Template talk:R avoided double redirect

This rcat
I've been testing this rcat so I can update its documentation to be more similar to other rcat /doc pages and with an eye toward inclusion in the index. This is a great template and module, long overdue. We never know when the issues will be resolved and double redirects allowed, and in the past I've used the e# params in the Redr template to do what this template does, but this is far better. Just want to thank you very much for an excellent template! – Paine 00:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Cat recently removed
wondered why the "updated redirects" cat was removed, since it is standard practice to place rcats at the TOP of all the categories they populate. Painius 02:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I assumed the cat was something I'd added myself when I created the template. I had added PAGESINCAT-based category counts for some maintenance/tracking categories to my sandbox yesterday, and was removing meta pages from the cats. I'll just do this instead. SiBr4 (talk ) 18:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I still learn something new everyday! Joys! Painius 22:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Display in previews?
I think every time I've tried previewing a page with this template, I get an error message that the other page isn't a redirect. Invariably it is, and the template functions fine when I save. What's causing this? --BDD (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The template never gives an error saying the other page isn't a redirect; if that is the case, it assumes the other page has been turned into an article and returns the message "Since page is now a separate article, please update this redirect's target" (unless the page with the template already redirects directly to the other page, which does give an error). Which of the error messages in the module code is/was the one displayed? Did it happen at (which you edited just before posting this), and if so, had you already saved the dependent redirect  when you previewed the template? SiBr4  (talk ) 23:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, SiBr4. (I must not've watched the page because I assumed there wouldn't be one!) Yes, I think that's where it happened to me. To test it again, I replaced my sandbox with  and got the error message Error in Module:R avoided double redirect: This page is not a redirect. I'm reasonably certain that's the same message I saw before, and on several other occasions. Is the problem that "This page", i.e. the one I'm editing, isn't a redirect yet? That would explain it, but still means previewing this template is essentially useless. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Some magic words/Lua functions always use the saved version of a page, and don't reflect the changes you're previewing. I could look into ways for the module to know whether it's in preview mode and avoid certain errors if it is, but that could introduce the opposite problem (the template working fine in preview, but giving an error when saved). SiBr4 (talk ) 17:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If I may say so, I've run into this with other templates, most recently with the Talk page of redirect template. Let's say a redirect that has been kept at an RfD has a talk page that is also a redirect.  I want to add the Old rfd template to note the decision, so I add that and the Talk page of redirect to the talk page.  On preview, it gives an error message because the talk page is still a redirect; then when the page is saved, the talk page is no longer a redirect and the error disappears.  Whenever a template is designed to sense what a page is and the page is being changed by an edit, and the template is also designed to give an error under certain conditions, then that error will be seen until the page is actually changed (saved).  Just SOP with some templates.  Be prosperous!  Paine   15:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * PS. I've noted this in the Talk page of redirect documentation, so maybe that is all that is needed here? PS added by  Paine 
 * Ok, this just worked as intended with a preview. If someone fixed something, thanks. For reference, I was previewing Foliage-gleaner, an avoided double redirect to Furnariini, and I just created the latter (I created it before tagging the former). --BDD (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No edits that affect the template's error-giving behavior had been made since this one on 5 February. In the case of, there wasn't an error because the page was already a redirect before the addition of the template. I just made this edit, which prevents an incorrect "not a redirect" error when creating a new redirect (though not when turning an existing non-redirect into a redirect). It's probably technically impossible to get the redirect data of the actual previewed version, so any such edits to prevent false-positive errors will create false negatives as I mentioned above. A note in the template documentation about the potential unreliability of the template in preview mode would help in any case (re. Paine). SiBr4  (talk ) 23:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Transclusion when at RfD
This module fails with the message "page is not a redirect" when it is transcluded into a page that is marked for discussion at RfD (when indeed it is not a redirect). Si Trew (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As you noted, that conclusion is technically correct. There is no simple way for the module to automatically determine if a page is an RfD-ed redirect, short of getting the page contents to search for the RfD template (then again, the same thing is already done to find the redirect target in Module:Redirect). The error could be hackily avoided by setting either target article or 1. Both are, however, intended for demonstration of the template, and hence prevent categorization into the three Radr categories. If useful a similar parameter for use in mainspace could be added to the module. SiBr4  (talk ) 22:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think using either of these parameters would be a good hack, because they'd not likely be removed when the RfD closed. In fact, one reason I tend to tag things while the RfD discussion is open (without prejudice) is that the redirect is unlikely to be updated beyond removing the RfD header if it gets closed as keep. So adding the parameter would just put the boot on the other foot, unless a specific check was made for whether the page was in an RfD discussion. The problem is essentially that template code can't access state from the calling (invoking, transcluding) state (i.e. essentially a closure). I guess we could add a parameter like "noerror" that defaults to false but that the enclosing  passes, but since that template is SUBST I am not sure how that would work - it would probably require another level of indirection. Si Trew (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No other template in Category:Redirect templates seems to suffer from this problem. Si Trew (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Few other templates contain any conditional logic to give errors if used on non-redirects. For this template, the criteria for use are relatively strict, and some conditional output is essential, as the message and categories need to change when the other page is no longer a redirect. It was therefore easy to add error checks, though one might question their necessity. <span title="User:SiBr₄">SiBr4 (<span title="User talk:SiBr₄">talk ) 11:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Was about to start a section about this myself, then noticed there already was one. I just brought myself over to this talk page because of the same error I noticed, where the module doesn’t seem to play nicely during an RfD discussion. Not sure if it’s an error worth fixing though (?). A smart kitten (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Rfc - add boldface to redirect page name
The template should display the link of the alternative title in boldface. It's an important information and otherwise easily overlooked when several other templates are on the page. R fassbind – talk


 * ✅ – The first instance of the alternative title is now in boldface type.  Temporal Sunshine  Paine   12:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

CAT:AVOID2RUPDATE issue
Some pages have been appearing in CAT:AVOID2RUPDATE even though the avoided double redirect target (i.e. ) is indeed a redirect. I think it may have something to do with the history of the avoided double redirect target. I remedied two of said occurrences (viz. Baron Trump and Making televsion) by applying Redirect category shell (after some lengthy pondering on potential fixes). I'm not sure why that fixes it, or what is causing what appears to be a problem. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 06:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Curiouser and curiouser! Man, I completely missed this one for some reason.   Godsy, the cat is empty right now, so I've put it on my daily watch to see if it happens again and to make updates when needed.   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  14:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Additional text
Reference : In some cases it's possible that the "other target", in this case, will become an article by way of a page move. There was a recent Requested move on the target's talk page, Talk:Paul Hermann (composer), that shows this is possible. I added text to Module:R avoided double redirect to fill that need. Happy Publishing!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  19:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 March 2020
Please sync:
 * Template:R avoided double redirect/sandbox --> Template:R avoided double redirect
 * Module:R avoided double redirect/sandbox --> Module:R avoided double redirect

Changes:
 * Removes  being passed along all the way to Module:Redirect template, from where this parameter was removed long ago. (It doesn't have any effect.)
 * Fixes a minor visual bug. See Template_talk:Redirect_template. (work by User:Gonnym, not me).

SD0001 (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping and for following up on it! --Gonnym (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * rather than change the ifeq to an if, which essentially does the same thing, what would happen if the redirect were bypassed, as in changing "Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages" to "Wikipedia:Template index/Redirect pages", instead? I had to do that in two other meta templates to fix that index page's length problem recently.  PI Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 19:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, your issue is with  to be changed to  ? If that was what you wanted, that has nothing to do with the issue above. Also, as I pointed out in linked discussion, a better solution would be to add a doc parameter. While it requires a parameter, it's much more flexible in allowing other pages to use it and does not require changing code in tons of templates anytime a page name changes. --Gonnym (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, so if we make that change and bypass the redirect in addition to this fix, it won't matter, I get that. But why exactly would we want to bastardize the ifeq function with an if function that does exactly the same thing? How does that fix anything?  PI Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 19:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The if parser function does not do the same thing as the if template. One strips white spaces, the other doesn't. One has a visual bug, while the other doesn't. For a more complete breakdown of the issue, see the discussion, as there isn't any real point to repeat it here. --Gonnym (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes good sense, Gonnym. So why not go ahead and use doc instead of the index page? That sounds like a better long-term fix. Can you show in the sandbox how that should be implemented?  PI Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 23:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Gonnym, in the If template documentation doesn't it show that for it to operate like the If parser function, the first parameter must be empty?  PI Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 01:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct, however (and I'm sorry I mixed up the terminology above), we are replacing "#ifeq" (and not "#if") with . Thank you for asking that though, as it seems the "eq" part was removed by accident. --Gonnym (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ok, I think I've created a working version with the doc parameter. If doc= is used, the template does not appear. Please see if I missed anything. --Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * take a look at the sandbox I created at Template index/Redirect pages/sandbox and compare it with the "live" page at Template index/Redirect pages. The former uses your sandboxed version with the doc parameter and the latter uses the "live" version of R avoided double redirect. We see that the doc parameter does not seem to give the same result as the exclusion code in the "live version" of this rcat. In fact, this template's module is being invoked as can be seen by the added error message about the page not being a redirect. So it seems that, thus far, we must keep the exception code and not use the doc parameter, don't you agree? As an aside, I found that the exclusion code,, does work as expected.  PI Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 13:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That just requires either a change to this template or to Template:Tlrow. I added a default yes parameter to Template:Tlrow/sandbox as that template is always used for documentation, so no need to even use an extra parameter. --Gonnym (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the exception code from R avoided double redirect/sandbox and tried Tlrow/sandbox in the Template index/Redirect pages/sandbox, but the module still appears to be invoked.  PI Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 15:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't remove that part. You might have misunderstood me. If you are using Tlrow/sandbox to show the template, you don't need to do (which won't work anyways), as the template will handle the yes part by itself. Try this again, with restoring the code you removed. --Gonnym (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see it now. And yes, I misunderstood you to mean that if the doc parameter was used in the Tlrow template, then the exception code would not be necessary. I restored that code just as you had installed it, and it does appear to work to exclude the invoking of the module. So if it does what you originally intended, that was to remove the visual bug you noted at Template talk:Redirect template, then this appears to be ready to go. Are you happy with it?  PI Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 16:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If there are no other concerns, then this can be done. I'll wait the day and see if someone adds anything to this discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated all 3 pages. --Gonnym (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Namespace
"Use this rcat template on mainspace redirects only." Why shouldn't this template be used in other namespaces, and do we need another template for other namespaces if there is any good reasons why this one shouldn't be used? WT79 (Speak to me &#124; account info) 11:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What useful purpose does this template serve? What is the good reason why it should be used in other namespaces? Frankly I don't see a useful purpose for this in any namespace. This template causes more trouble than it's worth. wbm1058 (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The purpose is to help people find redirects that need to be updated because they were bypassing a double redirect that has been changed. It does seem to raise a few too many errors at the moment, though, and particularly I see no reason to restrict it to mainspace only. Anomie⚔ 03:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Here's a screenshot of one I found in Category:Avoided double redirects to be updated. It's telling me to make an intentional redirect to the disambiguation page Kill Yourself. At least that page tells me that "Kill Yourself" is a song by Joji (musician), which is more than the bio on the musician tells me. What the heck am I supposed to do with this. It's a damn waste of time. The redirect should just be deleted, rather than managed with time-wasting templates. If I has to work with this for long it might make me want to kill myself, ha! wbm1058 (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No-one forced you to work with this at all; its your choice if you decide not to nominate it for deletion, if that's your wish. Other people find this helpful; It helps us to see which redirects need looking at without having to search through every one of them. WT79 (Speak to me &#124; account info) 08:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are forcing me to search through hundreds of false-positive errors to find the handful that actually need fixing. wbm1058 (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No-one forced you to do anything. We do appreciate it if we have a smaller selection of false positives to look through than if we had to look through every single redirect. But no-one's forced to do anything. WT79 (Speak to me &#124; account info) 13:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are three SpongeBob SquarePants pages in Category:Avoided double redirects to be updated at the moment. SpongeBob is an annoying ploague on the 'pedia, IMO. Clean it up. wbm1058 (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, right. No one is forcing me to do anything. Nobody is forced to revert vandalism, nobody is forced to care. Alas, nobody can force anybody else to do anything either, so if ya really want something to get done sometimes ya gotta do it yourself. I just realized that I've been around Wikipedia longer than this template has; this template has kind of snuck up on me. Its function is so far down on my to-do list of priorities that if it were up to me to implement this it would never get done. But I realize we all don't have the same priorities. I would be content if this template went about its business without bothering me, but, it hasn't done that (sorry), so here I am. Template:R avoided double redirect and Module:R avoided double redirect were both created on 3 April 2015‎ by. Was this just boldly done, or was there any discussion prior to its implementation? Was there any discussion about what namespace(s) it should support? It's never been a stand-alone template; the template has always been a shell around the module which does most of the work. After some digging, I've found that Template:Incorrect redirect template puts out that orange stop hand that's causing all the trouble. That template, in turn, is called by Module:Redirect template. Module:R avoided double redirect returns via: return frame:expandTemplate({title="Redirect template",                              args={from=from,info=info,["main category"]=cat,                                     name="From an avoided double redirect"}}) which is equivalent to The others could populate another, new category with the equivalent of: but I'm not fluent enough in Lua to immediately know the syntax for coding that change in the module. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Was this just boldly done, or was there any discussion prior to its implementation?
 * The Village Pump thread that led to the template's creation is linked in the documentation. Though I made it, I don't think I added it to any page other than the ; its many current uses are the work of other editors who presumably consider it to be useful on those pages.
 * It's telling me to make an intentional redirect to the disambiguation page Kill Yourself.
 * It was originally added in April 2019, when "Kill Yourself" was still a redirect to the artist's discography. Its purpose was to monitor that page, so that when an article on the song would be written there, the redirect "Kill Yourself (Pink Guy)" is marked for updating, as it would need to point to the new song article instead. For all the template knows, "Kill Yourself" is now no longer a redirect, so it does its job and suggests retargeting the redirect there.
 * The template can't be sure that the specified ex-redirect is actually the correct target, although the message can (and probably should) be changed to not be as confident that it is, as Anomie's proposed edit nicely does. I've removed the template from, though alternatively its parameter could just be changed to a different possible name for an article on the song. <span title="User:SiBr₄">SiBr4 (<span title="User talk:SiBr₄">talk ) 20:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry that my tone above generated some excess heat. I've cleared out Category:Avoided double redirects to be updated and Category:Avoided double redirects/error (except for two "sticky" items) to familiarize myself with how this process works and check out the sandbox version with some live cases. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for that – fairly big category to clear out single-handedly in one go. Sorry if I was a bit short with you earlier, I know that sometimes it does get a bit confusing with errors that (to humans) seem obviously not a problem. Thanks, WT79 (speak to me &#124; [//xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia/WT79 editing patterns] &#124; [//xtools.wmflabs.org/globalcontribs/WT79 what I been doing]) 08:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Restart
The above has gotten a bit too heated for my taste. I've rewritten Module:R avoided double redirect/sandbox to clean up the overabundance of errors, to remove the mainspace-only restriction, and to work correctly when previewing. I also wound up revising many of the messages. You can see the results at Template:R avoided double redirect/testcases. Any objections to making that edit to the live module? Anomie⚔ 20:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Why the change from " " to " ? I support every other aspect off the change, apart from that single word ' changed ' ; it makes it sound as if, every time an edit (change) is made to the current target, the redirect should be recategorised! Apart from that – yes, I entirely support. WT79 (Speak to me &#124; account info) 22:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of "its target article is changed" referring to the redirect's target being changed. Anomie⚔ 22:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, that sounds more plausible. Perhaps 'or it is retargeted' might prevent further confusion? WT79 (Speak to me &#124; account info) 08:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure, done. Anomie⚔ 15:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Anomie's version is now live. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 July 2020
Please add  to the top of the page, just inside the   tag. This can be seen at Template:R avoided double redirect/sandbox (sandbox version is identical apart from above shortcut and that it uses  instead of   – beware of this if you simply copy across code from sandbox). Thanks, WT79 (speak to me &#124; [//xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia/WT79 editing patterns] &#124; [//xtools.wmflabs.org/globalcontribs/WT79 what I been doing]) 16:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Izno (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Problems with the template
In the more frequent usage of this template outside of testcases, a couple of errors have come to my attention: Sorry if that all sounds like a moan, a lot of hard work has gone into this template and it is almost always works very well – but still isn't perfect. WT79 (speak to me &#124; [//xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia/WT79 editing patterns] &#124; [//xtools.wmflabs.org/globalcontribs/WT79 what I been doing]) 08:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * When creating a page, the template displays the 'this page is not a redirect' message on preview. The cause of this is fairly clear (although I haven't looked at the module): if a page does not exist (apart from in someone's unpublished browser window), it cannot have any target, according to its (non-existent) metadata. Not quite sure how to fix this; in wikitext I'd use the  magic word, but I don't know enough Lua to do this in the Module. Presumably the 'not the same target' error message would also need to be changed for the same reasons, not sure about the rest, they aren't so obvious.
 * In this template's page, it is displaying the 'broken redirect' error. Not sure how to make the template stop this, but the current method isn't working.
 * I cannot reproduce your first bullet. If I go to a title that does not exist and enter the wikitext  and click "Preview", it displays as if the page had been saved with that content. If you're using mw:Manual:Live preview or some gadget/script to do previews instead, it may be a bug in that. Anomie⚔ 13:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am using the live preview. It works fine if I turn it off – thanks, WT79 (speak to me &#124; [//xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia/WT79 editing patterns] &#124; [//xtools.wmflabs.org/globalcontribs/WT79 what I been doing]) 21:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As for the sample display at the top of Template:R avoided double redirect, now I finally see what exactly the noerror was for. Fixed. Anomie⚔ 13:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Counted as a transclusion
I noticed that redirect pages with this template are marked as (redirect page; transclusion), instead of just (redirect page). An example is Francais; the mark can be seen here at Pages that link to "French language". Is this intended? — Goszei (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a side effect of the logic that tests whether the avoided redirect got changed, which would mean the tagged redirect would need updating. The "content" of the avoided redirect gets read, which counts as a transclusion. Anomie⚔ 18:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: missing colons
Three instances of links, split amongst lines 109, 122, and 130, do not have colons before their links, unlike all the other instances before it. This affects. To fix it, just go to those lines and add the colon so it looks like lines 103 and 113:  to   -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 14:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 April 2023
I would like to sync this template's module with my revision of its sandbox (, diff). I've slightly simplified the logic of the module (by replacing  with  ), as well as making it a tad more clear by using   in the errors block (which is possible because all of the if statements are guaranteed to return the function). The sandbox version produces the same result as the main version in all of the /testcases. {&#123;Lemondoge&#124;Talk&#124;Contributions&#125;} 23:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 00:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Explicitly allow A2R to tag redirects that are related topics with another redirect== You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Explicitly allow A2R to tag redirects that are related topics with another redirect. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 6 January 2024
See the discussion above, for which it seems like there's consensus. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * editor, please see the ; in that category we see many "articles" and also talk pages, templates and such. Since this rcat template is used in namespaces other than mainspace, the usage of "another redirect to the same article" is misleading, so the phrase should remain, "another redirect to the same title". The other phrase, "from an alternative title or related topic of", which expands the scope of this rcat template, has been engaged.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 14:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, didn't realize that. Sounds good! <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Display error
There's a display error using this template at Linewaiter's Gazette, which I think is caused by the apostrophe, as it displays properly without it. Would anyone care to address? <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 18:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)