Wikipedia talk:Redirect

Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled until July 16, 2024 at 23:18 UTC. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

Wikipedia Help Project‑class High‑importance

This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. High This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

2003–2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I have just stumbled across this for the first time: consensus is that typos in the template namespace, unless they are very common, should remain as red links until they are fixed. This seems incredible to me: I understand leaving typos in talk pages and other discussion pages, but typos in the templates themselves? Anyway, I have a couple of questions: was this consensus the result of a discussion? If so, where? Can anyone give me an example of a template typo that should be (and has been) kept as a result of this guideline? StAnselm (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No no, typo redirects like Template:Cite wev, not actual typos in the text of the template. :) J947 † ^edits 20:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Is there a way to reword it to make it clearer, or it is just me? StAnselm (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The full text is redirects from typos in the template namespace. Although not explicitly stated, it's the (absent) redirects, rather than the typos, that are in Template:. Certes (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping @

Fgnievinski

From what you’re describing, these sound to me like redirects that may well already result in deletion under the current guidelines. In my (admittedly limited) experience, redirects that don’t have a mention at the target article are often deleted at

D2

; as a redirect from a character that isn’t referred to in the target list could cause confusion to readers.

Because of this, I’m not sure if an addition to D8 is necessary to address cases such as the ones you describe (although please tell me if you think I’m wrong in believing this). Given that (for one thing)

WP:PWIH § Things to consider

).

I think I might also be inherently (though not insurmountably) cautious of additions to the

§ Reasons for deleting

- for one thing, I’d be concerned about the potential for the added text to be interpreted overbroadly, and/or used to argue for(/justify) deletion in ways that weren’t originally intended.

Finally, I apologise that my edit summary when reverting you (and my revert as a whole) could have been done in a better manner. By way of explanation (not to try to excuse myself), as I mentioned above, I think I might be inherently cautious of expansions to deletion reasons; though I accept I could have definitely been clearer in the edit summary regarding my opinion/potential opposition to the addition (to prevent the revert being one of pure procedure).

I apologise if I’ve worded anything poorly here. If you have queries about anything I’ve said, please let me know. All the best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 22:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let's hear a third opinion. D2 does seem a bit too broad though.

fgnievinski (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't support the addition. There are many redirects to subtopics that are covered at the target and are very good redirects - we even have {{R from subtopic}}. If the subtopic is not mentioned at the target then that's covered by the existing criterion, if the subtopic is mentioned but still doesn't make a good redirect then the reason for deletion is something other than it being a subtopic. If this isn't what you were meaning by the addition, then it needs rewording. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that R from subtopic should stay. The full proposal would read: "If the redirect is is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. For example, it could be a novel or obscure synonym for the main topic or it could refer to a minor undiscussed subtopic of the main topic."

fgnievinski (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

What does that add that isn't in the present wording? It just seems like adding complexity for little benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It extends coverage for redirects from subtopics not discussed in the target. Currently D8 only covers synonyms for the main topic (article name).

fgnievinski (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

In general, we should keep redirects if and only they are likely to help readers. A synonym or subtopic being mentioned in the article is a strong indication that some readers will use that search term, but it's not black and white. For example, most misspellings are not mentioned in the article, but the redirect from Moskow to Moscow is still useful. Certes (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, proposal updated: "If the redirect is is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful (common misspellings excepted). For example, it could be a novel or obscure synonym for the main topic or it could refer to a minor undiscussed subtopic of the main topic."

fgnievinski (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Anything that is likely to be useful to readers should be kept, regardless of why it is useful. Some subtopics that are not mentioned make good redirects, some don't. Giving some examples of redirects that you think should have been deleted but which weren't would help make the case that a change like this is needed. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had given two examples of contentious redirects,

fgnievinski (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I asked for examples of redirects that you think should have been deleted but which were not deleted, those two are not examples of that -

iPhone recycling → Mobile phone recycling, there isn't any content at the target about iPhones specifically but the majority (at least) of people using that search term will find what they are looking for so the redirect is beneficial. Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

At least "iPhone" is mentioned in the title of sources cited; furthermore,

fgnievinski (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, editor

ed. ^{put'er there} 18:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I'm interested in creating something. I wanted to first verify that it didn't already exist. ~Kvng (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure, editor

ed. ^{put'er there} 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I've created the template based on {{

WP:BLAR to mention this option. ~Kvng (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Looks like your new template has potential! Did a little minor copy editing and such. Very good job, editor

ed. ^{put'er there} 03:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Having project banners on talk pages of redirects like this, where the target of the redirect has a more comprehensive set of banners, seems pretty useless at best. Would it make sense for a bot to clean up banners in this sort of instance where the banner is present at the target's talk page? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No cleanup required, because more and more projects have embraced the "redirect class" and sort them to categories to track them. If I'm not mistaken, editors are not supposed to create talk pages just to banner them, but if the talk page is already there, then editors are encouraged to banner them. I've been bannering redirect talk pages for nearly fifteen years.

ed. ^{put'er there} 01:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Encouraging editors to banner all redirect talk pages that exist doesn't sound like a great idea. Since in almost all cases, the redirect page will require the same banners as the target, so bannering it just creates a syncing/completion/redundancy problem, where the target will always have a better set of banners than the redirect. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding banners seems to reduce the syncing problem by making the talk page of the redirect match that of the target. However, the real problem may be that the redirect should not have a talk page at all. Certes (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea is for project members to be able to track appropriate redirects and improve them or delete them as needed. Why would this not be a good idea?

ed. ^{put'er there} 20:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

My thought is that a single concept (i.e. the subject of a page) should have only a single centralized record of the talk banners that apply to it, per

DRY

. That record already exists at the talk page of the target. Having a bunch of copies of it at whichever talk pages for incoming redirects happen to exist, rather than assuming that the same project banners apply, is what creates a syncing problem.

Now, there are some times where a banner might apply to a redirect but not the target. For instance, Florida Tech Magazine (a redirect to the university) could reasonably be tagged with {{WikiProject Magazines}}, which would not have been appropriate for the university page. That's why I proposed exempting banners which are not present at the target page.

But in general, we already have enough trouble keeping project tags accurate/complete/up-to-date for 6 million articles, let alone for however many articles+redirects there are. The approach I'm suggesting also aligns with how we approach redirect categorization, which we allow only when there's a category that wouldn't apply to the target. Does that help clarify? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should encourage creating talk pages only to add a banner. However, there is little downside and some potential benefits for projects to be able to track these, especially in cases where the redirect has potential to become a standalone article. older ≠ wiser 20:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]