Wikipedia talk:Redirect/Archive 2015

Printability
Just wrote an essay on printability (printworthiness) at: Maybe another step toward a guideline? – Paine EllsworthC LIMAX ! 08:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Printability

Semi-Protect
Knowledge based WP pages like this should always be semi-protected to prevent edits from IP. I don't want to put any request any where for page-protection as after few days the semi-protection will lapse. We need permanent semi-protection--CosmicEmperor (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You can request that at WP:RFPP. Make sure that you put up a good case, with evidence. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why should I put a request . Those who worked hard to create this page, they should put a request. I came here to read . What if I read at that point when a vandal had done something and I end up getting wrong knowledge . Not only this page but every page , with Wiki Help and wiki rules and wiki guidelines needs permanent semi-protection (I am not talking about wiki pages related to Biography , Movies , Literature , Arts , Science).  This is just common sense . I have to put a request with evidence? . If a page is not vandalized , doesn't mean that no IP sock will do that ever.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicEmperor (talk • contribs) 04:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see Protection policy where it says "semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred". -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It may also be important to note to CosmicEmperor that there are editors, some of whom have, yes, put work into these help/guidance pages, who watch these pages not just to ensure that vandalism is quickly reverted, but also to ensure that any other changes to the content are beneficial improvements that will help readers. – Paine EllsworthC LIMAX ! 14:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Re creating accidental Double redirects
This happens when the (newbie or veteran) editor reads the existing instruction at the last phrase/sentence of the section as one entire line of code: For example, to  reads as: " Redirect [Old target page] to Redirect [New target page] ", that is, he/she submits the entire quoted phrase on the redirect Edit page. The desired fix does not happen---the redirect still goes to the old target page, not the new one. And the newbie editor is flummoxed and an oldie editor is puzzled for a time. Such doesn't need to be.

If you will pls try it for yourself, goto Hominidae (lede) and find "hominins" (in the 2nd ph); then attempt to redirect it, but keep the 'existing redirect note' in this phrase= " Redirect [Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor] to Redirect [Hominini] "; this causes the double redirect to happen. (Pls 'undo' your trial run so others can play.) Thanks Jbeans (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If the layout is the problem, let's change just the layout. Adding more text to explain it just makes things more confusing, IMHO. —capmo (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with that---whatever works. Pls proceed. Jbeans (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that you're under a mistaken impression as to what a "double redirect" is. is not a double redirect; it is a misconstructed redirect. A double redirect is where page A is set up as a redirect to page B, and page B is itself set up as a redirect to page C. To fix this, we edit page A so that it is set up as a redirect to page C. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Redrose64, I appreciate your point---wish I had known it yesterday. Jbeans (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Application of MOS:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN
Because this talk page is relevant to WP:NOTBROKEN but I want to keep this in one discussion, please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. Thank you. Dustin ( talk ) 22:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

All you have to do is replace the redirect with an article and that's it. No spending time looking for links to the redirect or target page. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

New article
You can replace a redirect with an article and spend less time looking for links to the original target. You may still look for links to the new article (previously a redirect). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A purpose of redirects to present a common name of a subject with parenthesis as a redirect in cases in which a Natural disambiguation is used
I was just looking at the article John Cyril Smith and saw that, in his obituary, he was known simply as "John Smith". In cases like this I'm wondering about the potential value of creating the article as something like John Smith (barrister), John Smith (professor of law) or John Smith (authority on law) or creating such a title as a redirect. The reason for this is that, if a reader clicked into the search box to the top right of a Wikipedia page and searched on "John Smith (" or on something like "John Smith (b" then a topic option such as "John Smith (barrister)" would then have a chance of appearing within the drop down menu that appears when a reader starts to input a search term. I think that this may be useful in cases where someone who is disambiguated with use of a middle name but is still commonly known by first and last name. However the other option is that readers can always make use of a navigation page such as the one found at John Smith. GregKaye 19:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, it is perfectly okay to deliberately create such redirects, for as long as they are justified by their name and you can find a properly disambiguating term (ideally following a scheme used for similar article titles elsewhere already). There are various useful applications. In some cases (though not in yours), it can also help linking to a redirect in other articles, see Help:Pipe trick. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there an effective way to find articles by parenthetical disambiguator, or otherwise to learn how commonly different disambiguators are in use? As simple search strings "(character)" and (character) seem to be equivalent with the parentheses ignored in both cases. --P64 (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Download the latest Wikipedia title dump and grep for disambiguators. Gorobay (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Bypassing redirects
I'm bringing this matter up in response to a couple of statements that other users have made on my talk page.

While I appreciate the intent of the Not Broken policy, I don't agree with the inflexible understanding that some users have of it. My main peeve is this: I often use the "What links here" link for research purposes. Instead of a nice, tidy, alphabetical list I often get a jumble of links, redirects, and more links. That's not very user-friendly. Especially with an article like Non-resident Indian and person of Indian origin (no longer such a good illustration, mind you, as I've cleaned it up to a large extent, although there's one major redirect to it with 500 links that I haven't bothered with), the researcher has to navigate a minefield.

There is also the lesser problem of people moving pages and forgetting to fix the (broken) double redirects. That problem wouldn't arise if the redirects had all be bypassed in the first place!

What I've been doing: I've been bypassing redirects on many of the articles that I've been heavily been involved with. The only major exception is Non-resident Indian and person of Indian origin — but even that article is closely related to many of the Fiji-related articles that I have either written myself, or heavily edited. I have made a point of NOT bypassing those redirects that could potentially be turned into articles (and in a couple of cases, I have done just that), and that's one project I believe I know enough about to know whether a redirect could eventually be an article of its own or not. Some of them are potential articles, no doubt about that. But a good many of them are things like spelling errors. Should a link be routed through a spelling error? E.g., I found a few articles for Seru Epenisa Cakobau redirecting from Thakombau. Anyone who knows anything about Fiji, seeing "Redirected from Thakombau", would think Wikipedia was an amateurish mess. That is the kind of thing that needs to be corrected, in my view.

Bottom line: While I do not believe it should be prioritised, I do believe that users who are so inclined should be encouraged to bypass all redirects except those that serve a purpose, such as potential articles. Such streamlining would make for a much cleaner project.

My purpose in bringing this up is not to create an argument, but to encourage a healthy debate about a policy that I think has been taken to extremes by some members of the community. David Cannon (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, you've brought this up for discussion. Now please STOP such edits until and unless there is a consensus to change this page. Making edits you know are objected to, and moreover are against existing guideline and policy pages, much less doing so in an automated or semi-automated manner, is disruptive editing, and can lead to a block. I will reply on the merits later today. DES (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. David Cannon (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * After thinking the matter over a bit, I oppose the suggested change, at least as suggested. I have two significant reasons for this:
 * When a user follows a link to a redirect, and winds up at the target page, a small notice "[Redirected from XXX]" is placed in the upper left of the page. This can help a reader understand why s/he would up on a page whose title may be very different from the test of the link clicked. This doesn't happen with a piped link. I think this benefit to at least some readers well outweighs the benefits to researchers mentioned by above.
 * When a link is made via a redirect, it documents, through the use of "what links here", which redirects are used. This can be helpful in considering which redirects to retain. It might also be of interest to some researchers, as documenting the intent that a page drafter or editor had when forming the link. This data is lost if a link to a redir is converted to a piped link. DES (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * However, in some cases linking via a redirect is I think a poor idea and should be corrected. Specifically, redirects from misspellings. These are useful to make searches return correct or plausible results from incorrectly spelled search terms, but there is no good reason for a misspelling to be in the article text (except perhaps in a direct quote, or if the misspelling is somehow the subject of the article). Links to "r from misspelling" redirs should be simply corrected, usually there will be no need to pipe. DES (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As to the research concerns listed above, it should be trivial to devise an external tool to automatically process the result of what-links-here to leave only the target pages, stripping any redirs. It shouldn't be very hard to make a user script to generate such a list directly. By the way what-links-here is NOT guaranteed to return items in alphabetical order or anything close to it, and is unlikely to do so on a page that has many links to it and has existed for a while. I think it returns in the order encountered in the relevant server table, which might be roughly the order in which likes were added or most recently edited. DES (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC) (ping above mis-formmated) DES (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You've raised a couple of issues, DES, which I hadn't thought of. In particular, I think I agree with your second point; also the first point has some value, which I hadn't thought of.

However, many of my edits (not all, but many of them) don't violate the spirit of what you are saying, in my opinion. Nearly all of them are to articles that I either created myself, or heavily edited. Those that I had apparently little to do with link to a lot of articles that I do have an interest in. In most cases, I created the articles years ago. In some cases, others have moved them; in other cases, I have recently moved quite a lot of them myself (for example, a lot of the articles that had FIJI in brackets after the title have been moved to take that off — it's unnecessary). In such cases, after moving an article, I've gone through and changed, rather than piped, the redirects. (I can't say I've never piped them, but in about three quarters of cases, I haven't — I've simply changed an existing pipe). For example, I've changed Prime Minister to Prime Minister. That's all! I don't see why anybody would have an issue with that; the "list" was merged with the main article years ago (and will probably stay that way), so I see every reason for related articles to point directly to the article itself. Now, if a particular article was about "lists of office holders", and one link was to List of Prime Ministers of Fiji, I could accept your reasoning about leaving that link alone. Now that you've explained that, it makes sense to me. But (with perhaps two or three exceptions), my changes are not like that. Changing President to President is not "creating" a pipe — the pipe is already there, and all I'm doing is changing the link inside the pipe. There are HARDLY ANY cases where I have created a pipe where there wasn't one. Yes, you'll find one or two if you look hard enough, but you will have to look pretty hard. Almost all of my redirect fixing has been simply cleaning up after myself following page moves. What's your issue with that?

There have also been a lot of redirects from which I have REMOVED the pipe. For example, I have changed every case of Queen Elizabeth Barracks to just Queen Elizabeth Barracks, as that's the direct link. I've done that to MANY articles. Objections?

Then there's the issue of mis-spellings. I'm dealing with Fijian articles. A lot of British and American users who have a surface knowledge of Fiji have created quite a lot of articles about geography, flora and fauna, etc, which spell words as if they were English, not Fijian. I found a reference to Ngau Airport, for example. A Fijian would not have a clue what that meant — the correct spelling is simply Gau Airport. So I moved the page, and corrected (corrected, not piped) the redirects. Why should any user have an issue with that?

On the other hand, there are some redirects that I don't believe in changing. British/American correspondences, such as colour redirecting to color, serve a definite purpose, and I would be very much opposed to changing them.

Three people have complained to me about my edits — and mostly because I made the mistake of intruding on their user space. That was wrong of me, and regardless of the outcome of these discussions, I will not do that again. I have reset the AWB settings to exclude all user and talk pages (except in my own user space), and have made a few test edits today to see that it works as intended; it does.

There have also been quite a lot of people who have sent me "thanks" for my edits over the last few days — and they considerably outnumber those who have taken exception to them. David Cannon (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My primary objections was to edits such as this, this, abd this all of which changed direct links via a redirect to piped links, and were moreover on user talk pages, thus changing the postings of other editors; edits such as this, this, and in article talk pages, which similarly introduced piped links in place of links to redirect pages in article talk pages, and particularly edits such as this, this, this, this, this, and this all of which converted links to redirect pages in article text to piped links. None of the twelve edits (and the many similar ones, I found the above in minutes in your contributions) improved the project. None of them corrected a spelling error, or indeed changed the displayed text at all. All of them were made using AWB in rapid sequence (from 3-6 edits per minute) and all of them were made after you had agreed not to make such edits in future without obtaining consensus first. You should be aware that there have been arbitration cases holding that making rapid automated edits against consensus (as represented by policy guideline pages) or in defiance of known objections can be grounds for being banned from the project. DES (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I see, I get it. Those edits are a tiny minority of my edits, but okay. No use arguing, is there. It's true, I did agree to stop — AFTER you first threatened me with a block. I felt bullied. But yes, I did say that, and I shouldn't have gone back on it. I hate leaving something 80 percent done, but I'll stop now. But if you and I are the only ones talking about it, that doesn't exactly constitute consensus, does it? Those who have complained, and those who have sent me thanks, are about equal in number, so I'm rather doubtful that a clear majority will emerge either way. But, for the sake of peace, I'll let it go your way, until/unless the situation becomes clearer. David Cannon (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Homo star

 * 1) REDIRECT Homo naledi


 * I have no objection to changes to links that correct misspellings. I have no objections to changing a link via a redirect to a direct link to the proper page when this improves the article, or removes pointless redirection, such as Queen Elizabeth Barracks -> Queen Elizabeth Barracks, in the course of normal editing. However if you wish to make those changes en masse, I suggest obtaining a bot approval first. I object strongly to changes such as the twelve linked above, which introduce piping where none was previously present, and remove the benefits of linking via a redirect, particularly when such changes are made in a semi-automated manner, at rapid speed. In fact I find such edits in article space even more troubling than ones in user talk or article talk space (although those edits at least arguably violate Talk page guidelines. But they won't add to reader confusion, as the article space edits may. Please stop all such edits at once unless consensus for them is achieved here. DES (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Introducing piping where there was none — okay, I'm willing to support and uphold a "ban" on that. "Obtaining a bot approval first"? AWB is not a bot, for one thing, and to be absolutely honest, I think your suggestion makes a mountain out of a molehill. But for the sake of peace, I'll comply with your wishes unless/until the situation is resolved. I have no wish to get involved in a conflict on Wikipedia. David Cannon (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I agree completely with what DES has said here and I think it does accurately reflect consensus established in many previous discussions. older ≠ wiser 15:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Now that I've slept on it for a couple of days, I can see that *I* was the one who was making a mountain out of a molehill. I allowed myself to get carried away with what I was doing and gave no thought to the feelings of other users. I see now that my behaviour was childish and stupid. I really regret doing that, and will not do it again. Unless there is general agreement here, I will not resume bypassing redirects via AWB. Unless someone else brings up a different angle, this is my last comment on this topic. Once again, I apologize for having been so arrogant. David Cannon (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, don't be too hard on yourself, David Cannon – most of us have done things at least as bad if not worse, then we move on by using what we've learned to make a better and better reference work. Joys! and Best of Everything to You and Yours! – Paine  02:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, WP:NOTBROKEN is a guideline, not a policy. I generally adhere to it, though. Flyer22 (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Flyer :-) David Cannon (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you and if you still think the guideline should be modified, you can start and WP:RFC to attract additional attention oir UI'll be happy to do it on your behalf. I'm sorry to have come off as over-vehemant -- use of automated or semi-automated tools without consensus is a problem i have run into several times in the past. But this didn't really equate to most of thjsoe, adn my tome was not ideal. I apologize for it. DES (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you DES. I think the "time out" over the last few days has given us both a bit of space to think more reasonably. Thank you for explaining why you felt so strongly about automated and semi-automated editing - it makes more sense now that I know. And yes, I would really appreaciate it if you'd bring the matter up for me (as I haven't done it before), and I'll contribute. Perhaps my ideas could be broken up into several parts which could be considered separately, along with any ideas that other users may contribute.David Cannon (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

NOTFAQ and NOTHOWTO
An RfC has been opened to see if WP:NOTFAQ and WP:NOTHOWTO should or should not apply to redirects. For the discussion, see WT:NOT -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Guidance on NOTBROKEN for piped links
Greetings, I come to you guys in search of guidance of the NOT BROKEN guideline. So I edit mainly pro wrestling articles and encounter a lot of already piped links, some have a redirect instead of a direct link on the linking side (left). So to illustrate my question I will give you an actual example, one that illustrates most of my link corrections. Article Drago (wrestler) is about a guy who used to be called Alan, then Gato Everready and finally Drago. So the article was created under the name Gato Everready since that was the common name at the time the article was created. So at the time links to the article would be:
 * Allan
 * Gato Everready
 * Drago

Later Drago became his common name and the article moved to Drago (wrestler). So while making other edits to articles I made two corrections:
 * Allan
 * Drago

Not changing the visible text, not adding any piping and leaving Gato Everready alone. But I get hit with a revert stating it is not allowed due to NOT BROKEN. Reading the guideline I believe that revert was a misapplication of the guideline, I am not adding a pipe, the article exists, since it was moved the change reduces future double redirects. I am not seeing how using the ACTUAL article in an existing piped link is a bad thing? Am I missing something here? Thank you in advance for your help.  MPJ  -US 22:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So the editor misapplying the guideline just did a buch of edits to fix the piped name, i guess he either has double standards or realised it is not wrong to fix piped text.  MPJ  -US 23:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Should users be permitted/encouraged to change links via redirects to piped links or direct links?
Should users be permitted/encouraged to change links via redirects to piped links or direct links? A user in the Bypassing redirects thread argues that what-links-here is more useful when all or most links go directly to a page, and that if people routinely changed such links page moves would be less likely to create double-redirects which might be forgotten. Other users have argued that the display of "[Redirected from XXX]" is helpful to a reader who clicks on a link via a redirect, and is not available via  a piped link, and that What-links-here actually gives better information by showing how pages have been linked. WP:NOTBROKEN currently advises not changing such links in fairly strong terms, specifically saying "While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, there is otherwise no good reason to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace redirect with redirect". Should this be changed to permit or even encourage such changes in smoe or all cases, and if so, in which cases? The previous discussion was too small and too polarized to form a consensus. I now request comment from editors more generally on the matter. DES (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No/Oppose, per the WP:NOTBROKEN guideline, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 16, and the discussion above, I think it's generally best not to bypass redirects. For example, in some cases, an article (such as a medical article) might have WP:Alternative titles listed in the lead or lower, and it might be best to link one of the alternative titles for a particular article instead of linking to the default title. Flyer22 (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarify. There are times as indicated by this guideline when editors should not be so encouraged, and there are times when they should.  Perhaps the guideline should show an example or two when it should be encouraged, such as misspelling/typo redirects, redirects from incorrect names and non-neutral names and so on.  Any one or two of these could serve as examples that may be given more detail in the guideline, examples of when a redirect should be bypassed and a direct link is the way to go.  Just to bypass a redirect that is not broken for the sole purpose of bypassing the redirect is known as a "trivial edit", an edit that can serve only one purpose: to inflate an editor's edit count.  There are "major" edits, there are "minor" edits and about 17 steps below "minor" are the "trivial" edits.  Trivial edits, if an editor feels they absolutely must perform them, should only be engaged if other non-trivial edits are necessary on the page.  Good working redirects are there for a purpose.  They should be used, not bypassed. – Paine  15:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Paine. It is not a black and white use/encourage or don't use/discourage. In cases where there is a legitimate topic that is distinct from the title of the target article, using a redirect may in fact make what links here more effective not less effective, in that an editor can more easily find links that concern the specific topic. But of course misspelling should be corrected. older ≠ wiser 17:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * With certain exceptions, I think it should be allowable for the link on the left side of a pipe character to be changed to a direct link. Redirects can often be fine, though, so if someone wants to link San Francisco, California, they would not put San Francisco, California but could just put San Francisco, California even though it is a redirect. I disagree with some redirects, such as Hopi where the text on the right side already is a direct link, and I have a few other reservations as well. Dustin  ( talk ) 17:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One reason to keep redirects is for future-proofing. In the example of, it is safe to assume that Hopi people will always be about the people, but Hopi might one day have a different primary topic or become a disambiguation page. Allowing the redirect now reduces the possible future maintenance burden. Gorobay (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No/Oppose. Piped links break the connection between what you see on the page and the underlying functionality.  They have their uses in cases where all other options are worse, but they should not be resorted to merely to avoid a redirect.  There is nothing wrong with redirects, whereas there is something wrong with piped links. --Trovatore (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sub-comment I just now see that you've folded in the issue of changing to a direct link. That's really a separate issue and should be treated separately.  Anyway, to me, when you're contemplating changing   to , there's only one question:  Which is the text you want to see in the article?  If you want to see redirect on the page then leave it as  ; if you'd rather see target then change it to  .  The fact that one of them is a redirect is irrelevant; just go with the better text.  But never change   to  , because that creates a piped link where one is not needed. --Trovatore (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are people commenting in this RfC making some sort of effort to get onto people for changing links in universal situations? I am going off the word "permitted" here. If so, there is no way I can ever support this. Dustin  ( talk ) 20:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Dustin, this is a guideline, which is a "strong suggestion" based on community consensus of how to manage the subject of the guideline, in this case redirects. "Permitted" in this context does not mean that there will be an editor block on those who don't comply – in this context it means "not discouraged", and that is what probably should have been used.  "Coulda, woulda, shoulda" and all that.  Joys! – Paine  22:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No/Oppose. "... to change links via redirects to piped links" [full stop]. Broadly I agree with Flyer, Paine Ellsworth, and Trovatore. "... to change links via redirects to direct links". It may be useful to describe and illustrate some classes wherein such replacement by direct links is good, but even among the good replacements there must be few we should encourage from editors who will make no other contributions. Comment. Where it is destructive that "Redirected from [XXX]" appears at the top of the target page, maybe we should delete the redirect page. --P64 (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll second that opinion – there are several cases where it is undesirable to have the redirect appear at the top of a page under the page title as "(Redirected from blue link )". From typos to non-neutral names, incorrect names to some shortcuts/aliases, I've felt for a long time that the redirect link should read just that:  "(Redirect link )", with no indication as to the exact name of the redirect. – Paine  22:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If there is a problem with the user-interface of 'What links here' and how the redirects are sorted, rather than do what amounts to be a psuedo-hack just here on the English Wikipedia, it is better to make a bug/feature request (see WP:Bugzilla). The issue also affects other Wikis, so we could see if the developers could find a solution. As for double redirects, a list of them is regularly updated at Special:DoubleRedirects, so either a bot or a normal editor can fix them. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Dustin mentioned the idea of changing the link on the left side of the pipe. I think that should be encouraged. On the other hand, cases where I bypassed a simple redirect to a more complicated direct link (which I did quite a lot of) I now see as a foolish mistake. I think it's helpful to distinguish between the two. Also, I think mis-spelled or poorly formatted indirect links should be changed to direct links (and even the policy page says that). For example, I've come across quite a few articles redirecting to a title with two initials, separated with a period, plus a surname. If the article itself has a space between the two initials, the redirect should be changed to a direct link — e.g. A.B. Smith >> A. B. Smith (not a real article —I've made this one up — but it represents a lot of cases which I've fixed up). A third case is the use of official spellings. I edit a lot of Fijian articles. Fijian spellings do not follow English norms — e.g., 'C' is pronounced 'TH'. I've come across British and American editors who don't know that and go by the pronunciation, linking to Thakombau, which redirects to Cakobau (and rightly so, as that is the correct spelling). Nobody in Fiji would recognize the spelling "Thakombau" so the redirect should be changed to a direct link, not left as a redirect. (I've already replaced those ones, but there are many other cases — especially with Fijian place names, flora, fauna, etc). David Cannon (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 2
The above discussion, which deals with redirects flowing to dab pages, may be of interest. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Article to Category redirect
Does it (in general) make sense to redirect an article into a category? Just wondering about the common practice within Wikipedia. Thanks! --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For example(?), given, redirect to that target? --P64 (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do have some of those; Music hardware is the one that first comes to my mind. See Category:Redirects to category space, which currently has over 800 members. However, a bunch of those are redirects from the CAT: pseudo-namespace. Note that a lot of others redirect to articles beginning "List of...", so first check to see if there's a List of women writers. As there indeed is such a list, it's generally preferable to redirect to the list rather than the category. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

archeo-photons/archo-photons/archaeo-photons or archeophotons/archophotons/archaeophotons

 * 1) REDIRECT Cosmic microwave background


 * Neither nor none of those individually, unless mentioned in the article, which none of them are. "Archeophotons" would be my first choice, but only if the term is explained and reliably sourced in the article.  Then either "archeo-photons", "archo-photons" or "archaeo-photons" could also redirect as a Redirect from modification-type search term. Painius  22:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Question about redirects
I normally don't really ask questions about redirects if I think that they're rational, but the majority of redirects I make are of the "no duh" type, like full names or alternate book/film titles. This would be my first time really making a redirect of this type for Wikipedia. Basically, I was looking for the name of the first English settlement in Virginia and I decided to go under the general search term of "first settlement in north america". I noted that there were several first settlements out there for various groups, such as the First Dutch settlement in North America (which would redirect to Fort Nassau (North River)) and First Swedish settlement in North America (Fort Christina).

My question is this: I can't be the only person using this search term. I was wondering if it would be OK to create search redirect titles of this type on Wikipedia. I'm also interested in possibly creating a disambiguation page for the general term First settlement in North America, as that would make it easier for people to find a general listing of first settlements (and would provide a link to the colonization page). It would differ from the main article for colonization as it'd be just a disambiguation list page. Of course this second part is something more to bring up at the disambiguation page than anything else.

However since this would be my first time doing something like that with redirects or disambiguations (and especially since it'd be under my LVA account), I figure it's better to ask first. I just figure that if I'm using this search term on Wikipedia, others likely are as well. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It all sounds like good ideas to me, and you're right about discussion at, say, WT:WPDAB as concerns the dab parts. <b style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Painius</b> 22:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll go ask at DAB and see what they have to say about a potential dab page like this prior to creating the redirects. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Printworhty and Unprintworthy
Category:Printworthy redirects and Category:Unprintworthy redirects have been nominated for deletion.

I would assume that printworthy redirect and unprintworthy redirect are also affected

-- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion was closed early, see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_24 -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Quantum potentiality

 * 1) REDIRECT Quantum potential — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.172.209 (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ <b style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine</b> (talk–contribs)  02:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Problematic redirects should be listed at WP:RFD, not here. Si Trew (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

When is too much
Hi, Just wondering if there's a guideline about when redirects to a target become too unlikely. As an example, consider:. I know redirects are cheap, but when is cheap surpassed by pointless? Crow <sup style="color:black;"> Caw 23:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Or indeed harmful. You may wish to contribute to the discussion at, below. (Pinging you as you may not be watching this page.) Si Trew (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Proliferation of redirects
Based on some recent events, I think it would be a good idea if we have some advice in this guideline for when not to create redirects. We've had a few editors recently creating redirects for what seems to be every possible permutation of an article title, meaning that sometimes hundreds of redirects are created to point to a single page. While not normally harmful, they are unlikely to be of much use, and present the potential for a maintenance nightmare if better targets become available. It would be better not to create them, unless there's some other good reason to.

I propose adding a subheading below Redirect with content similar to the following, and anchored to the shortcut WP:RNOT. I'd be very happy to have other bullets and/or different examples suggested. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

What I've been running into in this recent case is, suppose a book is titled, America's Future for All:What Every Citizen Should Know Before They Vote and the Wikipedia article title is America's Future for All (I made this up). It doesn't make sense to have as redirects, ...plus 40 other varieties. The point is, if the reader searching knows the America's Future for All part, it doesn't matter if they get the subtitle grammatically correct because the search tool will pick up the article title, which they know. So, when considering possible misspellings, I don't think that the imagined grammatical mistakes should be long and complicated because people usually search with the fewest words first, not with 12 word titles. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * America's Future for All:What Every Citizen Should Know Before they Vote
 * America's Future for All:What every Citizen Should Know Before They Vote
 * America's Future for All:What Every Citizens Should Know Before They Vote
 * America's Future for All What Every Citizen Should Know Before They Vote
 * My opinion on these hypotheticals is that we would have the article at America's Future for All, plus a redirect from the full proper title, plus lowercase redirects for both versions. 3 redirects plus the article. Other misspellings and different capitalizations don't make valid redirects because it's not reasonably plausible that someone would type it, unless they typed in error, and we both can't and shouldn't account for all errors. If we made redirects for every possible error, there would be tens of thousands for this one article. This actually has come up a few times, for example Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 24. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What's the point of having lowercase redirects? Wikipedia searches are now case-insensitive (as are external search engines). The only reason to have capitalization variants is when they are likely to be linked to. Links to uncapitalized book titles should be corrected, not supported by a redirect. Plantdrew (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I gave up creating these automatically some time ago, and for diacritics too. But I think something in MoS still recommends it (can't remember what). WP:NCCAPS is against it, although the 2005 discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Sea_anenomes suggests it was once commonplace and indeed recommended. Si Trew (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The lowercase redirects capture all-lowercase searches (as most users default to lowercase rather than trying to guess at the capitalization), as well as capture exact-spelling capitalization variations, so that the reader gets the article and not search results. At least, that's how I think it works. The search engine is case-insensitive, but you don't get search results if what you've typed matches a page title exactly. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that can be annoying when trying to find a link with WP:DIFFCAPS (or different diacritics), but that's an editor's problem, not a reader's. In the end, one must resort to Special:Search, and sometimes it is then reasonable to create a redirect to circumvent that behavior. But not often. Si Trew (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ... or does it? Just now I tried typing "barack obama" and hit the page barack obama which redirects to Barack Obama, so then I tried "saddam hussein" and got search results, even though there is a page saddam hussein. I can't tell what the difference is. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I put "saddam hussein" in the Mozilla (PC desktop) toolbar add-in for English WP, and got the article at Saddam Hussein, but via the redirect at . Si Trew (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If the lower case redirect exists, then yes typing exactly that in the search box will get you the redirect. If the redirect did not exist, typing lower case would get you the article title with initial caps. At random I picked one from my watchlist I figured unlikely to have a redirect. Typing fort dearborn in the search box takes me directly to Fort Dearborn (URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Dearborn ). Editing the URL to use lower case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fort_dearborn takes me to the "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" page. older ≠ wiser 16:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, you guys are right. I tried a page that I know doesn't have a lowercase redirect (Woodbine Building Supply fire) with various capitalization differences, and got the right page every time. So I'm going to add this to the "what not to create" criteria above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Yes, I've seen this with rcats where one editor will get it into their head that a hundred or more different shortcuts and convenience redirects should be created. I see this suggestion as a badly needed deterrent to such unnecessary redirect creations. Be prosperous! <b style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine</b>  21:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: added initialisms. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but I have some minor concerns with the particulars:
 * We're discussing "when not to create" wording. That's all very nice, but does not help us decide what to do with things that are already created. In particular, with masses of permutations, since each redirect must (in theory) be argued on its own merits, there is no deletion criterion for "each individually does little harm, but together they are a nuisance, like wasps at a picnic".
 * What about s? Too late, an R has been automatically created (even if undesired), so these criteria can't apply. (Let's say I bounced America's Future for All to forty different titles...) Such a redirect doesn't catch WP:RFD if it's not a misspelling or similar.
 * "It is thought that these redirects discourage..." is begging the question: by whom? Suggest minor change, to "Such redirects may discourage...". Si Trew (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think my first argument that R proliferation is harmful in 2009 at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_23. I imagine others had had similar arguments, before that.
 * One argument I made there, and has not yet been made here, is that having a plethora Rs to an article encourages inconsistency, even within articles or between those that are closely related. Not just slips, but elegant variation, which does not belong in a work of reference: it can lead the reader to think that there are two subjects, not one. ("Hang on, I know about America's Future for All now, but not about What Every Citizen Should Know Before they Vote, I wonder what that is... oh, I'm WP:SURPRISEd, it's the same thing! What a waste of my time.") If there's a need for different punc or caps or whatever in article text, then that is what WP:PIPEs are for, and it's clearer to editors that the choice was (probably) deliberate. (I would still like to see legitimate s, as the search engine may well not pick those up.)
 * But I am certainly all in favour of this in principle. Si Trew (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a slight change to the last bullet based on your suggestion (see diff of this edit for details). As for what to do with things that are already created, I agree it's important to make the distinction, and I attempted to do so with the "however" blurb at the bottom. These are not deletion criteria, but only guidance as to when it's not necessary or advisable to create a redirect in the first place. I'm very open to suggestions on how to make that more clear. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think the heading "When not to create" makes it quite clear. THe problem is not the wording, but that we can't use it for things that are already created... perhaps we could expand WP:RFD to include "recently created redirects that should never have been created" (which could be phrased so as to refer to these critera, and thus cover things like the undesirable vestiges of page moves, which strictly do not fit any deletion criterion even when recently created and have to go WP:G6, which I almost always works for me: but even so, CSD like some reasons better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT...). Si Trew (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Suggested wording changes:
 * Change "unreasonably offensive" to "needlessly offensive"; I think that is more objective as we can measure the need for it (if imperfectly) by the number of internal links and the number of hits.
 * Change second "Placeholder redirects" in last bullet to "They". Or, cut first "placeholder" and replace second with "These placeholders".
 * Put the bulleted list into a numbered list (at least, for now) so that we can refer to a given item.
 * Si Trew (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Points taken. I think the rule of thumb for censorship vs. offense is whether the offensive term is properly mentioned at the target. I'm not sure if that needs to be in the guideline. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pointless redirects are a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Especially ones where you have to type the entire target article title, and then keep typing to finish out the redirect. Examples: Voyager 2 (Spacecraft) redirects to Voyager 2, or Polandball editing on Wikipedia which redirects to Polandball. Those aren't really harmful in any sense of the word, but would fall under "every possible search term". I get the impression that many of these are done so someone googling "Polandball editing on Wikipedia" will get the redirect as a returned term. I don't know if that's one of the intended purposes for RDs or not. As far as wording goes, "unreasonably offensive" and "needlessly offensive" both are judgement terms but I think as Si said, what is "needless" might be easier to quantify than what is "unreasonable."
 * I would also suggest adding a condition for "Lyrics from songs, unless the term is often used in reference to the song (e.g. Teenage Wasteland). Such redirects, in addition to being unlikely search terms, also have copyright considerations." Crow <sup style="color:black;"> Caw  16:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Polandball redirect could fall under "readers browse in different ways", but that one in particular also seems like WP:R3 would apply. SEO does seem to be an issue here. As for lyrics, I think that could be added to reasons to delete and so it doesn't need to be repeated under reasons not to create. See my reply to AndrewD below. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose It is ironic that a proliferation of redirects should result in a proliferation of putative rules. This page is over 30K already and so it is too long.  We have a rule discouraging such bloat; it's WP:CREEP.  The page already has a laundry list of negative cases – Reasons for deleting – and so it doesn't need a second one.  On the specific case of placeholder redirects, I'm not understanding this at all.  For example,  I created Scarborough School of Art as a redirect with possibilities and I am reminded of this because it is currently being developed.  This does not seem to be a problem. Andrew D. (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Instruction creep is worth considering. I mean for this to be a suggestion of reasons why redirects should not be created, if they're of little value but also mostly harmless, but it's a difficult distinction to make, and it's possible this should go in WP:RFDO instead. The deletion criteria are for redirects which are harmful, whether they are misleading, confusing, offensive, copyvios, and so on; obviously those sorts shouldn't be created. In this section, we shouldn't needlessly create redirects that readers are unlikely to use, for various reasons, but if someone does come along and happen to create them, then "readers are unlikely to use" must not apply. I don't know how to phrase this properly. Maybe this should just be a general reorganization of the page. I'll think more about that.
 * As for the redirects with possibilities, you're right, and I think I've badly phrased the point again. The guidance is meant to discourage the trend of creating speculative redirects for topics that might become notable in the future, so that the editor gets credit for creating the article if it does get developed in the future. It's another fine line - a redirect for a topic that is notable now but not developed is a good thing because generally we have at least some information, but a redirect for a topic that isn't notable at all or is simply expected to become notable redirected to a general related topic is useless, and may be a WP:NPOV issue. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a list of rules, but it is helpful to refer to guidelines and common outlines instead of having to repeat them at every redirect under discussion. Many, I would say most, RfD discussions take place without formally referencing any of the criteria here (unlike in many other discussion fora). They are guidelines that save having to repeat the same thing ad infinitum. WP:COMMONSENSE prevails, as always. A more potted version appears at WP:RFD (and actually I've spent time trying to cut the wording down on that while preserving the meaning). Si Trew (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to specific page place anchor
Is there any way to redirect to something besides a level _ heading? For example, there is this pathology among tallest building lists, which as part of becoming a canned featured list end up with every building listing having an article, usually a stub. This list that I have worked on extensively uses more than 95% database and data mining site references. Every building has a list, except two, which were deleted as an unnoticed PROD. The key points of almost all but the most notable buildings (top few tallest, historically significant) are already listed in the list columns, and any additional info such as "architect" could be added in the "References" column with the source. I think the majority of the articles should be redirected to the list. It is common to redirect something that is not quite notable but receives a mention somewhere on the project to the site it is mentioned. To redirect to this long list, the closest I could come using headers is the top of the main list. Each entry on this type of list is sort of like its own little section, would there be any way to set up a non-wiki anchor that wouldn't affect the appearance of the list but would allow a redirect that scrolls so that the entire row shows at the top. An important note is that it would not cut off half the target entry, by having the anchor function as a dimensionless point that appears in the virtual center of the row. Thank you. B137 (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What I was looking for was at Template:Anchor, not WP:ANCHORS, so I have answered myself but will leave this here for future education. B137 (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015
“The Cry of the Children” by Elizabeth Barrett Browning is a prestigious poem which examines children’s manual labor forced upon them by ruler(s). Browning wrote about contemporary topics, particularly to liberal causes of her day as Greenblatt argues, (2013) Elizabeth Barrett Browning (pp.1993-1994). For instance, in “The Cry of the Children,” Browning narrates children being underground the majority of their young lives, dragging wheel barrows and working long hours. One says young life because they are put under harsh conditions, causing their lungs and hearts to rapidly dysfunction. Not only that, but Browning has a sensible writing manner in her works, and for this poem she uses a young lamb bleating in the meadows as a reference to the young children crying from whatever pains they must endure at the moment. Browning involves young animals to symbolize innocence and being put through both mental and physical pain for the satisfaction of an owner (1842). It is intelligent for the poet to do this as a reader can put themself in that position to understand how intense the conditions were. “The Cry of the Children” by Browning is an influential, twelve stanza poem consisting of terza rima rhyme scheme. Terza rima is an ABA BCB CDC DED and so on, rhyme scheme. Browning uses this precisely throughout the poem. This is superior as it makes the poem’s main idea straightforward as well as uncomplicated. This leads readers to Browning's key point, the death of children because they are forced to work from a very tender age and they pray to God to be taken before their time of actual death (BeamingNotes, 2015). Browning best describes this in lines 51-52 as the children say “It is good when it happens, that we die before our time” and in lines 86-87 the children pray for the absurdly noises to come to an end (Browning, 1842). How could one not forget the in-depth significance of this poem, and Browning bringing awareness to the public of the horrifying abuse from owners towards children? Browning’s excellent manner helps readers and critics understand about history and English literature. Browning as well has used a melancholy tone, as it is understandable because of the children’s predicaments. Not only that, it coincides with the rhyme scheme and symbolism. For instance, if the reader were to read the poem as a ballad, he/she would hear the rhyme scheme and be able to put themselves in the position of the children. As well as when Browning uses the young animals to symbolizes the children’s innocence, by depicting the tone one can tell it is not an exciting situation (Browning, 1842). Overall, Browning’s use of tone, symbolism, and rhyme scheme helps readers understand the underlying “truth” as to why children were forced to complete manual labor by their ruler(s). It was of much intelligence for the poet to do this, as it helped many view history as how it really was and helps students in their English Literature classes. Please help me cite the correct information at the bottom.

Daniielaa24 (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: - this isn't the right place to ask for help editing an article. If you would like to expand the article we have already at The Cry of the Children, I'm sure that would be appreciated. That article is not protected, you can go ahead and make changes to it, or if you want to ask for help, you should ask at that article's talk page. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Links to deleted redirects
Suppose that a redirect has been deleted. Should links to the deleted redirect be updated to link to what the target was before deletion? WP:NOTBROKEN no longer applies because the redirect was deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If the redirect was a typo or in a foreign language, then yes. If the redirect was deleted to encourage article creation, then no. If the context of the link is a discussion about the redirect itself, then no. Et cetera. It depends. Gorobay (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Agree with Gorobay – search-purpose redirected links (misspellings, inappropriate titles, etc.) are routinely updated to link directly to their targets, so most of the red links that result from redirect deletion should be left alone as possible article-, project-page- or other-page-creation titles. See WP:REDLINK and also the deletion discussion, because it will shed light on why the redirect was deleted. <b style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Painius</b>  19:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Should a tool (similar to WP:UNLINK) be written to automate this if this proposal goes through? I agree with Gorobay. It depends on what type the redirect is. Then again, a redirect would not be deleted to encourage article creation. We have R with possibilities for that. sst✈ 11:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Can redirects exist for non-notable topics?
For a Wikipedia article to exist on a topic, that topic must be notable per WP:N. Right? All Wikipedia articles pass a notability criteria.

When a redirect is created, must that redirect be for a topic which also passes WP:N?

Example - architect is notable. Can someone make redirects for all of the non-notable buildings they have designed and redirect them to the biography? Regardless of answer, what is the rationale?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  15:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirects do not have to be for notable topics. Frequently at AFD an article on a non-notable topic is converted to a redirect to a broader topic, for example Articles for deletion/Hanne Verbruggen. There is a wide discretion to create redirects that are "useful". Thincat (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the often quoted rationale is Redirects are cheap. Although they exist in main space they are not regarded as articles. Thincat (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * One substantial rationale is that the target article may provide information about what is redirected there. Commonly the target will be that English Wikipedia article most likely to provide most information about what is redirected there. Thus redirection is useful to someone who searches for the redirected title, perhaps the most useful response to that search.
 * Presumably some of the (names of) buildings designed by a notable architect will be more usefully redirected to a city or a business than to the architect. A redirect from writer to notable book or book to notable writer is more likely to have the "most useful" quality.
 * Another rationale is that redirects discourage the creation of articles with their titles. --P64 (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Happens all the time for firearms articles; while a particular model or variant may not be notable enough to warrant its own article, it may redirect to the full page or to a section of the page. I would think the same logic would apply for buildings and architects, or books and their authors. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirects from incorrect punctuation – how to tag?
How should redirects from incorrect punctuation be tagged? For example, Mosin-Nagant redirects to Mosin–Nagant. I had tagged this as a misspelling, but reverted it. I understand that there is a group of people going through links to misspellings (actually sounds like fun; where do I sign up?) and that adding this to their to-do list could be overkill, but I'm looking for some sort of guidance on how to tag redirect pages like this. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * * Anybody is free – and encouraged – to help clear the list at Database reports/Linked misspellings.
 * * R from incorrect punctuation
 * * There aren't many editors working on this as far as I can tell. The list has been growing lately. So we should prioritize. I'd fix links to Barrack Obama, Chritianity and Europian Union – three items currently on the list – before futzing around with the length of a hyphen-dash. That list indicates that there are ~69 links to Mosin-Nagant, and fixing them – even with WP:AWB – takes too much valuable time.
 * — Wbm1058 (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless maybe we can further automate spelling corrections? Getting approval to turn on AWB's bot mode (at WP:BRFA) is too bureaucratic (time-consuming) for me to bother trying (perhaps justifiably so, though, given the risks of ill-behaving automated tasks). Wbm1058 (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The redirect is correctly tagged with the R from move, R from modification and R unprintworthy rcats.  The R from modification rcat is a general template that includes punctuation differences, whether or not they are correct and most of which are unprintable. Happy holidays!  Paine   05:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to section bugged
On some browsers, redirect to sections don't seem to work any more. E.g. WP:BIO1E redirects to Notability_(people), but clicking on the redirect brings me to the top of Notability (people). Interestingly, clicking on the hashtagged section link works fine. I'm using Google Chrome version 47.0.2526.73 m on Windows. Where can I log this as a MediaWiki bug? (Crossposted to WP:VPT).  Sandstein  09:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've also noticed this issue when using Chrome. Sometimes it works OK, sometimes it doesn't; it's hard to figure out why when it doesn't, and that's very annoying! Hopefully this link works OK :)
 * Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Google Chrome unable to link directly to section? – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Propose hatnotes are placed in sections too
The text says "If the redirected term could have other meanings, a hatnote (examples) should be placed at the top of the target article directing readers to the other meanings". I want to change it, so it says the hatnote should be placed at the target of the redirect. E.g. if I search kilowatt I will never see the notice at the top because of the redirect to a section. btw I was reverted when I moved the redirect21 teplate to the section. Christian75 (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hatnotes are very often placed in sections exactly as you described. It sounds like you should discuss it at the talk page for the article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - I know they are, but this page says they "should be placed at the top of the target article". Christian75 (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh you mean the text like " (Redirected from UK) " that this page refers to? That's not a hatnote, that's generated by the software when a user actually clicks on a redirect. Try going to the UK redirect, you'll see the text at the top of the page. But if you come back here and click through United Kingdom, you won't see the text because you didn't follow a redirect to get there. I don't know if the notices can be added to sections or not, but it's not a matter of adding a tag to the article, it would require a software change. I don't think it's a bad idea, but you'd have to suggest it at Village pump (technical). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The phrase "or targeted section" was added to the sentence in question. Happy holidays!  Paine  20:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirect-related proposal
A proposal has been made to extend the What Wikipedia is not policy to forbid the creation of certain redirects. If you would like to comment on the proposal, please see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ion Pop
I think is an error, because Ion Pop redirects completely wrong ! Someone to solve the problem please! I do not know how and I do not have time but thank you very much!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)