be printed on offline works, bearing in mind Help:Books/for experts#Improving the book layout. But I can't see any sign that this category has been put into the category for exclusion. On the other hand, from viewing the source, I can't see that Template:Dablink has been excluded either, although according to Category talk:Exclude in print it already has been. In fact, I presume all the templates listed at Template:Other uses templates should be excluded from printing in PDFs. Has this been implemented? TheGrappler (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact a fuller list of categories that should be excluded is Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates. TheGrappler (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

New functionality, "and"[edit]

{{edit protected}}

I've added new functionality to {{redirect/sandbox}}, so that:


Instead of:


I don't see why anyone would actually want it to say "For and, see ...", so this shouldn't conflict with any previously intended uses.

The reason for the change is to allow the functionality of {{redirect5}} and the logical extension of those into this main {{redirect}} template. It is equivalent to the functionality I recently added to {{about}}. In fact I hoped that I could just use {{about}} in this so that I wouldn't have to copy. I tried that here, but it didn't exactly work, because of the nested {{dablink}} templates.

This is adapted from the new {{about}}, so it's a pretty big rewrite, I have tested all the documented functionality at Template:redirect/testcases and it produces the same result. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I think the original intent was to list 2 alternate (major) uses, each tied to a different link:
There must be 20,000 more articles that need the original functionality: "For 2nd major use, see 2nd topic, For other uses, see disambiguation". It is such an obvious way to direct readers to both the 2nd major article, plus linking disambiguation. How many of the current 15,000 articles, already using {{redirect}}, use the parameters in that style, having Use2 and Use3 (as disambiguation)? Why not have a new template called "{redirect-and}" for the case of PAGE2-and-PAGE3? See below, that the original articles would still appear the same as they have before. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:56 (revised), 6 November 2009
Hi Wikid77, I agree that that was the original use. This is an extension of the functionality. To be honest, I don't know the numbers or how to get them easily, this seemed to come up quite a bit with {{about}} so I made the addition there, I noticed that {{redirect5}} also used this functionality, so I thought maybe it would make sense to have it in {{redirect}} as well. But if it isn't useful enough, I suppose there's no reason to add it. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Wait, I didn't realize the new version handles both the old and new style (allowing "and"), so you have a great improvement to the template, as in the following examples:
· "Lonestar" redirects here. For films, see Lonestar (film) and Lonestar (2010 film).
· "PC" redirects here. For other uses, see PC Magazine and PC (disambiguation).
· "Star Trek" redirects here. For the TV show, see Star Trek (TV series). For the 2009 film, see Star Trek (2009 film).
· "Star Trek" redirects here. For video, see Star Trek (TV series) and Star Trek (2009 film).
Note how the new option (using "and") produces a shorter hatnote than the original style of putting 2 uses as Use2 and Use3. So, it is a very useful addition to Template:redirect, without disrupting the current usage in those 15,000 articles. I concur with the proposed change. -11:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikid77 (talkcontribs)
Ahhh, yes, this is added functionality, all old-style uses still work except if someone actually wanted it to say:
"Foobar" redirects here. For the army acronym, see FUBAR. For and, see Foobar (and).
I don't think that anyone will ever want to use "For and, see ...", so this should work for both new and old. That's why I created the testcases as well, to make sure old uses remained valid. Glad you like the addition. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 Done. Let's give it a go. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


You seem to have inadvertently added a newline in before the <noinclude>. Since this isn't really a wiki anymore, only you admins can fix such issues — please do so. ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oops, my bad, editprotected please. — sligocki (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 DoneTheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Redirects and redirects[edit]

For new users looking in vain for a template by which pages can be redirected (and who are therefore unfamiliar with #REDIRECT etc), we may want to include a hatnote referring to WP:Redirect. Cavila (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, something like:
could be added to the beginning of this page. What do you think? Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
(I probably forgot to watchlist this page) Thanks, that disclaimer should definitely do the trick, but as the page is protected I cannot add it myself. Anyone? Cavila (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

added functionality request[edit]

At List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos I've had to use two instances of the {{redirect}} template as there doesn't seem to be any template that allows:

REDIRECT 1 and REDIRECT 2 redirect here, for other uses see PAGE1 and PAGE2

It would seem a logical fit to add this to {{redirect2}} with the syntax


Putting text in the third parameter should use that text instead of "other uses", e.g.


should give:

REDIRECT1 and REDIRECT2 redirect here, for foo see PAGE1 and PAGE2.

I'm asking here as this page appears watched and template talk:Redirect2 doesn't exist. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be working, though the {{redirect2}} documentation is empty. I'm not sure if I should be using this template. My case:

{{Redirect2|Martin Aircraft|Glenn Martin|the current New Zealand Martin Aircraft Company and its Jetpack|Martin Jetpack}} gives

[from template, now, should be same as below]

"Martin Aircraft" and "Glenn Martin" redirect here. For the current New Zealand Martin Aircraft Company and its Jetpack, see Martin Jetpack. [text displayed on 12 Nov 15]

Pol098 (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I added documentation for {{redirect2}}. Thanks for pointing this out. The documentation was moved to Wikipedia:Hatnote § Hatnote templates in August, so was a bit hard to find. I see you got some help with the hatnote on Glenn L. Martin Company. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


{{Edit protected}} The smart quotes (“”) seriously need to be reverted back to dumb quotes ("") in this template. Dumb quotes are used universally on Wikipedia, and the inconsistency manifest here is painful. — the Man in Question (in question) 17:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:PUNC clearly recommends straight. DMacks (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This also goes for Template:Redirect4. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:PUNC does seem to agree - too bad, I like the typographical better. Added Edit protected. — sligocki (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, per WP:PUNC, that straight quotes should be used in favor of curly quotes. MC10 (TCGBL) 04:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 Done --CapitalR (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Suggest {{Other uses of}}, {{For3}}, {{Redirect6}} also be changed back for consistency. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Validate redirect exists[edit]

I would like to see this template validate that the redirect page still exists. Something along the lines of adding the following to the beginning of this template:

{{#ifexist:{{{1}}}||[[Category:Missing redirects]]}}

--Pascal666 23:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Could you create the category (maybe make it hidden). And when you're done and if you want this removed, please let me know. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, but I would like to add an exception for documentation. Please change to:
{{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|REDIRECT||{{#ifexist:{{{1}}}||[[Category:Missing redirects]]}}}}
Thank you. --Pascal666 18:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Martin, could you possibly do the same thing for Template:Redirect-acronym, Template:Redirect2, Template:Redirect3, Template:Redirect4, Template:Redirect6, and Template:Redirect10? For {{Redirect2}} and {{Redirect4}}, both the first and second parameters need validation; for {{Redirect10}}, the first three. Thanks in advance. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, I figured out how to do it myself. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


I noticed two issues that appear to be related to this change:

  1. if you add the redirect template before actually creating the redirect, then the article will be added to hidden category "Missing redirects". It will remain in that category even if you subsequently create the redirect. If you notice this situation, then removing the article from "Missing redirects" is a simple matter of saving the article again once the redirect exists. I expect that this is working as designed.
  2. if you look at "What links here" for the article, then you see what appears to be a self redirect from the article back to the redirect page and so back to itself. For example, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Thomas_Edwin_Kitchen. Removing the use of the redirect template makes the apparent self redirect go away.

I am concerned about the potential for confusion as a result of the second issue. Is it possible to not store the self redirect from the template when the article is saved? --Big_iron (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This was also noticed at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Self-redirects – how to find one. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This template is broken[edit]

As from the start of Wikipedia, this template is broken. When trying to link to a page which redirects to a section, it doesn't go to the right section.

For example (the first one I could find): a link like History of psychometrics sometimes redirects to the page History_of_psychometrics and sometimes (not in this case though) to the page History_of_psychometrics#Origins_and_background instead of redirecting to the correct page of Psychometrics#Origins_and_background. Notice, that those links are the ones shown in the Adress Bar of the browser, because when clicking on the links, only the first link (History of psychometrics) has a broken redirect.

When clicking on History of psychometrics, the correct section is not shown, however when clicking on the link (Redirected from History of psychometrics) above the article, it'll go to the redirect page itself, where the link is correct. Isn't it possible to fix this bug, so that pages linked to redirect pages work as they should?

Of course, what's currently the case is that people just create a link to History of psychometrics or [[Psychometrics#Origins_and_background|History of psychometrics]]. This is a workaround, but a lot more work for editors, especially when you try to edit every one of the incorrect links to sections. And yes, it is not that hard to scroll down a page, but that is not what was intended when creating a redirect like this. Any light or other's opinions on the subject would be great. (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

They don't seem to work if you are using the firefox addon NoScript or have javascript disabled in your browser. A better place to ask about it is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) which is watched by more people than this template is. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the info. I wondered why this happened. Knowing the problem, fixing it isn't that hard. (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

no {{{1}}} specified[edit]

Maybe we can change the {{{1}}} to

{{#if: {{{1|}}} | {{{1}}} | {{ucfirst:{{PAGETITLE}} }}

? -- (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Single template[edit]

When I want to consolidate multiple hatnotes, I can never seem to find just the one I want. (Some examples: History of the world, Combustion, Habitable zone, Humour, Mail, Nature, Sunlight.) It would be most excellent if there were a single template with multiple options that covered 95% of the cases. For example:

   | serial-comma = yes | no
   | font-size = normal | smaller
   | about-use1 = 
   | other-use1 = 
   | about-use2 = 
   | other-use2 = 
   | about-use3 = 
   | other-use3 = 
   | redirect-name1 =
   | redirect-distinguish1 = 
   | redirect-other1 = 
   | redirect-name2 = 
   | redirect-distinguish2 = 
   | redirect-other2 = 
   | redirect-name3 =
   | redirect-distinguish2 = 
   | redirect-other3 = 
   | append_text = 
This article is about "about-use1", "about-use2" and "about-use3". For other uses, see "other-use1", "other-use2" or "other-use3". "Redirect-name1", "redirect-name2" and "redirect-name3" redirect here. They should not be confused with redirect-distinguish1, redirect-distinguish2 or redirect-distinguish3. For other uses, see "redirect-other1", "redirect-other2" and "redirect-other3". append_text

Existing templates can be reformulated using above, where possible. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Smart hatnote?[edit]

Is it possible to have a note display only if the page was loaded via a particular redirect? This would be quite useful if you have several redirects to one article.--Taylornate (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Missing redirects[edit]

Redirects would be inappropriate for many of the pages in this category - drafts, fake articles on user pages, and discussions on talk pages. The category would be more useful if the templates only added this for pages where redirect hatnotes are likely to be needed - articles, and possibly pages in the Wikipedia and Help namespaces. Peter E. James (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Using "or" instead of "and"[edit]

Hi all - just added a redirect hatnote to Colletotrichum coccodes of the form {{Redirect|REDIRECT|USE1|PAGE1|and|PAGE2}} which would really have been better if I could have used "or" rather than "and". Is there an easy way of twitching the coding slightly to achieve this, assuming it's not currently possible? Grutness...wha? 07:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's possible, but it'll require significant work (altering the existing #ifeq statements to be #switch statements). This will need to be implemented in the sandbox and thoroughly tested: disabling editprotected for now. I'll try to work on this myself in the near future: ping me if I forget. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. If it's a big job and a rare event that this sort of need arises, then it can probably be handled easily enough by substing and changing the word rather than going to a big fuss over it. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Categorising user pages[edit]

Per WP:USERNOCAT, I'd like to prevent this template automatically adding non-mainspace pages to Category:Missing redirects by modifying the clause:

{{#switch:{{{1<noinclude>|REDIRECT</noinclude>}}}|REDIRECT|REDIRECT1|REDIRECT2|REDIRECT3|TERM = | #default = {{#ifexist:{{{1}}}||[[Category:Missing redirects]]}}}}

to read

{{#switch:{{{1<noinclude>|REDIRECT</noinclude>}}}|REDIRECT|REDIRECT1|REDIRECT2|REDIRECT3|TERM = | #default = {{#ifexist:{{{1}}}||{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||[[Category:Missing redirects]]}}}}}}

- TB (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. NE Ent 16:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Support. I updated Template:Redirect/sandbox with the proposed edit and it tested fine. The test is to see if the {{NAMESPACE}} variable is blank (which it is for article/main space). All other namespaces have names, such as Talk, Template, Category and User. Category:Missing redirects is cluttered with user pages, if we really want to categorize these, we should create a new category for them. – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
There are special templates for varying category according to namespace - see {{main other}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
@Redrose64: OK, I updated the sandbox to use {{main other}} and it tests fine just as the previous version did. Can we go with that? Wbm1058 (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
@Redrose64: There are several other templates that populate Category:Missing redirects. See #Validate redirect exists above. Most I was able to do myself, as they're just semi-protected or unprotected, but I still need help with one that's under full protection, at Template talk:Redirect6. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


Since the software now adds (Redirected from xxxx) automatically if a redirect has been followed, it seems redundant to use this template -- wouldn't be simpler just to use hatnote? NE Ent 16:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

X and Y redirect here, for Z see A and B[edit]

As far as I can tell there is no way to get a hatnote template (other than {{dablink}}) to give a hatnote like this:

"X" and "Y" redirect here, for Z see A and B"

It would seem most logical to fit with {{redirect2}}, e.g.


To use a real example, the first hatnote at Caribbean should be

{{redirect2|West Indies|West Indian|other uses|West India|and|West Indies (disambiguation)}} → "West Indies" and "West Indian" redirect here, for other uses see West India and West Indies (disambiguation).

It currently though gives:

Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Categorize pages where the claimed redirect is an article[edit]

Please comment this diff. The category should be renamed to something else. Feel free to change it. English isnt my native language...Christian75 (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

New version: diff It uses module:redirect to confirm that the claimed redirect, acutally is a redirect to the correct page. I will make an edit request in a few days. Any comments? Christian75 (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Please update from sandbox Christian75 (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. The only error you're not detecting is if someone accidentally puts the first parameter equal to the current page, because then {{#invoke:redirect|main|{{{1}}}}} will also equal the current page. I don't know if that's worth a separate check. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I dont think it will, because the current page isnt a redirect. If some write {{redirect|test}} on the page test, it will also be categorized as "missing redirects". Christian75 (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't think so - suggest you try it! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
It does. The module checks if the page contains #redirect: local redirect = mw.ustring.match(rpage:getContent() or "", "^%s*#[Rr][Ee][Dd][Ii][Rr][Ee][Cc][Tt]%s*:?%s*%[%[([^%[%]]-)%]%]" ) Christian75 (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Christian75, Martin wasn't suggesting that they would use "redirect" as a pagename... What he was saying is, what happens when Technical-13 decides to put {{Redirect|Last}} on Last because then {{#invoke:redirect|main|Last}} will also equal Last? Technical 13 (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Technical 13, My mistake. I thought the module checked that the page was a redirect, but as you say, if it isnt a redirect, it "returns the original text". I dont know if it should be checked, because its easy to see the mistake because its on the same page. Its a shame the module doens return an error... Christian75 (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: What if someone sets the first parameter to a pagename with a colon prefix? Say :Sandbox, will the template puke? Technical 13 (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
It shouldn't -
  • {{#ifeq:{{#invoke:redirect|main|Sandbox}}|{{PAGENAME}}|redirect correct|Missing redirects}} → Missing redirects
  • {{#ifeq:{{#invoke:redirect|main|:Sandbox}}|{{PAGENAME}}|redirect correct|Missing redirects}} → Missing redirects
--Redrose64 (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to check as I know there are some templates/modules that don't handle this very well. Technical 13 (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
No it will not puke, because ":title" is a valid page name for the page named title. The module request the page content by calling its title. But it looks strange if someone writes {{redirect|:sandbox|xyz}}, which gives:
   ":sandbox" redirects here. For xyz, see sandbox (disambiguation)."
compared to:
   "sandbox" redirects here. For xyz, see sandbox (disambiguation)."
Christian75 (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Template not working on iphone[edit]

This template does not seem to work properly in mobile view on the iphone. The usual text is displayed without the link, showing a space before the final full stop. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Please give examples of pages where this problem may be seen. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no problem on desktop view, logged in or out.
The problem is the same using mobile view, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxin whether on a desktop or iPhone
See images:
when logged in, the hatnote doesn't show the link to the disambiguation page
when not logged in, the hatnote does show the link to the disambiguation page
I think I've noticed this for some time, but I'm not very sure. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The two hatnotes are produced by the Wiki markup
{{about|the class of poisonous substances}}
{{confuse|Toxin (alternative medicine)}}
which after template expansion yields
<div class="dablink">This article is about the class of poisonous substances.&#32;&#32;For other uses, see [[Toxin (disambiguation)]].</div>
<div class="dablink">Not to be confused with [[:Toxin (alternative medicine)]].</div>
so there is essentially no difference between the two. In the HTML for the page as served when logged out, the link to Toxin (alternative medicine) has class="mw-redirect" whereas the link to Toxin (disambiguation) does not - but this is because Toxin (alternative medicine) is a redirect and Toxin (disambiguation) isn't. Otherwise, the two hatnotes have essentially the same HTML.
I think we need a mobile.css expert here. I'll call out for one. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I do see the link when logged in (using Chrome). I also cannot find any CSS linked to .mw-redirect. There may be a user script in play that changes the appearence of a redirect link (such as LinkClassifier,) that does not play nice with Mobile. Edokter (talk) — 14:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I also see the link while logged in on my iPhone using Safari. Edokter might be on to something - try disabling your scripts and the beta features and see if the link reappears. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This is:

/* Remove this when mobile page creation goes out of beta */
.stub {
    display: none;

I have removed this fragment, and after some time, the link should be visible again. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Confusing word REDIRECT in examples[edit]

Hello, since you make a redirect by putting the word 'redirect' in capital letters (#REDIRECT [[....]] ), it was a little confusing to me that the same happened in the examples with a different meaning:

{{Redirect|REDIRECT||PAGE1}} → "REDIRECT" redirects here. For other uses, see PAGE1.

Apparently "REDIRECT" stands for the referring page, you can put in this field what you want. This also means: the word 'redirect' several times after another with a different meaning. And it was confusing to imagine a link to the page 'Redirect'.

The redirecting page is usually the keyword which the user typed, so I propose to change the example in:

{{Redirect|KEYWORD||PAGE1}} → "KEYWORD" redirects here. For other uses, see PAGE1.

Bever (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Two redirects, two slightly different dabs[edit]

I could not find a way to do this hatnote (at San Francisco 49ers) with a template:

"49ers" and "Niners" redirect here. For other uses, see 49er and Niner.

Note that the redirects are plurals, but the dabs use the singular.

I realise that we could use Redirect4 as follows, {{redirect4|49ers|Niners}} and create a new redirect from Niners (disambiguation), but this does not allow the concise display shown above. – Fayenatic London 17:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

  • {{Redirect4|49ers|Niners|other uses|[[49er (disambiguation)|49er]] and [[Niner (disambiguation)|Niner]]}} is how you do it. {{Redirect4|49ers|Niners|other uses|[[49er (disambiguation)|49er]] and [[Niner (disambiguation)|Niner]]}}{{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 19:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Problem with redirect in Origami[edit]

At the top of Origami there is this template

{{redirect|Paper folding|other uses|Paper folding (disambiguation)|other uses of Origami|Origami (disambiguation)}}

which gives this result

"Paper folding" redirects here. For other uses, see Paper folding (disambiguation).

completely ignoring the last two parameters. I'll include the actual line here for show in case it starts working!

And ideas what's wrong? Dmcq (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Playing around it seems that saying 'other uses' as the second parameter is causing the problem. I see no reason for specially noting those words in that way and people are practically encouraged to use the words. I'll put in some other words into the article as a work around but it probably worked in the past otherwise it wouldn't be there. Dmcq (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Definitely a bug in module:Redirect hatnote. I'll post it there. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Pages shouldn't transclude themselves[edit]

According to this list, Bogie transcludes itself via the redirect Bogi; this seems to be connected with {{Redirect|Bogi|the Hungarian singer|Bogi (singer)}}. Why would a page transclude itself - surely that's an Ouroboros? It seems inefficient and I can't see why it is necessary. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm observing this too, and it can be very confusing! I think it may be caused by Module:Redirect calling getContent() to check whether the page is a redirect. Certes (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Redirect template with more than one use[edit]

Not sure how widely this is spread – I have found that the only way to get this to work:


...is to use only one word in "USE1". If two words are used, for example "other uses", then the last part is chopped off. Example:

{{Redirect|Fishtank|more|Fishtank (disambiguation)|other uses of "Aquarium"|Aquarium (disambiguation)}}


and yet:

{{Redirect|Fishtank|other uses|Fishtank (disambiguation)|other uses of "Aquarium"|Aquarium (disambiguation)}}


So it seems that more than one word in the 2nd parameter breaks the template? – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 20:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this is considered breaking; I think "other uses" is a reserved parameter. Have you tried any of the other variations under § "… redirects here. For other uses, see …"? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be correct in that more than one word will work (as long as the words aren't "other uses"):
{{Redirect|Fishtank|more words|Fishtank (disambiguation)|other uses of "Aquarium"|Aquarium (disambiguation)}}
and yet, isn't "other uses" the preferred wording? When "other uses" is used in the second parameter, the last half of the coded info, |other uses of "Aquarium"|Aquarium (disambiguation), is lost as shown above. So, in other words, when the preferred wording, "other uses", is in the second param, that breaks the template. It didn't break it before it was made a Lua module. I still think something is wrong. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 22:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I actually brought this up last year, see Module talk:Redirect hatnote#Bug with "other uses". -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Examples are cryptic[edit]

I find the examples cryptic. REDIRECT redirects to redirect? Somebody please improve them. Somebody else above made the same comment a year ago, but nothing was done. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Information icon Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe a documentation page needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any documentation page by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, duh, if the editor is confused, they may be unsure of how to fix it. So, what I hear is that perhaps a real-world example might be helpful here. There are five redirects to this template. Maybe we could use one of them as the example?

— Hmm, Header is the one most different from Redirect. Not to be confused with WP:HEADER. Would that make a good example? Wbm1058 (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Wbm1058, one of us is misreading the request. I read it as the examples show on the documentation in Template:Redirect/doc#Examples needs to be changed so that {{tlx|Redirect|Foo}} → {{Redirect|Foo}} is used instead of {{tlx|Redirect|REDIRECT}} → {{Redirect|REDIRECT}} and all they have to do is edit that section of the documentation to fix it. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 18:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I see in the section #Confusing word REDIRECT in examples above that the suggestion was to use "KEYWORD". I'm not sure that "Foo" is obvious to non-tech types. Perhaps change REDIRECT to KEYWORD or "ALTERNATE TITLE", and then follow that with a working specific example. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You may be correct about foo, but since we are both technical types, I'm not sure we can come up with the 'right' word (keyword is a technical term used in databases and on IRC for example and may confuse non-techies) which is why I suggested they edit the documentation to something that is clear to them since the doc is not proptected (unlike the template which has PINKLOCK). — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 19:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Rename into "From redirect"?[edit]

What a confusing name. Shall I (formally) propose to chantge it into "From redirect"? -DePiep (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that would clear up any confusion. Maybe "{{Redirects}}" or "{{Redirects here}}" would be better? wbm1058 (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
282 transclusions of {{Redirects here}} and 348 transclusions of {{Redirects}} – so the latter is a bit more popular. wbm1058 (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Then let's do that. -DePiep (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Standardizing for-see lists[edit]

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Standardizing for-see lists about standardizing and centralizing the code that generates lists of "For X, see Y" items in hatnotes. The discussion may affect this page, but is located there as it's relevant to others as well. Please comment there if interested. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It's way too long. I couldn't be arsed. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Error: could not parse redirect on page "X"[edit]

Using template:redirect (target wikipedia: et:mall:suunamine) and having error: "Lua tõrge kohal Moodul:Redirect 58. real: could not parse redirect on page "Rosa" [roughly in English: "Lua's error on Modul:Redirect 58. real: could not parse redirect on page "Rosa""]. Any suggestion about this error?--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Not italic nor hatnote[edit]

I imported Module:String, Module:Redirect hatnote, etc. on another wiki, but the text is not italic type, nor is it a hatnote.

E.g., instead of this:

it is displayed like this:
"EXAMPLE1" redirects here. For EXAMPLE2, see EXAMPLE3. This means that I have to use the following code in the template:

<includeonly>:''{{#invoke:redirect hatnote|redirect|1}}''</includeonly>

The same goes for {{for}}, {{about}}, {{distinguish}}, etc.

What is the reason as to why this occurs? Is there any way to fix this? Thanks in advance!
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 02:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This template produces text has the class "hatnote" applied to it. The MediaWiki:Common.css file for the English Wikipedia contains styling for "hatnote" that produce the italics, etc. You'll need to add the following to the MediaWiki:Common.css file for the other wiki to get the same effects there:
/* Hatnotes and disambiguation notices */
.hatnote {
    font-style: italic;
.hatnote i {
    font-style: normal;
div.hatnote {
    /* @noflip */
    padding-left: 1.6em;
    margin-bottom: 0.5em;
div.hatnote + div.hatnote {
    margin-top: -0.5em;
Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@PapiDimmi: sorry this reply is rather late. I only just noticed your question. --RexxS (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Targeting the message[edit]

I happened to be looking up the Chicago Cubs on my phone, and was surprised when the first thing I read about was how the Dayton Dragons used to have a team name that is a nickname for the Chicago Cubs (Cubbies). It seemed a rather minute bit of trivia to be the very first piece of information on the article.

The notice of course has a worthy purpose of helping people who have arrived at the wrong article, which necessitates it having a prominent position. Unfortunately, for most visitors, it presents information that Wikipedia would otherwise reserve for the details of the article, or in the case of the Dayton team, on a different article altogether.

The existing formatting helps mitigate the effect. On the desktop, indentation and italics help, allowing the eye to be drawn to the bold text in the first sentence of the article. A phone doesn't benefit from this, however, for articles with sizable info boxes. All that is displayed is the redirect notice and the top portion of the info box. Without the first sentence line not displayed, the redirect notice looks a lot more like an article's first sentence, especially to a new user. On the phone rendering for Chicago Cubs, the Dayton Dragons link is one of the most prominent features - a contrasting color in a prominent position.

I don't know what the best solution is, but I thought I'd throw my observation as an opportunity for improvement which the community can discuss. One idea that comes to mind is a collapsible redirect info box that is expanded or collapsed by default depending on the link through which the visitor arrived. I'm curios what people come up with. --Ed Brey (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

To Ed Brey: yours is an interesting take, and thank you very much for it! Many Wikipedians are hard at work looking for answers to accessibility challenges like this one. Perhaps if you were to leave a notice about this discussion on the talk page of that guideline, or move the discussion about this over there, you would reach more people who can help with this issue.  Paine  u/c 17:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ed Brey: without knowing what OS and screen size you're using, I can only make a guess at what you're seeing on your phone. Mobile view displays italics for hatnotes in the same way as desktop view does, and even tints them in a lighter coloured text (#72777d), which the desktop does not. Obviously it's important for someone searching for "cubbies" and expecting to find the "Rockford Cubbies" to be redirected to the current team's name, Dayton Dragons, so I agree there isn't really anywhere else to put a hatnote than near the top of a page. It would seem to me that there are two ways that you might arrive at a Wikipedia page from a search term like "cubbies" - either from the internal search box (presumably via a redirect), or from a search engine like Google. Unfortunately the editing interface doesn't have direct access to the 'Referer' as far as I am aware, so I think that anything which relied on knowing where the visitor arrived from would need to be implemented in the MediaWiki software. You'll need to raise a WP:Phabricator ticket for that. --RexxS (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@RexxS: I used an iPhone 6s, although the info box is big enough that I expect you'd see the same effect on any phone-sized device. The user experience for someone searching for "cubbies" is excellent: The page displays the text "(Redirected from Cubbies)" between the article title and body, and the "'Cubbies' redirects here. For the minor league..." hatnote is relevant. Unfortunately, this wonderful experience is observed by only a tiny fraction of people who land on the Chicago Cubs page. In my case, I searched explicitly for "Chicago Cubs", which is why the Cubbies hatnote seemed especially out of place. You make a good point that there doesn't seem to be a way for the body of a page to react to the redirect path. I think we should first decide what we would do with the template if we had that capability. That plan would serve as the justification for the request to add support for querying the redirect path. --Ed Brey (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ed Brey: I don't think that the ratio of {page views via the page title} to {page views via a redirect} is a meaningful statistic. Although only about 50 views per month occur via the "cubbies" redirect, we don't know how many of those were searching for the Chicago Cubs and how many for the Rockford Cubbies, nor do we know how representative those numbers would be of redirects in general. Once we accept that disambiguation may be needed for a redirect such as "cubbies", the current policy is to perform that through a hatnote if only two articles are involved and one is the "main" article. One possibility would be to insist on a disambiguation page for those cases when viewed on a mobile device, but that might run counter to the paradigm of delivery to mobile devices, which emphasises minimising the amount of data sent. --RexxS (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@RexxS: For the entire span for which there is data, Rockford Cubbies had very few visits compared with Chicago Cubs. Very few Chicago Cubs visitors come from "cubbies", and only a fraction of that fraction ended up making their way to Rockford Cubbies. Arguably, the disparity is so great that Chicago Cubs shouldn't use this Redirect template at all, but that's a matter for discussion on Chicago Cubs, not here. Moreover, one of the factors in such a decision should be how intrusive an undesired redirect hatnote ends up being.
What to do for a search for or link to "cubbies" isn't my focus here, though. The main opportunity for improvement is improving the experience for when the search is explicitly "Chicago Cubs". That's the case that makes Wikipedia feel a little awkward. Here is what I believe runs through the mind of many visitors, even if at a subconscious level: "What's this business about Rockford? It's not even a major league team, much less in the World Series. I googled Chicago Cubs, nothing about Rockford." --Ed Brey (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ed Brey: But surely we're looking for a solution to the problem that arises when search term "abc" could refer to "Article X" or "Article Y", not just "cubbies"/"Chicago Cubs"/"Rockford Cubbies"? If an Australian looks for "Perth" on a Generic (WVGA) mobile phone he arrives at Perth, a page that starts with a three line message about a city on the other side of the world, and is told he shouldn't be confusing it with a suburb. However, that's necessary because if a Scotsman performs the same search, we can't leave him reading an article about the capital of Western Australia without any way of finding the city he was looking for (which Wikipedia calls Perth, Scotland - the Scotsman already knows Perth is in Scotland). It's irrelevant that Perth gets 2,100 daily page views and Perth, Scotland gets 450. The only question is how to balance the impact of unwanted hatnote to the Australian against the consequences of not clearly disambiguating "Perth" for the Scotsman. Similarly, why shouldn't your concern also be for the resident of Rockford, Illinois who wants to find out how his old team, the "Cubbies" is doing? Has he even heard of the Chicago Cubs being called "Cubbies"? We shouldn't deny him the link to the team he was looking for.
When you think about it, there isn't a technical solution, because both the Scotsman and the Australian searched for "Perth", both the Chicagoan and and the Rockfordian searched for "Cubbies". We simply have no way of knowing which of "Article X" or "Article Y" a searcher had in mind when they searched for "abc". And if we suppress the hatnote for the person who searches for "Chicago Cubs" (the article title), rather than a redirect, that still doesn't help the Scotsman if we suppress the hatnote after a search for "Perth" (because that is the article title). Aren't we better off accepting the Western Australian having the subconscious thought, "What's this business about Scotland? It's the other side of the world and I googled Perth, our capital", than leaving the Scotsman frustrated at searching for the city he lives in, but not having a way to reach Perth, Scotland from "Perth"? --RexxS (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

To help clarify the discussion, here are three scenarios that have been raised. I've included my opinion based on the feedback of how we might handle each. Looking forward to others' thoughts.

  • Search for unambiguous primary topic, e.g. "Chicago Cubs": no hatnote is required; the reader is known to be on the right article.
  • Search for ambiguous primary topic, e.g. "Perth": hatnote is required; the reader may have wanted the other Perth.
  • Search for ambiguous non-primary topic, e.g. "cubbies": hatnote is required; the reader may have wanted the other "cubbies". The "cubbies" example has the additional wrinkle of heavy demographic propensity toward the primary article, but the hatnote still benefits the minority users, and would be feel reasonable acceptable to majority users since they searched on a nickname, not the primary topic name.

--Ed Brey (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Hatnotes are cheap - I edited this essay to further address human cost and responsibility of prominence. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Barack (disambiguation) OR Obama (disambiguation)[edit]

I would like to be able to say "for other uses see Barack (disambiguation) OR Obama (disambiguation)" rather than "and", since no-one is going to be looking for both these pages at once. Siuenti (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

If I need to be more specific, at the moment {{Redirect2|X|Y|other uses|X (disambiguation)|and|Y (disambiguation)}} generates

but if I change "and" to "or" I get

I want "or" to be given the same treatment as "and". Siuenti (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Curly quotation marks[edit]

I think that straight quotation marks (") look absolutely awful in italic type, which is why I’m proposing the use of curly quotation marks (“…”) in this template.
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 06:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Cabayi (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I don’t understand what you mean. I did describe the reasoning for this edit proposition.
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 09:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't ask for your reasoning, I asked for a consensus. It's hard to put it more simply than "please establish a consensus for this alteration".
The template is protected to prevent changes which will be reverted almost immediately - after all you're asking for an edit which will affect 31000+ pages. The reasoning "I think that straight quotation marks (") look absolutely awful in italic type" could be summarised as my personal aesthetic whim. Once you've discussed the change more widely, when you've established a consensus for this alteration, and it's a community aesthetic rather than just your own, feel free to reactivate the request. So long as it's your aesthetic and nobody else's the change is not going to happen. Cabayi (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I don’t understand what you mean by “establish a consensus.” What are you actually asking for?
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 10:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I linked every use of consensus - do you want someone to come visit and click on the link for you? Cabayi (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I wish you could stop acting pretentiously and answer my question. I have give a reason for my proposed edit. What else should I do?

As far as I can tell, consensus refers to editors coming to an agreement to make an edit on a page. I’ve given a reason for my proposed edit, and I’m talking about it on this very talk page, so what else do you want me to do?
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Much as I wish you'd stop being so obtuse. You've raised the issue. If folks agree they'll pile on and approve, or they'll disagree and oppose. Most likely they'll think it's too trivial for their attention.
If this page were part of a project you could (impartially) solicit contributions from the project's talk page. In this case WP:VPR may be the place to go.
Having taken a peek at your talk page history and seen the number of prolonged arguments you've had over trivial punctuation preferences I'd advise you to let the matter drop. Cabayi (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I can’t understand something that isn’t even explained. Consensus refers to coming into agreement, and I wasn’t sure how I’m supposed to provide… that to you.
I might check out WP:VPR. Thank you so much for your redundant comments that highlight your obvious superior intelligence. You seem like such a friendly person who goes out of his or her way to bring attention to things that are completely irrelevant to this topic, just to put me in a bad light.
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Why does the template automatically add "for other uses... see disambiguation"?[edit]

That additional function should be optional, not the only available thing.

Cause there aren't always "other uses" and therefore in those cases there is no disambiguation page that exists. Yet this template automatically forces me to create a dead disambig link hatnote at the top of articles. --Loginnigol 13:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Loginnigol: If there are no other uses, then the hatnote should be removed, as there is no need for disambiguation. It only adds "other uses" if you don't specify at least one other use in the template parameters.
Why did you revert your proposal for Omkara? wbm1058 (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
You said The redirected page has no reference to this word and thus no connection, but in the article Om I see:
"The syllable is also referred to as omkara (ओंकार, oṃkāra), aumkara (औंकार, auṃkāra), and pranava (प्रणव, praṇava)." – wbm1058 (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)