Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect

Main pageTemplatesStyle guideTo doMembers Report Requests Talk page

Guideline help on redirects for non-notable actors to their work

I created a redirect from Jayden Revri, who is not notable enough for his own article, to his most recent work that just came out. What's the policy or guideline on what the target of this redirect should be? He has several other credits, at least a few of which have their own articles. Presumably it should be the show he's most known for?   — TARDIS builder^✉     ★       14:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Unless one of the articles actually says something substantive about the actor, I think it would be better to leave it as a redlink to make it clear there is no article rather than directing readers to some article that has little more than a passing mention of the actor's name. older ≠ wiser 14:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; he currently has two main cast billings (Dead Boy Detectives and The Lodge) and one recurring cast billing. I do suppose if he's more well-known or visible in either of the first two I would redirect to that cast list, but otherwise I concur that a redlink might be more "valuable" at this point in time. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:R from gap in series necessity

I recently brought {{R from gap in series}} to TfD. It was closed as no consensus due to low participation, with the caveat that it would be overturned to delete if this WikiProject finds the template unnecessary. As such, I'm bringing the question here: do folks think this template is needed? Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 15:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like this is not a very strong issue with editors, either here or at TfD. Probably the best person to ask whether or not this rcat template should be kept is its 2022 creator, editor Jochem van Hees. I'm neutral on whether or not this template is necessary, but I would like to learn the details about why it was thought necessary to keep track of these gaps by sorting them to their own category. What was gained? and what would be lost if the template and category were to be deleted? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts and Paine Ellsworth: hey there! I've been quite inactive on Wikipedia lately so I didn't notice the discussions. I created this redirect category after an Rfd about exactly these redirects in December 2021/January 2022, during which jnestorius proposed this template. The RfD closed as no consensus, but I thought this template could be useful to explain why these redirects are there if we're gonna keep them anyway. It happens every now and then that someone recreates the article even though the topic is not notable, so having the redirect itself state that it is not notable could maybe help.

Looking back, I don't think it made any difference. Been digging through article histories a bit and a total of one of these redirects, Turkey in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979, was turned into an article (and subsequently reverted) despite having the template. However, most of these articles remain untouched since the template was added. Furthermore, I don't recall any instance of me using the category; all I've ever done is add the template and leave. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the reasons people are asking "what is the purpose of this template?" are that its documentation is sparse and contradicts itself and that it has not been added to enough articles to allow its purpose to be inferred by looking at its Whatlinkshere. IIRC my original suggesting was for cases where the real world entity was absent, rather than merely where there was not (yet) a (standalone) Wikipedia article for the entity. Readers might manually iterate through a sequence of articles and wonder why there was a gap; {{Category series navigation}} can semi automate such iteration. Distinguishing realworld gaps from Wikipedia gaps is important. Examples of the former would include Pope John XX or many of Category:Events cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There are cases of realworld gaps with full non-redirect articles (eg 1940 Summer Olympics) but if there is only a redirect then this Rcat is appropriate. Seldom but not never will the redirect be {{R with possibilities}} Sometimes but not always will the redirect be {{R to list}}. This can be in the documentation. jnestorius^(talk) 11:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Colors script

Is there a color change script for redirects? I only know a gadget for disambiguations. Or was it disallowed? Because in ptwiki and eswiki there's a gadget. --MikutoH ^talk! 01:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Anomie/linkclassifier voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at Talk:Popverse#Redirect templates

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Popverse regarding the use of {{Avoided double redirect}} in correlation to a miscapitalization redirect pointing to the same entry. The thread is Redirect templates. The discussion is about the topic Popverse. Thank you. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

In particular, we could use someone who is into redirect tagging to take a look and clarify what to do, so we can settle a dispute. Dicklyon (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of redirects from draftspace to mainspace not from move

A discussion has been initiated regarding redirects from the draftspace to the mainspace that are not the result of a move. Interested editors are welcome to comment at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Redirects from draftspace to the mainspace which are not the result of a move. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirects in hatnotes

You are invited to a discussion about the use of redirects in hatnotes at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Redirects in hatnotes again. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Recommended redirect templates

From a newcomer who may not have a robust understanding of the purpose of each rcat. This participant would benefit from learning use cases of existing rcats.

{from alternative word order}/{from alternative ordering}

Of course {from alternative spelling} works fine, but may be a useful tracker? Tule-hog (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

{from user nickname}/{from alternate username}

From what I understand, redirects from similarly spelled usernames are allowed - see User:Tule-Hog. A maintenance category like {{R from alternate username}} could be used to distinguish intra-user namespace redirects that are nicknames from other types of intra-user namespace redirects. Tule-hog (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

{to special namespace}

There are a few other namespace redirect templates, but noting that the special namespace is 'virtual'. Tule-hog (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

R to creator?

We have a template {{R from creator}}. I could not find a reverse counterpart to designate a redirect from the work of art to its creator. The {{R from product}} is way too commercial. Any advice is appreciated. Example: Light-Space Modulator. Викидим (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:R from work and related work templates should work here. Gonnym (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Mainspace vs non-mainspace redirects

Is there a discussion I can refer to as to why certain redirect templates (e.g. {{R from initialism}}) are mainspace-only while others (e.g. {{R from alternative spacing}}) are not? Tule-hog (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see anything from a cursory search of the archives here. I'd be interested to know as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

My first thought is that it could be something to do with making things nice for reusers that don't mirror project-space, and/or the interaction of that with printworthiness, but on second thoughts I don't think that does explain the difference. Paine Ellsworth knows far more about redirect categorisation than I do though. Thryduulf (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi ya'll, and thanks for the ping, editor Thryduulf! The decision to discern between one namespace and all-or-other namespaces was made before I registered. I think it was because the creators thought that some monitored sorts should be limited and others didn't have to be. Over time the distinctions have blurred a bit, like the {{R from other capitalisation}}, which is mainspace only, and the more recent {{R from miscapitalisation}}, which sorts redirects from any namespace. So I think that limiting categorization of redirects to one namespace is done in order to focus the monitoring of certain redirects to a more useful and more easy-to-monitor grouping. Hope this is helpful. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Wiped/reinstated template?

Bumping comment inquiring about the reinstatement of {{R from incorrect hyphenation}} by User:Wbm1058, w.r.t. this RfD. A similar reinstatement was made by User:Eejit43 for {{R from alternative hyphenation}}, but User: Rosguill referenced the same RfD for both blank and redirects (which did not decide on {{R from alternative hyphenation}}, and did decide to redirect {{R from incorrect hyphenation}}). Tule-hog (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

{{R from incorrect hyphenation}} was created May 2013 as an {{R from modification}}.

It retained that generic status until changed on 19 November 2018 to {{R from alternative spelling}}. I don't really agree with that. The length of a horizontal line is not an a–z spelling matter.

Barely a month later it was boldly upgraded on 29 December 2018 to {{R from misspelling}}.

I reverted on 7 May 2020 back to {{R from alternative spelling}}.

Then it was boldly changed on 14 May 2020 to make it an {{R from incorrect name}}. That was even worse. A cosmetic change in the length of a hyphen does not change a name.

Then came the February 2021 discussion that changed it back to {{R from misspelling}}. That discussion was closed without any administrative analysis or rationale, after another admin had felt the need to relist it to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus – and no further discussion had occurred after the relist. Not a lot of !voting there, more "I have no good answer" than strong opinions.

The last comment there was I agree that this is confusing. We need to decide whether punctuation is spelling or modification. Originally, it was supposed to be modification. But I don't have a problem changing it to spelling if that's the consensus.

Back when I first became active on Wikipedia, in December 2011, I actually started my user page by writing a user essay about hyphens and dashes, which another editor copied a year later to start Wikipedia:Hyphens and dashes.

Tule-hog, I'm wondering if you've read Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings. I've struggled to keep that report under control. Editors continue to get more and more perfectionist in the way they tag redirects, escalating cosmetic things like hyphen lengths to the level of top-priority misspellings. I'm attempting to do something to ease the workload on the gnomes who correct misspellings. That's why I created Category:Redirects from incorrect hyphenation on 5 November 2023. I did not reinstate the redirect to {{R from alternative spelling}}.

I think I can write a bot to "fix" cosmetic horizontal line issues where they've been tagged as incorrect rather than as valid alternatives. My view is that these should not require human scrutiny, so we should not burden gnomes with demands to make these corrections. And presumably, since these have been branded as incorrect, such a bot wouldn't be rejected for making "cosmetic edits" per WP:COSMETICBOT. I just haven't gotten around to writing the bot code yet, as my time is still way oversubscribed. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the in-depth reply - hopefully your reasoning will be useful reference for future contributors to the project.

Would it be going too far to extrapolate from your answer that all 'incorrect' rcats are (eventually) intended for use in a database report (presumably to be 'fixed')? My guess is that is too far, since some templates automatically tag {{R unprintworthy}}, which is useful for different purposes.

In the following, an indented bullet point represents dependency; when labeled with ➝ the page redirects to the parent, if not, it uses a subcategory of the parent. A link to a relevant RFD is provided when it exists.

I see the following are reported via Linked miscapitalizations and Linked misspellings:

• {{R from miscapitalisation}}
  • {{R from incorrect capitalisation}} ➝ (RFD)
• {{R from misspelling}}
  • {{R from incorrect spelling}} ➝
  • {{R from incorrect spacing}} ➝
  • {{R from incorrect punctuation}} ➝ (RFD1, RFD2)

The other 'incorrect' rcats (I can find), without database reports (as far as I'm aware), are:

• {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}
• {{R from incorrect hereditary title}} (➝ {{R from subsidiary title}})
• {{R from incorrect URL encoding}} (➝{{R unprintworthy}})
• {{R from incorrect name}}
  • {{R from incorrect hyphenation}}
  • {{R from incorrect quotation}} ➝
  • {{R from incorrect abbreviation}} ➝
  • {{R from incorrect modification}} ➝
  • {{R from incorrect term}} ➝
  • {{R from incorrect title}} ➝

There are a number of aliases for each template, so I have tried to only include significant page names (often marked with possibilities). Extending my previous question, would it be useful to have a Linked misnamings?

As to automating incorrect➝alternative, from the replies of Eejit, Anomie, and Hyphenation Expert, it seems it would be difficult to create such a bot, but the interest is there. Tule-hog (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

{{R from incorrect hyphenation}} seems like a very valid rcat, usages of hyphens instead of en dashes, for example, are incorrect. I'm not sure exactly what would make something an alternative hyphenation instead of an incorrect hyphenation, but something like -1 redirecting to −1 could be an alternative as a hyphen is commonly used in place of the minus sign. I see no harm in having both rcats, but the differences between the two should probably be explained better in their respective documentations. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The inclusion or omission of an optional hyphen; e.g., Non-profit organization or Preeclampsia. Category:Redirects from alternative hyphenations Hyphenation Expert (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I've just noticed AnomieBOT EnDashRedirectCreator tags all hyphen-to-endash redirects as "alternative" instead of "incorrect" hyphenation, blech. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, I believe AnomieBOT is tagging incorrectly there. Thank you for the clarification regarding alternative hyphenations, in that case it seems like all hyphen-to-endash (and similar) redirects should be tagged with {{R from incorrect hyphenation}}, and there will definitely need to be some cleanup of those categories. cc @Anomie ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Possible exceptions would be in proper names, e.g. an organisation might use a hyphen where our style guide says to use an en-dash or use both interchangeably, similarly with em-dashes. I don't know whether there are any such examples, but its something to look out for. There are definitely examples that have come up at RfD where two hyphens are used in the official name (I want to say Canadian electoral districts, but I might be misrembering). Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Eejit43: AnomieBOT used to use {{R from modification}}, until you asked me in April to switch to {{R from alternative hyphenation}}. I can switch it again if it's wanted that every redirect the bot creates for en-dashed titles should be tagged with {{R from incorrect hyphenation}} instead. It seems unlikely I could have the bot know the difference between "incorrect" and "alternative", however. Anomie⚔ 17:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't aware of {{R from incorrect hyphenation}} at that point so sorry about that. I'm not sure exactly how the bot would be able to determine if a redirect is an incorrect or alternative hyphenation. Logic could be made to check if the dash is between two digits and other examples, but that seems too difficult to maintain. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

"Bundled" redirect templates

@Tule-hog recently created {{R from project shortcut}} and {{R from redirect template shortcut}}. I'm interested to know if anyone has any input on this type of template, as I personally find it to be more trouble than its worth. Usage of a template like this would break scripts such as redirect-helper and other rcat managers, and take control away from those tagging redirects. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Templates like {{R to project namespace}} in 2024 should not exist. We can write smart code so that {{Redirect category shell}} knows from where to where a redirect is going and handle it automatically. Gonnym (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

+1 voorts (talk/contributions) 21:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That is an incredibly good point, it should be handled automatically just like protection is!! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This would be a cool development!

I didn't anticipate this breaking any scripts; certainly not worth the effort if they do. Noting Category:Bundled redirect templates should be wiped as well. Tule-hog (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

More broadly, there are a lot of redirect templates. It might behoove this project to go through them, determine which ones are really used/needed, and TfD those that aren't. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Elli was working on Template:Automatic redirect categories a few years back. Not sure where or why that stopped. Gonnym (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Just lost motivation. If we can get a consensus for what categories should be applied automatically, we should definitely apply them in such a manner. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Date redirects to portals?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Date redirects to portals?. Cremastra (u — c) 01:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)