Wikipedia talk:Redirect/Archive 2022

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)

WP:MPNOREDIRECT

Currently, this page has the following guideline as an exception to the non-bypassing of redirects:

• Links on the Main Page, to avoid stealthy vandalism by retargeting redirects. (But note, as above, that redirects to article sections should never be bypassed.

This is all well and good, but I don't see why we should have an "exception to the exception" for redirects to sections. Like all other redirects, they aren't immune to potential subtly malicious retargeting, which is the ostensible reason why we have the guideline to begin with. In general, I agree that section redirects shouldn't be "fixed" because section titles can easily change over time, but I'd argue that this is outweighed the benefit gained by bypassing these anyway – for one, Main Page links are time-sensitive, and we don't have to worry about them once they're no longer being featured there. So I believe that we can safely remove the parenthesized portion of this bullet point to remove the "exception to the exception". — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN - Change of primary topic

I have a question about the appropriate actions (if any) to take in the following situation:

1. Foo is currently a dab page, with entries Foo (topic 1), Foo (topic 2), etc. A fair number of pages contain links in the form [[Foo (topic 1)|Foo]].
2. A discussion at WP:RM concludes that Foo (topic 1) is the primary topic for Foo - Foo (topic 1) is moved to Foo, and Foo is moved (over a redirect) to Foo (disambiguation).

In this case, should the links [[Foo (topic 1)|Foo]] be changed to simply [[Foo]]? Or left as they are? Tevildo (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

If Foo (topic 1) now redirects to Foo, changing the links would alter neither their destination nor their appearance on the page, so they can usually be left as they are. One exception is navboxes, which normally bypass redirects if their target is synonymous with the title (i.e. not a section or other related topic). The link on the dab itself should change, i.e. '''[[Foo]]''' is a topic 1. Foo may also refer to… Certes (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Perhaps this might be explicitly mentioned in the guideline, as I'm sure it's not unprecedented. (If it is already explicitly stated somewhere, a link to that section from WP:NOTBROKEN might also be useful). Tevildo (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

Please make a few minor wording changes to WP:NOTBROKEN.

Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect
When the template is placed on an article and contains a direct link to the same article (rather than a redirect), the direct link will display in bold (and not as a link), making

should become

When they find a link to a redirect page, some editors are tempted to bypass the redirect
When the template is placed on an article that it links directly (not via a redirect), the direct link will display in bold rather than as a link, making

The first phrase doesn't flow very well when the phrase "are tempted to bypass" is interrupted with an eight-word clause. The second phrase is a little wordy, and the paragraph contains three parenthetical phrases, so it would be good to move one of the three out of parentheses. Both of these are descriptive sentences, rather than prescriptive, so since the meaning is identical, there shouldn't be any need for a discussion. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I do not find the proposed language better overall. Please discuss. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding links in hatnotes to WP:DOFIXIT?

At Robert E. Lee Monument (Richmond, Virginia), the hatnote {{Redirect}} says "For the statue in the Virginia Museum of History and Culture, see Statue of Robert E. Lee (ex–U.S. Capitol)". That article is now at Statue of Robert E. Lee (Valentine). Would I be justified in "fixing" that link, although redirects in hatnotes aren't currently listed as one of the exceptions to WP:DONOTFIXIT? This seems like a similar case to "links on disambiguation pages" at WP:DOFIXIT. I'm being cautious because I've just been alerted to the existence of WP:DONOTFIXIT after failing to follow it. Ham II (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd fix it. That edit would clearly be beneficial: it changes the displayed text to reveal the sculptor's name, helping readers decide whether the linked article is the one they were seeking. The only time I'd leave a redirect is if its title matches what the reader was seeking more closely than the article title or leads to a section which might become an article, e.g. the hatnote for Agent 355. Certes (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: Thanks; I've made the change. Now I see that Wikipedia:Hatnote has, as part of the first "basic rule of hatnotes", "Linking to redirects is typically not preferred, although of course exceptions can occur". All the more reason to mention hatnotes at WP:DOFIXIT, I think; perhaps with something a simple as "Links in hatnotes" as one of the bullet points. Ham II (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

@Qwerfjkl Maybe you also want to take a look at Category:Redirects from remixes of songs. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done (and I made {{rcat doc}}). ― Qwerfjkltalk 08:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Redirecting user page to user talk page?

Hi all, is there any ruling regarding a user redirecting their own page to their Talk page? I don't see anything inherently wrong with it, but it also seems a little bit anomalous. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

No. It's largely accepted by the community, given the wide latitude we give to user pages. Personally, I really dislike it since it's misleading. For those that choose not to have a user page, I appreciate seeing the red link in their signature. -- BDD (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I really dislike it too. If you want a content-free bluelink, keep it blank. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Good to know that there's no restrictions against it...though from the sound of it...should there be? Is that a discussion someone with more experience with redirects than I have wants to start, or more trouble than it's worth? DonIago (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not a crime. What is discouraged, however, is the reverse: a user talk page redirected to the user page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Not only is it not a crime, it is explicit suggestion at Wikipedia:User pages#Terminology and page locations. older ≠ wiser 20:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

RFC on NOTBROKEN interpretation

Does WP:NOTBROKEN encourage or discourage bypassing redirects that are miscapitalizations, and should we clarify it? Dicklyon (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Background

WP:NOTBROKEN includes:

Good reasons to bypass redirects include:

...

• Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect. This does not necessarily mean that the misspelled redirect should be deleted (see {{R from misspelling}}).

Is the intention that "redirects from miscapitalization" is included in "other mistakes", parallel to misspellings? The redirect name with miscapitalization is only slightly visible, via mouseover, in articles, just like misspellings. Similar to Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings, the special page Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations tabulates such links for fixing, but does not say whether piped links should be fixed; if they're not, the miscapitalization will remain in the report. See for example Elizabeth Islands with piped link English Crown. There tend to be a lot of such links when a page is moved by consensus to the WP caps style; should they be, or can they be, cleaned up as part of post-move cleanup? That's the basic RFC question here. Dicklyon (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Blatant miscapitalisations should obviously be fixed, but most cases aren't blatant. Before dedicating time to fixing anything, it's best to first make sure the form to be fixed is actually incorrect, and not merely a contextual or stylistic variant. A lot of the time both Foo and FOO (or Foo bar and Foo Bar) would be acceptable, and the fact that one of them will be chosen for the article title doesn't make the other one wrong. – Uanfala (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you give an example of each? Hopefully we'll correctly mark redirects appropriately with "other capitalization" vs "miscapitalization" to distinguish them. Dicklyon (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

You can see, for example, the crown estate for the Crown Estate in this newspaper [1]. The same publication's style guide, if I'm not mistaken, also recommends title case for acronyms that are pronounced as words (so the EU is in all caps, but NATO is Nato [2]). – Uanfala (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how those are examples of what you were saying. Are you saying that neither "crown estate" or "Nato" would be considered a miscapitalization, or not a blatant one anyway, just because some source does that? And we should just leave them even though they'll show up to users in a way that's incompatible with WP's case norms? Dicklyon (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Assuming we're talking about link targets and not about displayed text: fix errors, but don't fix forms that are just "incompatible with WP's case norms". – Uanfala (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Currently, the redirect Crown estate is not marked as a miscapitalization, and shows up with incorrectly lowercase estate at English land law#Housing and tenant rights (and likely other places), and piped as owned by the Crown at Holy Cross Preparatory School#Buildings. Other uses (outside the UK context) link to Crown land, as in crown estates at Mohammad Reza Pahlavi; others that should do that instead incorrectly link to the UK article as crown estate (correctly lowercase but wrong redirect target) as at Meldal Church. So generally, the example is a mess, and articles that link through that redirect need work, and the redirect probably need to be retargeted to Crown land instead of being marked miscapitalization. Anyway, not an example of what I'm asking about. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

As for Nato, that's also not marked a miscapitalization, but should be as I understand it, since it's not how it should appear on Wikipedia. We'd change visible uses to NATO whether linked or not, right? Like in Liam Fox#Defence and Security Review. If that's so, we should mark it as miscapitalization, and then it might be an example of what I'm asking about. Then the question would be should we fix History of the Scottish National Party and Yalta Hotel Complex which use piped redirect NATO ([[Nato|NATO]]). The advantage of fixing such things is that then the database page of miscapitalizations would not list Nato unless other links were added. We don't currently have a way to mark a redirect as wrong case to appear in Wikipedia but not so blatant that we should fix it in piped redirects. Should we? Or is that what Nonprintworthy is for? Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I would never write [[Nato|NATO]], but I would try to restrain myself from fixing it, as it is WP:NOTBROKEN. Certes (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Some style guides do not like all-caps abbreviations like this, and anyway it is entirely NOTBROKEN, so no true reason to fix it, agree with Certes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The Crown Estate is an example of a crown estate. I think it's the only example having an article, so it makes sense to redirect the (correctly lowercase) generic term to the (correctly title case) proper noun. Certes (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• If the miscapitalization is a true error, then yes, but if it's just a style choice, then no. For instance if the link was American Robin, which goes to American robin through a redirect because Wikipedia style for species is lower case, I wouldn't fix it because that's a style choice. However if there were a redirect AMErican Robin, which went to American robin, that should be fixed. In theory the difference between the {{R from miscapitalisation}} and {{R from other capitalisation}} templates should cover this, but I wouldn't count on it. SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't count on it at all. There are a ton of redirects in Category:Redirects from other capitalisations that should be in Category:Redirects from miscapitalisations. For example, the are more than 50 redirects for people with the given name Aaron and the first letter of the surname in lower case. The "other" category has existed since 2006, and the "mis" category since 2016. Thousands of redirects should be transferred to the newer "mis" category. But care should be taken not to transfer redirects that are matters of Wikipedia style choice (lower case surnames are fairly straightforward errors, but even then there are exceptions, e.g. bell hooks, not Bell Hooks) Plantdrew (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The unreliability goes both ways. I haven't much looked at the miscaps category, but there are a bunch of redirects with "organisation" that some probably well-meaning American editor has decided to flag as misspellings. – Uanfala (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

A few of those are cases like International Organisation for Standardisation, which I've occasionally changed to -iz- and been reverted on the grounds that it's an ENGVAR choice. Certes (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

How the redirect title shows up when piped; is this a bug, or a feature?

As with Nato, piping through the redirect American Robin would be an example of what I'm asking about if it were marked as a miscapitalization, but it's not. Should it be? Nine articles use it in piped redirect, e.g. as at Blue Velvet (film)#Symbolism (which also has another disambig page link to robin in a caption). It's the sort of thing I'd be tempted to clean up as a minor error, as I interpreted that clause in NOTBROKEN, but maybe it's too minor to be worth fixing. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: See also the bit I wrote above about Nato. It's not clear to me what you think the theory behind "miscapitalization" is, or should be. Are you that having American Robin not marked as miscapitalization is the right thing? I agree that the question goes away if we don't make as miscapitaizations those capitalization patterns that are alternatives used in other styles but not in Wikipedia; but then I don't know what the theory of the miscapitaization marking would be, if not for finding things that ought to be fixed in articles. Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

If it is wrong in the link text, I'd say we should only correct it if is egregiously wrong. E.g. we have a redirect for John f. kennedy. That's not acceptable by any style guide. It's embarrassing to have in our encyclopedia. It should be fixed even if it's in the form J.F.K.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  05:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Yes for true error, no for style choice, per above. BilledMammal (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Also Yes for true error, No for style choice, erring on the side of No where the two are hard to distinguish. Certes (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Got any examples? So far nobody has pointed to quite the kind of thing this RFC is asking about. You should be able to find plenty of actual examples through Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

An example: the redirect Buzzfeed, a miscapitalization of BuzzFeed, is used with piping like "Buzzfeed Video YouTube channel" at Without A Recipe. Is that an example of a "true error" that should be fixed? Or of a style choice that should be left? Whichever it is, is there an example of the other that can be contrasted with it? Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Example 2; In this edit that I just did, the piping through miscapitalized redirect just crapped up the source as well as the mouseover appearance. Is this kind of fix OK in light of NOTBROKEN, or not? I presume the failure to cap the initialism is a "true error" in the sense that BilledMammal and Certes mention. All agree? What if the same kind of unnecessarily messy source construct was used with a miscapitalization that's merely a style choice? Would this kind of edit then not be OK? Which would apply to the Nato example above? Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• No. 1 looks like it could be a style thing as although the capitalised version is the official version, some places do not repeat this capitalisation (ex. [3]). As for no. 2; the only place I see the no caps redirect is in the URL link when I mouse-over (I otherwise correctly get the lead of the article, beginning India pale ale (IPA) is ...); the fact you get the lead of the article and not the section when you mouse-over is something common to all section redirects (try Bristol#History) even if they're correctly capitalised. In this case fixing this would not be a priority as it has no impact on the reader nor on the displayed page: it would be purely cosmetic and shouldn't be changed unless it's really a spelling mistake (for example, if it was something like Duble IPA) [unlike a spelling mistake, a mere capitalisation change does not make the correct page harder to find for editors] RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• And no matter what, this distinction between "correct" and "incorrect" capitalisations should not be based on database reports or redirect categorisation templates (these are so often very wrong: 11th Michigan Volunteer Infantry Regiment (Reorganized) is an obvious case of a style choice, for example, to take what was the first entry on the miscapitalisation report). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  If the name of the regiment always has capped Reorganized in sources, then the lowercase is probably an error (we cap proper names). One can't tell from the "miscapitalization" label how much consensus is behind that decision, so I check such things before working on them, with changing to "other capitalization" being one of the options in working to clear the miscapitalization list. Dicklyon (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  Looking at sources, I have to agree, the lowercase reorganized is not an error. I fixed the double redirect through it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Personally, I think we should either leave this matter to the discretion of the individual editor or encourage correcting such links. Fixing a minor capitalization difference that is hidden with a pipe may not be necessary, but if a particular editor wants to correct them, they can go ahead and do it. One valid reason for changing them is if an editor is searching for miscapitalizations of a particular term using "What links here?", and some of the cases they encounter are hidden with pipes. If they change those, they won't need to accidentally come across the same ones again later. They may prefer for "What links here" to produce zero results, so they know that any they find later are ones that need to be checked. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• My suggestion regarding R from miscapitalisation would be to go ahead and put things like American Robin, Nasa and PVRIS into that category, because that will help assist us to find and remove instances when people come along and put things into random places on Wikipedia that don't follow the Wikipedia MoS. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  @BarrelProof: Those are not {{R from miscapitalisation}}. Simply not following Wikipedia's MoS doesn't mean any other form of capitalisation scheme is wrong. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  @MJL: On Wikipedia, things that violate the MoS are incorrect. In that sense they are miscapitalization, and tagging them as such will help us track down where they are used and fix those errors. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• My view is that NOTBROKEN is mostly about avoiding unnecessary pipes. If the choice is between [[redirect1 | link text]] and [[redirect2 | link text]], where redirect1 and redirect2 point to the same target, I frankly commence to not care very much. I would prefer to avoid diluting the simple let's-avoid-pipes message of NOTBROKEN by wandering off on tangents like this. --Trovatore (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  OK, having looked at this closer, I think some people are giving NOTBROKEN a really weird construction that I don't think is intended at all. Let's take a look at the opening bit:

  There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. However, changing to a piped link is beneficial only in a few cases. Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]].

  Now, how this would restrain anyone from replacing [[ Nato | NATO ]] by just simply [[NATO]], I don't see at all. The latter is clearly preferable, as it's both the actual name of the article, and it's not a piped link. This change does not fit into any of the categories that the above quoted text suggests should be avoided. --Trovatore (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  Now, how this would restrain anyone from replacing [[ Nato | NATO ]] by just simply [[NATO]], I don't see at all. It's a cosmetic edit - there is no visible change to the page, so there has to be a reason to do it, if "Nato" is an accepted capitalisation, as Uanfala says. ― Qwerfjkltalk 06:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Well, there is a reason to do it. The reason is that it replaces a pipe by something that's not a pipe. Other things being equal, non-pipes are better than pipes, because they preserve the expected connection between the text displayed on the page and the target of the link.

  As for Nato being an accepted capitalization, that's an argument to a different case. If you want to argue that to say that the link Nato should not be changed to NATO, then that's a pertinent argument. It's not a pertinent argument against changing [[Nato|NATO]] to [[NATO]], precisely because, as you say, the displayed appearance is the same in both cases. --Trovatore (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Do we read NOTBROKEN as having an exemption for replacing a pipe by something that's not a pipe? Should it? I've found plenty of links like [[Ceasar|Caesar]] and left them alone, even when I was editing the page for other reasons. (Much of Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings is now such cases, as most visible errors have been fixed.) Should I be fixing them despite NOTBROKEN? Does the answer also apply to [[Julius Ceasar|Caesar]], even though fixing it wouldn't remove the pipe? Certes (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't need an exemption, because it doesn't say not to replace pipes. It says not to replace redirects by pipes. I do indeed think you should fix the (first) example you gave; it cleans up the code and has no downside except possibly watchlist churn. --Trovatore (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, didn't notice you had mentioned two examples. Yes, I would probably fix the second one as well (though even better might be to change the text to read Julius Caesar; at first reference it's good to be specific). --Trovatore (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Part of WP:NOTBROKEN (in fact, its main point) is that unnecessary pipes are discouraged, so "edit to remove an unnecessary pipe" is already sufficient justification. --Aquillion (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Generally speaking I would say it discourages using a pipe solely to bypass a miscapitalized redirect, because the purpose of WP:NOTBROKEN is to avoid unnecessary pipes due to the way it makes source text harder to read for little gain. That said I don't think any change is necessary. The rationales already make this clear - nothing in it can reasonably be construed to encourage pipes in this case, while it fairly clearly supports edits intended to remove unnecessary pipes. --Aquillion (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This page should have a mention of the redirect wizard

Right now, it doesn't seem to have a mention of anywhere you can request a new redirect. Should this be added in as a new subsection under Wikipedia:Redirect#How to make a redirect? 67.21.154.193 (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Just added by Qwerfjkl. Good addition. -- BDD (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

redirecting a page after failing to delete it through prod

Since this just came up today, I would like to add something to this editing guideline. I suggest adding in a bit saying that if someone prods a page for deletion, and someone disagrees with that and deprods it, then the first person can't just try to get rid of the article by replacing it with a redirect. Also if an article survives an AFD, those who voted to delete it shouldn't be able to replace it with a redirect either. I've seen that happen in the past also. Dream Focus 23:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: I've also seen this happen and would like it to stop. I've even seen the target of that redirect deleted, then the redirect with history quietly taken out the back and shot per G8. Certes (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

FAOD, Ten Pound Hammer wasn't involved in any of the incidents I recall. Certes (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

There are times when I DEPROD but wouldn't be upset if it turned out to be redirected instead of deleted. I usually note this in my DEPROD rationale in {{Old prod}} on the talk page or in the edit comment removing the {{Prod}} tag. Here's an example.

I keep articles I've DEPRODded on my watchlist so if someone does a redirect I'm not happy with, I will revert and would expect it to then go to AfD rather than an edit war. ~Kvng (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

:::TPH has done this multiple times, including today with Secrets of the Titanic. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Retract as I see you were talking more than just about one redirect. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

This seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. It's a rule just to have a rule, nothing more. What would the benefit be? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Since you are the one multiple people are complaining about having done this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#TenPoundHammer:_prods_and_AfDs right now, obviously the benefit would be to stop you from doing it since you won't listen to anyone. If some believes the article is notable enough to not be prodded for deletion, then they also believe it shouldn't be eliminated with a redirect. Also don't redirect first, then prod. If someone is against eliminating an article by prod or redirect, then take it to AFD or leave it alone. Dream Focus 21:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying you want to enact the rule just to stop one editor? Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I SUPPORT this notion. Redirecting after a PROD is removed is a way to circumvent the deletion process and a way for the editor to impose their will on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a consensus, not the whim of any individual editor. Just today I removed a REDIRECT from an article Secrets of the Titanic that had a PROD removed because the editor who added the PROD apparently just didn't like the article. I found TWO reliable sources for the article within 5 minutes of a simple search. This type of behavior needs to end. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:CREEP (most of these are rather common sense; although I have objections to preventing redirects after prods as not all removals of prods are correct) and as being somewhat subversive to the current, much more widely attended ANI discussion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - too restrictive. Anyone can prod, anyone can unprod; anyone can redirect, anyone can unredirect. Don't like it? Just undo it. No need for a rule. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• This is already covered by WP:BLAR. If a page is redirected, anyone is free to unredirect it and then the disagreement would then need to be worked out at the talk page or AfD. This covers any situation, not just post-PROD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, too WP:CREEPy. A redirect is a low-weight edit in the sense that it can be reverted and then discussed as usual; and in many cases the removal of a prod won't even have a rationale that necessarily disagrees with a redirect (ie. "we should have something at this title" is covered by a redirect.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Please assist to correct and add a redirect

Can someone assist as the term "Dark Triad (or Tetrad)" is a specific term or condition and as such, both first letters ("D" & "T") should be caps from a grammatical perspective. .

The current page is set as Dark triad https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad

I have pages that link to

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Triad

that don't show nor redirect as it should. It shows as an error meanwhile the actual content itself shows as Dark Triad in the copy/txt.

I'm not saying to change what's there as listed now OTHER THAN to redirect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Triad to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad

This way, no one's existing links are affected and it corrects an error and a problem.

Thanks. 174.4.58.16 (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Jay has created this for you. FYI: Some forms of searching Wikipedia are case sensitive, and others are not. Even prior to the redirect, you could put "Dark Triad" in the search bar and it would have found the right article, though as you noticed, this is not the case when using direct URLs.

You might wonder why such redirects are not always, systematically created. WP:DIFFCAPS allows for articles at titles that differ only by capitalization, though in my observations, this has become less common over time, probably because of such issues. There was no conflict in this case, but imagine there was a very popular musical act named Dark Triad, and you could perhaps see the rationale behind doing something different with that title. -- BDD (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Bold revert of AfD-redirects

WP:EDRED says ... you can edit the redirect to make it into an article. The lead of WP:RfD says Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!. They do not make any distinction between the kind of redirect this is applicable for, such as original redirects, bold BLAR redirects, or redirects created as a result of an WP:AfD.

1. Can AfD resultant redirects be boldly reversed, provided the content replacing it is different from the content discussed at the AfD? This is analogous to an article recreated after a AfD that closed as Delete, and where the recreated article did not meet re-deletion under WP:G4.
2. If such redirects are allowed to be boldly recreated as articles, is there a time period after the AfD close that this should be attempted?
3. If the process of reversing an AfD is clearly defined (via WP:DRV for example), and if WP:EDRED appears to be encroaching in to that guideline, can we have a clarification at EDRED (and subsequently the lead of RfD) on this?

Jay 11:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

My opinions:

1 & 2. No, certainly not immediately, but yes, eventually. I don't have a hard boundary for this; before six months generally sounds premature, but context matters. Is it a rapidly developing subject / was it WP:TOOSOON at AfD but that's clearly changed? How does the new article compare to the version that went to AfD?

3. What sort of edits do you have in mind? If consensus at AfD is to redirect, EDRED's "should really be handled by a full article" clearly doesn't apply. But I suppose the answers to 1&2 affect this too. -- BDD (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

#1 & #2: When you say No, is it based on policy or practice? If the AfD closed as redirect because of not enough content, or not enough sources, and an editor comes along and fixes them, can he immediately reverse the redirect? I realize that 6 months is a reasonable boundary for a TOOSOON close.

Right, #3 is applicable based on the answers for 1 and 2. Jay 12:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Below replies are more articulate, especially Uanfala's emphasis on changing circumstances vs. passage of time (though those are not completely unconnected). Yes, a quick recreation in a case like you describe might be appropriate, ideally if the AfD specifically touches on a lack of sources. Re: policy or practice... is there a policy page anywhere that explicitly says you can't just ignore an AfD result? Probably not. And "ignore" may be a key word here. Is the reversal of the previous AfD about building an encyclopedia or about ignoring consensus and gaming the system? -- BDD (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it should matter how much time has ellapsed since the discussion, nor whether its outcome was deletion or redirecting (we wouldn't want to have different sets of requirements for G4-exempt recreation vs. expansion of a redirect). What's relevant is how much the situation changed and that will depend on both the sourcing of the new article and the content of the discussion. For example, if an unsourced article is redirected based on AfD comments of the type "obiouvsly NN" and then someone recreates it based on solid sourcing that easily demonstrates notability, then there's no point in putting any procedural obstacles in the way of that recreation. Uanfala (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It all depends on why the article was redirected and in what ways the new article differs from the one that was redirected. If the content of the new article clearly addresses the reasons why the old article was redirected then it doesn't matter if this is done 3 days or 3 years after the AfD. If it clearly doesn't, then just follow BRD and revert back to the redirect (explaining why) - but do make sure not to be too hasty about it and allow reasonable time for the article to be expanded/improved over multiple edits. If it's unclear whether it does or doesn't then start a discussion about it on the talk page or in some other appropriate venue. As second AfD will be justified if less formal discussion does not reach agreement but is unlikely to be so before such discussion has been attempted. Remember that we want reliably sourced articles on notable subjects, so if this describes the new article then getting rid of it harms the project. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Question

This might not be the correct WP page to ask, but I've run into a problem and would appreciate suggested solutions. After finishing work on a new article about Chinese yangsheng (養生, "nourishing life"), I started to publish it, but discovered there already was is a Yangsheng redirect page to Duke Dao of Qi, whose personal name was Lü Yangsheng (呂陽生). Without a deletion, the current redirect can't be changed to an article with the same name. As a temporary solution, I published my contribution as Yangsheng (Taoism), but the content covers both Traditional Chinese medicine and religious Taoism. The "What links here" tool finds that no pages linking to Yangsheng and 14 pages linking to Yangsheng (Taoism).

The Chinese WP has a dab page for Yangsheng 養生, with links to Baojian (保健, "health protection; health care"), which is a (yinshi 飲食, "diet") subsection 飲食 of Jiankang (健康, "health"; English WP Health), and to Yangsheng (Taoism) 養生 (道教).

What's the best way to clear this up? The title Yangsheng should logically refer to the common word yangsheng (養生, "nourishing life") both medical and Taoist, and somehow disambiguate the uncommon given name Yangsheng (陽生, "bright/positive/active/male life"; the yang of Yin and yang) of ancient Duke Dao and modern Chinese politician Lou Yangsheng. Google finds 41,900,000 ghits for "養生" and 935,000 for "陽生". Keahapana (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

See WP:R#D9. Tag the redirect for deletion or request at WP:RM. A Yangsheng (disambiguation) page can be created for the multiple meanings. Also include scientist Zhao Yangsheng there. Jay 💬 06:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jay, Thanks for your quick and knowledgeable reply, also for pointing out Zhao Yangsheng. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)