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.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose - It describes the concept of a redirect, making plurality a non-necessity. The encyclopedia has many hatnotes and links, yet their respective guidance pages both reside at the singular title. The guideline concerning soft redirects is also singular. This seems to be the move common format. Guidance on navigation templates resides at a plural title, but it is in the minority (furthermore: it is an "unofficial guidance essay" while the former and the latter that I mentioned above this are editing guidelines, with the middle one being a help page).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Don't fix what ain't broken. --QEDK (T☕C) 21:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, since the page is about the concept, and we have many projectpages like this, e.g. Help:Table, etc. Note, however, that WP:PLURAL does not apply here, and only pertains to mainspace. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
WP:RSECT says that we should put a "linked from" comment in the targets of redirects. This is quite reasonable when linking to section title because section titles often change. But is the comment really necessary when the target is an anchor? The whole idea of the comment is so that editors don't change the name. The whole idea of anchors is that the name never changes. Surely an unchanging anchor cancels the need for piles and piles of comments in articles about incoming links. Stepho talk 07:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Redirects with specific disambiguation errors
Proposal regarding deletion of page move redirects
An editor (me) has opened a discussion on modifying the criterion for deletion of implausible error redirects as it pertains to redirects from page moves. If you would like to comment on the proposal, please see the discussion. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: In this edit, you commented out the link to Rdcheck. The link works fine, though it requires acknowledgement that you're leaving the WikiMedia Realm. It redirects right to the updated Rdcheck tool. Is there another reason for hiding the link? — Gorthian (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Gorthian. I have tried so many tools: links and the redirects, that are broken. I have updated this from the old tools: pointing to the long dead toolserver to the direct toollabs:. — billinghurstsDrewth 05:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, good, thank you. I didn't know how to make that link. — Gorthian (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)