Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect

Discussion about the intent of Template:R from miscapitalisation
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:R from miscapitalisation § Template intent. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

"Template:R from subtitle" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:R_from_subtitle&redirect=no Template:R from subtitle] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. &zwj;—&zwj; a smart kitten [  meow ] 09:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Standardized documentation pages
It seems like there isn't a true standard for rcat documentation pages, and I'd imagine the creation of new doc pages relies on copy and pasting from existing subpages. I suggest the creation of a template that allows these to be easily created. This could help standardize things like parameter usage and printworthy information (something I can't believe isn't standardized yet.

I'd be happy to create a mockup if this sounds interesting! ~ Eejit43 ( talk ) 20:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason the rcat templates shouldn't all use the same /doc? I feel like the majority of them will have identical or similar usage. Creative use of #if and #switch statements along with magic words should allow us to cover 90% of cases without excessive bloat. Primefac (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly! A centralized template would suit well, especially as the far majority of rcats don't even have parameters. ~ Eejit43 ( talk ) 14:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Rcat doc seems to have been created for this purpose. As the template is currently unused, I'm going to rework it to make it more functional. ~ Eejit43 ( talk ) 15:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * (as the creator of that template) Eejit43, that's exactly what I made it for, after I got tired of making new documentation for each new rcat. I'd appreciate any improvements you make to it. — Qwerfjkl  talk  16:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I see your template was built around the template being substituted, but I think it would be better to simply allow transclusion of the template. Any objections to that? ~ Eejit43 ( talk ) 18:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Eejit43, by all means, go ahead. It's not my template. — Qwerfjkl  talk  18:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * many thanks for your email 154.222.5.121 (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipediatalk:Redirect § Deprecation of redirecting the talk page of a mainspace redirect
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirect § Deprecation of redirecting the talk page of a mainspace redirect. Nickps (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Tagging redirect
What is the right template for tagging this redirect: Purley, Croydon Okmrman (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * R from London place name as tagged seems to be reasonable. R from more specific geographic name maybe since Croydon is more specific than London? Primefac (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Category tree questions
Hi all :) I've got a few questions regarding some members of the redirect category tree that I'd appreciate hearing other editors' opinions on:


 * 1)  – Should this be a subcategory of ? (In a similar way to how  is currently a subcategory of )
 * 2)  – Should this be a subcategory of ? On the one hand, redirects in this category are modifying the spelling of a word; but on the other hand, an alternative spelling may not be a small enough modification for/may not be within the scope of that category (stated on the cat-page as being for redirects from alternative layouts, word order, punctuation and the like).
 * 3)  – Should this be a subcategory of ? It currently is, but I'm not sure that it should be - as far as I can see, an (e.g.) R from verb is not necessarily a redirect from a modification of a page title. (Pinging, as you  this category in 2018)

Let me know if there are any queries. All the best, &zwj;—&zwj; a smart kitten [  meow ] 12:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of numering your queries for easy reference. My answers would be:
 * No, since a misspelling is an error and unprintworthy, while an alternative spelling is valid (attested in RS, albeit sometimes obsolete ones or whatever), and usually printworthy (when not, this can be individually tagged with, but that doesn't apply to the entire alternative-spellings category). The disambitguation situation isn't actually analogous, since how WP disambiguates is an arbitrary internal decision, while whether something is standard in English or erroneous is a matter of external convention as determined by reliable-source usage (especially reliable sources English usage, but in various specialized contexts with might be use within topical publications).
 * No, because not all alternative spellings are modifications of another spelling; they often develop side-by-side in different national, regional, or social dialects. "Modification" is this sense is generally an alteration that a reader might make to a search term that is a matter of style or grammar, such as variation in capitalization, hyphenation, presence/absence of diacritics, use of ligatures, etc., as well as grammatical variants like adjectival forms and so on, in their own subcat.
 * Yes, since they are modifications a reader might make to the term that we're actually using for the title, such as converting it into an adjective or gerund. However, and  need to be moved from the parent cat  to the subcat . It would also be sensible to rename the confusing latter to, or even drop "English" from that as contextually redundant, since we don't do things like create redirects for, all the Latin declensions or tenses of a Latin term that has been assimilated into English uage in a particular form.
 * — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Do all of the anthroponym redirect tags apply to fictional characters
because I really want to tag Squarepants with surname Okmrman (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

LEZ ULEZ
Redirect from street sign? what should i tag it Okmrman (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * , I’d be inclined to say that R from related words might be a tag to use here. All the best, &zwj;—&zwj; a smart kitten [  meow ] 11:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * WADR, editor has already tagged this redirect correctly as an initialism, which stands for London's combined "Low Emission Zone" and "Ultra Low Emission Zone". Almost like a French phrase, it made me do a double take! This is one of those special "almost (not quite) an acronym" type initialisms.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;,  ed.  put'er there 14:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion
There are currently four open RfD discussions which members of this WikiProject may be interested in:



All the best, &zwj;—&zwj; a smart kitten [  meow ] 19:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding a TfD to the list: Templates for discussion/Log/2024 April 30. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding an RM and CfR to the list: & . All the best, &zwj;—&zwj;  a smart kitten [  meow ] 09:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:R from gender listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:R from gender to be moved to Template:R from gendered term. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 09:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirect § Trouble making a quasi-external soft redirect
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirect § Trouble making a quasi-external soft redirect.  Sdkb  talk 21:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Unclear talk page scopes
It's not all that clear from the talk page banners which conversations belong here and which belong at WT:Redirect. Is it that that page is only for discussions about possible changes to the guideline? This should be sorted out and the talk page banners adjusted accordingly to provide clear instruction. The talk pages could even be merged to centralize if needed. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 21:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it makes sense to merge and redirect this talk page to WT:REDIRECT. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure - my impression was that WT:R was for discussions about the guideline, whereas this WikiProject talk page could be used for discussions about redirects in general/other aspects of redirects that don't directly involve the guideline. There probably is a bit of overlap, but I'm not sure right now that merging the talk pages would be best. All the best, &zwj;—&zwj; a smart kitten <sub style="color:#595959">[  meow ] 23:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that most of the discussions are pretty similar. Compare Wikipedia talk:Redirect with . voorts (talk/contributions) 00:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:R to sports team
Template:R to sports team has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

R to soft redirects
Are redirects to soft redirects allowed? Example: Special:Diff/1222266997. Sometimes, Wiktionary prefers one term over the other, in this case it means "Exhibiting monosexism". This one can be justifiable, but in the case of awomen, Wiktionary defines it as "Alternative form of awoman". So I believe awomen should redirect to awoman. -- MikutoH talk! 05:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * just a little question: we see at the previous edit in that Special:Diff you mentioned that you moved "monosexist" to "monosexism" and cited WP:NOUN. It seems that you don't consider "monosexist" to be a noun, but it is, isn't it? Why the page move, then?  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 05:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Some nouns are preferred over the others, that's why we have heterosexism and not heterosexist (or monosexuality and not monosexual). But that could also be a case of COMMON NAME. -- MikutoH talk! 05:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Where is this in WP policy that some nouns are preferred over other nouns? I don't see that at WP:NOUNS.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 05:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me comment what I perceived: WP:NOUN is often used as a reason for accepting uncontroversial request moves,.
 * But why would you ask me it if you're already a page mover? You know more than me. Or maybe you're testing me. -- MikutoH talk! 05:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We read below very sound explanations from revered and respected editors that you are correct. Sincerely, I was not testing you; however, if I had been testing you, then I believe you passed. I'm sorry that I off-tracked your initial question.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 18:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it makes sense to prefer the basic "ism" noun and redirect from the "ist" noun which is about a person who adheres to the "ism", as in Buddhist redirecting to Buddhism.
 * It ought to be possible to have the two soft redirects, with a R avoiding double redirect to make sure that if an article is created at some point the trailing redirect is redirected. I added it but it didn't work because a soft redirect isn't technically a redirect: there should be some equivalent template for cases where multiple terms, which would redirect to the same article if there was one, are currently redirecting to a Wiktionary item. Pam  D  07:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would just add a note on the talk page of both soft redirects. I would guess that this situation isn't all that common such that another template and tracking category are needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Guideline help on redirects for non-notable actors to their work
I created a redirect from Jayden Revri, who is not notable enough for his own article, to his most recent work that just came out. What's the policy or guideline on what the target of this redirect should be? He has several other credits, at least a few of which have their own articles. Presumably it should be the show he's most known for? — TARDIS builder &#9993;    &#9733;       14:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless one of the articles actually says something substantive about the actor, I think it would be better to leave it as a redlink to make it clear there is no article rather than directing readers to some article that has little more than a passing mention of the actor's name. older ≠ wiser 14:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed; he currently has two main cast billings (Dead Boy Detectives and The Lodge) and one recurring cast billing. I do suppose if he's more well-known or visible in either of the first two I would redirect to that cast list, but otherwise I concur that a redlink might be more "valuable" at this point in time. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:R from gap in series necessity
I recently brought R from gap in series to TfD. It was closed as no consensus due to low participation, with the caveat that it would be overturned to delete if this WikiProject finds the template unnecessary. As such, I'm bringing the question here: do folks think this template is needed? Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 15:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Looks like this is not a very strong issue with editors, either here or at TfD. Probably the best person to ask whether or not this rcat template should be kept is its 2022 creator, editor . I'm neutral on whether or not this template is necessary, but I would like to learn the details about why it was thought necessary to keep track of these gaps by sorting them to . What was gained? and what would be lost if the template and category were to be deleted?  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 06:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * hey there! I've been quite inactive on Wikipedia lately so I didn't notice the discussions. I created this redirect category after an Rfd about exactly these redirects in December 2021/January 2022, during which proposed this template. The RfD closed as no consensus, but I thought this template could be useful to explain why these redirects are there if we're gonna keep them anyway. It happens every now and then that someone recreates the article even though the topic is not notable, so having the redirect itself state that it is not notable could maybe help.
 * Looking back, I don't think it made any difference. Been digging through article histories a bit and a total of one of these redirects,, was turned into an article (and subsequently reverted) despite having the template. However, most of these articles remain untouched since the template was added. Furthermore, I don't recall any instance of me using the category; all I've ever done is add the template and leave. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the reasons people are asking "what is the purpose of this template?" are that its documentation is sparse and contradicts itself and that it has not been added to enough articles to allow its purpose to be inferred by looking at its Whatlinkshere. IIRC my original suggesting was for cases where the real world entity was absent, rather than merely where there was not (yet) a (standalone) Wikipedia article for the entity. Readers might manually iterate through a sequence of articles and wonder why there was a gap; Category series navigation can semi automate such iteration. Distinguishing realworld gaps from Wikipedia gaps is important. Examples of the former would include Pope John XX or many of Category:Events cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There are cases of realworld gaps with full non-redirect articles (eg 1940 Summer Olympics) but if there is only a redirect then this Rcat is appropriate. Seldom but not never will the redirect be R with possibilities  Sometimes but not always will the redirect be R to list.  This can be in the documentation.  jnestorius(talk) 11:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Colors script
Is there a color change script for redirects? I only know a gadget for disambiguations. Or was it disallowed? Because in ptwiki and eswiki there's a gadget. -- MikutoH talk! 01:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Anomie/linkclassifier voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at Talk:Popverse
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Popverse regarding the use of Avoided double redirect in correlation to a miscapitalization redirect pointing to the same entry. The thread is Redirect templates. The discussion is about the topic Popverse. Thank you. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In particular, we could use someone who is into redirect tagging to take a look and clarify what to do, so we can settle a dispute. Dicklyon (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)