Wikipedia talk:Redirect

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

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)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § RfC: enacting X3

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § RfC: enacting X3. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 18:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:→" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:→ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 6 § Wikipedia:→ until a consensus is reached. Nickps (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Deprecation of redirecting the talk page of a mainspace redirect

A talk page is just a regular page and can therefore also be a redirect. This is sometimes done when turning a page into a redirect and always done when moving a page since that also moves its talk page. Doing this during a move is fine in my opinion but in almost every other case, redirecting a talk page is a bad practice that should be discouraged. The reason is that if someone retargets one of the redirects but forgets to retarget the other, editors who wish to discuss the redirect will do so at the wrong place. Redirecting the talk page also provides no benefit in comparison with {{talk page of redirect}} which already acts like a soft redirect that can update itself when its page is retargeted. So, my proposal is that we add this to WP:R or WP:TALK:

The talk page of a mainspace redirect should not be redirected unless that was the result of a page move or as specified in WP:TALKCENT. In all other cases, {{talk page of redirect}} should be used instead.

Otherwise we end up with cases like Acts of God (book) where the page itself is a redirect to Acts of God (disambiguation) but its talk page redirected to Talk:Acts of God (novel) before I fixed it. Note that the utility of talk page redirects is much higher in other namespaces. Someone who looks up WT:R probably wants to end up here instead of discussing the redirect itself. So those should be allowed but people should still remember to keep them synced up (not likely that WP:R will ever change but other shortcuts might). I'd also be open to the idea of having a bot sync up such redirects automatically. Nickps (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging participants of the previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines/Archive_8#Are_redirect_talk_pages_also_redirected?: @Aristophanes68, Thryduulf, Johnuniq, Robertgreer, Flatscan, Redrose64, and Lolifofo. Nickps (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Also @Jameboy and Uanfala from Wikipedia_talk:Redirect/Archive_2018#Talk_page_of_redirects Nickps (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I thought about it again and I'm going about this the wrong way. I'll just ask at WP:BOTR first and if it gets declined then we should consider this. But, if someone else thinks that the change I proposed above is worth making anyway, they are free to pick this up and even open an RfC. Nickps (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, here goes nothing: Wikipedia:Bot requests § Bot to sync talk page redirects with their corresponding page. Nickps (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I vaguely recall some cases where a talk page was kept so that its history was retained. That is, the talk discussion had some possibly useful information regarding the now-redirected associated page? Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Subtopic in lead: use targeted or untargeted redirect?

If a subtopic is mentioned in the lead of a page of a larger topic, is there guidance on whether the redirect for the subtopic should be:

• Targeted to a specific section on the page related to the subtopic
• Untargeted, where context of the subtopic's relation to the larger topic is introduced in the lead

Some examples are:

• Kansas City Kings: Redirects to Sacramento Kings § 1972–1985: Kansas City–Omaha/Kansas City Kings, but there is mention of Kansas City Kings in the lead
• Travis McMichael: Redirects to Murder of Ahmaud Arbery. There is a later section Murder of Ahmaud Arbery § People involved, which has an overview of involved people.
• Tou Thao: Redirects to Murder of George Floyd § Tou Thao, but there is mention of Tou Thao in the lead.

—Bagumba (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about any policy, guidance, or essay that answers this specific question. My answer would be to think about where the reader would like to be redirected to and point to that. An easy example is if the subject of the redirect is not mentioned in the lead. In that case, it seems pretty clear to me, you'd redirect to the section where the subject is mentioned. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I would think that if there is meaningful mention in the lead, then being redirect to the top would be preferable to being dropped in the middle of a page, often with no immediate context of where and why you ended up here. —Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Linking to a section from a redirect creates more WP:ASTONISHMENT than linking to the top of an article where the linked term is mentioned (ideally in bold). The first two examples get this right. The third is a little confounding but I can't think of a way to improve it so would advocate for leaving it as it is. ~Kvng (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Trouble making a quasi-external soft redirect

I'd like to make WP:Wikimedia Design Style Guide point to https://design.wikimedia.org/style-guide, but I don't know of any prefix that goes to design.wikimedia.org. How can I achieve this? Sdkb ^talk 21:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't it redirect to https://doc.wikimedia.org/codex/latest/ since the Design Style Guide will soon be deprecated? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize the style guide is being deprecated. Yes, that seems like a better target. But the same question still applies. Sdkb ^talk 22:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Judging by m:Interwiki map, it looks like [[wmdoc:]] is the interwiki code for doc.wikimedia.org, so you could potentially do something like {{soft redirect|wmdoc:codex/latest}}. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 23:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

That worked; thanks! Sdkb ^talk 04:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect § Unclear talk page scopes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect § Unclear talk page scopes. Sdkb ^talk 21:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:R to sports team

Template:R to sports team has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:R from gap in series

Template:R from gap in series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Question on redirects with short descriptions

I have noticed that there are books (often novels) with a main space article, and the sequels to the books do not have their own articles, but rather are mentioned in a section, often named "Sequels". The redirects for the sequels often redirect to the section.

The problem is, when the name of a sequel is typed into the search Wikipedia field, what comes up prior to hitting Enter and invoking the redirect is the short description of the main space article. It would be ideal if redirects were allowed to have short descriptions that would override the main space article short descriptions in such circumstances.

So for example, we have a novel Argentina Wanderings (1971) by Juan Smith. In the Sequel section are listed novels Brazil Wanderings (1972) and Chile Wanderings (1973). When we search for Chile Wanderings we get "Argentina Wanderings 1971 novel by Juan Smith" displayed before we hit enter. Ideally we should get "Chile Wanderings 1973 novel by Juan Smith". The redirect would then function the same.

What do you think? Is there already such functionality via a different means that I don't know about? If this is not the place to propose this where would be the right place?

Thanks Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Please give real examples. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Gave one to Liu1126 below. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The pseudo-short description I'm seeing is "redirect to [target article]". In what context is the SD of the target article shown instead? I assume you are using the Visual Editor and start typing a link in the Wikipedia section. When I do this for an example redirect "Billi Bruno", I see suggestions of "According to Jim / American comedy television series" and "Billi Bruno / redirect to According to Jim". This doesn't always work: if I try "Aaron Weiss" I just get a list of irrelevant people with similar names. Are we talking about the same feature? Certes (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think what Tfdavisatsnetnet is asking about is similar to redirects from songs to an album. For example, when I enter "Above the Law (Barbra Streisand song)" into the search box, the top result displays as "Guilty Pleasures (Barbra Streisand album)" and "2005 studio album by Barbra Streisand". I think the suggestion is whether it might be possible for the redirect to display something different. older ≠ wiser 17:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you are correct, though the song/album relationship is a bit too fluid to benefit from my proposal (a song can be on multiple albums). Liu1126 has a better example below. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Best example

I think what you mean is when you type a redirect into the search bar (e.g. Mithridates de differentis linguis), the target page shows up in the dropdown (in this case, Conrad Gessner)? What happens when a redirect is searched for depends on the skin. In skins that do show short descriptions (Vector 2022 and Minevra Neue), when a redirect title is typed into the search bar, only the target article shows up in the dropdown. Even if a short description is added, the dropdown just won't display the redirect page. In the other skins (Vector legacy, MonoBook, Timeless), the redirect does show up, but those skins don't display the short description.

It might be possible to customise this by editing your own CSS and JS files (I'm saying "might" because I've never seen a user script that manipulates the search elements), but if you want to make it a sitewide standard (regardless of whether it would take a simple edit to MediaWiki:Common.css or a rewrite by the devs at server side), it might be better to start an RFC somewhere more visible, like WP:VPT. Liu1126 (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I mean, and that is a great example. I am arguing that a redirect of "Mithridates de differentis linguis" that reads

{short description|1555 work by Conrad Gessner} (note: I removed the second brackets for rendering)

"#REDIRECT Conrad Gessner#List of selected publications"

would be superior to just the second line alone, provided that the Skin is set to substitute the proposed short description of the redirect ('1555 work by Conrad Gessner') for that of the article ('Swiss physician, bibliographer and naturalist (1516–1565)') - after all, Mithridates de differentis linguis is not a Swiss physician. It should be a site-wide standard. Let me know what you think! I will look into WP:VPT (but I will hold off from making a proposal for a few days as the feedback comes in here), thanks! Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The {{short description}} can't go above the #REDIRECT [[...]] as the redirection only works if the #redirect keyword is the very first thing in the page source. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is the way it is now. I am proposing that the logic be changed to allow it. BTW I am currently looking through the VLP archives to see if this has been proposed before.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It's nothing that we, as English Wikipedia, can change. It's part of the MediaWiki software, and to alter that, you need to go through phabricator:. They will be wanting a very strong reason to change behaviour that has existed in that form for over 23 years - since at least April 2001, which is the very early days of Wikipedia. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)