Wikipedia talk:Redirect

See also: Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/redirects, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect, and Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/Redirect

NOTBROKEN needs to be moderated

WP:NOTBROKEN contains some bullshitty language like "It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]" that is just some random editor's highly subjective opinion/bugbear incorrectly expressed as a hard fact. It's also written as if it's a hard policy prohibiting redirect bypasses, but the community very plainly does not accept it as such, so it should not be written in such a prescriptive and absolutist way.

It's a clear fact that many, many editors do in fact replace redirects with piped direct links; the very existence of "bypass redirect" and "bypass redir" as stock phrases on WP could not be possible if it were not a common and accepted practice. It is the purpose of our guidelines to describe best practice, not to try to change well-accepted practice into some other behavior pattern someone wishes it would be.

Direct links (piped as needed) are objectively better than redirects for our readers, for a number of pretty obvious reasons. Just three of them, and there are probably more: 1) They reduce the "surprise" level of using the site (redirs are not "invisible" to the reader, and can even be confusing, especially if the material at the very top of the target doesn't use the exact same name/term that the person clicked on). 2) When you look at where the link is pointing (mouse-hover over the link, in most browsers), it tells you the full path of the link to page you'll end up at (or think you'll end up at); when this is correct instead of a redirect the user doesn't expect, then it again reduces surprise/confusion. 3) People change redirect targets all the time, often without cleaning up afterward; usually they are constructive changes, e.g. to a new article instead of to a section, or to a better section at article A than the section at article B that the redirect originally pointed to; but with a zillion editors, there will always be unhelpful instances. Then we also have the issue that a great many redirects are unprintworthy (common typos, etc.).

All that said, yes, we do have a worthwhile underlying principle here: making redir-bypassing changes as the sole reason to make an edit, and doing a lot of that, is apt to be taken as WP:MEATBOT behavior, and annoys watchlisters. Do it as part of a more constructive edit (fix some typos, impove some citations, etc.). While if it were not often permissible to bypass redirects, the very phrase "bypass redirect" would not be stock WP terminology; on the flip side, if it were always, for every imaginable reason and case, okay to bypass redirects, then NOTBROKEN would not have been written (even in a better, less "my way or the highway" version). The main reason for that guideline is, basically, "don't fight about it", and it should be rewritten with that in mind. And it needs conforming cleanup at WP:NOPIPE, which makes the patently false claim (clearly inspired by this excessively strident and opnionated version of NOTBROKEN) "It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects". In reality, it is clearly considered good practice by the majority of our community of editors, because they usually do write with pipe (why would we even have pipes, really, if not to use them?), and very often update material to do that when it wasn't written that way orginally.

PS: The only actual rationale offered in favor of not bypassing redirs is, at NOPIPE: "the number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page". But in over 17 years here, I have never encountered a single split case where such an idea was a determining factor; usually the redir stats are not consulted at all. Articles are usually split based on length and detail considerations, as well as a show of independent subtopical notability. And the title of the split article will be subject to WP:COMMONNAME and the other WP:CRITERIA, not determined by redirect wording.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I've always thought a redirect is fine, provided we don't pipe to a redirect. If we have [[B|A]] but the article is actually at C, then that's no good. An article at C that is linked as a redirect to A is fine. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Keep as is. I'm afraid I sharply disagree with Stanton on which form is "objectively better". Unpiped links to redirects are objectively better. It has relatively little to do with counts to redirects, and much more to do with the fact that piped links hide the semantics of the link inside syntax that is not visible at the level of the rendered page. This is a software anti-pattern that should be avoided. It's similar to why symbolic links are preferable to hard links on a filesystem.
  I also disagree on which version violates the least-surprise principle. Piped links violate least-surprise worse than links to redirects, because they take you to a page with a different title than the one you were expecting, without the notice that you were redirected. --Trovatore (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, while I've run into a number of editors that replace a redirect with a pipe to the target, it's been generally inexperienced editors who mistakenly believe that a redirect is the the sign of a problem or an inefficiency, neither of which is true. Simply using the redirect has a number of advantages, including simplification of maintenance (i.e., if Jane Actor is a redirect to her only role as the star of Notable Film, and then she also gets another noteworthy role and her redirect is turned into a page for her, then we actually want all those links to Jane Actor to go right to that page, and not be piped to Notable Filme.) So this seems to be addressing what is at the very least good advice and really seems to be standard practice among experienced editors. Really, the only problem I have with NOTBROKEN is the name NOTBROKEN, which often gets misunderstood as "don't change things" by people who see it mentioned but don't actually read what it links to. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Keep as is. The pipe links tend to make the wiki mark-up much messier - whereas the non-piped links are clear, concise and don't district the editor. Eg, I see many editors using the clumsy [[gasoline|petrol]] when [[petrol]] works perfectly fine via a redirect and is so much easier to edit. It's true that sometimes a redirect gets changed badly. It's also true that when information is shifted to a new home (eg, a section being split into its own article) then we have all those old links that are now hard to find and replace with the new link and therefore the piped link is now wrong. As an example, last year I created a new article Toyota dealerships (Japan) by moving information from the Toyota article. Previously, articles linked directly to Toyota#Japan with piped links. It took me months to find all those links and move them over to the new page via redirects. This could have been practically automatic if the links were via redirects in the first place. In short, links should be to the subject being discussed, not to its current (and changeable) location.  Stepho  talk  00:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

To clarify Stepho's example (if I got that right), Toyota Store, among others, used to redirect to [[Toyota#Japan]]. After a dedicated article about Toyota's dealership in Japan was created (Toyota dealerships (Japan)), Toyota Store's target was updated to [[Toyota dealerships (Japan)#Toyota Store]], and that was simple enough. The problem is that all unnecessarily piped links to Toyota Store: [[Toyota#Japan|Toyota Store]] then needed to be individually fixed to point to the new article, whereas had the redirect [[Toyota Store]] been used in the first place, all this link fixing would not have been necessary. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Keep as is. I particularly like Stepho's take: "Links should be to the subject being discussed, not to its current (changeable) location". casualdejekyll 01:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep as is. NatGertler is precisely right that we WANT to keep the links to a redirect rather than have a direct link to whatever more general article might currently have relevant information on the topic. And I agree with others that the markup is much cleaner without excessive piping. When an article is moved to a new title, then sure it is no big deal to have some "bypass redirect" edits -- though in that case to replace the previous direct link with the updated direct link rather than replacing with a piped link. older ≠ wiser 02:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• On further consideration, I think there may well be an issue with MOS:NOPIPE. I think that is far more strident and unequivocal than the rather nuanced indications in WP:NOTBROKEN. older ≠ wiser 16:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  MOS's style is prescriptive from start to finish, and that's what you would expect from a manual of style. MOS:NOPIPE in particular does not seem out of tune within that context. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Except the prescription is misleading and lacks nearly all of the qualifications in WP:NOTBROKEN. It is easy to see how editors could misinterpret that guidance. older ≠ wiser 20:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  MOS:NOPIPE seems well worded when the redirect and target are different (but related) topics, such as a minor character redirecting to a work where the character appears. However, it's less clear that its authors considered all cases when redirect and target are synonymous. Of course, some would not "[fit] well within the scope of the text"; no one's suggesting that we leave "Adama Traoré (footballer, born 28 June 1995) scored for Mali" unpiped. However, there are plenty of cases in between. I'd never deliberately write [[United Arab Emirates|UAE]] in an article, but I wouldn't "fix" it either, even if editing the page anyway for other reasons. Certes (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Certes: I suppose the obvious question is: why not? The guidance at WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE seems quite clear that either [[United Arab Emirates]] or [[UAE]] would be preferable to [[United Arab Emirates|UAE]]. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Changing to [[United Arab Emirates]] would alter the displayed text in a way that its author presumably did not intend. Changing to [[UAE]] would be purely cosmetic: it would affect neither the displayed text nor the final link destination. The latter shouldn't be done in bulk, even by human editors. It's a fine decision whether optimising such wikitext is worth the disruption of polluting the edit history and the effort which could have been spent on more serious errors. In my opinion, it usually isn't, but the opposite view is equally valid. Certes (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep as is. Apart from the redirects being cleaner, the unnecessary piping is a damn nuisance. I have} many times created new articles from redirects or changed the target to a more appropriate one and unnecessary piping gets in the way, and ran into the same issues as Stepho. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Change. I recently came across an editor who is changing valid article links to redirects, based on just this issue. The Banner talk 12:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Can you post some examples please? Changing links so that they conform to current guidelines doesn't sound like an issue to me. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  This edit on Battle of Britain, this edit, here, here and these edits on Winston Churchill. Most edits with a claim of MOS:NOPIPE. The Banner talk 15:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's what I thought: I could have made 95% of those edits myself. I always edit source code, and filling it with things like [[Hugh Dowding, 1st Baron Dowding|Hugh Dowding]] when [[Hugh Dowding]] does the job just as well (and has other advantages too), does not help build a better encyclopedia, in my view. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  I will concur with Deeday-UK here; those edits look generally like improvements, if minor ones. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  And completely superfluous. No reader would see the change. The Banner talk 15:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's not superfluous: it might be invisible to readers but it is helpful to editors. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  And do we create an encyclopedia for the editors or for the readers? i always had the idea that the readers were the group we are working for. The Banner talk 12:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Things that help the editors help them edit for the readers. And if someone wants to spend their time helping the editors, they are free to do so. (But treating the readers and editors as separate bodies misses the fact that presumably all our editors are also readers, and we wish to encourage readers to be editors.) But as stated above, there are also ways in which this helps the reader, such as creating a redirect notice on the page the clic to, which helps clarify that they ended up on the right page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  @The Banner, you still haven't explained why you object to WP:NOTBROKEN. As pointed out by more than one user, the policy is helpful to editors, while being all but transparent to readers, so why are you unhappy about it? -- Deeday-UK (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Because superfluous edits are still useless, even backed up by a policy or the likes. I do not see any positive effect of changing a direct link to a redirect. The Banner talk 12:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  But NOTBROKEN says It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]. - it is cautioning against changing a redirect to a direct link: this is the exact opposite of your objection. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  But the same is in fact true from changing a direct link to a redirect, certainly as stand alone edit. The Banner talk 16:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  I have to disagree with at least one of those edits. Changing [[Nobel Prize in Literature|Nobel Prize for Literature]] to [[Nobel Prize for Literature]] makes the article (marginally) worse, because the redirect via which it diverts the link is an erroneous title (and should probably be tagged as {{R from incorrect name}}). Instead, it would be better to fix the displayed text by simply removing it and leaving the original link unpiped: [[Nobel Prize in Literature]]. Certes (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think I agree with you. I made most of those edits with the intention of leaving the readable prose unaltered. I did consider the alternative, and I might have gone either way, but I think you're right. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Even the The Nobel Foundation seems confused: both "in literature" and "for literature" are used on the English version of their own website. Perhaps we leave the redirect alone as a valid alternative. Certes (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Let's assume for the sake of argument that the "for" version is actually incorrect. I can't see how the piped version is any better. When you have [[correct name|incorrect name]], that's really not noticeably better or worse than [[incorrect name]], because both wind up displaying incorrect name on the page. The only solution worth discussing is changing it to [[correct name]]. So I think this case is orthogonal to the discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, except for one thing: [[incorrect name]] is easier to find and fix than [[correct name|incorrect name]], because you can search for links to the redirect. You can also do a just plain text search for "incorrect name", of course, but that's more error-prone, as in general is editing source that contains piped links. --Trovatore (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Status quo per Stepho. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• I'm afraid I don't quite see the reason for this apparently very opinionated, emotional rant :) In my experience, most newbie editors don't know much about piped links and don't generally work contrary to the sensible description in the guideline. I noticed "bypass redirect" edits a few times, reverted them with this simple explanation, and never had an issue with it. We have plenty of issues identifying bad primary redirects already, I really don't see why we should stop encouraging people from doing things in a way that avoids extra clerical work. --Joy (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep as is – per Nat Gertler, Stepho, and my comments above. WP:NOTBROKEN seems just like common sense to me, and I too see only newbie editors going against it (and do so only until they are made aware of it). --Deeday-UK (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep as is: NOPIPE links are easier to edit and, as described by Stepho, make updates much simpler when new pages are added. Mgp28 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep as is. I occasionally bypass redirects but only in limited circumstances (such as in navboxes if the redirect and target are synonymous rather than merely related) and normally alongside other edits. NOTBROKEN already is moderated, by WP:DOFIXIT. Although many innocent editors bypass redirects in good faith, and sometimes improve the page by doing so, many such edits have been systematic disruption, notably by sockpuppets of Kung Hibbe. Certes (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep as is / status quo. Two issues here: a practical one and an editor behavior one. The practical one is - the proposal mentions checking links to a redirect as a sign to spin off a new article. The thing is, something like that does happen with spinouts and subtopics. Imagine there's an article on a Pokemon or something, it gets merged to a character list, then it gets spun back out as an article later. A link to the character name would have worked and been consistent the whole time, while an awkward piped link to "List of generation III Pokemon#ExampleCase" would become wrong after the spin-out. The same applies to more serious subtopics like "Environmental policy of the XYZ administration" which might go to a section for now but become an article later. The editor behavior one is - if NOTBROKEN were abolished, there'd be a crew of extremely dedicated editors convinced that the most important thing to do on Wikipedia would be to run around running bot-scripts that intercepted links to redirects and immediately changed them. In fact, this is what the proposal hints at with the fact that people do this anyway - yes, they do, and it's a problem, but it's just one not worth fighting too deeply because it's not that harmful individually. Anyway, in this world, it'd be impossible to ever keep an intentional use of a redirect up, because these script-driven editors would just be constantly replacing it and starting revert wars. So you'd really have to have a policy to mandate piping, but that's a bad idea too. It'd be adding fuss, for nothing. Redirects work. They're great. They're not a problem and they're not broken. SnowFire (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Why the "if NOTBROKEN were abolished" straw man argument? No one in this discussion, least of all me, proposed removing it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Could you rephrase your argument? I'm having trouble understanding it as something other than "we should effectively abolish it". I can see that that isn't precisely what you are arguing for, but I don't see how in practice there will be a difference between what you're advocating and simply abolishing it. -- asilvering (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Keep as is. It is true that "it is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]". Unpiped links are always better than piped links, and fewer characters are (usually) always better than more characters. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Personally, while I think NOTBROKEN is not broken, ^{(heh ^_^)} I wouldn't mind softening the two sentences: Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]. a little to "not usually helpful" or something. I don't really see the need for it though, and it is probably a bit late to clarify the proposal given the overwhelming response. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• I do think it's more accurate to say that such edits are "not a good use of time" rather than "not helpful", because they certainly can be helpful. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I would actually strengthen it. For reasons explained in the foregoing conversation, [[redirect]] is usually better than [[target|redirect]]. --Trovatore (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Why not straight away [[target]] instead of a detour? The Banner talk 16:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
      • That's fine if target works equally well or better in the running text. As long as you're not adding a pipe, I think NOTBROKEN is not implicated. (Another reason that the shortcut is misnamed, but oh well.) --Trovatore (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• Question Where do redirects like the ones discussed at Talk:2022 United States elections#Why are these links necessary? fall under? I still think the use of [[U.S. states to legalize recreational cannabis]] rather than [[Legalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States|U.S. states to legalize recreational cannabis]] is silly. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 03:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • That's an extreme case. My view would be that it's generally silly to create six-word redirects for search terms that will never recur anywhere but the text they're linked from, just to link to them. However, the piped link is pretty horrible, linking a six-word phrase to a seven-word title, so while I would discourage the creation of this sort of redirect, as long as it exists I'd say use it. It makes the wikisource slightly less awful. --Trovatore (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep as is. Over the years I really have seen instances where the text originally contained [[smallertopic]] and smallertopic was a redirect to biggertopic. Then somebody changed the text to [[biggertopic|smallertopic]], purely because they hate the idea of redirects. Then later, smallertopic got its own article. Now the link points to the wrong thing. It's kind of maddening when this happens. And especially if you have a background in computer science, where use of indirection is a good thing and not something to be tracked down and removed. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep as is per all the good arguments given above already. Redirects are almost always better than piped links. They make it much easier to rearrange / expand contents with much less maintenance necessary, they can carry semantic information in form of "attributes", they allow more precise reverse lookup. They allow to "terraform" infrastructure independent of already existing articles, thereby creating the "bed" for future articles. Redirects are a long-term scalable concept still suitable for a Wikipedia hundreds of times larger than it is now, whereas piped links don't scale and will always remain useful only to blend minor grammatical stuff in a local article context - anything beyond that quickly becomes a maintenance nightmare. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep as is. WP:NOTBROKEN is not broken. Pipes such as [[World War I|First World War]] are probably the silliest practice on Wikipedia. They help no one and complicate things for us who edit the content. They just look like a waste of time. In cases such as [[color|colour]], they even imply that one name is somehow more appropriate than the other. They should go and the guideline should be clear about it. Surtsicna (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

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

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Redirects involving BLP privacy issues. ^user:A smart kitten_meow 06:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Template typos

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

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

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

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

D8

WP:RDEL#D8 states: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful." I had inserted "or refers to a subtopic of the main topic" but @A smart kitten thought "this feels like a change that should be made by consensus, rather than boldly, as it widens one of the redirect guideline’s reasons for deletion." Fair enough. I was thinking of cases such as "Kefirah", a term which is not mentioned in the redirect's target page. (It might be related to another redirect, "Kofer", but don't get too hang up on this particular case.) As another example, if Wanda (character) existed as a redirect to Characters of the Mario franchise, it could be deleted, since that obscure character is not mentioned in the target article. fgnievinski (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @Fgnievinski

From what you’re describing, these sound to me like redirects that may well already result in deletion under the current guidelines. In my (admittedly limited) experience, redirects that don’t have a mention at the target article are often deleted at RfD. To take the example of Wanda (character), if that redirect to Characters of the Mario franchise existed, I imagine it might well be deleted at RfD under D2; as a redirect from a character that isn’t referred to in the target list could cause confusion to readers.

Because of this, I’m not sure if an addition to D8 is necessary to address cases such as the ones you describe (although please tell me if you think I’m wrong in believing this). Given that (for one thing) policy writing is hard, I feel at least slightly reluctant to make a guideline change because of a situation in which the existing guidelines seem to be proving sufficient (per the first bullet-point under WP:PWIH § Things to consider).

I think I might also be inherently (though not insurmountably) cautious of additions to the § Reasons for deleting - for one thing, I’d be concerned about the potential for the added text to be interpreted overbroadly, and/or used to argue for(/justify) deletion in ways that weren’t originally intended.

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

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

Sure, let's hear a third opinion. D2 does seem a bit too broad though. fgnievinski (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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

I agree that R from subtopic should stay. The full proposal would read: "If the redirect is is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. For example, it could be a novel or obscure synonym for the main topic or it could refer to a minor undiscussed subtopic of the main topic." fgnievinski (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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

It extends coverage for redirects from subtopics not discussed in the target. Currently D8 only covers synonyms for the main topic (article name). fgnievinski (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Fair enough, proposal updated: "If the redirect is is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful (common misspellings excepted). For example, it could be a novel or obscure synonym for the main topic or it could refer to a minor undiscussed subtopic of the main topic." fgnievinski (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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

I had given two examples of contentious redirects, Kofer and Wanda (character), please see discussion above. I'm puzzled when you say "Some subtopics that are not mentioned make good redirects" – could you give some examples? fgnievinski (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I asked for examples of redirects that you think should have been deleted but which were not deleted, those two are not examples of that - Kofer has never been nominated for discussion (and I don't immediately understand what the grounds for a nomination would be); Wanda (character) has never existed, but the subject not being mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia is a very common reason for deletion currently so it doesn't demonstrate the need for anything additional. As for subtopics not mentioned, the first example (but likely not best) I can come up with off the top of my head is iPhone recycling → Mobile phone recycling, there isn't any content at the target about iPhones specifically but the majority (at least) of people using that search term will find what they are looking for so the redirect is beneficial. Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

At least "iPhone" is mentioned in the title of sources cited; furthermore, iPhone recycling existed as an article before being emptied and redirected – some of its contents should have been merged into the more general article, for context. This whole proposal was meant to formalize a justification for nominating for deletion redirects such as Kofer, which is nowhere defined in the target. In both cases, it might be obvious for a select audience the relationship between target and redirect, but we shouldn't assume much about the readership, which forms a global diverse audience. fgnievinski (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLAR notification

WP:BLAR suggests it's good practice to add a short notice at the talk page of the target article. Is there a template (e.g. simliar to {{Merged-to}}) that we can use to satisfy this? ~Kvng (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, editor Kvng, the only template associated with WP:BLAR that I know of is {{uw-blar}}, which is a notice for the talk page of the blanked article's creator. For this purpose the general {{notice}} template can be installed on the target's talk page below any project banners with a short notice about the blank-and-redirect. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Pleasure, editor Kvng! If you do create something like {{Blank and redirect notice}} with a shortcut redirect something like {{blarn}}, please remember to mention it at WP:BLAR, so other editors will be aware of its usage. Thank you for your edits! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I've created the template based on {{Merged-from}}. I'm new at templates and haven't figured out how to use the sandbox yet but I have added it to a couple articles I recently WP:BLARED (see Talk:Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter, Talk:Mortiis) and it seems to be working as expected. I'll wait for any comments on my work here or at Template talk:Blank and redirect notice before updating WP:BLAR to mention this option. ~Kvng (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like your new template has potential! Did a little minor copy editing and such. Very good job, editor Kvng! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Tagging redirects with project banners

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

No cleanup required, because more and more projects have embraced the "redirect class" and sort them to categories to track them. If I'm not mistaken, editors are not supposed to create talk pages just to banner them, but if the talk page is already there, then editors are encouraged to banner them. I've been bannering redirect talk pages for nearly fifteen years. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

I think the idea is for project members to be able to track appropriate redirects and improve them or delete them as needed. Why would this not be a good idea? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

My thought is that a single concept (i.e. the subject of a page) should have only a single centralized record of the talk banners that apply to it, per DRY. That record already exists at the talk page of the target. Having a bunch of copies of it at whichever talk pages for incoming redirects happen to exist, rather than assuming that the same project banners apply, is what creates a syncing problem.

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

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

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

Notification of CfD discussion (Category:Redirects of dubious utility)

Here. Still think these should be discussed at RfD, but I'll page a notice here instead. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed new CSD criterion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § Improper disambiguation redirects. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

New redirect templates

{{R from alternative hyphenation}}, {{R from alternative punctuation}}, and {{R from alternative spacing}} all redirect to {{R from alternative spelling}} and the template states that "This is likely to change in the future, so please use the more specific template names.". I am planning on going ahead and creating (or making edit requests to create) those rcats, however I wanted to mention it here per suggestion of @Paine Ellsworth in case anyone disagrees with this change.

@SMcCandlish I also wanted to ping you as you created {{R from alternative hyphenation}}, even though it was back in 2012. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Subcategorization should have happened ages ago.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)