Wikipedia talk:Redirect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
the Wikipedia Help Project  
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 ???  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This page has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Redirect (Rated Project-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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 


Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2016[edit]

The "Page mover" right has been created. Can you please replace the following sentence: Currently these groups are administrators, bots and global rollbackers. with this one: Currently these groups are administrators, bots, page movers, and global rollbackers. under the "Suppressing redirects" section? Note the addition of the serial comma before "and". 63.251.215.25 (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Mlpearc (open channel) 17:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate "redirect"?: "ArkivMusic.com" goes to "Steinway Musical Instruments"[edit]

Although ArkivMusic may be a subsidiary of Steinway Musical Instruments (or, may not be: see Paulson & Co.), it seems to me that whatever benefits this redirect has are negated by the confusion it creates when two lines appear in the drop-down list, regardless of who owns whom. (By the way, I hope that this very specific question is appropriate here. If not, please tell me where to pose it. Thanks CWBoast (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC))

@CWBoast: this is a fine place to post this question, but a better place would be Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion if you think that the redirect should be changed or deleted, and you would like to solicit feedback from the community. My view of consensus from past discussions on URL redirects is that generally we keep them if they are a redirect from a domain that is related to the target, for example in this case I think it makes more sense for the redirect to target ArkivMusic rather than its parent company, whichever it is. Would you like help posting at RfD? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Question changing place names and WP:UNBROKEN[edit]

I've been talking with Jetstreamer about a whether it was correct for me to edit and rename a link from MalagaMálaga. He reverted my edit[1] saying that the policy was WP:UNBROKEN. I can understand that both links go to the same place, but I would think it would be preferential to have the correct name visually on the page, especially since there is already a link to Málaga Airport (and not Malaga Airport) right next to one of the links he reverted. Looking at WP:UNBROKEN, I don't think it applies. The edit has a noticeable effect on the rendered page, displaying the city name spelled correctly.

Since that first edit, he has also reverted another[2] where I changed Sao Paulo → São Paulo and Lulea → Luleå. Again, on the page there is already links to the correctly spelled São Paulo-Guarulhos International Airport, Luleå and Luleå Airport.

I can't find any policy on WP:PLACE, MOS:LINK or WP:TYPO saying that I shouldn't have changed those links to reflect the actual and correct spelled names of those cities, especially since the correct spellings are already on said pages.

Thoughts? ~ Ablaze (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think UNBROKEN advice on not bypassing redirects applies in the cases. UNBROKEN does say "Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect". Variations in diacritics aren't exactly the same as spelling errors, but it would seem desirable to link to the article title that uses the diacritics correctly rather than the redirect lacking diacritics. Plantdrew (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Malaga is neither a spelling error nor a mistake but the English name of a city, as the other two examples above also are.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying since this is English Wikipedia, we should only be using characters from A-Z and not ones such as in Swedish Ö, Ä or Å which are separate letters in their alphabet? I can't find any instance on those city articles in English where their "English name" is used. Why do you revert my changes saying Malaga is the English name, yet leave Málaga and other non-"English named" cities remain in the article?~ Ablaze (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
That is not a case for UNBROKEN, which applies only to piped links. For example, UNBROKEN says that [[Málaga City]] - Málaga City - is preferable to [[Málaga|Málaga City]] - Málaga City - because it uses the redirect as it was intended to be used. It says we should not bypass the Málaga City redirect just to save a few computer cycles. It does not mean, "There is rarely a need to change a working redirect", which appears to be how Jetstreamer is interpreting it. You can debate the change on other grounds, but not per UNBROKEN.
Those "other grounds" are wrong venue here, but English Wikipedia uses diacritics all over the place and I see no reason to deviate from the article title in this link. In fact, the opening sentence at Málaga links to Province of Málaga despite the existence of a redirect for Province of Malaga. The applicable guideline is, quite predictably, WP:DIACRITICS. ―Mandruss  09:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
As Mandruss pointed out above, it seems I've been misinterpreting WP:UNBROKEN. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. In particular, I apologise to Darranc.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
No worries. It is always good to seek clarification (and it was a good discussion) and I'm sure there is a guideline somewhere else that I'm misinterpreting. ~ Ablaze (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Anchor Warning #1[edit]

According to Warning1 for anchors, the anchor name and the section title of the redirect can not be the same. However, I have previously created situations like this (where the anchor and section title are the same) and it seems to work. The redirects I am talking about are Old War Office Building and War Office building, both linking to the War Office building section of the War Office. My question is why are these redirects working? Am I misunderstanding or misusing something or is this warning not applicable or no longer working?. -- FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It's talking about when you add an {{anchor}} to a page. If the anchor has the same name as a section title there will be multiple anchors on the page with the same name (as section headings are also anchors), which is invalid HTML. You see exactly the same issue on pages with multiple sections with the same name - sometimes you end up at the first on the page, other times you end up at the one you wanted (if different). Thryduulf (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Obscure redirects[edit]

An IP editor is citing WP:NOTBROKEN as justification for replacing anchored links with obscure redirects. For example, using the redirect Scree's test to refer to the entire section factor analysis#Criteria for determining the number of factors, in a piped link regarding determining the number of factors of a polynomial. The text of the article is not specifically about Scree's test, though. So I am of the opinion that a piped link to the redirect is not a good idea here. But the guideline here suggests that redirects are always preferable to anchor links. Another example of the same issue in the same article is a link to secular equation, which is an obscure synonym of characteristic equation. Are redirects always preferred to anchor links, even when they are obscure seldom-used terms? Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Redirects are usually preferred to anchor links when there is a possibility that the section could be expanded into an article or split off in some other way, as that way one only link needs updating. However if you feel a redirect is not useful (e.g. because it's an obscure synonym or poorly named) then you should nominate it at WP:RFD for discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I think this misses the point. Scree's test is a perfectly legitimate topic for a separate article. But if that article were replaced, the piped link to the section of factor analysis would need to be replaced, because Scree is a specific test, but we want a general link to that section of the article. The redorect Scree's tedt is being used as a synecdoche. The redirect secular equation is probably useful, for someone typing this into the search bar, but I don't think it should be used in article space simply because redirects are "better". That's imposing a marginal term for something, violating NPOV. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Bolding of "title" text in redirected sections of articles[edit]

Participants here may want to comment on this discussion of when it reasonable to use bolded "title" text in subsections of articles. Dragons flight (talk) 10:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)