Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

What is an emoji?

What counts as an emoji for the purpose of Category:Redirects from emoji? I have till now assumed it meant an emoji as defined in UTS #51. JPxG, however, has proposed that an emoji instead be “a character used as a pictorial representation of non-textual information”, a subjective and considerably more inclusive definition. Gorobay (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of convenience, I'll articulate what I said there here: the question of whether any given character is an emoji is a complicated one for many reasons. The issue of whether a glyph is specifically assigned to the Emoji block of code points is irrelevant to whether it's an emoji (a character used as a pictorial representation of non-textual information), per Emoji §Unicode blocks: they're all over the place.

Main articles: Dingbats (Unicode block), Emoticons (Unicode block), Miscellaneous Symbols (Unicode block), Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs (Unicode block), Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs (Unicode block), Symbols and Pictographs Extended-A (Unicode block), and Transport and Map Symbols (Unicode block)

Unicode 13.0 represents emoji using 1,367 characters spread across 24 blocks, of which 26 are Regional Indicator Symbols that combine in pairs to form flag emoji, and 12 (#, * and 0–9) are base characters for keycap emoji sequences:

637 of the 768 code points in the Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs block are considered emoji. 240 of the 254 code points in the Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs block are considered emoji. All of the 57 code points in the Symbols and Pictographs Extended-A block are considered emoji. All of the 80 code points in the Emoticons block are considered emoji. 101 of the 114 code points in the Transport and Map Symbols block are considered emoji. 83 of the 256 code points in the Miscellaneous Symbols block are considered emoji. 33 of the 192 code points in the Dingbats block are considered emoji.

The unicode.org boolean value for whether a character is an emoji does not indicate whether it's an emoji: I'm not sure what it's showing. It could be "is it in the Emoticons block?" or it could be "Is it given a pictorial rendering on some number of platforms?" For example, it says that ©️ is an emoji and 🥆 is not, despite © being in Latin 1 Supplement and 🥆 being in Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs. And while there are some characters outside the emoji block that are rendered pictorially by many devices, some characters that are in emoji blocks are not rendered pictorially. One example is 🤻, which was removed from the category. It's in the Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs block — the same as 🥋, 🤣, 🥰, 🤩, and 🤪 — and its lack of a pictorial representation is cited in RS as being due to political considerations.

I'm not sure what makes the most sense here: my first thought would be to return all of the pages to the original category, but it might also make sense to break it out further into stuff like Category:Redirects from Unicode Miscellaneous Symbols, Category:Redirects from Unicode Miscellaneous Symbole and Pictographs, Category:Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs, etc. jp×g 22:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Could you clarify whether you think this category should be for emoji as defined by Unicode (deferring any subtleties of what that means, which we can discuss later) or some alternative, non-Unicode definition? Gorobay (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

For the purposes of the category the definition should be "characters that function as emojis which redirect to a target which gives meaning to that character". Any other definition and the category would either include multiple types of redirect or would not contain all the redirects of the intended type. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Is that definition limited to single characters? How about ";)"? Certes (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I think of multi-character sequences as emoticons rather than emoji, but I'm happy for them to be in the emoji category if we don't want to categorise them separately. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The number of characters in a string has no bearing on whether it is an emoji. Lots of emoji have multiple characters, as in ⟨🇺🇸⟩. Gorobay (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

True, I phrased that badly - "sequences of alphabetic/ideographic/etc and/or punctuation characters" would be closer to what I was meaning but still clumsier than I'd like. Emoji characters are intended to be (or combine to be) graphical representations of an object, person, or similar. Emoticons are comprised of two or more characters whose original intended function was something else. This definition includes dingbats as emoji (I'm happy with that) but is ambiguous regarding box drawing characters and similar (semigraphics is the general term I've just learned) - I don't regard them as emoji but can't really articulate clearly why. Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Is ⟨🆕⟩ an emoji? It is not a graphical representation of any object, person, or similar. Even so, I think everyone would agree that it is an emoji. How would you distinguish “pictograph”, “dingbat”, and “emoji”? Gorobay (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

As I (tried to) imply above, for the purposes of this category at least, I don't see a need to distinguish dingbats and emoji but I'd say that emoji must have a defined meaning whereas dingbats can but don't necessarily have to.
Emoji, dingbats, icons, graphical warning signs, etc. are all examples of pictographs. 🆕 is an emoji (I did say my definition was clumsy) as it functions the same as graphics that are clearly emoji (e.g. 🥙). Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record, 🆕 is an emoji which was added as part of Emoji 1.0. --Gonnym (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

So emojis are "characters that function as emojis"? And a tensor is something that transforms like a tensor. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand JPxG's point to be that it includes any pictograph which is not a subjective criterion at all. I think it's fine to categorize pictographs under the "emoji" rcat, but I don't have strong opinions. — Wug·a·po·des 06:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

"I know it when I see it" might suffice here, or we could take Unicode's category of emoji for these purposes. The latter would allow adding rcats automatically. Certes (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

If there’s going to be a category for “any pictograph”, it should be called “Redirects from pictographs”. Not all emoji are pictographs; for example, ⟨🆕⟩ is an English word, not a pictograph. Not all pictographs are emoji; for example, ⟨✀⟩ is a pictograph of scissors but is never displayed as an emoji. Gorobay (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This really isn't a hard question. The Unicode Consortium publishes the Emoji list versions. Any Emoji listed there is an emoji. For ease of validation, just check a site like Emojipedia, which is a member of the consortium and also publishes those lists (see for example). --Gonnym (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree it is trivial to check whether something is an emoji according to Unicode. Some editors prefer ignoring Unicode’s definition though. That is why I asked this question. Gorobay (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Unicode's website says that ☺ (U+263A, WHITE SMILING FACE) is is an emoji, and ☻ (U+263B BLACK SMILING FACE) is not. Same block (Miscellaneous Symbols)! jp×g 04:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG This is likely because it's hard to make an actual emoji rendering for ☻, while ☺ can be displayed both as a black-and-white pictograph and as a colourful emoji. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it might bring some clarity here to remind ourselves of why the category exists in the first place. Its parent, Category:Redirects from Unicode characters, mostly consists of stuff like "ਜ" and "ਈ" and "ア" and "ꙮ", which are letters (or glyphs, or syllabograms, or whatever) from some human language. Contariwise, regardless of whether "✀" is listed on Unicode's website as an emoji, it is not a letter. There's no human language where "✀" is part of the alphabet: the same is true of "🥵", "🤻", and "🆕" (while the word "new" is indeed part of the English language, "white capital letters spelling out 'NEW' enclosed in a blue square" is not).
Asking (and answering) weird questions like what's an emoji, what's an emoticon, what's a dingbat, what's a pictograph, what's a miscellaneous symbol, for an infinitude of bizarre edge cases (including all of those mentioned above), doesn't really seem to provide much benefit beyond the initial benefit of separating "characters that are part of a language's writing system" from "characters that aren't part of a language's writing system".
If we need brutal and unrelenting precision, sure, we could rename the category to reflect this (i.e. Category:Redirects from Unicode characters that are not part of any language's writing system), but the current arrangement doesn't seem particularly "broken" to me. jp×g 04:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Letter case: UPPERCASE, InitialCaps, lowercase?

Moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect § Letter case: UPPERCASE, InitCaps, lowercase?

A. The letter case when writing the command is usually #REDIRECT or #Redirect, but there are some #redirect or even #REDIRECt (on Wikivoyage). Should the format usually be in InitialCaps, i.e. #Redirect [[Target... to be consistent with these types of things on WP including Wikipedia:Redirect, Help:Redirect and Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect? Facts707 (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

B: If by good fortune we can reach a consensus on A: above, could someone please write a bot to change all redirect commands to #Redirect and also please add a space character after #Redirect if there isn't one? I have to say #REDIRECT[[Target... is quite hard on the eyes. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no point in doing cosmetic changes like these. All of these are correct wikicode syntax, and I don't see why one would care how the code is displayed on a page you wouldn't normally edit a lot anyway. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

True, most editors don't edit #Redirect articles much, but some (like me) create and update a lot of redirects because there are so many "also known as" terms. Not a big deal but a "nice to have". Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The canonical form is #REDIRECT [[Pagename]] according to MediaWiki documentation, but the same page also notes that other variants are not incorrect. There is no point in changing one form that works to a different form, and in some cases doing so could be seen as disruptive - making mass changes by a bot definitely would be (see WP:COSMETICBOT) and so I strongly oppose that suggestion. If you're editing the redirect for some other reason (categorising it, nominating it at RfD) then feel free to change the format if you feel you must, but otherwise just leave them alone. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out WP:COSMETICBOT, I didn't know of its existence. I won't ask for an exemption by consensus as I don't feel it's worth the bother and so I withdraw my bot request. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Tagging of Redirects in Categories

I am glad that I was directed here. As an AFC reviewer, I encounter a lot a redirects for which drafts are submitted, and do a lot of tagging of redirects into redirect categories. Is this the right place to ask about the Twinkle redirect tagging tool? I will have two kinds of questions. First, is a particular category a right category to tag a redirect with? Second, can an option be added to the Twinkle menu for a category? (The only one that comes to my mind as existing in the category scheme and not available in Twinkle is {{R from related person}}. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes and no. This is not a bad place to ask questions about what category a given redirect should be tagged as, but it's the wrong place to ask for changes to Twinkle - maybe try WT:TWINKLE for that? Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Categorising redirects

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Categorising redirects. Qwerfjkl talk 07:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Addition of {{redirect category shell}}

I create a lot of redirects, mostly from alternative forms of people's names, also from their surname when they are a unique surname-holder, but of course sometimes also from moving a page (when the redirect is created automatically), or for various other reasons. By default, they are on my watchlist. Just occasionally something crops up where it's useful to be alerted (eg someone overwriting a redirect with an article, which may or may not be a good edit).

My watchlist report is flooded today by the addition of {{Redirect category shell}} to vast numbers of surname redirects, by @Red Director:. I often check my watchlist on my phone, and today it's very difficult to spot the interesting edits.

If it is considered desirable for all redirects to have this template, could we please have a bot to do it automatically?

If not, could these changes please not be made? (Or can someone advise me how to keep them out of my watchlist report?) Thanks. PamD 09:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@PamD I don't think it is worth adding rcat shell by itself; there is almost no benefit. This will probably be impossible to filter out of your watchlist. ― Qwerfjkl talk 12:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I will adhere to this feedback and quit adding those. Thanks. Red Director (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Red Director: I don't really understand the point of that template - possibly someone will come along here and tell us how important it is, in which case we need a bot to add it, but for now I can look forward to a more manageable watchlist again. Thanks. PamD 12:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@PamD:. I mistakenly had some conflicting information from another user, of which it is not their fault, but mine. The concept was it was better for a redirect to have a shell compared to no shell. Templates on redirect category pages encouraged the use of said shells. Just giving you my rationale here. A bot that does not flag watchlists or marks these as minor would be a much better handler for this kind of task in my opinion. Best wishes. Red Director (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Signpost interview

Hi everyone, I have always enjoyed reading WikiProject interviews on the signpost and want to try and revive that section by conducting interviews, but I need some interviewees and I can see this project hasn't been featured yet (I think!) Would anyone be interested in participating in an interview? It would be similar to this one (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-06-27/WikiProject report) and would be open to anyone who wants to answer any questions they would like to. It's a good way to draw attention to your project and the work you conduct here :). Cheers Tom (LT) (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it will be a good idea to get some of the redirect-related work out of the kitchen cupboard and out into the open. However, I don't think it's particularly organised (we ain't Mil Hist), and this particular project page isn't watched much, so getting hold of people, Tom (LT), may require posting on a few more pages (like WT:RFD, WT:RDR, or WT:RCAT). – Uanfala (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Uanfala. That's a good point, but I've decided more or less to focus my interviews on WikiProjects per se rather than editors active in particular domains. There'll be space for discussion in the comments area. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Tom (LT), as a relatively prolific redirect reviewer I'd be willing to answer some questions for the Signpost. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill and @Uanfala whoops, I don't believe I actually linked to the draft interview here. The draft interview is here: User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject redirects interview draft and is open to as many editors as would like to participate and for each editor to whichever questions you'd like to respond. Thanks for participating. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill if you'd like to respond, the link is above. I'm aiming for the September signpost. Cheers Tom (LT) (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Tom (LT), yeah I looked through it a few days ago but I'm actually thinking that I'm not the best person to speak to this. I'm quite active at RFD and in patrolling new redirects, but I don't really do any of that through the centralized wikiproject _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Tom (LT), do you have any idea what happened to the interview page? – Uanfala (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep. It got published! (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-10-31/WikiProject report) Tom (LT) (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I've answered the questions, though, like @Rosguill:, I don't feel that the project as such has much impact on my enthusiastic creation of redirects. It would be good if someone really involved in the project and the redirect categorisation templates etc could respond to Tom. PamD 05:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Bottom Ten

I listed a redirect proposal at Talk:Bottom Ten but can't find a template to put at the top of the DAB page itself, as one would do for a proposed merge. Is there such a thing? Or should I simply list it at RfD? Leschnei (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably because there isn't one. I've been BOLD and just turned it into a redirect per your talk page ideas; if someone contests it we can revert and discuss more on the talk page. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac. Leschnei (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Guidance on actor names

Hi, I'm now second-guessing myself on how to categorize redirects when it comes to actors with 3 names (e.g. Sarah Michelle Gellar). Is there any written policy clarifying whether Sarah Gellar would be an {{R from short name}} or an {{R from incomplete name}}? It's kind of a short name, but she is also unlikely to be referred to as that in articles about her.

If there is no official guidance, any opinions/experience? Thanks! — TARDIS builder^✉ | 05:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Flag Template

See here. It affects more than a thousand redirects. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Bot to correct miscategorized sortname redirects.

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Bot to correct miscategorized sortname redirects.. Qwerfjkl talk 22:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

template:pror

How to use printworthy R from colloquial?

Hi, I was working on categorising templates, I stumbled upon a redirect that is printworthy, and happens to be a colloquial name too. But I'm not able to make out exactly what to put within the r cat shell. Can anyone please help me out? Thanks! ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 05:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@CX Zoom:
{{R from colloquial name|2=printworthy}}? ― Qwerfjkl talk 08:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Is that all? I was confused by {{R from colloquial name}}'s documentation. Thank you very much. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 08:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikispecies soft redirects

Six {{Wikispecies redirect}} soft redirects have been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Interested editors are welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Traut Austin. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 11:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Correct RCAT templates

Hi, the page Template:Vfd was the older version of what will later become Template:Afd, and then Template:Article for deletion. But it appears that Template:Vfd doesn't have a page history usually caused due to page move, probably the move was a copy-paste move. So, does {{R from move}} apply here? It appears that it might also be a case of {{R with old history}}, but the given RCAT, despite allowing usage in all namespaces, currently says This is a redirect from a page that was from a historic version of this Wikipedia project. Template:Vfd was however, not a Wikipedia project page. So, what can be done here? Thanks! ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 18:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

R from journal - or from "journal article"

I think the wording of {{R from journal}} is confusing and have opened a discussion at Template talk:R from journal. PamD 10:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for "sponsored names redirection templates"

I want to propose a template for "redirections for sponsored names" of article topics. I'm working on re-instating the information of Vodafone Ghana Music Awards to Ghana Music Awards on grounds of title/headline sponsorship, but Wikipedians are doubting/questioning my action. I feel that the "redirections from alternative names" template alone ain't siting right with me, with the redirects of pages like, La Liga Santander, Carabao Cup and DStv Premiership backing my point. I'll be waiting for your response. Thanks!! Pannra (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

R from school

The wording of {{R from school}} is confusing. Should it only be used, as it implies, if there was a school article, which was cut down to a redirect, such as to the school district, or may it be used if there hasn't been a school article, but a draft is in review? I know that if there is a draft, I should also tag {{R with possibilities}}.

Thank you for an answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, I agree it should be changed so that it means what it is, i.e. a redirect from a school. Qwerfjkl talk 20:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Removing #REDIRECT

A keen IP editor repeatedly removes #REDIRECT from several redirects as diverse as Foxes and Sinema, leaving a bare wikilink to the target. The resulting mini-articles usually get reverted quickly, with NPR as a backstop, but does anyone have any bright ideas for deterring them? There's probably not enough volume for an edit filter. Certes (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Rcat template

Hey, I am wanting to make redirects to Marc Antony and Pussyfoot for each individual character, but I'm not sure how to categorize them. {{R to joint biography}} is the most obvious choice, but I am reluctant to apply it to fictional characters. Is there something similar for them? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

R from member? or just do {{R from fictional character}} on its own. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 19:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Hatnote for a Wiktionary redirect?

SMIDSY was, since 2009 with a few hiccups, a redirect to Wiktionary and Wikidata (from 2005 to 2009 it was a definition of the phrase, before this was moved to Wiktionary). I have now retargetted SMIDSY to Beryl (company) as the formal name of the company is SMIDSY, and the meaning of the acronym is explained in the article. But should there be a hatnote pointing to Wiktionary, to provide readers with the information they'd have had before I retargetted the redirect? If it had been a redirect to another topic, but I thought the company was the primary topic, I'd have added a {{redirect}} hatnote to the company article, but this is a variation on that situation. I'd be happy with a dab page ... but I suspect it would be squashed as "disambiguates only one article". I just think that if yesterday the reader looking for SMIDSY found a helpful link to Wiktionary, they should still be able to find that link to the definition today while the reader wanting the company can get there too. Thoughts? PamD 14:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree a hatnote to Wiktionary would be useful and reasonable. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: How do you think it should be formatted? Or do you mean "It would be useful if there was a suitable hatnote template to use but there isn't"? PamD 19:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, {{See Wiktionary}} and {{Redirect}} both come pretty close to what I imagine you're looking for; e.g. {{Redirect|SMIDSY||wiktionary:SMIDSY}} yields:

But if you want both the "X redirects here" text and to have the wiktionary link nicely wrapped a la {{See Wiktionary}}, I imagine you would need to use {{Hatnote}} with custom text. -- Visviva (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Visviva: I find there's a "redirect" parameter for {{See Wiktionary}} which is just what I need! ({{See Wiktionary|redirect=SMIDSY||SMIDSY}}, note the empty field which I didn't spot at first) Job done. Thanks for pointing me to the answer though you didn't realise it! PamD 07:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Redirects at RfD and template:R to category namespace (and maybe others)

Redirects that are currently nominated at RfD are not detected as redirects and so Template:R to category namespace (and possibly others) output a big red error (e.g. currently at Flora of New South Wales). If it is not possible to suppress the error in these circumstances, then the error text should be amended to note this so well-meaning editors do not remove it as it is unlikely to be readded if the discussion concludes as keep (or retarget to a different location where it is also relevant). Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects § Soft redirects to sister projects

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects § Soft redirects to sister projects. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Template:Language with name

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Language with name#Redirect from Language name, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Pokémon species redirected to lists has been nominated for renaming

Category:Pokémon species redirected to lists has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Large redirects

I've listed pages which are redirects but have a lot of text. Common good reasons include numerous categories and preparing a replacement article/dab below #REDIRECT. Common bad reasons include an incomplete merge or cut-paste move and creation of a duplicate article which few readers will see. I've worked through the last page of an old report, representing our 31 largest redirects (7576 to 45578 bytes), and taken appropriate action or asked for help. I can work through the rest gradually, perhaps filtering out those with many categories automatically first. Does anyone else here have experience in this area? Certes (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The short answer to your last question is yes, but I don't really have a lot of available Wiki-spoons at the moment to jump in to the list. Happy to give 2O's on things, though. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I've started to chip away at this list and I'll do what I can. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Certes, I forked your query, set the minimum to 2000 bytes, re-ran it, exported the table, did some excel magic, and I've now placed a table at User:Hey man im josh/sandbox1. It was bugging me having to search for the pages, so I wikilinked them with the noredirect template. I'm noting down which ones are as large as they are due to categories and trying to clean up ones that have issues. You're more than welcome to edit the sandbox to help mark things off and I'll leave this the table in place until we get through it, if you're interested. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I've upped quarry:query/69603 to 2000 plus 40 per category. It takes a lot longer to run than your fork, due to checking categories, but should save some human time. It could be wrapped in a {{database report}} to create wikilinks and other nice formatting. Certes (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Technical reasons and redlinks

Powers has an episode called "F@#K the Big Chiller". This cannot be a redirect, as titles cannot contain # for technical reasons. As our best effort, F@K the Big Chiller (without #) helpfully redirects to List of Powers (American TV series) episodes#ep10. So far, so good. However, anyone who does attempt to visit F@#K the Big Chiller, by either typing the URL manually or following a careless wikilink, will end up at redlink F@. Should we do something about this, e.g. redirect F@ to the episode? This matter is trivial but there may be similar cases, and I can't think of a way to search for them. Pinging Tamzin who improved a related hatnote. Certes (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any issue here, after all redirects exist to help readers reach their intended target. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I also don't see a problem with creating this redirect and pointing it to the episode, as long as it's the primary topic for the term "F@". There is even a template for categorizing redirects with incomplete titles. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

If "F@" isn't ambiguous with anything, then yeah, it should be an {{avoided double redirect}} to List of Powers (American TV series) episodes#ep10. The only ambiguity I see is with the SMS abbreviation for "fat", which I doubt we'll ever have encyclopedic coverage of, so I'd say create it. Could put {{technical reasons|f@|definition of the term "f@"|wikt:f@{{!}}the Wiktionary entry "f@"}} at target if you wanted, but meh. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I've created F@. I've left off the {{technical reasons}} template here, as it would apply to an anchor generated by Module:Episode list in the middle of a table, but it's good advice for other cases. The only other meaning I can find is the tastefully titled track 3 on the Escape from Monsta Island! album, which has no incoming links or redirect. Certes (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata items and Wikipedia redirects

Should we mention somewhere that Wikipedia redirects can now be linked to Wikidata items, since the method is not obvious? In the Wikipedia box (bottom left on a Wikidata item screen), after typing the title of a Wikipedia redirect, the user interface does not react: the publish link remains greyed out, just as if the page did not exist or were already linked to another item. However, clicking the badge (rosette icon) to the right and selecting "intentional sitelink to redirect" from the dropdown allows the linkage to be saved. Certes (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Automatic sensing for Redirect category shell

I've started a discussion at Template talk:Redirect category shell that editors here would be interested in. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I've asked on the help desk, but maybe here might be better.

I'd like to find a query that returns all redirects where the target of the redirect is equal to the redirect without "The " at the beginning. While theoretically, I'd like both "The AAA" redirecting to "AAA" *and* "The bbb" redirecting to "Bbb". I understand they might be different queries. Do I need to figure out something in quarry?Naraht (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Ironically, I have recently made several hundred of these as sortname redirects (e.g., "Foo, The" redirecting to "The Foo"), which are in Category:Redirects from sort names by article title, The, and Category:Redirects from ambiguous sort names by article title, The. These categories do not necessarily capture all such instances, nor do they capture redirects of "Foo" to "The Foo", which theoretically should generally be included in Category:Redirects from short names. Many more are probably currently uncategorized altogether. BD2412 T 19:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I *think* this may be the reverse of what I'm looking for. What I'm doing is the following. The Johns Hopkins University is a redirect to Johns Hopkins University and The Ohio State University is a redirect to Ohio State University. (and similarly for The Johns Hopkins Hospital) I'd like to find as many of those as I can so that I can change them so the redirect isn't used. (So "Brian attended The Johns Hopkins University" would be cleaned up (AWB) to "Brian attended Johns Hopkins University)Naraht (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Navboxes on redirects allowed?

In reviewing redirects as part of the WP:NPP process, I came upon 15-20 pages that had a navbox included on them. I removed the navboxes and left a talk page message for the user asking them not to add navboxes to redirects. In short, their stance is that it's just an opinion that navboxes do not belong on redirect pages, that including them is useful incase the page eventually gets turned into an article, and that they will be re-adding them when they find which pages I removed said navboxes from. I've spent a good amount of time looking, but I'm unable to find anything policy or MOS related that outlines what can and cannot be included on a redirect page.

I don't want to get into an edit war with them if they do add the navboxes back. While it seems obvious to me that redirects should not have navboxes (they either break the redirect and don't belong, or they're not viewed when the redirect is functioning properly and don't belong), I don't have anything I can point to that states what they're doing is not ok. Do I just let them be, or is there something based on policy that I can point to? Hey man im josh (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you give an example please? I'm of the opinion that "Redirects don't belong in navboxes" and "if something is linked to in a navbox the article should generally contain the navbox" put together would seem to equal don't put navboxes in a redirect page. Naraht (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Naraht it's the opposite in this case. This is about someone adding navboxes to redirect pages. You're right though, templates (navboxes) are not meant to link to redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

If the redirect itself is in the navbox then the navbox is incorrectly linking to a redirect. If the redirect *isn't* then the navbox is linking to a page that the navbox isn't on. Whichever way it is violates one of the rules. :)

For example, Blue is a redirect to red. A template is placed onto Blue. If Blue is linked to from the template, then the template is linking to a redirect. If Blue isn't linked on the template then the template is on a page (Blue) that isn't one of the template links.Naraht (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Nav templates CAN have redirects, per WP:NAVNOREDIRECT, they usually shouldn't - so I don't think that is really a factor here. The fact that redirects are not normally viewed by a reader means that the navbox is normally not seen, thus this seems benign to me. I don't think adding them "incase the pages eventually gets turned into an article" is a good reason, but unless this causes some extra maintenance burden that I am unaware of, it's probably not worth pursuing. MB 00:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification @MB, you're right to point out it's not as de facto as I implied.

That's kind of where I landed on this. It's not explicitly disallowed to include a navbox on a redirect page. So long as it doesn't break the redirect, it's not actually hurting anything as far as I can tell. The navbox will just simply not be seen in most cases. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Fireworks?

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

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

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

Category:Redirects from citation identifiers has been nominated for merging

Category:Redirects from citation identifiers has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to repurpose the WWT shortcut

Currently, Wikipedia:WWT is a shortcut which redirects to the Writing project page. There is currently a discussion open to repurpose this shortcut to a different page. Your feedback would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WWT. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Redirect templates on soft redirects

Most of the redirect templates have documentation that says they should not be used on soft redirects (example: Template:R from Unicode character/doc). I removed them from a redirect to Wiktionary [1] but it was undone by another editor with the explanation "these pages still need to be categorized and are useful as such". Was there a consensus somewhere or is there any other reason not to use these templates on soft redirects? Peter James (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a good question. I don't see why redirect templates shouldn't be used on a soft redirect; however, I would probably add a soft redirect to regular categories rather than redirect categories. MClay1 (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Seem to behave badly on soft category redirects, so the creators probably figured they might be unstable on all soft redirects. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Template:Wikidata redirect vs Template:R with Wikidata item

Hi! I recently found {{R with Wikidata item}}. Previously I had only been aware of {{Wikidata redirect}}.

(Also, at the moment {{Wikidata redirect}} is the only one of the two that is mentioned in the docs on Wikidata, at d:Wikidata:Sitelinks to redirects).

This gives rise to a couple of questions (see below). But first, some broader considerations about wikidata items being sitelinked to redirect pages.

Wikidata items can end up linked to redirects here in a couple of ways:

Case (1) the linking to a redirect have been done deliberately by wikidata user. This typically happens if there are two distinguishable concepts that each have their own wikidata item, but both are treated in the same article here on en-wiki (perhaps in different sections).
Case (2) a sitelink to a redirect may have been left behind after a merge here on English wikipedia. This may mean that the two wikidata items ought to be merged too -- or the items may represent concepts that are different enough that even though merged here they should continue separately on wikidata.

To try to distinguish whether sitelinks to redirects are appropriate, or whether they have just happened, the sitelinks can now have one of two 'badges' added to them: either intentional sitelink to redirect (Q70894304) for links to redirects that are appropriate (which gets displayed as a blue redirect symbol next to the sitelink on wikidate); or alternatively sitelink to redirect (Q70893996) if the link exists but it is undetermined whether the link is or is not appropriate (which gets displayed as a grey redirect symbol).

At the moment the majority of sitelinks still have the grey badge, indicating they need to be checked, but it is intended to work through them.

Up until now Wikidata users been encouraged to mark deliberately-made redirects with the {{Wikidata redirect}} template here on wikipedia; and this has been used to populate the blue 'intentional redirect' badges.

However, given that the {{R with Wikidata item}} also exists, a couple of questions arise,

Should wikidata users be encouraged to add {{R with Wikidata item}} rather than {{Wikidata redirect}} if the redirects they have linked to here are hard redirects ?
(The information on {{Wikidata redirect}} seems to suggest they should; but other information elsewhere here seems to say that it is okay to use {{Wikidata redirect}} on hard redirects).
Is it safe to assume that all current uses of {{R with Wikidata item}} here represent what wikidata would consider appropriate sitelinks to redirects -- ie indicating that the links come from wikidata items that it is reasonable to keep separate and not merge?
(In which case they could be used to populate more blue 'intentional redirect' badges).

Or is it possible that some of these {{R with Wikidata item}} templates might have been added at some point simply because these redirects are (or were) sitelinked to wikidata items, regardless of whether there should have been independent wikidata items linked to them?

(In which case it would absolutely not be safe to use them to populate blue 'intentional redirect' badges on wikidata).

Sorry if this is a bit involved, but any guidance people could give on the above two questions would be very useful. Thanks, Jheald (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Elli, Paine Ellsworth, and Qwerfjkl: because I think you've looked at some of the issues in this area. Jheald (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jheald: separating hard and soft redirects has only happened rather recently. The documentation should indeed be updated to indicate that one should use {{R with Wikidata item}} for hard redirects.

The vast majority of current uses are probably fine, though we are planning on eventually applying this automatically -- which would indicate that just because the template is used, doesn't necessarily mean the link to Wikidata is intended. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for all this, editor Jheald! You've caught us here in a wip that only recently has begun to be implemented, so template documentation has not yet caught up. In a nutshell, {{Wikidata redirect}}, which in the past has been one of the few rcat templates that could be used on both hard and soft redirects, will only be applied to soft redirects, such as Wiktionary redirects. The very new {{R with Wikidata item}} will only be applied to hard redirects. If the WR template did not always represent "appropriate" sitelinks to redirects, then it is likely that the RWWI template won't either. That latter template is presently replacing the WR template on hard redirects, and perhaps editors Elli and Qwerfjkl can help with how far along that process is progressing. Seems to be very close to being finished, so the template docs should be updated soon, and then Wikidata documentation can be adapted to these helpful improvements. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 01:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth, I've replaced all {{Wikidata redirect}}s on hard redirects with {{R with Wikidata item}}, and attempted to update the documentation. — Qwerfjkl talk 07:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Excellent! bots can definitely be our friends when applied cautiously, wisely. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 12:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Elli, Paine Ellsworth, and Qwerfjkl: Thanks everybody. Lots of very useful information.

Going forward, I wonder if it would be possible to have two templates, perhaps {{R with Wikidata item}} and {{R with Wikidata item (unchecked)}}, to try to preserve the distinction between, on the one hand, when we know there's a wikidata item for the redirect and are reasonably confident that there ought to be a wikidata item which is distinct from the item for the redirect target, compared to on the other hand, where we know the redirect has a wikidata item, but that might just be a sign that the two wikidata items need merging.

I feel that's a useful distinction not just for wikidata, but also here for en-wiki where (IMO) it seems a quite useful thing to be able to say, if we're trying to inform people about the nature of the redirect.

Some current statistics. Per this query https://w.wiki/6DGt there are currently 205,754 wikidata items marked as sitelinked to redirect pages here on en-wiki. Of these 9500 are currently marked as 'blue' (intentional) links to redirects, and 196,254 marked as 'grey' (status unknown) links to redirects. These numbers I believe should be reasonably up to date, thanks to a bot that I think is run weekly by User:MisterSynergy, that has been adding a blue badge if it finds a new sitelink to a redirect and the redirect has a {{Wikidata redirect}}; a grey badge if the sitelink was to a redirect and the redirect page had no such template; and removes the badge if the sitelink target is no longer a redirect. (bot authorisation).

That reflected an understanding that the {{Wikidata redirect}} templates were only being added manually, typically by wikidata editors when they were intentionally sitelink to a redirect, and were a good indicator that these sitelinks should get a blue badge. User:Paine Ellsworth has questioned that assumption above -- so I'd be interested to know if you know or believe that there may be many cases where the {{Wikidata redirect}} template may have been applied without knowledge of whether the second wikidata item was 'appropriate' ?

Current template usage stats here, after Qwerfjkl's efforts, are now 843 transclusions of {{Wikidata redirect}} and 34,529 transclusions of {{R with Wikidata item}}. Which add up to rather more than the 9500 'blue' links to redirects.

So far there's been no organised campaign to investigate the 'grey' sitelinks on wikidata. (We all have other things that we work on, and Mister Synergy's bot has only become possible in the last couple of months or so). But trying to track down and merge unmerged duplicates is a constant task on wikidata, so they are a definite concern -- and also, as I wrote above, probably useful information here too, to distinguish Rs with an 'appropriate' wikidata item from Rs where that is not known for sure.

On wikidata there's been talk that it may be possible to identify particular patterns of 'good' sitelinks to redirects (that could maybe be promoted systematically from grey to blue) -- eg on items for individual asteroids (one of the biggest classes of items linking to redirects https://w.wiki/6DK3 with 22,210 cases) if they redirect to "list of asteroids" articles here; or eg if we can identify a relation between the item for the redirect and the item for the target, such as from one family member to another; or cases such as sculptor -> sculpture, where on wikidata it is important to distinguish the two concepts, but on wikipedia it makes sense to treat them together.

Similarly here it may be possible to find hallmarks of wikidata sitelinks that are likely to be 'good', if for example they occur together with "R with possibilities" or "R to section". But this might be a lot easier to analyse if there were two templates, {{R with Wikidata item}} and {{R with Wikidata item (unchecked)}}.

It might be that the template here for the redirect classification bannershell could automatically pick up whether the sitelink has a blue or grey redirect badge (and could then auto-populate categories accordingly, which can be quite accessible for tools). But until that's in place (and the badges easily changeable from tools), can I suggest that for the moment it really would be useful to keep two different templates, and to instruct wikidata users to use a particular one if they create a new redirect sitelink which they know is intentional? Thanks, Jheald (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Why not just add a parameter |checked=yes to the {{R with Wikidata item}} template? Elli (talk | contribs) 18:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Elli: Thanks, that's a good idea. A key thing would be to make sure the template also added a category, if we would want it to be useful to tools, because trying to read a parameter value on up to 200,000 pages is not such a good proposition, whereas category membership is much more accessible.

Having considered a bit more, a better name for the parameter might be |intentional=yes, to match the nomenclature of the badge. The text choices could be updated to "This is a redirect from a title with a sitelink to an item on Wikidata" and "This is a redirect from a title with an intentional sitelink to an item on Wikidata".

Finally, redirects with intentional sitelinks could populate Category:Wikidata intentional redirects, to exist alongside Category:Wikidata redirects. A note on the template information page could clarify that 'intentional' means 'in accordance with d:Wikidata:Sitelinks to redirects'. Does all that seem acceptable? One thing I'm not sure of is whether Category:Wikidata intentional redirects and Category:Wikidata redirects should both be populated for redirects with intentional links, or only the one category. Which would be more useful? I'm guessing it's harder to subtract lists of category members than to add them, so maybe one-or-the-other might be the better way to go?

Initially the |intentional=yes parameter could be populated for the 9500 links that currently have blue badges. Could all the rest of the sitelinks that currently have {{R with Wikidata item}} also be considered to be intentional? I'm not sure, given some of what's been written above. Or what do people think? A cautious approach might be just to save a list of these currently tagged pages (or a Petscan pagepile), to keep for future investigation.

Going forward, I see from the wikidata newsletter for last week that the ability to access badges from Lua has recently landed (phab:T305378), though I'm not sure if it's active yet. So it either should now or should soon be possible to code {{R with Wikidata item}} to pick up this information automatically. Would that be a desirable thing? Or is useful to leave the parameter value easily editable in wikitext by humans here, and get bots to sync it both ways with the sitelink badges?

Input on all of this would be good; but yes, extending the template does seem a good way forward. Jheald (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I'd populate both categories. Not sure about the rest. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Elli, @Jheald, my thoughts:
A parameter sounds good, and will help make sure that the link is intentional. I would suggest Category:Intentional Wikidata redirects, as a subcategory of Category:Wikidata redirects, with the parent category just containing unknown redirects (excluding those with |intentional=yes).
Maybe these categories should be renamed to match the rest of the redirect categories, i.e. Category:Redirects (intentionally) linked to Wikidata? — Qwerfjkl talk 19:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Given that we have both Category:Wikidata redirects and Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item, perhaps we should rename these to clarify the distinction? — Qwerfjkl talk 19:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl I propose to rename Category:Wikidata redirects to Category:Redirects intentionally connected to a Wikidata item Nagsb (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────────┘
@Nagsb, then I suppose we need another category to track soft redirects? — Qwerfjkl talk 21:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl I have already created Category:Soft redirects connected to a Wikidata item. Nagsb (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nagsb, so we have:

Soft redirects connected to a Wikidata item
Soft redirects intentionally connected to a Wikidata item
Hard redirects connected to a Wikidata item
Hard redirects intentionally connected to a Wikidata item

But not necessarily categories for each of those, are those aren't necessarily the best names.
Am I correct that these are the categories are what you're suggesting? Can only soft/hard redirects be intentional? — Qwerfjkl talk 19:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl yes, and also Category:Unlinked Wikidata redirects, possible split as well into hard/soft. Nagsb (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nagsb, this sounds like it needs a fairly complicated CfD nomination. I suggest having (Soft) redirects connected (intentionally) to a Wikidata item, as well as (Soft) redirects not linked to Wikidata (could do with a better name). — Qwerfjkl talk 21:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl but Category:Soft redirects connected to a Wikidata item is the same as Category:Soft redirects intentionally connected to a Wikidata item, because there could not be not intentionally placed templates. Nagsb (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nagsb, the redirect may not be intentionally linked to Wikidata though (as with hard redirects). — Qwerfjkl talk 06:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Does swapping a redirect and it's base article require a formal request process?

Greetings. If there's a uncontested, non-controversial page move, the WP:RMUM instructions state that there is no formal request needed to make the move, to just be bold and make the move. However, if that move also involves swapping a redirect with it's target, does that then create a requirement to undergo a formal request process? And if so- Where and How does one do such? Thank you. Gecko G (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons (like not having WP:page mover right required for swapping a redirect with it's target), you can request technical move here. Nagsb (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

no, no inability to complete it due to technical concerns.

I'm gathering information to diffuse a move-edit war. Due to a recent change in official transliteration/romanization practice an English Wikipedia article needs one letter changed by swapping the article and the redirect. Another editor posted on the article's talk page in question about the move, got no disagreement, so then swapped the article and the redirect. A Third editor reverted it, not because they disagreed with it, but because the second editor didn't submit a formal request through the technical move process you linked - but the original editor successfully made the move so it's clearly not a technical move. And they started going back and forth - I'm stepping in to try to sort it out and prevent further warring before either editor reaches 3RR. The third editor isn't claiming the move is controversial, just that there is "a formal process", but that does not seem to be the case under WP:RMUM (which it would fall under if it's neither a technical move nor a controversial move) - but I wanted to check if there was something about it being a swap between an article and a redirect that would supersede WP:RMUM and thus make it require a formal request process. I wasn't finding any guidelines and figured this wikiproject was the best place to ask. Gecko G (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:PAGESWAP does not require a formal request process. WP:RM is needed only in cases where such a swap might be controversial, i.e., face objections from some editors. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Can someone check out this template?

Hey, I stumbled across {{R fictional work}} the other day, and there's some... weird stuff going on with it that I have no idea how to fix. What I know has been dropped on the template talk page, but I have no idea how to fix any of it, and it pertains to this WikiProject so I figured I'd ask here. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Notification: Category:Wikidata redirects to be moved to Category:Redirects connected intentionally to a Wikidata item

An editor has requested for Category:Wikidata redirects to be moved to Category:Redirects connected intentionally to a Wikidata item. Since you had some involvement with :Category:Wikidata redirects, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Laxeril (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Imperative tense redirects

There's been a lot of scattered discussion at RfD lately about whether redirects in the imperative tense (e.g., add rendering rules to Graphite, perceive emotional prosody) are appropriate or whether they should be deleted. I'd like to bring up the topic here so we can have some centralized discussion and reach a general consensus, instead of having scattered arguments over individual redirects. I suggest reading the ongoing discussion (the one that lead me to ask for general discussion here, in fact) at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 18#Perceive emotional prosody for context. A list of imperative-tense redirects under discussion can be found in my sandbox. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Specific days of the 21st century

Background RfD.

I think it's clear that redirects for individual days would be helpful. Proposed is that redirects should be created and/or retargeted, probably be a specifically designed bot, to its corresponding subpage of Portal:Current events. I think they should be done in at least three types, possibly more: DMY, MDY, YMD. We're looking for a solid consensus here before attempting to implement this – there might be some pushback to doing as proposed to dates mentioned in mainspace (ex: January 26 at 2009), or opposition based on that these would be cross-namespace redirects. In my opinion, neither are major problems – Portal:Current events/2009 January 26 covers all that at the year article and more, and both namespaces are reader-facing. Nevertheless, it's good to gather some more opinions, so please state anything and everything you think on this matter.

An example of the proposed redirects: 11 July 2023; July 11, 2023; and 2023 July 11 all be created as redirects to Portal:Current events/2023 July 11, or alternatively targeted to Portal:Current events/July 2023.

Checking Category:Years by day, this is looking at something like 23,160 edits in total for a bot, or a dedicated editor with AWB or somesuch.

Notifying TartarTorte. J947 † ^edits 04:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

How badly would these redirects flood search results? I'm not concerned about the cross-namespace aspect, but search results could get flooded (search January 17, and see how the search results for the few years that have a redirect are above articles like January 17-18, 1999 tornado outbreak). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Just testing by briefly retargeting January 7, 2004, I think that retargeting outside of mainspace deprioritises it pretty severely. The problem there is quite valid – but it's actually the other way around; these redirects are too hard to access. That's a point in favour of pointing some to the year articles instead, potentially. J947 † ^edits 06:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

My initial knee-jerk reaction is to be opposed to XNRs to the Portal space. Primefac (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I think until 2008 these were all in the mainspace. That they're in the Portal space and not the mainspace seems like it isn't really a distinction based on lack of encyclopaedic value, or inadequate sourcing, or something like that, but just a matter of placing. J947 † ^edits 07:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Ooh wow, that really hurts it. I'm still hesitant to mass-create relatively unused redirects (they seem to be getting around 1-2 views a month), but search results being mostly unaffected is definitely good. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I actually think that's a reason to mass create them – it's more painless to do so via bot in general, and it can apply the necessary rcats too. They're not especially well-used but the humantime:redirect ratio is very small. J947 † ^edits 00:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I think it would make sense to make these and with the search result impact being minimal, I think that this is probably not going to cause huge disruption. While there are possible XNR issues, I don't personally have a huge issue with redirecting from Article space to Portal space as they're both reader facing. Even with minimal use, it's likely helpful to the reader. TartarTorte 14:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Use of "R to diacritic"

The documentation for the template {{R to diacritic}} states that it's to be used for redirects to "the same page name with diacritics". What's the position where the target article title is not the same as the redirect, but the redirect title with diacritics is an alternative name for the subject (and is already redirected with {{R from alternative name}})? Specifically, should it be used on Declasse, which currently redirects to Déclassée (with two 'e's)? Déclassé (with one 'e') is an alternative name for the film, not merely a misspelling. Tevildo (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tevildo: Yes, you can tag that redirect with {{R to diacritic}} – it supports one unnamed parameter for including the equivalent title with diacritics. – The fact that the wording of the template doesn't exhaustively list the possible uses of the rcat does not necessarily mean that the other uses are prohibited. To be honest, I would use {{R to diacritic}} on any redirect whose title officially omits diacritics, regardless of its relationship to the target topic (e.g. on the redirect Laicite, despite Laïcité itself being an alternative name for Secularism in France). Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added the appropriate categorization templates. Perhaps it might be an idea if the words "the same page name" were less prominently emphasized in the template documentation, if this is an appropriate use. Tevildo (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You can also use {{R avoided double redirect}}. — Qwerfjkl talk 07:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about soft redirects to sister projects

There is a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects § Soft redirects to sister projects regarding changing the guidelines on when soft redirects to Wikimedia sister projects are allowed, and it needs input from more editors. Randi🦋^Talk_Contribs 11:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Newspaper redirects

Is it appropriate to tag redirects from newspapers, such as Higher Ed Dive, with {{R from work}}? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

"Template:R from deadname" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:R from deadname has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 30 § Template:R from deadname until a consensus is reached. A smart kitten (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Printworthy rcats

I’ve noticed on a number of rcat documentation pages that editors are instructed to also tag printworthiness, even when the rcat is configured to automatically sort one way or the other. E.g., {{R to disambiguation page}} automatically categorises redirects as unprintworthy, but its docs state that when the redirect is in article namespace, printworthiness should also be tagged.

I was just wondering if there was a reason these documentation statements should be kept, or if they can safely be removed. (I’d started removing a few, but given how many similar statements I ended up finding, I thought it best to check if there was a reason for this first.)

Best, A smart kitten (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

To editor A smart kitten: yes, in the documentation of each such rcat template it is explained that efforts are ongoing to support the Wikimedia Foundation's goal of increasing access and availability of Wikipedia articles in printed versions. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team was established to further these efforts. Rcat templates have two purposes: 1) to categorize redirects, and 2) to provide informative text to further editors' understanding in regard to why a redirect is so categorized. So even when a printworthiness rcat template is not needed for the categorization, it is still needed for its information value. Thank you very much for asking about this, and please replace those statements you have removed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: no problem, and thanks for the clarification! Will self—revert my changes to the docs pages now. A smart kitten (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Happy to help! Paine 09:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Redirects involving BLP privacy issues

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Redirects involving BLP privacy issues. ^user:A smart kitten_meow 21:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding avoided double redirects

Another question from me I’m afraid!

I just created Wound dressings, and tagged it as a {{R avoided double redirect}} to Wound dressing, and accordingly also tagged it with {{R from modification}}.

My question is: given the status of Wound dressings as an avoided double-redirect, should I also have tagged it with {{R from alternative name}}, as Wound dressing is? As the former is not an ‘alternative name’ of the latter, but is an alternative name of the target.

Best, A smart kitten (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@A smart kitten, yes. It is redirecting to Dressing (medical) and is an alternative name of that. — Qwerfjkl talk 14:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"Template:R from native name" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:R from native name has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 4 § Template:R from native name until a consensus is reached. Place Clichy (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Please make it easier for new and unregistered users to propose redirects

As this page states, redirects in the article space outnumber actual articles 3 to 2. Currently, when viewing a non-existent page in the main namespace, a new or unregistered user gets an option to create an article draft. I think they should also get an option to propose a new redirect. --Grey Clownfish (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Grey Clownfish, are you aware of WP:AFCRC? — Qwerfjkl talk 08:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I presume the OP is talking about the message seen when searching for a title that doesn't exist, "You can create a draft and submit it for review, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." and asking that it also contain a link to where a new redirect can be requested. The message appears to be defined at MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new-nocreate, so I will try to boldly add a link. Any discussion about it will likely be at MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new-nocreate rather than here though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

{{R with old history}} - cutoff date

Out of interest, is anyone aware if there’s a codified ‘cutoff date’ for what counts as old history for the purposes of applying {{R with old history}}? I had a quick search around but couldn’t easily find anything - although I may well have missed something obvious.

All the best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 18:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

As I understand it, it's used when a redirect has history that is required and/or otherwise desirable to be kept for reasons other than a page move or merged content (which have more specific templates). As such the concept of a cut-off date isn't relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that {{R with history}}?

From the little I know I think {{R with old history}} tends to be applied up to about March 2002 or somewhere around then. J 947 ‡ ^edits 03:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at Talk:🔞#Rcats on soft redirects

A discussion at Talk:🔞#Rcats on soft redirects could use input from editors of this WikiProject. Previous related discussion here. Gonnym (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Double soft redirect

Template:Double soft redirect has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Helpful user script

Members of this project may find this user script, which highlights links to redirects with possibilities, helpful. I've had it enabled for a month or so (kudos to @Headbomb and @Anomie for technical help), and it's been useful in identifying several instances of pages that ought to be created or where the tag was applied erroneously. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)