Wikipedia talk:Redirect/Archive 2014

How to format redirect command to be case-insensitive?
A search for the term "Lost in Space" (without quotes) redirects to an article about the eponymous television program, which is the primary topic with that title.

However, a search for "Lost in space" or for "lost in space" will redirect to the Lost in Space disambiguation page.

How to make searches for "Lost in space" or for "lost in space" similarly go to the main article on the tv program, rather than to the disambiguation page? (Not to start a discussion here about whether such a redirection is appropriate or not. Just asking how to go about setting it up.) Dezastru (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit Lost in space to redirect to Lost in Space instead of to Lost in Space (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, that works. Thanks. Is there a way to get to that page on which to make the edit other than by typing ...Lost_in_space&redirect=no ? Dezastru (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you click through Lost in space and get redirected to wherever, right under the article title it says (Redirected from Lost in space). The link there will take you to the redirect without having to edit the URL line manually. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Dezastru (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Redirect documentation
See Draft talk:Template:Redirect documentation for a discussion about having documentation on some redirects that are not obvious as to why the exist, where such documentation should occur, how it should appear. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Editing Redirect Not Working
I am trying to edit a redirect for Christina Ferguson because it refers to two people Catriona Nic Fhearghais and Christina Ferguson. The second one redirects to a playboy playmate and not a Scottish Gaelic poet of a similar name. The problem is that the "redirected" text to get to the original page doesn't seem to exist. Maybe because of it pointing to a section rather than an entire page? Anyway, I cannot get to the original page to change it into a disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyocum (talk • contribs) 16:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Click on the Christina Ferguson redirect. The, scroll up to the top of the page - right below the title you will see (Redirected from Christina Ferguson) - click that link and you'll then be able to edit the redirect. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Why doesn't a wiki redirect cause a 301 or 302 HTTP response?
I'm sure there is a reason, but I was wondering why the wiki redirects don't actually redirect to the proper url, using a 302 or 301 response code. That is, if the page wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Redirect redirects to wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Actual, then the contents of Page_Actual will load, but the url in the browser will still be Page_Redirect. If I later find a page which links to Page_Actual, the link will appear unvisited; my browser doesn't know that I actually saw that page.

What is the reason for the current setup, and why doesn't wikipedia forward the user to the actual page? Sayno2quat (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * i was not privy to the design decision and can't say this is the reason, but i can at least state one rationale: when you visit a page through redirect, you see a slightly different page than the page you see when loading the page directly: the difference is that in the first case, a small link to the redirect itself appears under the title. this is the most convenient and most common way to get to the redirect page (you can also get there by adding a small incantation to the address line, but this is much less accessible). it's important that editors will have easy access to the redirect pages, and i believe that this would not be possible if address forwarding was used. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's because it is not actually redirecting you to the other page. The MediaWiki core parses that the page is a redirect and transcludes the actual page to the pagename that is a redirect.  When I see that I have been redirected, I usually click the "read" tab for the page which will take you to the "actual" page.  I guess it would be simple enough to write a userscript to automatically perform this action, if anyone is interested in such a thing.  Actually, a better option would be a script that pushes the "actual" correct page into your browser's history... Discussion? Technical 13 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Matma Rex gave an answer to a similar question last month:
 * –&#160;PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 23:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I just added a section to the page explaining this. Thanks to and  for excellent explanations that a tech dope like me could understand. Feel free to edit and fix anything I screwed up. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove WP:NOTBROKEN
The guideline saying that using redirects in articles is preferred and should not be removed is absolute nonsense and should be removed, for several reasons:


 * 1) Redirects are designed to be navigational aids for readers
 * 2) As such, in my opinion, redirects to articles should only be created in such a way that they reflect plausible search terms a user would use (most redirects satisfy this niche)
 * 3) Whenever possible, as such, articles should link directly to the page itself. Redirects created purely to link to sections of pages within mainspace articles that already use explicit anchors (i.e. Jelly Bean (operating system), which is not a plausible search term because it is disambiguated, and not the name of the operating system itself, it is merely a codename)

Thoughts? ViperSnake151  Talk  16:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * None that you will want to hear. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're wrong about them being absolute nonsense. The section even describes the reasons (or "sense") in keeping them. Your opinion is not the consensus, and starting with a claim that the consensus is absolute nonsense is no way to start a proposal. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of the guideline. Sometimes, redirects link to a section of a page until this section is expanded and becomes an individual article. It makes perfect sense. The problem is not the guideline but its correct use. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is incorrect use if the page used is not what the page would be called if it did exist (i.e. Android 4.0 instead of Ice Cream Sandwich (operating system). ViperSnake151   Talk  21:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm, totally wrong. Android 4.0 and Ice Cream Sandwich are both correct names for the operating system. Either way, one is the article and the other one a redirect. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: (Mostly like JHunterJ). However (independent of technique), like 2, I'd like to see, the like of, "All nouns in a link's display text must be found near the link's target destination." – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Commonly in wikipedia Talk space I know what people are talking about. Here I don't the meaning of "as such" or the incomplete second sentence (point 3) and don't know the problem to which both Viper and Magliodatis presumably refer, which the latter calls "correct use".
 * I do know that I agree with NOTBROKEN and disagree with the proposal as a whole. --P64 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not putting a redirect there means putting a pipe there.  Pipes are worse than redirects, because they violate the least surprise principle.  Pipes are sometimes necessary, but they are to be avoided whenever possible &mdash; and a redirect makes it possible to avoid them. --Trovatore (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's nothing inherent to piped links that would violate that principle. How many readers would be ASTONISHed to click Franklin Roosevelt and end up at Franklin D. Roosevelt? Very few, and probably none. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Piped links are bad software design, because they conceal what's going on. There are regrettably places where they're the best solution, but in general people need to be aware that they're a last resort. --Trovatore (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- Double-checked to see if someone had replaced NOTBROKEN with nonsense. They hadn't, so oppose per WP:NOTBROKEN.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, at least more so than anyone else so far. R with possibilities are the major cases where intentional links to redirects are desirable, so I'd rather see this section strongly pared down rather than removed altogether. Most of the other points are fairly trivial. A redirect that appears "not broken" today may be broken tomorrow. To use an admittedly absurd example, say we had a new article on someone super-notable named Franklin Roosevelt, such that Franklin Roosevelt no longer redirected to FDR. This would result in a ton of broken redirects that seemed "not broken" before. I don't think it's a good use of an editor's time to seek out such links to fix, but if I'm already working on an article otherwise, I will often do such fixes. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I will revert such "fixes". Redirects are better than pipes. --Trovatore (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite honestly, I've never been able to understand the reason you gave above: that piped links violate the least surprise principle with the implication that redirects do not. What is the diff between a link like   and a redirect titled   that targets Ocean?  Isn't any element of surprise the same for a piped link as it is for a redirect?  Links, whether direct, piped or redirected, are used to explain the context in which they are found.  If they don't do that, then there should be no link. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 22:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd actually say it's better for such a thing to become broken, because it will make it clear to everyone else that the editor who blithely replaced the redirect Y->X with a new article didn't read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If we leveled all the redirects to X in advance, much fewer people would pay attention to redirects, and fewer would notice such a problem, so it stands to reason that Y would stay broken longer for the random readers who come in through a search for the term Y, whose article is at X. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment - While I don't think this whole section needs to be deleted, I do think this line should go: "With a few limited exceptions, there are no good reasons to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. It is almost never helpful to replace  with  ." I think this line gives the impresssion that piped links should basically never be used, and I think that is way too strong a language for this. Just leave it as "it's OK to have RDs linked and here are examples why." Rikster2 (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is spot on, and is the entire point of NOTBROKEN: there are very few good reasons to pipe links solely to avoid redirects.
 * In the second sentence, the key word is replace. The line does not intend to say, nor does it say, that piped links are bad. It only says that this particular use of piped links is unnecessary, and that it is especially non-productive to edit only to change something that is not broken to something that could, in fact, then be less useful.NapoliRoma (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you could have a lot of argument that "with a few limited exception, there are no good reasons to pipe links ..." I think that would be a much richer discussion than you imagine if it were actually discussed fully by the wide community. That line actually does (to me) say that piped links are bad. Rikster2 (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It only says that if you don't make it to the end of the sentence. It does not say "there are no good reasons to pipe links."  It says, "There are no good reasons to pipe links solely to avoid redirects."
 * There are plenty of good reasons to pipe links. I do it all the time.  Doing it solely to avoid redirects is bad.  It's fixing something that's not broken, and it's quite likely that it could break something in the process.--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Piped links, are, in fact, bad. They are sometimes the least bad option.  But they're always at least a little bad, because they break the link between what the user sees on the page and the behavior of the link. --Trovatore (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

With few exceptions ... no good reasons ...? Why not say simply "there are few good reasons to pipe links"? --P64 (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WP:NOTBROKEN is not broken so no reason to remove it. I could see making changes to particular items but I am not seeing anything in pressing need for a change.  Certainly links to redirects are appropriate when the redirect has possiilities. Rlendog (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Categorization of redirects
A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects about a proposed update to one of the sections of that project page. All ideas are welcome! Joys! –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 22:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Self-redirects "with possibilities"
I removed the following from the self-redirects section of this guideline:


 * It is not necessary to remove redirects if they are marked with R with possibilities as they have the potential to become independent articles in the future.

A circular link is of absolutely no use to readers of this encyclopedia. That a particular redirect is - invisibly to anyone except experienced editors - marked as potentially being an article at some completely undefined point in the future is absolutely not justification for allowing a link to remain that will waste our readers' time and confuse or annoy them. —  Scott  •  talk  16:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Reverted. Wikipedia is not a finished product. --NE2 16:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What the hell has being a "finished product" got to do with not annoying our users with completely pointless links? —  Scott  •  talk  16:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Same thing it has to do with "annoying our users" with redlinks. You assume the current status of having a redirect is permanent, and hence the link must be removed. --NE2 16:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice straw man, but readers don't find red links annoying because learning what they are is a one-click permanent experience. On the other hand, no casual reader will be prepared for the result of clicking on a goofy nowhere link that will cause the entire page and all its assets to be reloaded. Have you even given one iota of thought to how much of an inconvenience that is on a slow connection or mobile device? —  Scott  •  talk  16:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you ., I don't find that useful link annoying at all.  Can you please explain how you think it is a circular link?  Using that template is kind of like making a request for the section to be expanded and unless it has already been expanded or absolutely can not be expanded, then the template should probably stay on the page.  Hence, the instructions here that you removed are appropriate and should stay. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 16:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. No. Once again, you have completely misunderstood what you've read. The removed sentence was not an instruction on the use of that template, and my comment was not about the presence of a link to that template in this guideline. The removed sentence was an instruction to editors not to remove links that go nowhere. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm waiting for to reply with something more intelligent than doggerel. —  Scott  •  talk  16:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What on Earth are you talking about? The links don't go "nowhere", they are REDIRECTS which forward the user to the section of another page that the person who created the redirect believes could be expanded into its own page or topic at some point.  — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 16:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ. WE ARE DISCUSSING LINKS MADE ON A PAGE THAT TAKE THE READER TO A REDIRECT THAT IMMEDIATELY RETURNS THE READER TO EXACTLY THE SAME PAGE. If that is too difficult for you to understand, there are doubtless other talk page discussions for you to be confused in, because you're certainly not contributing anything of value here. —  Scott  •  talk  17:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I, for some reason, seem to really upset you, and it is apparent to me that you get distracted by the fact it is me and loose sight of the topic of the discussion. Please, review CALM, and think about what you are saying.  The way I see it, you are saying that you would rather see a big ambox style maintenance tag on the section saying that the section should be expanded and spun-out into its own article than using a simple redirect (which adds it to a category so that only the people that can actually spin it out into something useful have to be reminded of it) that still takes a person to the same place on the page...  However, I'm no longer going to discuss it with... you, as I don't feel up to climbing today... — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 17:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, completely wrong again. Thank you and goodbye. —  Scott  •  talk  17:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think Scott is right here. While NE2 is right in that the link might not stay a redirect forever, in the meantime, having a completely circular redirect in the article is actually detracting from the article; having a link in the article that promises to take the reader somewhere but actually takes them nowhere (putting it mildly; it also incurs another page load, which can be expensive, particularly on mobile devices, and also probably making them lose their place in the article when the reload jumps them back to the top of the page, for no actual benefit). If it were a link to a section, that might be okay, but not a fully circular link. I agree with Scott's removal here. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's put it in context... However, linking to a title which redirects to a section or anchor within the article (redirects with R to section or R to anchor) is acceptable as it facilitates navigation in particular on long articles that cannot be viewed all at once on an average-sized computer screen. It is not necessary to remove redirects if they are marked with R with possibilities as they have the potential to become independent articles in the future. Scott is suggesting exactly the opposite, he is suggesting that linking to a title which redirects to a section or anchor within the article (redirects with R to section or R to anchor) is  NOT  acceptable as it facilitates navigation in particular on long articles that cannot be viewed all at once on an average-sized computer screen. by removing the clause that follows it. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 17:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ...What? No he's not. How are you even coming to that conclusion? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Somebody, please, shoot me and put me out of my misery before Technical 13 says anything else on this page. I can't take it any more. —  Scott  •  talk  18:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is also stated at WP:REPEATLINK which states, "Do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on (unless the link is to a redirect with possibilities that links to an appropriate section of the current article)." If I'm not mistaken, there are three concerns here.
 * A link that redirects back to the original page, even if it facilitates navigation, forces a reload of the page which can be inconvenient in some situations (slow download speeds, raising data costs).
 * The "redirect with possibilities" template isn't going to be of any help to the casual reader, so having an exception specific to that template doesn't seem to be doing a service to the reader.
 * It is confusing to the reader to click on a link that they expect to go to a different article, yet just ends up on a different portion of the same article.
 * Does that seem accurate? I thought it helpful to differentiate between the three concerns, to address them separately, rather than to confuse one concern for another, which I think is at least part of the reason why the discussion has grown so heated on this page. --  At am a  頭 22:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Mostly, although the point is that the language in the policy isn't just limited to redirects to different sections of the articles; they could be simple redirects to the articles themselves, without differentiating between sections, and that's just plain silly. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I always remove recursive links in articles, because they're unhelpful and unnecessary. A redirect that lands you on a different section of the article is fine, it's at least doing something potentially useful. The MOS entry I linked to above is more sensible, though the whole "redirect with possibilities" portion should be removed because it doesn't affect the usefulness of the link in any way. But yes, the way it is written in this policy is such that a recursive link is acceptable if a "redirect with possibilities" is involved, which I'd venture to say is just plain wrong. --  At am a  頭 23:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Then the Redirect with possibilities is being used wrong, or the possibility has already been realized and it is (instead of is possible) and the template should be removed from the redirect, in which case this wording no longer applies. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 00:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How so? As an example, the redirect encyclopedist redirects to the encyclopedia article (not a subsection of it, the general article) with that template. Why does the fact that it doesn't point to a subsection mean the template has been misused? I'm not following your logic here, either. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The redirect with possibilities template is helpful for tagging redirect pages, so that it will show up in Category:Redirects with possibilities (if someone is looking for redirects that can be expanded into articles), but I don't see how it should affect how the link is used.


 * To speak more plainly, I'll use some example to illustrate. Look at 1972 Stanley Cup playoffs, which redirects to 1971–72 NHL season. If you had a link in 1971–72 NHL season that linked to the playoffs redirect page, and redirected back to the season article to the playoff section, it's a useful link to have only because it's a redirect to a section within the article. The fact that it's a redirect with "possibilities" doesn't make it more or less valuable as a link in the article.


 * Conversely, the page Humpty Hump redirects to Shock G, because the former is a pseudonym of the latter. It doesn't redirect to a section of the article (it could theoretically redirect to the other identities section, but at the moment it doesn't). If you create a link within the Shock G article to the Humpty Hump redirect page, then it's a useless recursive link that doesn't aid the reader in any way, and the fact that Humpty Hump is marked as a "redirect with possibilities" doesn't make it any more useful.


 * So, in both cases, the "redirect with possibilities" template shouldn't be the criterion to determine whether or not a recursive redirect (a redirect from an article back to the same article) is warranted, what should be a criterion (and so far I see it as the only sensible criterion) is whether such a link helps to guide the reader to information or whether it simply confuses the reader by refreshing the page they're already at but taking them nowhere in particular. And that is why I feel that it's incorrect to either include that template as one of the criteria for keeping a recursive redirect, or to allow that template to be the sole justification for having a recursive redirect. --  At am a  頭 16:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've identified the problem here. I was led to the disputed text by, in which he quotes it as justification for retaining a self-redirect. However, that's a misreading caused by ambiguous phrasing. It was introduced in, which removed the word "section". I've therefore added a paragraph break and the word "such" to remove the ambiguity. —  Scott  •  talk  13:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's what I was getting at all along. Happy editing! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 14:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary soft redirect
Hello. I've been seeing a lot of Wikitionary redirect articles lately such as Parenteral, Drins, Blabber, and Pourquoi. What are the criterions of having sole Wikitionary redirects? There doesn't seem to be any criterions for this.  KJ  click here  01:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See the Template:Wiktionary redirect documentation: Do not place it on every possible word. It is only for dictionary definitions and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created.
 * I note that the first two examples you cited have significant histories, but Blabber, and Pourquoi were just recently created, so might be candidates for deletion. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In the case of nominating it for deletion, which policy would it fall under? And what deletion argument should be used?  KJ  click here  04:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There may not be any speedy criteria for this. Just a regular deletion nomination, like this for Pourquoi:
 * Articles for deletion/Pourquoi
 * Any keep arguments would probably be along the lines of: "this is a thing that should have an encyclopedia article, or that readers are likely to search an encyclopedia for, but we just don't have an article for it yet." In other words, a link to Wiktionary in lieu of a red link. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Many (most?) of the Category:Redirects to Wiktionary redirects can be deleted. I would nominate Blackamoor (slang) too. I am against mass creation of soft redirects. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Limit on categorizing redirects to the same article?
If we have two valid names (separate names, not mere misspellings, not textually similar) that redirect to the same article, is there any policy-based limit on why these redirs can't be categorized in the same category as the target article? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any, and it would be counter-productive sometimes. If, for example, a subject is known under more than one clearly distinguished name (not just a spelling or long/short variant of the same name) or if it discusses more than one subject, it is useful if they apppear in categories as well, as readers may look for a subject under a particular name, not even knowing the other names. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you explain the context of the question? Is there some ongoing discussion somewhere else that would help us understand where you are coming from? John Vandenberg (chat) 10:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * References See NewHoo, Open Directory Project, DMOZ, and our two talk pages. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No surprise that this question was an offshoot of a complex dispute somewhere ;-)
 * The very short answer is 'Yes, 0 redirects is the limit, usually'. That is a guideline-based answer; I dont know that there is policy that directly covers this.
 * This page clearly says that redirects are rarely appropriate in article categories, and points to the more detailed Categorizing redirects. Examples are given here and there of types of general exceptions, and there is always room for more exceptions if you two want to talk about the specifics, calmly if possible :P  Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects would be the best place for that discussion if you feel additional editors need to be involved. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

need to delete a move in error
Hey guys/gals. I hope I'm in the right place. Confusing to find the right place to post things at times. I'm new to wiki and i just moved a paragraph from my sandbox to the 'addiction psychology' page. not only did the paragraph move but my entire sandbox. 1) why did this happen so I can prevent it in the future? 2) obviously i need to delete my sandbox from wikipedia itself, but i'd like to have it back so i can continue working in it. 3) I'd like to have the re-direct removed. I've tried to undo the move but I'm prohibited.  plse help.  AddictionPsychologistFrank (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well no, this isn't the right place, but I'll help you anyway.
 * I moved your draft back to User:AddictionPsychologistFrank/sandbox.
 * I tagged Addiction Psychology for speedy deletion. The Wikipedia namespace is not intended to be used for articles, and there is no need for that title to redirect back to your sandbox.
 * As there is already an article Addiction Psychology, which you have made contributions to, you should not move your sandbox version over the top of it, as this would destroy the page history.
 * So you should probably make changes by copy and paste from your sandbox.
 * Click on this link to compare the live version of the article with your sandbox version.
 * Hope this helps. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The "don't redirect" template?
Can someone add the template that does "don't redirect" with a wikilink (that otherwise would redirect as usual)? -DePiep (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not clear what you're asking for. Are you referring to the soft redirect template that goes on a (soft) redirect page, or the noredirect template that gets used in the place of a wikilink in an article?  These are already described here. —Quondum 10:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The second one. Added. -DePiep (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Foreign language redirects
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages about raising the advice regarding foreign-language redirects at Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages (WP:FORRED) from an essay to a guideline. Your comments in the discussion would be most welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Against it. While we're on the topic, for the reasons listed at your discussion and on the talk page at WP:FORRED, the policy #8 here is wrong-headed and should be abolished. Nothing against avoiding incredibly obscure synonyms like a redirect from that novel by Charlotte Bronte's sister (the depressed one) but foreign translations are not obscure in the least and their inclusion into that policy was an oversight at best. — Llywelyn II   03:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

R template for time-sensitive redirects
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Redirect pages. Thanks. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion criterion 8, why does this exist?

 * If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. 

I understand the rationale behind not wanting to create these redirects, but once they are created why would this justify deleting them? Deleting them doesn't save bandwidth space, or serve any useful purpose as far as I can tell.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is direct application of WP:NOTDICT to redirects. Keeping redirects of a kind means promoting creation of such redirects, because people tend to create redirects by analogy. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Aesthetic redirects
An issue has come up across a number of Commonwealth realms monarchy related articles that this guideline doesn't seem to cover, namely, the deliberate creation of redirects for purely aesthetic resons; an example: King George VI is changed to King George VI only so the word "King" becomes part of the link. This is Plan B for a particular editor after his attempts to pipe all these links (i.e. King George VI ) were undone as per WP:NOPIPE. There doesn't appear to be an equivalent directive for redirects. We see here when to use a redirect and when not to change them into pipes just to avoid (or "fix") a redirect, but nothing on whether or not it's permissable to make a redirect just so a link appears graphically "right" according to some editors' personal preferences ("more pleasing to the eye", to use [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diamond_Jubilee_of_Elizabeth_II&diff=622506484&oldid=622503485 the exact words] of one of them). I think there needs to be a consensus on whether that's acceptable or not; a cross-article edit war is breaking out over this. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Miesianiacal has taken it upon himself to "fix" all these redirects. There are users who believe that "Queen Elizabeth II" looks better than "Queen Elizabeth II"; although he does not believe that the latter looks better, he insists on "fixing" these redirects because they are "needless". In other words, Surtsicna believes that A is better than B, and Miesianiacal does not disagree but reverts nevertheless. This is an absurdity in itself.
 * Now, we would never pipe the link to Diana, Princess of Wales as "Lady Diana Spencer". We would never pipe a link to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh as "Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark". We would never pipe a link to Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother as "Queen Elizabeth", but Miesianiacal is inexplicably opposed to having "King George VI and Queen Elizabeth". To him, it appears, "King George VI and Queen Elizabeth" is ideal. The issue becomes even more absurd when we mention Queen Victoria, who is then followed by "Queen Elizabeth II".
 * Why avoid redirects at all costs? When did redirects become so undesirable? This is not an issue of Miesianiacal believing that "King George VI and Queen Elizabeth" is superior to "King George VI and Queen Elizabeth". If that were the case, he would argue for having "Lady Diana Spencer" and "Queen Elizabeth". This is simply a matter of Miesianiacal believing that redirects should be fixed. Surtsicna (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't expect you to misrepresent my motive, which isn't a mystery: Don't use redirects when you don't have to.
 * Don't convolute this matter with argumentum ad absurdum and irrelevant examples of pipes. We're dealing here with redirects and whether it's acceptable or not to create one for no reason other than subjective aesthetic preferences. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We never have to use redirects. When we do, it often is due to "aesthetic preferences" (which are, of course, always subjective). Surtsicna (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This guideline makes zero reference to creating redirects to suit subjective aesthetic preferences. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not creating redirects; Queen Elizabeth II already exists as a redirect, for obvious reasons. I am merely making use of it. This guideline does indeed address this non-issue: WP:NOTBROKEN. "There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page... Editors should not change, for instance, Franklin Roosevelt to Franklin D. Roosevelt or Franklin Roosevelt just to 'fix a redirect'. However, it is perfectly acceptable to change it to Franklin D. Roosevelt if for some reason it is preferred that "Franklin D. Roosevelt" actually appear in the visible text." Surtsicna (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Pedantry. You are using (creating links in the articles to) redirects purely to suit subjective aesthetic preferences.
 * No one is either making pipes or adding incumberances like initials to "fix" your redirects. Nor does Queen Elizabeth II achieve the same ends as Franklin Roosevelt does; the latter makes for easier flow for the reader by eliminating the initial "D" from where it isn't needed, whereas the former neither adds nor eliminates anything and therefore has no equivalent impact on the reader's experience, making the use of the redirect superfluous. So, still no defense of your actions beyond "I like it". -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And you are consistently referring to my "aesthetic preferences" as "subjective" in order to imply that "aesthetic preferences" can be anything but "subjective", and that my argument is therefore not valid. It is fairly obvious, however, that "aesthetic preferences" cannot be objective.
 * The "easier flow" is also a "subjective" experience. "King George VI and Queen Elizabeth" makes for an easier flow than "King George VI and Queen Elizabeth". After all, there must be a good reason why we all pipe the link to Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother as "Queen Elizabeth" and never as "Queen Elizabeth". You are aware that this is the case but dismiss it as irrelevant in order to avoid responding to it. Finally, I am not the one who admittedly seeks to alter this natural and widespread way of linking whenever and wherever possible. You are. Therefore, I have no need to defend any of my actions. You do. Surtsicna (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges and a made up convention. If it's so common to use redirects when it benefits (indeed changes) composition in no way whatsoever, then be sure to add that to this guideline. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Does everything need to be part of a guideline for you to find it acceptable? Surtsicna (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Come on guys, it not what editors want but what readers might need. If I was going to look for the present monarch of the UK, I would probably start with Queen Elizabeth, rather than just straight Elizabeth, other might use another term. I always thought omitting titles from the article namespace was no more than a bit of harmless republicanism, but it makes sense that some (including me) would use the word Queen. Remember redirects are cheap and do no harm, it's not as if anybody is trying to move the article. I do note there are a number of reasonable redirects and, for example, "Queen Elizabeth II" is no less so. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That isn't the issue. The issue is two editors finding every instance of the words "Queen Elizabeth II" (which gives a direct link to the article Elizabeth II) and changing them to "Queen Elizabeth II" (requiring a redirect to the artcile Elizabeth II for seemingly no reason other than to make the word "Queen" appear in blue font).
 * Neither is technically against any guideline, but, it just keeps getting changed back and forth endlessly. Some consensus needs to be found to end the cycle. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I think I understand, one or more editor is using a redirect instead of piping? Do we actually need a rule that says readers should not be sent round the houses to reach their destination (i.e. the article of choice). NB I have just dabbed a few. --Richhoncho (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with using these redirects in contexts like "Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II", and I see it as improvement over "Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II". On the other hand, in instances like "King George IV and Queen Elizabeth II" those redirects IMO should be avoided. There's no policy or guideline for that – it is an editorial issue to be solved via local consensus. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Richhoncho, the two editors are using redirects when neither a redirect nor a pipe is neeeded; Queen Elizabeth II is a direct link, Queen Elizabeth II is a redirect, and Queen Elizabeth II is a pipe. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the first example and it's the most direct, most efficient way of linking to the article Elizabeth II. The others are pretentious.
 * Dmitrij, yes, some kind of consensus is what's needed. However, this is going on across so many articles, finding a consensus at each page will take a decade. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Miesianiacal, you are not telling the truth. Anyone with access to article history can verify that. Richhoncho, this one editor is "fixing" redirects, believing that they should be avoided. There is absolutely no reason to insist on a "direct link" when a redirect looks better, as explained by Dmitrij but (again) ignored by Miesianiacal. A piped direct link would be a reasonable compromise, but Miesianiacal does not accept that either. To summarize: "Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II" obviously looks more reasonable, but we should have "Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II" because the redirect is "pretentious" and "not needed". Redirects are never "needed". As for redirects being "pretentious", I have no comment. Surtsicna (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have a justification for using the redirects other than "I like it"? Is Elizabeth II not the most direct and least complicated link to Elizabeth II?
 * "Fixing" a redirect applies when someone is replacing the use of a redirect with a pipe or a direct link that makes for more cumbersome wording. I am doing neither. You are misappropriating the guideline. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * OK. I have been a little slow here. FWIW what I would do is Queen Elizabeth II. That shows Queen Elizabeth II, yet directs immediately to Elizabeth II. Would anyone care to inform me why that would be wrong? Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOPIPE. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be wrong because that's not what Miesianiacal has in mind. Surtsicna (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Mies. on this, for the reasons he has given above and at Talk:Proclamation of accession of Elizabeth II. Qexigator (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support use of the redirects per NOPIPE and NOTBROKEN... These should simply be redirects if for no other reason, they are likely search terms and would aid in that aspect. Simple as pie. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 07:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Beside the point: retention of redirect page not in question. But in the article text the links should be neither blued up as Pipe nor Redirect. Simpler than $\pi$.   --Qexigator (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This is really the wrong venue. Everyone agrees the redirects should exist, and that we shouldn't unnecessarily pipe links, so what you are arguing about is what link should be displayed to the reader of an article. You are unlikely to find people here who care about that one way or the other, so you should be having this discussion at WT:MOS or some other Manual of Style talk page where people who understand such issues (e.g. any accessibility issues) and can help you resolve the dispute can most likely be found. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

What on earth is happening here
For example, I type in the Search box People's Republic of China, the URL in the address bar is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China, but it says underneath the heading "Redirected from People's Republic of China". I want the address bar to say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_China instead because that I work with redirects quite often. Is this some bug or something? - TheChampionMan1234 23:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a recent software change. See Village pump (technical)/Archive 129, Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 47, Village pump (technical)/Archive 130 and Village pump (technical). -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You might also like to see Gadget/proposals. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In the meantime I hacked together some JavaScript at User:Gorobay/vector.js to counteract this (it’s the two lines with ). Gorobay (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Will that also work for Monobook? You can add me to the list of users unhappy about this change. Thryduulf (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It should. It doesn’t do anything Vector-specific, as far as I know. Gorobay (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Another reason to fix redirects
If a redirect is from a spelling or grammar error, is it okay to fix it? -- User J Dalek  03:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly. NOTBROKEN doesn't say you can't correct actual errors.  It's mostly about not preferring piped links to redirects.  If that isn't clear, maybe you can point out the text that made you doubt this, so we can discuss how to fix it. --Trovatore (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If the link is inside quoted material, the spelling and grammar should not be changed from the original. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, that's certainly true. But linking from inside direct quotes is usually a bad idea anyway. --Trovatore (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, there wasn't any specific text that made me think it wasn't allowed, I just thought it might confuse newbies that there wasn't anything about it, and I figured that since it's a guideline page, I should probably ask on the talk page before changing it (sorry if I confused you, but I'm not that good at talking (or writing)). -- User J Dalek  02:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Bounce back redirect
If anyone is inclined to revert this please explain here. I wouldn't object the reversion, but would like some advice on how to deal with these links. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for deleting D10
I am editing Redirect at Redirect/Deletion reasons and commenting here as requested at Wikipedia talk:Redirect/Deletion reasons. The reason says "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself." It is usually a good thing to delete redirects that link to articles where there is virtually no information. However, the reason is not to create a redlink in the target but it is to avoid people being perplexed about why they have arrived at an irrelevant article. The undesirability of self-redirects is already discussed at Redirect. I am removing the last clause (diff). Thincat (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)