Template talk:R from incomplete disambiguation

Error
Is a test of some kind? It throws an error on this page only in the This is a redirect/rcat template and not in the individual usage example below it. I wonder what the story is behind it? What's in your palette?  Paine  10:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess it thinks the usage example on that page is real. It works in mainspace though – see this test edit I just made. A useful tool for detecting user errors or vandalism.
 * Per, I was trying to move beyond my success with clearing Category:Unsynchronized disambiguation talk pages (which already has over 80 new pages in it since I cleared it, so will need ongoing attention) and find an automated way to clear your Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects. That's what led me to add this validity check. Anyhow, I haven't solved that one yet, but hope to come back to it later this year. Trying to wind down my current projects so I can take a summer break; I haven't taken a vacation for quite some time now. wbm1058 (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, now you've really lost me. Please define "summer break" and "vacation"???   If you don't mind, then, I should like to at least remove the notice from this particular page with a parser function and a magic word.  What's in your palette?  Paine   12:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm lost too. My edit wrapped the test in "include-only" tags, which, per INCLUDEONLY:
 *  – the text between the includeonly tags will be transcluded (substituted), but will not be processed on the template's own page.
 * So why was your edit needed to stop the error on this template's own page? wbm1058 (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because of the way This is a redirect/rcat is presently set up to read the text of each rcat. Your error is sent to that template (includeonly'd), and then that text is transcluded back to this page.  What's in your palette?  Paine   13:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have removed the code from the template in regards to this section. Please see my edit for more details. Steel1943  (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the code throws the redirect into a erroneous category when the redirect is nominated for WP:RFD since, well, the redirect is not technically a redirect while it is tagged with Rfd. Steel1943  (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Rereading the above from Wbm1058, this is was a way to fight vandalism, user errors and unsynchronized talk pages. Depending upon how well it works, it can be adapted to the other rcats.  Does it disrupt the RfD process in some way?   Paine   u/ c  17:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to restore that code – all it does is place the redirect in an error category when it's disabled for RfD, and that's been going on with the Talk page of redirect template for quite awhile. Just like with that template, it also helps editors detect vandalism errors and such.  This is a good thing and it doesn't have to be commented out nor disabled just for RfD'd redirects.   Paine   u/ c  17:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Paine, I removed the code because this happened. In a nutshell, unless the code can be tweaked so that the category transclusion is not triggered when the redirect is suppressed while the page is nominated for WP:RFD, I have to oppose the code being put back into this template. Steel1943  (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, Talk page of redirect is fine as is because, in my opinion, talk page redirects can 99.9% of the time be speedy closed/changed or deleted (per WP:G8) in the event that the talk page gets nominated for RFD, and in essence, should usually be fixed WP:BOLDly instead of going to WP:RFD. Steel1943  (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I further understand what you mean about Talk page of redirect now. No, I wouldn't be as concerned about talk pages being put into Category:Pages with incorrectly transcluded templates as I would the nominated redirects themselves. Steel1943  (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because what happened, exactly? Because an editor commented it out?  As I said, unless it disrupts the RfD process in some way that nobody's showed me yet, then the code is as harmless as the code in the Talk page of redirect template.   Paine   u/ c  18:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The editor hid the template since the template put the page in an erroneous category (which cannot be seen at this time since I updated this template.) I disagreed with their actions, but understood their point. So thus, I removed the aforementioned code. All and all, I can compromise with the text being reinstated, but not the trigger that puts the page into Category:Pages with incorrectly transcluded templates. Steel1943  (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still lost as to why putting the redirect into an error category is undesirable if it does not actually disrupt the RfD process itself. Of course, I'm still hazy as to how much good the code actually does on rcats, since if a vandal tries to turn the redirect into an unneeded or non-notable page, they would probably remove the rcat anyway, and no error would be generated in a case like that.  Perhaps Wbm1058 could help shed some light on this?   Paine   u/ c  18:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, I'm still a bit lost, too. I did enjoy my month off in July and August, but of course I was greeted by many backlogs on my return, so have yet to return to this. I'm OK with the reversion, as my code wasn't really accomplishing much. We still have the need to find an efficient way to clear Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects, but my edit really didn't help much with that, so it's back to the drawing board. I need to put up a sticky note to keep this on my to-do list. wbm1058 (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Error checking revisited
Long time since I last checked in here. I just noticed a problem with the redirect The Bounty. It's tagged with R from incomplete disambiguation as it redirects to a disambiguation page Bounty. However Talk:The Bounty redirects to Talk:The Bounty (1984 film). If The Bounty itself was the disambiguation, then disambiguation or a related dab template would be populating Category:Unsynchronized disambiguation talk pages so my would eventually fix it. I could make a similar edit to R from incomplete disambiguation, and upon detecting that the talk page redirected to another page, replace that with WikiProject Disambiguation that would show the message: This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, ...

Now if this redirected to Talk:Bounty, there would be nothing technically wrong with that, but I don't see any harm with changing it to display the WikiProject Disambiguation tag rather than redirect. We would at least ensure the redirect was not to the wrong page. any comments, before I boldly implement this? wbm1058 (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the talk pages for these are red links, so my proposed template change would do nothing. On the other hand, I just found that may fix these by redirecting to the talk page of the dab. I see from RussBot task 2 that this appears to have been a one-time run in 2009, based on a database dump. Using a template to populate a category would give us a real-time solution that wasn't dependent on getting database dumps. Maybe I can check where the talk page redirects and only categorize the ones redirecting to the wrong page. wbm1058 (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, Module:Redirect fetches the target page name of a redirect page, and is only usable from Lua. 66974 asks for a better way to get the target of a redirect page. Maybe I need to get more proficient with Lua to do that. Or surely there must be a way for the Lua function to return its results to a template? wbm1058 (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If it helps, I like to use the Talk page of redirect template when I see a talk page that is not itself a redirect. I put it at the TOP above project banners, discussion notices and so forth.  It effectively turns the talk page into a soft redirect.  Note that it automatically senses the target of the subject-page redirect, so that template's code might help you in this.   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  03:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Paine, I recall that back on 5 May 2016 I noted there were over 8,500 members in Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects, and now there are only 71. I've observed that you're using AWB to tag those with Talk page of redirect, which mostly solves the problem, but leaves behind some errors which you pick up on a second pass. Perhaps not the most efficient solution, but nonetheless one that works. Well done!
 * Oh, and Talk page of redirect uses  to find the target page of the redirect. Duh, that's the main function of the module! Slapping myself for not seeing that. Then again, it's confusing that the module redirect functions entirely differently than the template redirect which functions entirely differently than the   syntax. wbm1058 (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I have a new version in the sandbox that appears to work. It should leave synchronized redirects alone, but put unsynchronized redirects in Category:Unsynchronized disambiguation talk pages, where the intention is for  my bot to replace the redirect with a WikiProject Disambiguation template. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Paine, I've gone live with this. I think we're the only editors watching this now. I'll watch and wait to see what populates Category:Unsynchronized disambiguation talk pages. wbm1058 (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've already spotted a problem. Mind Games (album) is tagged as an R from incomplete disambiguation, but redirects to the John Lennon album rather than the Mind Games disambiguation page. We need a way to report these. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The text on this template allows redirection to the Lennon album: "Such titles should redirect to an appropriate disambiguation page (or section of it), or to a more complete disambiguation."  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  05:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow Paine, Category:Unsynchronized disambiguation talk pages has 1,102 members now, and is still growing. I use User:Wbm1058/vector.css to highlight links/redirects to disambiguation pages in yellow, from that I can see that only two of the first 200 in the list are not redirects to disambiguation: Amaravathi (film) and Bilal (singer). I can manually address the ones that aren't highlighted in yellow, before turning my AWB-bot loose on the rest, to simply tag those with WikiProject Disambiguation. I'll walk through a few of these manually to check for other unexpected issues, then implement a phased roll-out of bot processing. By the way, you made a cross-namespace redirect to Mind Games (album), which I assume was unintentional. Mind Games (album) is a partially disambiguated page name, which is relatively rare as there is a lot of resistance to the concept. I just added that to the list of partially disambiguated article redirects. Amaravathi (film) redirects to the primary topic Amaravathi. That's not right, it needs to be retargeted to Amaravati (disambiguation). Note the difference in spelling, the dab title is missing the "h". Typical issues with converting native Indian languages to English (Amaravati, Amaravathi or Amravati may refer to...) Bilal (singer) redirects to Bilal (name), which is a "pseudo-disambiguation" as it's a given name article which is technically not a dab. So, a number of different, rarely occurring non-conventional scenarios. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Another scenario I found: changed "incomplete" to "unnecessary" dab – wbm1058 (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is familiar from a recent page move: we get a little too dependent on our double-redirect fixing bots. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * meant to thank you for the "Well done!". When I began to fix these with AWB, there were actually more than 10,000 unsynched talk pages that had been moved.  I substituted a code based on Talk page of redirect in  that turned all of them into "hard" redirects that were synchronized to their subject pages.  I think it was Anomiebot that reverted about a thousand of them that had been redirected to non-existent talk pages.  Those are the ones I fixed with Talk page of redirect, so about 90% of the talk page redirects were synched as "hard" redirects.   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  20:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Sidebar discussion is at User talk:Wbm1058#Bot1058 and talk pages of redirects. – wbm1058 (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Back from the sidebar
So, it seems like the best solution to this is to follow what Paine did with the sister category Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects, and redirect the talk page of the redirect to the talk page of the disambiguation, if that page exists, and only put the two templates Talk page of a redirect and WikiProject Disambiguation on the page when we can't redirect because the talk page of the dab is a red link. I think that most of the time that page will not be a red link. Can we not get too picky about putting the WikiProject Disambiguation template on human name pages and such pseudo-disambiguation pages? Feel free to fix that after my bot leaves the wrong tag. So, if this is OK, I think I'm ready to undo the pages I've already put WikiProject Disambiguation tags on, and change them to redirects. wbm1058 (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You probably won't have too much trouble with non-existing talk pages of dab pages. Most of the non-existing talk pages you come across will probably be anthroponymy talk pages.   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  10:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI. BRFA filed. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, wbm1058!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  16:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 January 2018
Please remove the from the template. Nihlus 00:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. wbm1058 (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit request (May 29, 2020)
Please change " |all category=Redirects from incomplete disambiguations" to "  |all category=Redirects from incomplete disambiguation", to match the current category. Thanks. © Tb hotch ™ (en-3). 05:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done With >34000 transclusions this will take a while to percolate through. Cabayi (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)