Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Input solicited

Input would be appreciated in the discussion at Talk:Glider_(sailplane)#Requested_move --Cybercobra (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:R from incorrect name

Moved from Wikipedia:Help desk. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

{{R from incorrect name}} doesn't seem to be showing any text in the redirect page. Anyone have any ideas why? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The software was changed at some time to not display text after the redirect on a redirect page. The template still has the effect of adding the page to Category:Redirects from incorrect names and Category:Unprintworthy redirects. I don't know whether the software change is discussed somewhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Then there doesn't seem much point in the template! Why would we still be using it? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The classification can be useful, for example for data users who treat redirect types differently. A printed version may omit redirects in Category:Unprintworthy redirects. You can discuss more at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Category for talk pages of redirects

I posted a proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Category_for_talk_pages_of_redirects concerning categorizing talk pages of redirects that contain important discussions. If anyone is interested feel free to comment there. -- œ^™ 10:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:R to member

Template {{R to member}} has been nominated for deletion. Members of this project may wish to comment on the discussion at the Templates for discussion page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Soft redirects to other Free wikis

I've suggested a change to our soft redirect guideline to allow for more interwiki redirects. If you're interested, head on over and let me know what you think! --Explodicle (T/C) 18:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect links box

Managing WP:ORIENTEERING it came to my mind how hard it is know what redirects exists. So, I came up with an idea to make a notice box on the talk page on what redirect links exists. My proposal can be seen below for article Orienteering:

See Talk:Orienteering for an experimental implementation. A bot needs to update the redirects regulary for a fully flexible implementation. Anyone interesting in joining to accomplish this? Comments? --Kslotte (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't hard to find redirects using What links here in the toolbox, if you know where to look (left sidebar). Does this need to be easier to find and use? ~ Ningauble (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The hard thing at "What links here" is to know that you should use filter "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links". Finding it is easy, but knowing that you can see redirects with its a bit harder. --Kslotte (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would be clearer if it were laid out with checkboxes. That would give an immediate visual cue that these are the available options. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

New layout ....

better? --Kslotte (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect Tool

Do we have a tool which putting in an article tells us all the redirects which are created from the wikilinks in that article? There was this one, but recently passed out.. Ah, it should be a tool which allows to check articles from different wiki than en.wiki. Torne (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirects to "List of..." articles

Does the category Category:Redirects from alternative names belong to redirects like Snooker players which goes to List of snooker players. Christopher Connor (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Generally, {{R from alternative name}} is meant for "alternative names of the subject", not "alternative titles for the article". An accurate tag for "Snooker players" would be {{R from short name}}; or, if it was to an individual item on the list, then {{R to list entry}} would be appropriate. However that doesn't mean that it needs it; it's not necessary to tag every single redirect, they don't ALL have to be categorized. The most important redirects to tag would be the ones that have a prior history. For example, former articles that were merged/redirected. These should always be tagged with {{R from merge}} so that they can be appropriately categorized as such. It helps with tracking down attribution, which is required by Wikipedia's licensing. Please let me know if you have any other questions. -- œ^™ 17:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Spelling Redirects?

With the new interface having "did-you-mean" spelling functionality, is it still useful to create common misspelling redirects? Ocaasi (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Good question. No, I guess it wouldn't be.. -- œ^™ 11:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say yes it would still be useful to have the redirects, the "did-you-mean" is nice to fall back on, but if we can send them to the article they are looking for, in 2 less clicks why not? - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 12:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I definitely don't have an issue with the redirects. I just was wondering, since they are kind of a guessing game, if it might be almost as good to just spend the time doing other stuff, of which there is a lot. Also, I know projects are busy and wasn't sure if maybe the new feature hadn't made its way into the discussion yet. Ocaasi (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Template for redirecting

Why don't we create a template that redirects instead of using #Redirect. Using a # seems odd since it is also the code for a numbered list and for linking to a section of an article and also has purposes in normal writing. New users would never think of writing #Redirect unless they had read the guide (which they should but do not always do). A new user's first instinct may be to look for a template or to just guess at a template. {{Redirect}} could be moved to {{Redirect1}} or {{Redirects}}, the former of which is a redirect to the template and conforms with {{Redirect2}}, {{Redirect3}} etc. Of course changing every instance of {{Redirect}} in Wikipedia would be hard work so perhaps just using a new name for the new template would be easier. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This edit helps the situation a little bit. --Kslotte (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Style guide

I've written a style guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect/Style guide. Please help improve it. McLerristarr | Mclay1 17:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Great Backlog Drive

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Mass-tag of {{r from shortcut}}

Hey WikiProject Redirect, I have a bot task that I would like to run by you. DASHBot task 13 (currently pending approval) is meant to tag a whole list of redirects as {{r from shortcut}}. The conditions for when the bot tags the redirect is as follows:

• The page is a redirect.
• The page is in the wikipedia namespace.

• The page is in all CAPS.

• The page has no spaces in it's title.

A pre-generated list is here. Would this task be helpful, or just a waste of my time, and wikipedia resources?

Tim1357 ^talk 01:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I support this task. By categorizing you keep Wikipedia administrative content more organized. This task is according to guidelines WP:CAT-R and WP:TMR. Make sure you write a good edit message (add it to your task approval request). How will you handle a situation where someone will undo the bot edit with good reasons? are you prepared to have some type of exclude list ready for following runs? Include a link to the exclude list in the edit message may be useful. --Kslotte (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If some more members of this wikiproject could comment, it would greatly be appreciated. Right now I, along with some member of the Bot approvals group am unsure of weather this a necessary task. Tim1357 ^talk 10:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Support. Sorry I showed up late to this discussion. But I also 'would have' supported this task. The category already exists, and is already largely populated, thus validating it in the eyes of new users as an obviously integral part of Wikipedia's administration (which also provides impetus for them to add to it), so finishing it up by adding the rest of the missing shortcuts would be a logical next step. It would save the time of users doing it manually. I know I still tag shortcuts when I come across them. So if you still want to run it Tim, you have my support. -- œ^™ 18:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool. OlEnglish, I can always reopen the BRFA later, if you are able to stir up more discussion about this. Perhaps spam some other redirect related talk pages. Tim1357 ^talk 08:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's unfortunate that this well-designed and carefully targeted task didn't happen, at least as a one-time run (thus obviating any need for an opt-out list). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Potential task force

I am working on a project to make some redirects in the number category point to the correct section of the page. For example, 283 (number) redirects to 280 (number). The first step was to divide the 281-289 section into separate parts for each #. The I will add the 283 section to the redirect to make it redirect directly there. Things I have considered are:

1. Not join the project.
2. Create my own WikiProject
3. Join the project, start a task force for fixing these section issues, not add to goals.
4. Same as 3, except add the project to the goals.
5. Same as 3, except make the task force only for numbers.
6. Same as 4, except make the task force only for numbers.
7. Join the WikiProject, no new taskforce, not add to goals list.
8. Same as 7, but add to project goals list.

Which one should I use? Us441(talk)(contribs) 23:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you planning to do all the work yourself? Then #1, #7 or #8 is appropriate. If you're looking for help, then #7 or #8 is appropriate.

In general, creating a WikiProject for a one-time task is not a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:R from move

Template:R from move has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  09:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Tool for redirects

I'm looking for a tool to list most used redirects on :sl WP. 'What redirects here', which is listed on main page, doesn't work any more. Is there perhaps any bot, who could do this? Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you can click on "What links here" in the toolbox on the LHS of a page, then click on "External tools: Show redirects only" LittleBen (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hard vs Soft redirects

I'm trying to start a discussion on hard vs soft redirects, and in particular on whether soft redirects could/should be used internally as a replacement for hard redirects in certain cases. If you would like to join in the discussion, please come do so at the soft redirect talk page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Caching issue?

I've noticed that some redirects do not display the most current revision of a target page. When I click on the page or discussion (which ever is appropriate) link at the top to go to the actual page, the current version displays. I think this is a caching issue in browser, but thought I'd check here. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

I also noticed that the issue is only apparent when I haven't logged in. Is this related to the Wikipedia:Pending changes for article revisions? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

Not sure.. try asking at WP:Village pump/Technical -- œ^™ 08:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I did: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 130#Redirects not displaying current revision.

Apparently it has been a known bug for about 4 years. Because it hasn't been addressed, I wonder if it's a design choice. :-\ Kinda troublesome for our general audience. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

Template:R help

{{R help}} has been requested to be renamed. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Caution about Redirects and Categories, opinions solicited

Talk:Some redirects and merges make terms difficult to find. LittleBen (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Added discussions Redirect capitalization tool and Related item search. LittleBen (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Blanking redirects

There's a problem I've been noticing of late, which I wanted to bring to your attention. I do a lot of work with the categorization project, including tagging articles from the autogenerated uncategorized articles list — and what I've noticed in the past few weeks is a huge upsurge in the number of "uncategorized articles" which result from people simply blanking a redirect. I don't know if it's a common problem that used to get caught by other processes before getting picked up by the uncats list, or if it's actually becoming more common — but I've seen more blanked redirects on the uncats list in the past few weeks alone than in the entire preceding two years that I've been working with that list combined.

I don't know if there's anything that can be done about it, either — but I wanted to bring it to your attention in case somebody does have some ideas. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the first I've ever heard of such a problem.. a new type of sneaky vandalism? It's good that this was caught as not too many people have redirects on their watchlists.. I have many as I'm constantly editing redirect pages so I'll be keeping an eye out. -- œ^™ 16:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from Unicode characters

There is a question regarding the inclusion criteria for Category:Redirects from Unicode characters at WT:Categorizing redirects#Category:Redirects from Unicode characters. Please join the discussion if interested. Anomie⚔ 17:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Printworthy/unprintworthy redirects

The question stems from the lede of the style guide that goes:

“ The ultimate goal of the guide is to have every redirect categorised in a standard format, as well as having every redirect categorised as either printworthy or unprintworthy. ”

In a printed version, one would expect that only the article pages would actually be printed and not the project or other editorial-page concerns. So the reading on which we need to become more explicit would be whether or not the above needs to be reworded, thus:

The ultimate goal of the guide is to have every redirect categorised in a standard format, as well as to have every main-namespace redirect categorised as either printworthy or unprintworthy.

"How think do you?"  > Yoda – PIE ( CLIMAX )  20:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

PS. I also suggest to change "having" > "to have", a much stronger phrase grammatically.

PPS. This may be best-discussed on the Style guide talk page.

Here it is the 11th of January, and so far no particular interest in this one way or another. I'll wait a couple days, and if there still is no discussion, I'll make the changes, and then continue to add the Printworthy and Unprintworthy Rcats only to the Main article namespace. I shall also consider upgrading those Rcats so they will have no effect unless they're added to Main namespace REDIRECTS. – PIE ( CLIMAX )  03:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Please remember that this is best-discussed on the Style guide talk page. – PIE ( CLIMAX )  12:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI - Yesterday, I made the clarification to the lede of the style guide, and today I found that the {{R unprintworthy}} template has long been set to by used only in the Main namespace by usage of the {{Main other}} template. The {{R printworthy}} template, on the other hand, had not been so set. So I added the Main other template to the R printworthy template. Now, only main article pages will be categorized as printworthy or unprintworthy. – PIE ( CLIMAX )  18:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Most suitable R template for peerage redirects

I've started categorising (or creating, if they are missing) peerage redirects like Lord Winchester → Marquess of Winchester. In lack of a better alternative, I used {{R from alternative name}}, but now I am starting to think that {{R from short name}} might actually be more suitable. I'd like to settle this before making more edits that may need to be revisited. Waltham, The Duke of 12:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That looks like a long road to hoe, Lord Waltham, especially after checking out the Marquess, the Lord and the Lord (disambiguation) articles. If you truly want to go there, then {{R from alternative title}} would be my choice to categorize the redirects. (That one redirects to {{R from alternative name}}) – PIE ( CLIMAX )  22:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

PS. Also, you will want to ensure that either {{R printworthy}} or {{R unprintworthy}} are correctly placed.

Question on redirects within templates

I understand that modifying links to bypass a redirect is generally not a worthwhile activity, as a database update to bypass a redirect usually costs much more than the cost of occasionally redirecting link clicks. However, I have a vague memory of having read somewhere that redirects within widely-used templates work out much more expensive than ordinary redirects (and therefore that fixing redirects inside popular templates can be worthwhile). I'm not sure whether this is true, or even why it might be the case. Does anyone feel this assertion is correct, or should I consign it to the recycle bin of my mind? Colonies Chris (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a mention at WP:BRINT that redirects in navigational templates are an exception to the general rule not to make edits solely to bypass a redirect, but the justification given has nothing to do with such redirects being at any more expensive than other redirects. Instead, the reasoning is that if (for example) Template:US Presidents linked to George W. Washington instead of George Washington, then his entry in the navbox at the bottom of George Washington would be rendered as a normal link instead of being bolded plain text. Anomie⚔ 14:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirects to WikiProjects

Ironically, I was looking for guidance on creating redirects to fix redlinks of the form WikiProject Articles for creation when I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect. I see that WikiProject Redirect also comes up the same way. I suspect the right answer is some form of soft redirect, as it would be from article space to wikipedia space. Can someone please hit me with a cluebat? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The guidance you seek is at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. The summary is "don't create this sort of cross-namespace redirects". Anomie⚔ 23:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:TfD for {{This is a redirect}}

The template {{This is a redirect}} has been nominated for deletion as redundant with {{Redirect template}}. Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. Bwrs (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

question: produce hard-coded text of target of redirects

• hello. I'd like to find a way to get a hard-coded (text) display of the target of a redirect. In order to verify a large amount of redirects, I want to create a page that deliberately has several hundred of them. Then I want to run some sort of script or tool or add some sort of hard-coded link or something against that page that gives me the target of the redirect in plain text. In the end I want a table or something similar, listing 3 things: a label that I add, a redirect that I add, the actual target of the redirect given by script or tool or whatever.. If that doesn't make sense, I'm doing languages:

I start with this:

• Alngith language | ISO 639:aid

... and some script or tool or link gives me this:

• Alngith language | ISO 639:aid | Alngith dialect

• I know there's no reason to fix valid redirects, but I suspect a very small amount of the info I have is wildly invalid. I have already found Old Prussian in Indonesia, etc. So I would like to check everything I have in one fell swoop. Tks. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A personal script can search a page for outgoing links to redirects and then modify its appearance, e.g. adding a name of the final target as a visible text after each redirect link. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Tks. Do you know if such a script exists already? Ling.Nut3 (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A quick question

Is there one of the "R from..." templates for redirects from alternative transliterations? certainly they are alternate spellings, not misspellings (depending, perhaps...), but they also seem to be alternate names for many. Ought this be a separate R from template? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

redirect talk based on article redirect

Is there a syntax that can be placed on a talk page, that will look at the redirect on the article page and redirect to the corresponding talk page? Looking for single method to edit a number of talk pages so they direct to same location as the article page does.--Traveler100 (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied at Help talk:Redirect#redirect talk based on article redirect. -- œ^™ 04:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Create task forces?

I have been doing work on behalf of this project for quite some time now, and I believe that this project is in need to task forces. This could help this project ensure that specific tasks get complete in regards to making redirects, finding already existing redirects and tagging them with proper templates, and carrying out the specific creation of types of redirects. This could make creating redirects a cleaner and quicker task. Steel1943 (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

But do we have enough participation here overall to justify splitting it into task forces? -- œ^™ 04:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That is the question. I can just state that there's a specific task that I would like to do (and have been) in honor of Wikipedia's old search terms; this task could take years, and more work for it appears every day. Steel1943 (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions against Japan

Resolved

I was going to create Sanctions against Japan as a redirect, but I can't find a good target. Any Ideas? (Please respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Sanctions against Japan redirect Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If you can't think of a page to point it to then you shouldn't make it into a redirect. Redirects are supposed to be alternate search terms and if you have no idea as to what that search should show up then you shouldn't make the redirect in the first place.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "Show redirects only" external tool

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Get rid of the "Show redirects only" external tool in WhatLinksHere in favor of the native interface. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Redirects to create at Wikipedia:Usemod article histories

There's some redirects, many of them from old titles, to create at Wikipedia:Usemod article histories. Note that just because something is listed there doesn't mean it should be created. In pultlatr I would hesitate to create cross-namespace redirects. Add {{R from CamelCase}} or {{R from move}} if appropriate.Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Misspelling redirect bot

There's a bot being developed that will correct the spelling of of a link to a redirect tagged with {{R from misspelling}}. Wikipedia:Bot_requests#R_from_misspelling_typo.2Fmisspelling_bot. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Most redirected-to titles

While carrying out an unrelated task, I discovered that we have some titles that are the target of rather large numbers of redirects. I've summarised them in a report at Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect/Most redirected in case anyone here wants to investigate. - TB (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Self-response; a brief check shows that at least some of these are attempts at keyword stuffing via redirects. For example the 236 redirects to VDM Publishing (a modest 10-tear old, 70-employee company) include the names (and spelling variations) of each of the companies employees, websites, and marketing slogans by the looks of it. Hum :( - TB (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that does look rather excessive. They should probably be nominated in groups (staff, websites, etc) so as to make discussion easier. I'll have a look into some of the other ones when I next get time. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Palestine Redirects

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine#Redirects. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Redirects to project space - unprintworthy?

Should the categories Category:Redirects to project space and Category:Redirects to Wikipedia project pages be made subcategories of Category:Unprintworthy redirects? In addition to obviously marking them as not worthy of inclusion in print versions of Wikipedia, it will also remove them from the list of suggestions presented in the autocomplete suggestions list of the internal search - one of the arguments against the existence of cross-namespace redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Definitely yes. The clearer the distinction we make between our internal bureaucracy and the actual encyclopaedic content, the better. These redirects are (exclusively?) shortcuts, intended for the use of editors and should not be presented to casual readers. - TB (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Some XNR's should be in the autocompleate. Filipino Musicians is a redirect to Category:Filipino musicians. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed they should. However, there should be no redirects from the main namespace to categories (or indeed portals, books or other reader-targeted content) in Category:Redirects to project space or Category:Redirects to Wikipedia project pages - these are categories used to explicitly separate out redirects to stuff casual readers don't want or need to find. - TB (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, Category:Redirects to project space is a subcategory of Category:Cross-namespace redirects which is already a subcategory of Category:Unprintworthy redirects so your suggestion would not actually make any difference for these redirects. Also I'm not really sure how Category:Redirects to Wikipedia project pages is relevant here as that only contains redirects within the project space.

Secondly your claim that this will remove them from the autocomplete list is incorrect. Category:Unprintworthy redirects does not have that effect on CNRs (due to technical reasons I think?). Try starting to type User page or Wikidoption into the search box. They are both in this category but still appear in the dropdown list. 82.132.139.10 (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect from merge

I was curious as to the purpose of the {{R from merge}}. It came up in a conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge/Archive 1#Comments from Aircorn and no one seems to know why it should be used. AIRcorn (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I am guessing it is to prevent the redirect from being deleted? AIRcorn (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. It's to indicate that content that used to be at that title was merged into another article. There should also be {{copied}} templates on the talk pages of the redirect and the article the content was merged to. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It could also function like {{R with possibilities}}. If an article has stood alone before, it may be able to again sometime in the future. But yes, I think attribution is the primary function. --BDD (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hard vs Soft redirect

Could I please get one (or more) people more knowledgeable in the use of redirects to come comment on an active discussion. A bit of history can be found on my talk page here, and the discussion moving forward is here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

{{R protected}}

I'm sorry, I just don't understand the purpose of {{R protected}}. It doesn't seem to have any relation to WP:RPP. It is just, like, a request not to edit something? --BDD (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Popular redlinks without \x

• Of the "popular redlinks", the runner-up is 18k Gold Watch at 147,987 hits, and at 00:57, 30 January 2013 someone (not me) created it as "#Redirect [[Watch]] {{R from subtopic}}", and at 21:34, 6 February 2013 someone else deleted it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that I created that redirect back when WP:TOPRED first started. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 15:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Update, I didn't create that '18k Gold Watch' link, but some similar ones, such as Skin Lasers. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 16:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistent redirects

Hum .. we have over 7500 examples of redirects to differing targets from titles differing only by case. I've popped up a listing of the first few hundred at Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect/Inconsistent targets, I suspect that many of these represent errors. - TB (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This report is now available on Tool Labs at http://tools.wmflabs.org/tb-dev/ISR/. - TB (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Popular redlinks with \x

I moved the below from User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Popular redlinks with \x. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• I see you are creating redirects for \x entries at User:West.andrew.g/Popular redlinks. Have you found out where the views come from? I wonder whether it's misconfigured software making automatic repeated requests without user input, or possibly after a single user click. I see you make source comments but I suggest also adding a template from Category:Templates for unprintworthy redirects. {{R unprintworthy}} is not very informative and none of the others fit well (it isn't really {{R from misspelling}}) so maybe a new template should be made if we want such redirects. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Could the template be Template:R from malformed incoming external links? I am tempted to leave setting up Template:R from malformed incoming external links and Template:R from malformed incoming external links/doc to those more skilled in making redirect-related templates; until such a template is made, I better hold off from making any more /X redirects. Then I can go through my contributions list and put the template in all such redirects that I have made. Those redirects would also show as blue links in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:West.andrew.g/Popular_redlinks&oldid=561163172 .
  • I suspect that on websites on the internet is a bit of Java that whenever it is called it acts like a template and sets up a link-to-Wikipedia "on the run" and calls it, perhaps getting it wrong when translating non-Ascii Unicode characters. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not convinced it's external. Would of thought due to the volume especially when the issue is en-dash to em-dash that it's some internal automation; perhaps toolserve utilities, AWB or a gadget like Twinkle. I'm using {{R from alternative spelling}} for \x redirect but open to something better. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 13:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
      • The documentation for {{R from alternative spelling}} says: "Not for an incorrect spelling – for incorrectly spelled redirects, use {{R from incorrect spelling}} instead." Incorrect spelling seems closer to the \x situation. It's not optimal but at least it places the redirect in Category:Unprintworthy redirects. We don't want these in a printed version of Wikipedia. {{R from incorrect name}} would also be possible, but it might be better to make something new like {{R from incorrect URL encoding}}, with documentation explaining the intended use. I'm not a fan of the long {{R from malformed incoming external links}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
        • The spelling of the \x links IS spelt correctly, hence {{R from alternative spelling}} complies with the documentation. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 15:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
          • I don't view titles like Price\xE2\x80\x93earnings ratio as a correct spelling of Price–earnings ratio. Category:Redirects from alternative spellings is for topics which can be spelled differently, for example colour versus color. And the malformed \x titles are definitely unprintworthy and should be tagged with a template marking them as such. They are not misspellings in the "normal" sense either, so a new template would probably be best. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
            • The \x from WP:TOPRED are encoded none standard characters, either diacritics (i.e. \xC3\xA1 is 'á',) or dash (\xE2\x80\x93 is '–'); dicratrics aren't misspellings, neither are dashs. Agreed they are unprintworthy. Still I'm open to a better redirect reason, perhaps "R from alternative encoding"? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 16:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
              • Perhaps {{R from unicode}}? Although it's not entirely encoded.... Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 17:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
                • Even better {{R unprintworthy}}. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 17:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
              • They are not correctly encoded characters. It looks like a failed attempt at percent-encoding, maybe because they were first percent-encoding and then got a second encoding which didn't consider that they were already percent-encoded. "alternative" in "R from alternative encoding" would imply an encoding scheme with some validity, for example because it follows an alternative standard used elsewhere, but \x is just plain wrong. It shouldn't be compared to diacritics which are often considered "optional" (at least when it's not your own language), and omitted on purpose without that being seen as an unambiguous error. Tagging with {{R from unicode}} would be factually completely wrong. \x are errors and shouldn't be tagged with something implying they may have validity. For the time being I have created a redirect from {{R from incorrect URL encoding}} to the non-specific {{R unprintworthy}}. Until we agree on a better name, I suggest any new redirects are tagged with {{R from incorrect URL encoding}} so we can easily identify them (a mass-delete might be suggested), and we have the option to redirect {{R from incorrect URL encoding}} to a more specific template, or turn it into its own template. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
                • I don't consider percent-encoding a plausible explanation. Firstly because of the hits verses article views as already explained plus percent-encoding would have at least one percent. i.e. "Fran%c3%a7ois" Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 18:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
                  • I partly take that back. Although unlikely, it's technically possible that it could be a major web crawler such as GoogleBot or Bingbot with incorrect UTF-8 encoding. That would explain both the volume, range of articles and error that we see. Still, I don't want to use a template that meaning we are guessing at and could be incorrect. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 19:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) Here is the wiki url corresponding to the 8 \x entries with more than 5000 views in the current version of User:West.andrew.g/Popular redlinks:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren\xC3\xA9_Descartes
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni\xC3\xB1o\xE2\x80\x93Southern_Oscillation
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K\xE2\x80\x9312_(education)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osgood\xE2\x80\x93Schlatter_disease
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price\xE2\x80\x93earnings_ratio
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress\xE2\x80\x93strain_curve
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini\xE2\x80\x93mental_state_examination
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt\xE2\x80\x93shift_photography

All 8 use the newly created redirects to go to an article.

Here are the 8 above url's with each \x replaced by %:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o%E2%80%93Southern_Oscillation
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%9312_(education)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osgood%E2%80%93Schlatter_disease
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93earnings_ratio
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93strain_curve
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini%E2%80%93mental_state_examination
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt%E2%80%93shift_photography

All 8 go directly to an article, not via a redirect. This is strong evidence that they are percent encodings with % incorrectly replaced by \x. If you copy the url of the articles from the browser address bar, also if you went there via valid wikilinks like René Descartes, then you get the above percent encodings. I don't see how the \x page hits could be anything other than percent encodings with \x instead of %. My guess: External software somewhere is generating invalid percent encodings or incorrectly altering valid percent encodings, and external software (not necessarily the same) keeps trying to access the url's, not people clicking links (although the software may have been triggered by a single human click). PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You largely reflecting what I've said already in a discussion that is now out of sequence, except you ignore the page hit issue and it's not 'percent encoding' but UTF-8, the use of '\x' is not an error as such, more a feature, as it is an existing encoding standard. So far there is no evidence for the issue being external to Wikipedia. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 22:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

For your information, see utf8-table, notice here the column 'UTF-8 (in literal)' where for example at line U+00E0 you can find 'à' is \xc3\xa0. This is Perl string literals usage, so I gather that the redlink creating bot is written in Perl or some Perl string literal compatible language. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 23:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, but would the \x titles be valid links in any URL encoding standard? And no matter where the problem originates from or whether the \x titles would work at some external websites, they are clearly using an encoding not permitted by MediaWiki so I don't see the problem with {{R from incorrect URL encoding}}. Do you mean they may not be attempting to URL encode at all but merely encode without URL's in mind, and "incorrect URL encoding" would therefore be guessing about their intention? Or do you maybe mean that "incorrect URL encoding" implies it's incorrect everywhere and not merely here?

I don't think \x titles are valid links in URL encoding standard. I doubt they would work for users in the address part of any browser. However, it maybe possible they would work in server-side code or server-side scripting such as MediaWiki used by Wikipedia, but I'm guessing on that. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 00:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There is neither evidence for the issue being internal nor external links. I'm not suggesting a redirect name claiming it's external. It was Anthony who suggested Template:R from malformed incoming external links. Your own suggestion {{R from Unicode}} doesn't work for \x. The documentation says: "Use this Rcat on any redirect from a single character with ...". Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:R from Unicode also shows its used on single characters. {{R unprintworthy}} works but is uninformative. It would be useful to be able to identify these redirects by their redirect template. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • Pretty sure the \x redlinks are NOT caused by URL and not externals as in many cases hits exceed articles views. i.e Gal\xC3\xA1pagos Islands had 17K hits in a week(9-16 June) but the article Galápagos Islands has only about 7K views in the same period. Plus if they where external in such volume of hits then it would have to be a major search engine and I've checked Google and Bing and they have no issues. So information leads me to conclude it's some form of automation. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 15:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
          • You appear to assume that external and automation are mutually exclusive. There is no reason for that. It's perfectly possible for external software to make repeated automated redlink requests. It would only require one computer with some bad software. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
            • It's technically possible for external software to make repeated automated redlink requests, but short of Googlebot going wild the quantity of redlink hits over such a wide range of topics suggests otherwise. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 00:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

We could post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect. I have examined the first 15 \x entries on the June 16 list.[1] They had 6000 to 18000 views. None of them appear on the current June 23 list, but some of them were on the June 9 list with a similar or lower number of views. I wonder whether it's worth creating redirects. Whatever causes a large number of \x views, it may be temporary for a given link and we don't know whether a redirect will ever be used by a human. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, think about it.... Those from an earlier date won't show on a later TOPRED once a redirect has been created because they are no longer redlinks! That applies to the first 15 \x that you refer to. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 13:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah! I only looked at Anthony's contribs and saw he started creating redirects after the current TOPRED report. I hadn't noticed others (you) created redirects earlier. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• PS I think redirects should have good edit summaries, as it seems to some admins delete them as implausible...of course it's not that implausible if they have 1000+ hits in a week! I'm currently using the edit summary wording: "Over 1000 hits per week from WP:TOPRED" Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 13:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please, see WP: Village pump (technical)/Archive 113 #Are thousands of people a day not finding the articles they want? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm unclear what part of that old discussion is relevant to this one? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 17:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

For example, the part that user:Anthony Appleyard now presents as his idea. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Given the millions of internet users across the world, it could still be that many of these /X accesses are people clicking at bad links. Linking to Wikipedia is an easy way to tell a website's readers what something is. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • To a certain degree I can imagine an external website creating links to Wikipedia, but given the number of redlink hits is would be a site or sites of enormous size, more traffic then Google. So let's imagine for moment that Facebook, ebay and Twitter are for some reason putting up links to Wikipedia and sending traffic to Wikipedia and those links are using the /x for extended characters. The problem I see with this is that certain articles don't fit the demographics of any none search engine website. Yes, I can imagine Facebook users clicking on 2013–14 UEFA Champions League because sport is popular, but how does one explain such dry topics as History of the Philippines (1946–65), Reed–Solomon error correction, Karush–Kuhn–Tucker conditions and China–Pakistan relations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sun Creator (talk • contribs) 23:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • a site or sites of enormous size :: Or an ordinary-sized site which is accessed much. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Idea: If a redlink from outside contains any /x or /X , let Wikipedia replace them with % and try again automatically? (But some page addresses may contain /x or /X genuinely.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirects from multiple people; {R from people}

If i understand correctly, nearly every use of template {{R from people}} is a mistake for {{R from person}}. Thus almost all of the auto-generated Category:Redirects from multiple people should be in cat Redirects from individual people.

The multiple category does include John paul george ringo, which belongs.

Moe, Larry and Curly would belong there if it redirected to The Three Stooges.

Right? --P64 (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

For a better example, because real rather than fictional people, Greg and Tim Hildebrandt redirects to Brothers Hildebrandt.

IIUC, this belongs and belongs in cat R from multiple people because the redirect names the persons. The Berenstains redirects to Stan and Jan Berenstain, which is "vice versa" and does not belong.

I tagged Greg and Tim Hildebrandt just now, for purpose of this illustration.

Recently I tagged The Berenstains {R from short name}; tagged both Stan Berenstain and Jan Berenstain {redirect to joint biography}. IIUC, cat Category:Redirects to joint biographies should be a subcat of Redirects from individual people.

--P64 (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Tool to check for redirects?

Is there an established tool to check a page for redirect links? I have a number of specific pages that I would like to run through a tool to make sure that all links found on the page connect to the true pages / categories / or templates. Any use of redirect pages / categories / templates should be listed as output or noted in some way. (Not worried about redirects coming in, just those going out from the page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.188.204.25 (talk)

Looks like this might work: Wikipedia:Visualizing redirects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.188.204.25 (talk)

I'm late to this discussion, but this was very helpful :-) Tompw (talk) (review) 19:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Where should Siam redirect?

Where should the Siam page redirect? Please discuss at Talk:Siam. —  AjaxSmack  03:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about Acid Rap

I'm leaving this here because I have started a new discussion about moving or redirecting a mixtape album by the name of Acid Rap to Acid Rap (album) or Acid Rap (mixtape) over at Talk:Acid Rap#No_contrary_evidence. Ben0kto (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Protected page redirect discussion

Per WP:RE, WP:MUSIC, WP:BIOG, WP:HIPHOP, WP:CALIFORNIA; see Woodie (rapper) and Woodie (musical artist); see Woodie and Woodie (style). (see also Talk Page). Ben0kto (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Sicx

I have redirected Sicx to Brotha Lynch Hung (see why). Ben0kto (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yo Gotti

Redirected Lil Yo to Yo Gotti per WP:FACTS WP:RE WP:MUSIC WP:REL and about 4 or 5 sources found so far. (see Talk pages) Ben0kto (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Question re: adding redirects to wikiprojects

Is there a general approach on this? I've just come across a few redirects where 5 or more wikiprojects have been added - even if the redirect is just a mispelling for example. Is there value in this? Seems like it would cause clutter for the wikiprojects.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Example: Talk:Moisés_Vivanco - this doesn't even have an article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

To editor Obiwankenobi: Several projects allow for the "class=Redirect" parameter, so at some point somebody thought there was value in tagging some redirects with the banners. Also, take for example the example you gave above; look at the bottom of the page to find the categories that are populated. Within categories, redirects appear in italics, so they are easily told apart from article pages, which are not in italics. Thank you for your observation, and it appears to me that tagging redirect talk pages is a practice that has been going on for quite awhile. I imagine it may have something to do with tracking pages that have the potential to become articles, as well as keeping track of "shortcut" redirects to articles, templates, project pages and so forth. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Pseudo-namespace Redirects

There is currently an RFC opened at the village pump to clarify current consensus and policies about the controversial pseudo-namespace redirects that you might want to participate in. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Redirect documentation

See Draft talk:Template:Redirect documentation for a discussion about having documentation on some redirects that are not obvious as to why the exist, where such documentation should occur, how it should appear. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Categorization of redirects

A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects about a proposed update to one of the sections of that project page. All ideas are welcome! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 22:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to remove a redirect?

Hi I think I have identified a situation that might call for the removal of a redirection.

The issue is around an article called the Lea Valley Lines which covers three suburban branch railways in North East London. I am in the process of writing more detailed histories of the three lines and want to set up separate pages for each of these and the first one I am writing is about the Chingford branch line. Now whilst I think it is worth maintain the Lea Valley Lines as a page I want to have Chingford Branch Line as a new page. If I put Chingford Branch Line into the search box I am redirected to the Lea valley Lines page.

So how do I remove the redirect to the Lea Valley Lines page once I have launched my new Chingford Branch Line page?

Thanks in anticipation.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The current redirect page Chingford Branch Line evidently has a title that is appropriate, so you want to use that page for your article, not merely change the redirect target. Simply "Edit" that page, replacing its content --four words of redirect code-- with your article; that is, with the earliest version that should be visible. At that point you should also edit Lea Valley Lines to link it once.

Work on the new article in user space first unless you expect it to be adequate quickly. In article space you should use template {{construction}} at least while you expect to be improving its content quickly. Chingford Branch Line has been a redirect for about seven years, since a stub was replaced with edit summary "all info is a duplicate of Lea Valley Lines". You should consult the latest stub version.[2]

--P64 (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Requesting help at Category talk:Redirects from initialisms

If anyone experienced with AutoWikiBrowser or otherwise is looking for something to do we could use some help sorting out the Redirects from initialisms category. See the talk page, thanks. -- œ^™ 03:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

{{R from misspelling}} false positives

We have a number of incidences of redirects from mispellings that are themselves the correct spelling of an as yet unwritten article. For example Joe Madden is a {{R from misspelling}} to Joe Maddon (a contemporary sportsperson); however, it is also linked from California Derby as the name of an early 20th century racehorse. Similarly Jim Blythe redirects to Jim Blyth; the former is the correct name of the author of a number of business books (referenced by List of conglomerates for example) as well as a misspelling of its current target. From what I can tell, there are a dozen or two examples like this extant. It is my own view that {{R from misspelling}}'s like these should be speedily deleted (after of course fixing any incoming links that are genuine misspellings). Useful though they are, they should not fill up namespace belonging to potential articles. I'm posting here to solicit others views before I make any changes. - TB (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure. Nothing prevents someone from turning an extant redirect into an article; we should however ensure that any {{R from misspelling}} have no incoming links, but not sure if that's a job I want to take on. There are many "potential" articles, but we should only worry about ones that are actually created.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

They should certainly not be speedily deleted (they do not come close to meeting any of the criteria), but you are free to nominate them at WP:RFD. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

TB: These sound like {{R with possibilities}} to me. If you don't want to write the articles yourself, then just tag the redirect(s) with R with possibilities. Let me know if you need any help with this. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 01:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Joe Madden is a pagename with possibilities but it is {R from misspelling} so long as redirects to Joe Maddon. Our horserace article California Derby now targets the latter baseball biography inappropriately, via Joe Madden. And there may no evident target for Joe Madden as {R with possibilities} except California Derby (reverse the former/redirect and delete the link from the latter article).

In this case, however, six articles now target Joe Madden (horse) (deleted 2008-01-27 per request of its only editor).

Thus one alternative is to edit the horserace article alone, so that it targets the disambiguated name. Or that and add a comment to the {R from misspelling} (code: Joe Madden), such as

• !-- [[Joe Madden (horse) is pagename with possibilities -->

--P64 (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, P64 – I used the {{Redr}} template with parameters to adjust the redirect; then I added the redirect to the hatnote at Joe Maddon, with the use of your neat {{-r}}. This is just a bandaid, because an article on the horse would be the optimum; however, at least now when readers click the link, they will see the horse's name in the hatnote. This will provide a minimum of bewilderment until an article on the horse is created. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

PS. Now I see that the horse has been delinked at California Derby. PS added by – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX!

Thanks all for the suggested solutions. I'll add {{R with possibilities}} to the relevant {{R from misspelling}} redirects for now; other than the redirects ending up tagged as both printworthy and unprintworthy, this combination best describes 'Redirects from misspellings that have incoming links to a different topic'.

A few representative examples:

• Balleen (misspelling of Baleen, part of a whale; also a parish in Ireland)
• Gilgames (misspelling of Gilgamesh, ancient Sumerian king; also a book by Gabriella Csire)
• Giovanni Bernard (misspelling of Giovani Bernard, contemporary sportsperson; also a 19th century painter)

- TB (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

These three examples have been converted to the {{Redr}} template (Redr is an alias for "This is a redirect") to use its parameters. Its "e" parameter can be used to explain why a redirect has possibilities, and its "n" parameter was used to subdue the sorts to the unprintworthy category. Hope this helps. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Since there were no examples on {{R from misspelling}}'s documentation page, it has been updated to reflect it's potential usage alongside {{R with possibilities}}. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 09:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Generic {R to ...} template

When creating a Redirect, I find it a burden to find the right {R to/from/... Y} template. I rarely look for a correct qualifier. There are 1500 options to search (in a category named to chase everyone away).

Could we create a few basic templates that use a parameter?

• {{R to}} e.g. {{R to|acronym}}

-DePiep (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I developed something to help with that. Though the tool is rather something of a proof-of-concept, the tag list is not complete, and I am thinking about handing it over to someone else. Keφr 14:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

IMO, that would not require a script (and no userside setup). It would be more like {{stub}} is used: when someone adds an unqualified {stub} to a page, an editor with more knowledge can refine that stub (after finding it in its maintenance category).

It could be that you (as a WP:REDIRECT member) need a script for the process. I am not a member. -DePiep (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You usually only have to look in Category:Redirect templates to find the right template, and you shouldn't look in Category:Redirects to redirect templates. Its name may sound confusing but it's logical. It's a category for redirects where the target is a redirect template. For example, {{R from capital}} is a redirect to {{R from other capitalisation}}, so the former is in Category:Redirects to redirect templates while the latter is in Category:Redirect templates. Just use the latter. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the catname for me, but the need to do so kinda illustrates the point. I am and experienced editor, and still I ended up there (when preparing this post, this time). And the "only" category Category:Redirect templates you mention has a dozen subcats. And Ihave to choose: do I add template for cross or for "to section", and a "move from"?

Central R-to templates also nicely allow for standard categorising redirects, standard noticing (x{{mbox}})!) multi-template ({R from|move|abbreviation}.

Uebergreat would be the central meta-template of all: {{meta-R|for|convenience|to|other ns|article section|from|move}} -DePiep (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Lua allows for great input handling btw. -DePiep (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Foreign language redirects

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages#Guideline? about raising the advice regarding foreign-language redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages (WP:FORRED) from an essay to a guideline. Your comments in the discussion would be most welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

New page

I created Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes as a parallel to the AfD "Common outcomes" page. You're welcome to help build it. See also my comments on the talk page. --BDD (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

{{WPRedirect}} has been nominated for deletion

{{WPRedirect}} Template:WPRedirect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_4#Template:WPRedirect

• See above.

Archiving

The archiving of this talk page appears to be in disarray; the last archived thread was in 2009. I'd like to see something more efficient; put in place. I can help get it done as well, and am willing to help.—John Cline (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It was archived manually. Considering the low activity rate on this talk page, manual archiving doesn't seem so bad -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it has gotten pretty long. I installed Miszabot, so let's see how that works out.
Remember... the values of the parameters I gave it are not etched in stone. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Project banner

There are some pages that we use that might benefit from a project banner on their talk pages. I have taken the liberty of beginning a proposed project banner and welcome any input and improvements. Right now, the basic banner uses the template at {{WPBannerMeta}} and looks like this:

To start, this banner would be used on the talk pages of the style guide and the long and short indexes. To view this proposal directly and to edit it if desired, please go to User:Paine Ellsworth/WPRBanner. Thank you in advance for your considerations. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the icon would be better as a big blue redirect arrow, perhaps , but other than that it looks good. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Thryduulf! How does that look, now? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 00:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that's better. Thryduulf (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• One question: why? Redirects cannot be assessed for quality or importance. Immediate attention can be requested by nominating the redirect at WP:RFD, which as of now stands for "Redirects for discussion". (Which by the way works far better than an |attention=yes parameter, which often sits there for months without any action whatsoever. And there is the benefit of centralising discussions about redirects.) See also: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 6#Template:WPRedir, deleted for pretty much this very reason. Keφr 20:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, this isn't going to be used on the talk pages of article space redirects (those get tagged for the relevant target project, e.g. Talk:2013 Lac-Mégantic derailment) but on templates and project space pages relevant to the WikiProject (e.g. Template:R from other capitalisation). Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • That makes more sense. But the above announcement was not clear about it, and seemingly implied otherwise (|class=Redirect?). Keφr 22:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Mybad, Keφr, this might be used on the talk pages of some redirects, but only those in which this project has any interest. It is mainly for project-article talk pages, like the TOP of this page, for instance. Sorry if my antic usage of the class=Redirect misled you. The other parameter, attention=, was only meant to be an attention getter. It is merely a common parameter of the BannerMeta template. Thank you for your comments! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 00:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I also prefer the big blue redirect arrow for the icon. Also, I'd like to put such a banner on the talk pages of R templates as well as the categories they populate (i.e. those that do or should use {{Redirect category}}, plus "Redirect category" itself). — Cbbkr (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that any page that is of interest to the project is eligible to be tagged so that others may come to the project and help out. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 00:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I am preparing to go live in a few days, and the doc page has been expanded (within the user page, for now), so when you get the time, please take a gander and feel free to improve it. Here's the link. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 03:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, here's the thing – the thing is, I just started to create this banner in templatespace, and I was reminded of Keφr's tickler above that similar banners were deleted back in 2009 and 2010. One of those was based on a deletion discussion, where it was soundly deleted, and the other was the deletion of a recreated banner (that had been deleted at TFD). If this is going to be an uphill climb, then we may need to garner more support for this banner's recreation. The closer of the 2009 discussion noted:

I know WikiProject banners have their advantages, but only when there is some sanity in their placement. Are we to place this template on the talk page of each and every redirect in the mainspace? All four million of them? Unlike most project banners, this one genuinely is completely useless. The WikiProject is also inactive, but that's another matter.

— Happy‑melon

So for now, the banner will remain userfied until and unless more support is shown for its re-creation. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 01:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If you restrict this to redirect project/policy pages and redirect type templates (ie. R from typo) then it'd become useful. It should be specified that it does not go on talk pages of redirected pages. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... that's a bit confusing IP70+, because {{R from typo}} actually is a redirect that targets {{R from misspelling}}, and that redirect doesn't have an existing talk page. I think I get your meaning, though, and I believe it's important to note that Happy‑melon referred to each and every redirect on Wikipedia. It would definitely be wrong to place a WikiProject Redirect banner on each and every redirect on Wikipedia. However, what about redirects like R from typo? The two dangling issues are:

1. Should all redirects that target pages that are important to this project also possess the banner on their talk pages with the class=Redirect parameter enabled? (and)

2. Should redirects like R from typo be excluded, i.e., redirects the talk pages of which have not been created?

Since other projects do place their banners on the talk pages of redirects that target pages that are important to that project (example: Template talk:Edmonton), my preference would be to follow this practice as long as the talk page already exists. If, as for example the R from typo redirect, the talk page does not already exist, it should not be created just to put the banner on it. However, if the talk page for the redirect does already exist, then I think it would be okay to tag it with the {{Talk page of redirect}} template, as well as the WikiProject Redirect banner. This does not mean that each and every redirect on Wikipedia should be tagged with the banner, just those redirects that target pages that should already have the project banner on their talk pages should be tagged with the banner, and only when the talk page already exists. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 04:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I was using "R from typo" to mean "R form misspelling" (it's shorter to type) to mean the template. Though tagging the template redirect would also be acceptable. I mean to contrast this to talk:United States of America or Talk:Abel's Ark and similar, which should not be tagged with this project's banner. (talk pages of redirects that are not policy pages or templates concerned immediately with this project should not be tagged) -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can see where concerns like that would arise... Because this is WikiProject Redirect, then all redirects on Wikipedia are within its realm of concern. That is a fundamentally true statement, because this project exists to "improve the standard of redirects" in this encyclopedia. That means that all redirects and all things that pertain to them are within the purview of this project. It has been amply stated that, while all redirects on Wikipedia are of interest to this project, not all of them should be tagged with our banner. It should be made crystal clear right up front on the project page which redirects should be tagged and which ones shouldn't. So before we can approach the admin who closed the deletion discussion, we need to address these concerns in a fashion that might induce them to reconsider the need for a banner like this for this project. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 07:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

To follow up on this discussion and the previous deletion of our banner, I have included a paragraph about what seems to be the most controversial aspect of the existence of {{WikiProject Redirect}}. Feel free to improve upon it. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 22:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• I definitely support the creation and use of a project banner for Wikipedia:Wikiproject Redirect. This would not entail the mass creation of talk pages for redirects, and I agree that the documentation can state this adequately. As far as project related talk pages, and redirect talk pages created for some policy reason, it only makes good sense that they should be tagged and administratively tracked. As far as the project being inactive, I didn't realize that, nor did I believe my efforts, over time, tagging redirects with {{rcat}} templates would be considered the net consequence of inactivity.—John Cline (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support creation and use of banner. To keep it being used as intended, modify the accepted values for the class parameter from the defaults for WikiProject Banners. Redirect project obviously has no need to use regular article classes (stub, C, FA, etc), and these should be disabled. |class=project, |class=template and |class=category are the relevant classes for pages where the banner would be used, and I'm not sure any other classes should really be supported. |class=redirect is incredibly dangerous; this class could be disabled, but if a invalid class parameter is used anyway, presumably the pages would show up in an "unknown class" category. I'd suggest instead that using |class=redirect would display a prominent error/warning message on the banner, and would place pages in an administrative category that is marked as being supposed to have no pages. If there's a need to categorize templates that are redirects themselves (like {{R from typo}}), make a new |class=templateredirect (or |class=TR) for these. If, for some reason there really is a need to put the banner on a normal article space redirect, that could be achieved with another class parameter (perhaps |class=redirecttalk if the contents of the redirect's talk page are what makes it worth bannering). Bottom line, to prevent misuse of the banner, |class=redirect needs to be handled differently from other WikiProject banners. Plantdrew (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It appears that there is support without objection in the present for this project banner. Also, while this discussion has been ongoing, yet another editor has made an attempt to create a project banner that is presently under discussion at Tfd. As long as people realize that this banner is designed only for carefully chosen pages that are of direct interest to this project, and not for the talk pages of every redirect on Wikipedia, while in fact, the vast majority of redirect talk pages should not receive this banner, then it looks good that we go ahead and begin to incorporate this banner on the appropriate talk pages. So if there are no objections, I shall begin this process in a few days. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 00:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Also, please note that the banner has been improved so that if it is placed on the talk page of any mainspace article page (to include mainspace redirect pages), it will not appear, and the page would be sorted to Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace. – Paine 

Yes. That's a good solution. Plantdrew (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the banner has been re-created and added to several pages. See Category:WikiProject Redirect pages for a list of pages that, so far, hold the banner. – Paine  06:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Redirect at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Participants

In regard to WikiProject Redirect#Participants, wouldn't it be better for the list to be in alphabetical order like other projects such as this one? The list implies (by the dates) that new members should add their names to the bottom of the list, but there is no express instruction for this. An alphabetical list would make it easier to find members' names, especially as the list grows longer. Your opinion would be appreciated, and I would be glad to alphabetize the list. Joys! – Paine  14:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections thus far, I went ahead and implemented an alphabetical list (see Participants link above) plus a few other tweaks to the page. Joys! – Paine  06:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

categories on redirects

I've been going back and forth with Look2See1. They keep adding categories to Operation Shingle, which is now a redirect. This seems to be incorrect and they won't give me a clear explanation. Please resolve, as I've had quite enough. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:RCAT and WP:RE/SG both clearly support the use of article categories on redirects. WP:CAT#Categorizing pages guides: "...there is no need to categorize talk pages, redirects, or user pages, though these may be placed in categories where appropriate." – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Redirects which are both printworthy and unprintworthy

I was expecting to find maybe five or ten, but instead came up with 30000, [3] which is a suspiciously round number. Is the project aware of this? --NYKevin 00:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I just checked the first one on the list, "Hg, and it was tagged unprintworthy, but not both. Back to the drawing board? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that's a valid example. It's also categorized as Category:Redirects from scientific abbreviations → Category:Redirects from systematic abbreviations → Category:Redirects from systematic names → Category:Printworthy redirects. This is bad. --NYKevin 16:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, NYKevin, I don't see that; all I see are Category:Redirects from scientific abbreviations and Category:Unprintworthy redirects. Where exactly are you seeing all that other stuff? – Paine  18:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from scientific abbreviations is a grandchild of Category:Redirects from systematic names, which is in Category:Printworthy redirects. That appears to be a logical inconsistency. older ≠ wiser 18:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Should Category:Printworthy redirects even have subcategories? Or would it be too laborious to manually tag every redirect as one or the other? --NYKevin 19:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the Printworthy redirects cat should not have subcats, so that logical inconsistency has been repaired. Also, I've been manually tagging redirects with these rcats for a long time, now, and never have I felt it was too laborious. You do what you can, right? – Paine  23:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

30000 isn't a suspiciously large number; it's the largest number you can expect from an intersection query that includes "max=30000". DexDor (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, DexDor! Makes sense to me. And when we click on the "Do it" button at the bottom, we find there are 704 pages listed. – Paine  23:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)