Template talk:Soft redirect with Wikidata item

Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item
Just for making you aware (if it can be useful) of the category in question, due to MediaWiki:Connected-redirect-category (translatewiki). --Horcrux92 (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Redirect template
please forgive me for reverting your good faith edit. Since this is the only rcat that can be used on soft redirects, template "Redirect template" cannot be used as a meta template within it. "Redirect template" is what makes rcats unstable on and unsuitable for soft redirects. I shall make a note about this in the template documentation. Thank you sincerely for your work with redirects!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  20:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Accidental category transclusion after last change
I noticed the category "Category:Redirect templates" has been accidentally transcluded on every pages using this template after the template was changed today. Could template editors please fix this? –Stylez995 (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks for the catch, sorry about that! Feel free to WP:TROUT me for doing that. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 06:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 January 2021
I created a link to automatically add the page on Wikidata if it's not connected to the item yet. (sandbox) --PhiH (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: The "Redirect template" meta template cannot be used with this rcat template. This rcat can be and is used on some soft redirects. Use of the meta template renders instability on soft redirects. That is why most rcats cannot be used on soft redirects. Thank you for your input!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 00:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not make any edits related to the rcat shell. My proposal only includes the link and the category. You may use this sandbox version which is based on the old version of the template. --PhiH (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just wanted you to know that I've read your response. When the next discussion below is resolved, I shall be glad to take another look at your request.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 19:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * was looking this over more closely, and it doesn't seem to jive with the little I know about Wikidata. My understanding is that they are not particularly fond of WP redirect pages with an "Item" page on Wikidata and would prefer to keep that to a minimum. Your edit would mean adding any redirect on which this template is placed to Wikidata. Since this template is not routinely placed on redirects that don't already have a page on Wikidata, it seems that this change might inspire editors to tag redirects with this template that are not already on Wikidata, and I'm not sure that would be okay with the Wikidata folks. Am I missing anything?  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 20:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edit would mean adding any redirect on which this template is placed to Wikidata. That is how this template is intended to be used. If there is no item the page can be linked to, the template should be removed. Since this template is not routinely placed on redirects that don't already have a page on Wikidata. This link does not create a new Wikidata item. There are redirects where this template has been added without also connecting the item in on Wikidata. Only in that case the link is shown. It seems that this change might inspire editors to tag redirects with this template that are not already on Wikidata Why? There is a big red warning with two suggestions: Remove the template or add the page on Wikidata. The link just makes the second option easier.
 * The main purpose of the link for me is simplifying the process of adding the sitelink on Wikidata. The page has to be edited anyway to disable the redirect so I place this template in the very first line and enter the Wikidata item I want to connect it to. Instead of having to go back to Wikidata and manually enter the page name, "enwiki" and select the badge, I just click on the link and then on "Set the sitelink". After that I restore the redirect. --PhiH (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Not really sure this is a good idea, generally creating items for redirects shouldn't be encouraged, and the template should only be added after an item is created. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 07:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood the purpose of this link. It can be used to add the page to the existing item in . --PhiH (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ah. Is that parameter often used with items that aren't connected? That would be... weird. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 10:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that the reason is that some users might not know that they can actually connect the page when the redirect is disabled. Instead they add the template to indicate that the page should be connected. When I had a look yesterday there were about 200 pages in the Category:Unlinked Wikidata redirects. Right now there are 2472 pages but most of them just use the Template:NASTRO comment where this template is automatically added. --PhiH (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it makes more sense just to print a warning. Most of the redirects in that category don't specify which Wikidata item they should be linked to (I did not find a single one that did last time I was cleaning the category). Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 10:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

When – as proposed – this template isn't placed manually in the future, the link won't be necessary here. I have created a separate template for my own workflow in the userspace. --PhiH (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This does not use the template for soft redirects.
please check the template's code. This only uses the redirect template for hard redirects. For soft redirects, it uses what it did previously. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 07:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand that, I'd just like to see where this has been discussed and consensus garnered for the seemingly unnecessary change. This rcat was doing its job just fine before the changes. No consensus, no adequate explanation, means you should revert until discussed.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 17:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * no, that's not policy. Every other redirect category uses the template, and not ambox. It's an unnecessary change, I guess, but one that I felt was useful, how it looks now is much better than how it looked before. I didn't feel like it was necessary to get consensus on this, I didn't really see why or how someone would disagree here. If you have an actual objection, though, please let me know. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 17:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD means you make a bold change, your change is reverted and then it's discussed. It's not BRRD, so that's my first objection. Bring things back to status quo and then discuss the benefits of the changes. I've already stated a valid objection, which is that the template was doing its job just fine before you made the changes. I disagree and think the template looked much better and more elegant before your changes and did so with simpler code. What exactly are the practical benefits of making the code more complex than it was before, when it still basically does the same job as before?  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 18:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am honestly confused, you think that this:


 * looks better than this:


 * because that is totally not in line with how other rcats work and look. If you look at the other changes I've made, you can see that it now automatically finds and categorizes pages that have the template improperly applied. The code is slightly more complex, but not unreadable in any way, or any undue load on servers. I think it's pretty clear what it does. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 18:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * it was not designed to be "in line" with other rcats, it is very different than other rcats, so we thought it should look very different. Besides, it still looks about the same on soft redirects, correct? So far, I'm unconvinced that it shouldn't continue to look the same on hard redirects. It is different and should appear differently. There is no other rcat quite like it. Please return to status quo.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 18:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The only reason I could grok for it looking different is because "we can't use redirect template because it's unstable on soft redirects" - a reason promoted mainly by you. You reverted who attempted to change this, with the reasoning I mentioned. I figured that if this was the issue, then simply checking if it was placed on a hard redirect or a soft redirect would be an easy solution here. This works, I have not come across a situation in which it does not, nor a reason it has to be "very different from other rcats". I haven't seen anyone other than you promoting this looking different from rcats, but I and others seem to prefer it this way. ('s comment explains my reason to revert your revert, I thought it was a misunderstanding, not a disagreement). Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 18:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * no, there was no misunderstanding, there is disagreement. And there will continue to be disagreement until you have addressed my concerns to my satisfaction. You have not changed the appearance of the template on soft redirects, just on hard redirects, so the appearance as it was seems to be okay to you on soft redirects. The benefits of your change are still questionable. I do like the error code, which is an improvement; however, that can be introduced without using the Redirect template code. Please address my concerns, and my main concern is: it is unclear whether or not the "Redirect template" code is actually passed to a soft redirect. If it is, then this can cause the instability that I've mentioned as explained in the "Redirect template's" documentation (and placed there long before I came along). It is why other rcat templates should not be used on soft redirects.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 19:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The redirect template code is not loaded on soft redirects, only on hard redirects. You can use Special:ExpandTemplates to see this (just enter  and compare to   to see the difference. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, tangential, but I've never actually seen what this instability is explained somewhere? I thought the actual reason other rcats weren't used on soft redirects is that they simply aren't relevant there. If they are unstable in some way, I'd be interested in understanding the malfunction and fixing it (though that's not really relevant to this discussion). Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The instability is noted in Redirect template's documentation. Try it in preview using any other rcat template on a category (soft) redirect to see one form of instability. Suffice to say that there may be unexpected results if an rcat that contains the "Redirect template" is used on a soft redirect. If as you say, the "Redirect template" code is not passed to soft redirects, then that would be okay. Still concerned as to why it's okay to appear normally on soft redirects, but not okay on hard redirects. At this point I would still prefer to see consistency and a return to the status quo.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 19:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ref.: Wikidata redirect/testcases.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 19:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Still concerned as to why it's okay to appear normally on soft redirects, but not okay on hard redirects" soft redirects use ambox, namely Wiktionary redirect. Placing this under that lines up and looks fine. Also, I checked and I don't see the instability you refer to. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My bad. The edit that adds an rcat to the category soft redirect has to actually be made. Will not work in preview. I've fixed many of these over the years when editors have added rcats to a category redirect. What happens is the soft-redirected category becomes a subcategory of the rcat's category. So instead of the category redirect being added to the rcat's category as an entry, it's added as a subcategory, an "unexpected result". Such is what happens when rcats that use "Redirect template" as a meta are used to tag soft redirects. There can be unexpected results as described in the template documentation. As to the appearance on hard redirects, it is very different from its appearance on soft redirects, so there is no consistency in appearance. To regain consistency, please return the template to its previous code without the "Redirect template".  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 20:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, so the concern is that it... categorizes it? So does this. We tend not to tag category redirects with it, or they'd become members of Category:Wikidata redirects, too. This is regardless of my edit, btw. As for your other concern, I'm referring to consistency in a particular page. The consistency in the template doesn't matter much, many templates have multiple display options. This has one display option for soft redirects and another for hard redirects, I really do not see why there is an issue with that. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 20:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't just categorize the soft redirect, it makes the soft redirect a subcategory. Say an inexperienced editor comes across a category redirect and deems it a "modification" of its target. The editor tags the soft redirect with R from modification. If you go to, you will find that the soft category redirect is now a subcategory of the "Redirects from modifications" category. That is an unexpected and undesirable result. I've fixed many of those in past years. I'm still not over the inconsistency in the display, which I think is much more inconsistent than any other "multiple display options", and I don't see why it's necessary when the template does its job the way it was. Curious, though, does this change facilitate the bot you intend to use as depicted in the discussion you point to below?  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 15:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way: WP:BRD doesn't apply if you can assume that a reversion was just a mistake: Bold, revert, revert: If you genuinely believe the reversion was a mistake you might try speeding things up by reverting the revert, but you should explain why you think the other editor made a mistake in a note or edit summary to reduce the risk of edit warring. --PhiH (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

???
had to revert to previous configuration. Both the Ambox and the Redirect template were being passed. I noted that when I CSD'd Down to One (disambiguation). Please let me know what is going on, because even with the old code there are two renditions of the template where there should only be one.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 10:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I see what's happened. The alteration you made to the Rcat shell caused the dual rendering. I still think the code should now stay as it is. This template does not have to be that complicated, and shouldn't be.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 10:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The code is not really complicated.
 * I'm really... failing to understand what issues you have with this in general. The ideal solution here, as I can see it, is to use redirect category shell to automatically tag hard Wikidata redirects, and to only manually tag soft ones. This template should only be manually placed on soft redirects.
 * Obviously, getting here -> there isn't the easiest, especially since there's the need for bots / visual changes / some manual work, but that's no reason to keep the status quo, which adds a needless amount of work in addition to a (as you prefer) really ugly template.
 * I would appreciate if you'd revert your revert, now, as you could see that my change here did not cause the aforementioned issue. You could revert my change at redirect category shell, but I'd really rather you didn't - a double-displaying template is a minor visual annoyance, which causes no problems and (ideally) will be solved soon anyway. In contrast, the template not being on the page at all will cause a de-categorization of about 10k pages from.
 * I also think that this template would be fine if switched over to redirect template. The issue you mentioned with it for soft redirects only applied to category redirects, of which this template is not used for (and its current code categorizes categories in the same way). Given that the majority of this template's uses are on hard redirects, if we really can only have one version, having the version visually optimized for hard redirects makes sense. However, there is really no significant amount of complexity to the code I added. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 11:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate if you'd revert your revert, now, as you could see that my change here did not cause the aforementioned issue. You could revert my change at redirect category shell, but I'd really rather you didn't - a double-displaying template is a minor visual annoyance, which causes no problems and (ideally) will be solved soon anyway. In contrast, the template not being on the page at all will cause a de-categorization of about 10k pages from.
 * I also think that this template would be fine if switched over to redirect template. The issue you mentioned with it for soft redirects only applied to category redirects, of which this template is not used for (and its current code categorizes categories in the same way). Given that the majority of this template's uses are on hard redirects, if we really can only have one version, having the version visually optimized for hard redirects makes sense. However, there is really no significant amount of complexity to the code I added. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 11:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I also think that this template would be fine if switched over to redirect template. The issue you mentioned with it for soft redirects only applied to category redirects, of which this template is not used for (and its current code categorizes categories in the same way). Given that the majority of this template's uses are on hard redirects, if we really can only have one version, having the version visually optimized for hard redirects makes sense. However, there is really no significant amount of complexity to the code I added. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 11:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I also think that this template would be fine if switched over to redirect template. The issue you mentioned with it for soft redirects only applied to category redirects, of which this template is not used for (and its current code categorizes categories in the same way). Given that the majority of this template's uses are on hard redirects, if we really can only have one version, having the version visually optimized for hard redirects makes sense. However, there is really no significant amount of complexity to the code I added. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 11:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, maybe it's me, but you haven't really been listening. The EXAMPLE I showed you was with a category soft redirect. I would have hoped you would get from that the instability of the Redirect template for ALL soft redirects. The creators have documented instability and unexpected results if Redirect template is used on soft redirects. I gave you an example to show what they meant. And no, I think the recent changes you made to the Rcat shell should be reverted until the bot request is approved. You don't know how long that will take and there is no sense in showing two renderings of any rcat on any redirect page for any reason. And AS I SAID, the code of this template is MORE complicated than it was before, and I don't think it needs to be MORE complicated. Please try to read with understanding and stop putting words in my mouth!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 11:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am listening, I just think we have a genuine disagreement here.
 * "instability" should be fixed, not worked around with amboxes. The instability is not documented, except for a line saying "this template may prove to be unstable if used on a soft redirect" (emphasis mine). This doesn't sound like clear, documented instability to me.
 * Simplicity is an admirable goal, but not the only one. This isn't an oft-edited template, better functionality is preferable to simplicity here. There is no need to make a trade-off.
 * As for the rcat shell, on any page where this presents an issue, you can just... fix it. Reverting the change makes the current categorization of 10k pages worse, for a marginal visual benefit. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 11:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Simplicity is an admirable goal, but not the only one. This isn't an oft-edited template, better functionality is preferable to simplicity here. There is no need to make a trade-off.
 * As for the rcat shell, on any page where this presents an issue, you can just... fix it. Reverting the change makes the current categorization of 10k pages worse, for a marginal visual benefit. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 11:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the rcat shell, on any page where this presents an issue, you can just... fix it. Reverting the change makes the current categorization of 10k pages worse, for a marginal visual benefit. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 11:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The instability and unexpected results have been documented by the creators and an example has been shown to illustrate what can happen if the Redirect template is applied to soft redirects. You however would just throw that baby out with the bathwater and charge ahead with your undesirable edits. Follow the steps: get the bot approved, then start making edits that will keep the 10K redirects where they should be sorted after the bot does its job. You seem unresponsive as heck to all that's been said here, and that does nothing but foster distrust in everything you do. I'm beginning to think that your bot should not be approved. I don't trust that it will properly and correctly do what you say it will do.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 11:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * frankly, what? The instability has not been documented. More importantly, the template wasn't applied to soft redirects. My code checked if the page was a soft redirect, and only used redirect template if it wasn't. So your whole argument there is a false premise.
 * I've responded to all of your comments relatively quickly. I disagree with you on this. It seems like you are using "complexity" (less than 1000 bytes), as an excuse to revert any changes. If you don't understand what it does, just ask. If you have an actual reason, based on actual uses, for why my change is harmful, please let me know, because currently you have not. You do not own this template, please don't act like it.
 * As for the bot, I don't see any reason why you should lack trust in it "properly and correctly do what you say it will do". Have I lied in this discussion? Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 11:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the bot, I don't see any reason why you should lack trust in it "properly and correctly do what you say it will do". Have I lied in this discussion? Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 11:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the bot, I don't see any reason why you should lack trust in it "properly and correctly do what you say it will do". Have I lied in this discussion? Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 11:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * As previously shown, the instability has been documented at Redirect template, and an example of one type of unexpected result has been shown to you. Moreover, my arguments along these lines have merely been in response to your inquiries and do not reflect whether or not this template applied the Redirect template to soft redirects.
 * That we disagree is obvious. You seem to think its okay to add things to templates that screw things up, such as you did at the Rcat shell. You think it's okay to make a template less simple than it is to make it do the same job it was already doing for no evident reason, as you did with this template. Then after all this, you expect a bot request to be approved that will clean up the mess. So tell me, why exactly should your edits or your bot for that matter be trusted? And I didn't even mention your remark about my not understanding "what it does".
 * Maybe we should give it awhile and start over? We don't seem to have a very high opinion of each other. That can only change with time. I was considering objecting in your bot request. I'll hold off for now. I suggest we give all this a rest for a little while.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 12:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * fair enough, I think we are both a bit frustrated. Also, if you're open to it, maybe we could discuss in a more real-time platform? I've found that the talkpage format often isn't preferable for discussions for me. (though, if you're not comfortable with that, I totally understand) Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 12:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you very much for your consideration! In truth, I usually find myself juggling several things at a time as I edit: these talk page discussions, edit requests, requested moves, closure requests and so on. So discussions on talk pages are more to my liking. I usually don't ping other involved editors unless I'm slow to respond for whatever reason, and I usually don't expect to be pinged because I check back fairly frequently when I can. A quick word as to "ownership". Yes, I've been working with redirects, the rcat template indexes and these templates for many years, and I feel a sense of stewardship where they are concerned. When I look at WP:OWN, I don't think I've done anything on that list of examples. However, if you have perceived that I have done something on that list, then I could be wrong and apologize for doing so. Thanks again for your decision to AGF on my part! and I will make every attempt to reciprocate.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 21:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, I'm fine with discussing on talk if that's what you prefer.
 * Anyway, I understand your position here. I think I didn't quite explain my initial goals when making these changes, because I wasn't aware you or anyone else was actively maintaining these (mistake on my part for not checking). So, sorry about that. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 05:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, I'm fine with discussing on talk if that's what you prefer.
 * Anyway, I understand your position here. I think I didn't quite explain my initial goals when making these changes, because I wasn't aware you or anyone else was actively maintaining these (mistake on my part for not checking). So, sorry about that. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 05:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I understand your position here. I think I didn't quite explain my initial goals when making these changes, because I wasn't aware you or anyone else was actively maintaining these (mistake on my part for not checking). So, sorry about that. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 05:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: You removed the warning and the tracking category as well. Why? --PhiH (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * just reinstated it.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 11:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing BRFA regarding this template
Hello all, please see this BRFA: Bots/Requests for approval/ElliBot. This is a proposal to use a bot to replace this template on hard redirects with redirect category shell, and automatically use redirect category shell on any hard redirects linked to Wikidata. This will make it so that this template should only be placed directly on soft redirects. Please leave your feedback. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 10:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Error when is used
Special:Diff/1002896102 This is a different kind of error but should be tracked as well. It means someone wanted to link the redirect on Wikidata but didn't. This is the type of error I had intended to use the link for. --PhiH (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * in fact, that parameter is designed to link to a target's Wikidata page when the redirect itself has no page on Wikidata. When it was first installed, there seemed to be a need for it, but now I find myself mulling it over. Maybe the need has passed? or perhaps there is still a need sometimes to link to property codes (P#)?  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 21:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would someone need the template then anyway? The parameter is used to display the Wikidata item in the template and refers to the redirect itself: "A Wikidata item is linked to this page: Q" That way the item is shown even though it is technically not connected (because someone might not have known how to do that). --PhiH (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree with you. The Q template does pass its own unnamed parameter 1 anyway, so do you think we should omit the 1 in this template?  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 22:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

my thoughts on this template
I've stepped away from this template and discussion for a few days to collect my thoughts and to try to better understand 's POV.

I think we both want the same things here:
 * A template that works
 * A template that looks good
 * A template that is not applied redundantly
 * A template that causes the least confusion possible

Originally I edited this to use Redirect template to streamline the look. However, this did introduce additional complexity into the source.

Assessing the situation around where this template is applied leads me to believe that it might make sense to use a separate template for hard and soft redirects altogether, and to automatically apply the one for hard redirects with Redirect category shell. This application is possible, and imo, preferable, to manual application.

Meanwhile, it's clear that hard redirects and soft redirects have a different look, and therefore should have a different version of this template. Since we'd only be applying this template manually to soft redirects, it would make sense to keep that version at the current title - so no modification would be necessary here. Instead, a different version should be created, made only for hard redirects, and that should be automatically used by Redirect category shell.

To remove this from existing hard redirects, and to apply Redirect category shell to hard redirects that should have it, a bot would be used. Given that this might end up applying an empty Redirect category shell, the bot would add a dummy category, which I would check during/after every run to manually categorize the redirects to avoid errors or confusion.

your thoughts? Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 17:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * been away and just read; still digesting it; first impression is good. Have some concerns which I'll try to piece together in a form that is understandable. Thank you very much for your patience!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 13:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Elli & Paine Ellsworth: I just made a thing that could work for this problem. Over at Template:Wikidata redirect/sandbox, the template would detect if the page it is used on is a hard redirect and apply the correct format to match. See its use on versus User:MJL/sandbox7. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 15:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * iirc I had already done that and that wasn't the only problem there was. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * One thought that comes to mind is that you,, don't seem to know how many redirects there are that would be tagged with the empty version of the Rcat shell by the bot. It might be many thousands, and you might not be able to tag them manually with appropriate rcat templates. Doesn't sound like that would be necessarily a bad thing, but I wonder if you do have some idea how many redirects would be sorted to the empty ? (which would also be sorted to the training category, )  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 19:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure, should probably run a db query to figure that out. I do think adding rcat shell to every redirect would be beneficial, so we could have a maintenance category of every redirect to work through to categorize. And yes that should be separated from Category:Miscellaneous redirects so people who add redirects there could get a relatively speedy categorization. Thinking about how... Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

New Wikidata functionality
It's now possible to add [sitelinks to redirect](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Sitelinks_to_redirects) more easily on Wikidata by using badges. This means it would be possible to run a bot on Wikipedia that adds this template to all pages to which it applies. 2003:C8:F70C:4A00:4898:1A51:1868:508D (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 7 April 2023
Description of suggested change:

Leave Category:Wikidata redirects only for hard redirects, and put all soft redirects into Category:Soft redirects connected to a Wikidata item

Diff: Nagsb (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 05:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Paine Ellsworth you miss the word "Category" in the bottom. Nagsb (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! and so sorry – was a smudge on my glasses. Oy!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;,  ed.  put'er there 12:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Template:Wikidata redirect → Template:Soft redirect with Wikidata item – To make it clear that this template should be used only on wp:soft redirects. Nagsb (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. No preference for the proposed title; however, the situation can be confusing, since this template, Wikidata redirect, was recently changed and used only for soft Wikidata redirects, while R with Wikidata item was created to be used only for hard Wikidata redirects. It would be excellent to have some consistency with other rcat templates ("R from", "R to", "R with", etc.). Barring that, this proposed title is likely less confusing than the current one.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 18:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post RM discussion

 * Didn't see this until now, but I'm not sure the new title is better? It was previously consistent with other cross-project redirects, such as Wiktionary redirect; Wikivoyage redirect; etc. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 14:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, not sure myself at this point. Might be okay since the old name redirects and so of course still works, while the new name does help dispel confusion for up and coming editors.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 15:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hard redirect detection
Could this template be amended such that it can detect when it’s being transcluded on a hard redirect, and display an error message/sort the page into somewhere like ? (I’m assuming that’d be the most appropriate category, though I may be wrong.) I would try myself (and might make an attempt in the sandbox), but to say I’m not very familiar with template editing is probably an understatement! Best, user: A smart kitten meow  15:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A smart kitten, something like should do it. Sorry for the belated response. —  Qwerfjkl  talk  22:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Qwerfjkl: Should this go within the tags after the ambox? Best, &zwj;—&zwj;a smart kitten[ meow] 15:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A smart kitten, I think it can go anywhere, as Template:Soft redirect with Wikidata item isn't a redirect page, so it won't trigger. But you could put it there, yes. — Qwerfjkl  talk  16:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Clear Category:Unlinked Wikidata redirects
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Clear Category:Unlinked Wikidata redirects. &zwj;—&zwj; a smart kitten [  meow ] 16:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)