Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect/Archive 1

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

disambiguation?
I've started going through some disambiguation pages and editing pages that link to them, so that instead they link to the relevant article. is this the sort of thing covered by your project or should I look elsewhere? (to see more clearly what I mean, my user page has examples) yours, User24 02:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This sounds like the work of Disambiguation_pages_with_links -- Mark  S  (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not a WikiProject. Try WikiProject Disambiguation. --SteelersFan UK06 19:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Help for Version 0.5
Hi, we're putting together the final collection for Version 0.5, an offline release of Wikipedia. We want to include some basic redirects on the CD (probably as a lookup table), for example Los Angeles redirecting to Los Angeles, California. Does anyone here know how to pull out only redirects from the "What links here" selection? I realise that you can find them easily if there are only a few, but for something like China my AWB just hangs up, there are so many articles in "What links here". We have 2000 articles to go through (though only a few will be given redirects), and many of them are heavily linked to. We can't scroll through thousands of pages looking, is there some way to pull out only redirects using MediaWiki or AWB? Thanks, Walkerma 17:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

NET
Hello. I'd appreciate it if you'd look at Net, NET and Net (disambiguation). Thanks --Dweller 10:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject - Userbox
This project needs its own userbox, ie, "this user fixes links to redirct pages" or something like that. Just to tell people of the glorious work we do =D -- SteelersFan UK06 01:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait actually, am i getting this project wrong, is it included in this project that we fix pages which link to redirects? For example, if a page was to link to IMDB, would re-writing it as IMDB come under this project? -- Same As Before
 * This project is very disappointing. I've left a number of comments now here and none of them have been answered. In order to attract more users to join the project, you must first at least acknowledge their interest. For this reason, I am not adding my name to the list of members. --SteelersFan UK06 13:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Force not redirect
What do yo put in a Wikilink to force it to stay at the redirect article? - RoyBoy 800 14:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:R, under WP:R, I found that the way to do it is directly follow the article title with "?redirect=no", i.e., http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Stack_No._1_-_Ten_Cents?redirect=no. there's no point in asking anyone here anything, they don't reply to comments (See my above three) --SteelersFan UK06 19:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because there's nobody in it. I thought I was banned from editing these articles (see User:Auroranorth/Sockpuppets), but I was wrong. Auroranorth 08:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Artemis Fowl and the Lost Colony
If you check out the history, someone was moving the article to Fantasy books and Artemis Fowl book five for asinine reasons. I moved it back but a lot of the history was gone. If any of you know how to fix it, that'd be great.--CyberGhostface 11:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I found the history at Artemis Fowl book 5, and merged it back into place. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

An important observation
I feel that all the redirect pages in this project should have the template use redirect in the respective redirect pages, so that more users would become aware of this WikiProject. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 11:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that this is a bad idea. Tagging every redirects talk page (many/most of which would otherwise not be created at all) amounts to little more than link spam.  It is already obvious that the page is a redirect, so a tag doesn't add any information, just advertises a project.  Eluchil404 05:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree with Eluchil404. This would create tons of useless new talk pages. A waste of system resources. We like our redirects to stay cheap. Rocket000 01:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bonafide computation-powered permutation generator!
I have in my possesion a spreadsheet file, capable of accepting three lists of words (could be expanded - will always accept less) and arranging them into a single list of the possible permutations. For example: (E. coli/Escherichia coli/bacterial/bacteria/yeast/Saccharomyces cerevisiae/S. cerevosoiae) (two hybrid/two-hybrid) (*nothing*/test/screen/screening/method/analysis). In total, that's 7x2x6 = 84 possible permutations! The list created can be used with another program (autoWikiBrowser, I think it's called) to quickly create redirects as appropriate. I want to make the file available to others to use, so that they may ease the irritating task of creating masses of redirects. If someone contacts me, I'll send it to them but if someone could find a long-term place to store it, then it could be made available from the Wikipedia Redirect page and from this project as a useful tool in some situations. --Seans Potato Business 09:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep watching this page, so contact me via my talk page if you're interested. --Seans Potato Business 20:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect templates and text display - status?
I seem to recall that the reason why the text of a redirect template does not appear on a redirect page except when previewing in edit mode is that there is an unresolved bug in the Wikimedia software. Is that correct? If so, does anyone have a notion of the status of work toward resolving this bug? This question was prompted by a rather long comment over at Template talk:R to disambiguation page, which you might be interested in commenting on. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Banner ad
WikiProject Redirect now has its own banner ad integrated with the WP:BANNER template. >< Richard  Ω6  12  21:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

New proposals
I have made two new proposals and will put them on the following sub-page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect/Format and categorization proposals. Please drop a line there and let me know what you think! $$\sim$$ Lenoxus " * " 17:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New meta-template(s) idea
Lately, I've become involved with the notion of a "standard" redirect template. The latest mix of ideas I've hit upon, while possibly workable, are just a little beyond my proficiency with wikicode.

Basically, here's what I've got in mind: Imagine two templates, hypothetically called and , into which other R templates, plus user-input text, can be included as parameters. (If it's possible for those templates to contain "alternate versions", then this could remove the redundancy of seeing "This is a redirect" over and over, and reduce the number of typed braces.) I'm imagining that such templates would be collapsible, like WikiProjectBanners and WikiProjectBannerShell. They would be used in addition to a header template perhaps called RDR.

A hypothetical example of what I'm talking about: typing  would produce something like:

Does anyone feel up to the task of producing such a template? Are there any suggestions to tweak what I've put forth? Feel free to display any potential versions of this template here… thanks! $$\sim$$ Lenoxus " * " 19:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks to be an excellent idea, although the first template [rdr] seems unnecessary on the main redirect page, as the arrow already there makes it obvious that it is a redirect. The second & third templates look excellent, however, and would certainly help [standardisation = Good ThingTM]. The current set of redirect templates is growing out of control, and this would also allow multiple reasons to be appended to one redirect. I think this deserves more eyeballs, so I'll put it on the Proposals pump [hope you don't mind] to gain wider consensus. Oh, and I will make that template as an example for the proposal, and I am also willing to add them to redirects using my slave AWB account if this gains momentum.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ ɸ 19:56, May 18, 2008 (UTC)

I have created a prototype template here. It contains options for the three reasons here [abbrev, tense & other] using ambox [as all mainspace templates should, really]. It can easily be expanded to fit other reasons but has only these three for testing purposes.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ ɸ 21:02, May 18, 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestion - change "This page is ..." to "The title of this page is ..." throughout the template. --Russ (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made a few changes to my prototype and incorporated the 'this is a redirect' section. Comments?  RichardΩ612  Ɣ ɸ 14:11, May 24, 2008 (UTC)

Double redirects
Now that double redirects are largely a thing of the past (see WP:VPT), perhaps someone should modify the project page to reflect this? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Task to do
Subpages of User:The Anome/Moby nouns have many red links, many of which are suitable as redirects. If you are looking for project-related work, that may be a good starting point for you. --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 22:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Categorisation templates and preview
Things have changed since the software has been altered to display redirects in preview as they will look when the page is saved; simply enough, the descriptions of the various redirect-categorisation templates which used to be seen in preview are now all lost. They should be removed from all the templates, as they are now completely useless.

Furthermore, now that the norm for template-documentation is to be written in an unprotected documentation page, the information about the templates should be moved from the template pages to their respective doc pages. Personally, I have always believed that it was wrong for the descriptions on the redirect pages (now lost, as I've said) to refer to the categories instead of the template pages, where the purpose of each template can be explained in much more depth. There are far too many miscategorisations, and I believe lacking documentation is in a large part to blame.

This is a good opportunity to rationalise the system, clean up the categories, and provide users with good documentation in the proper location. Waltham, The Duke of 03:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Zoological redirects
This project just appeared on my radar. In an attempt to prevent any potential friction from developing between our respective activities, I will endeavor to explain how our projects overlap. For the past two years I've been working on a series of articles on snakes for which I have created many redirects for both common names (snake species with many of these are legion) and taxonomic synonyms. I've been rather productive and these redirects now outnumber the articles by as much as 10:1. The redirects are numbered in the thousands. If you're interested, there are a few different types of these redirects that I would like to see deleted eventually, but I just wanted to make everyone here aware that the vast majority of them are important to the project. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Great Park Redirect
Typing in Great Park currently redirects to Windsor Great Park. Because I was actually looking for the Orange County Great Park, I believe a disambiguation page may be helpful. What is the best approach to having the redirect go to a dab page instead of to a specific article? Is going to a disambiguation page the best approach in this case? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends on usage. There are two alternatives:
 * If the most prominent usage of Great Park is as a reference to Windsor Great Park, then it should be a redirect to the article of the latter (as it is now). Then,
 * if there is only the Orange County park apart from the Windsor park, a hatnote at the top of the Windsor article is enough for users who've typed "Great Park", and no disambiguation page is needed. On the other hand,
 * if there are more articles, a Great Park (disambiguation) page should exist with a conspicuous first link to the "Windsor Great Park" article, and there should be a hatnote at the top of the latter linking to said disambiguation page.
 * If there is no primary topic for Great Park, it should be a disambiguation page linking to both Great Parks, as well as the articles of any other subjects sharing the name.
 * I hope this helps. Waltham, The Duke of 23:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. The information is very helplful.  Alanraywiki (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

proposal to separate categories
I propose to separate category:redirects from alternative spellings and category:redirects from alternate punctuation. See also this discussion. Bwrs (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:R from alternative language
Hello, apparently, I've stumbled upon the fact that the original language name of a subject is a speedy delete candidate? I made a WP:AFC for the Chinese language original name of the article subject, which were then created, and then speedily deleted (CSD criteria R3). I'd like to know what are the criteria for foreign language redirects. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Too many for a single category?
There are more than 6,000 articles listed under R from alternative languages. Can't we make some more specific categories? R from Spanish and R from French would be very useful.--Againme (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Soft redirects to Commons in main namespace
I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Soft redirect about what wikis are helpful targets for soft redirects. In the past there hasn't been a consensus on the matter and right now they kinda point everywhere, so I'd appreciate any input if you're interested. -- Explodicle (T/C) 20:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:WPRedir
WPRedir has been nominated for deletion. Apparently you are an inactive project? 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As was decided at the TFD, adding a project template to every single redirect talk page wasn't a very good idea. As such, the template and its redirects have been deleted as well as a whole host of redirect's talk pages that held it and it alone. I could see a project template being added to redirect-describing-templates and the like (if this project is even still active), but that would be a different template than the one that was deleted. – xeno  ( talk ) 15:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from other capitalisations and Template:R from other capitalisation
FYI,

R from other capitalisation and have been nominated for deletion on 4 May 2009. See WP:TFD and WP:CFD.

76.66.202.139 (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirects that fill red links?
Can I ask what is the best course of action with a redirect that should be a genuine red link? This happens often in the aircraft project where editors see red links for an aircraft type and then fill them by redirecting them to the parent company article. We have a long list of missing articles to be created where the advice is not to redirect them. An example of the problem is here where it appears that we have a full set of articles but many of them should be genuine red links. Many thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    09:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well if the current advice already is not to redirect them, the best you can do now is enforce it by reverting and putting notices on the offending editors' talkpages. It's a tedious job, unless there really is a lot of this going on then maybe you can program a bot to do it. Or perhaps try placing the "DO NOT REDIRECT!" message in a more prominent place on the aircraft project page with a link to WP:REDLINK? -- &oelig; &trade; 17:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point, it is mainly new editors who redirect them and then realise themselves or get told afterwards, how would I 'un-redirect' back to a redlink? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:RFD or you could try a speedy deletion tag. Not sure which one. R3 maybe. –xenotalk 20:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I thought that might be the case, will discuss it with one of our admins. Was hoping that there might be an easy way. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just find an admin with a rouge persuasion and who agrees this is a good idea ;> –xenotalk 20:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We might have some of those, one runs the missing article list so he will be good. Must have a look through more of those categories, good fun. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny how that category is still populated even though it's been deleted for over a year.. kinda defeats the purpose of the consensus established during this arduous deletion debate.. it may be construed as gaming the system if an admin knowingly and willingly still includes themselves in that category. Nevertheless.. Category:Rouge editors still exists. -- &oelig; &trade; 23:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Paint It Black
Further input is needed at Talk:Paint It Black over whether it should redirect to Paint It, Black or to Paint It Black (disambiguation). --JD554 (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Theatre redirects
Input from the members of this WikiProject would be appreciated at this CfD relating to redirects: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_5. Thanks -- &oelig; &trade; 18:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

R_to_section purpose
What is the purpose of R to section? Is it only for those redirects that actually target a section, or can it also be used for redirects which, for various reasons, target an article as a whole but whose topic is only covered in one section of the article?

Clearly, this is an appropriate use: but what about this:
 * → Star*Drive
 * → Boris Kovač

Considerations include:
 * Template documentation: "This is a redirect from a topic, name or term that does not have its own article, to an article section which covers the subject." This supports the stricter interpretation as it does not say, "... to an article with a section which covers the subject."
 * Other documentation: WP:TMR's entry and Friendly's "redirect tagging" menu suggest it is just another flavor of R to list entry, suggesting a looser interpretation.
 * Usage: 98% of all redirects currently tagged with R to section do actually target a section.
 * Alternatives:
 * If a stricter interpretation is favored, what should replace this tag in the 2% of these redirects which don't target a section?
 * If a looser interpretation is favored, is there another way to specifically identify those redirects that do target an article section and are thus sensitive to edits of their targeted articles which change section titles?

Perhaps my confusion comes from the name itself and the fact that a "section" can be directly targeted, leading me to assume a literal meaning, as with R to anchor. -- ToET 07:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Use or . — Skittleys (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Title without punctuation
How should the redirect &rarr; Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me be tagged? It is currently tagged R from ASCII (or was, until BetacommandBot "subst:"ed it), but that doesn't seem correct as the target is in basic ASCII as well ("," = 0x2C). Is R from incorrect name the best choice? -- ToET 01:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would tag it as R from alternative spelling but I don't think every single redirect absolutely must be categorized, some simply just don't yet have a specific redirect category that they can neatly fit in to. That doesn't mean we should need to apply the next closest thing. -- &oelig; &trade; 05:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. WP:CAT-R states "Most redirects should not be categorized." (Although the very existence of R uncategorized would seem to contradict this.)  I suppose the main purpose behind any tagging of this particular redirect would be to categorize it Category:Unprintworthy redirects, which R from ASCII and R from misspelling do but R from alternative spelling does not.  I suppose I could just cut to the chase with R unprintworthy.  -- ToET 06:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also note that that line in WP:CAT-R is referring to categories which are meant for articles, not specific redirect categories. -- &oelig; &trade; 12:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have not noticed that before. -- ToET 12:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

R from scientific name
Category: Redirects from scientific names states that R from scientific name is for organismal nomenclature only, such as &rarr; Tasmanian Devil. I assume that this is its intended and accepted use. While not stated explicitly at the redirect's page, it is strongly implied by its use of the links Scientific name which redirects to Binomial nomenclature. Still, it is strange that there is not even a link from the template page to the category page, and that its narrow usage is not spelled out in any more detail at WP:TMR. The template should include a link to its category page (and possibly be a special member of that category) as is done with R from misspelling and Category:Redirects from misspellings, shouldn't it?

Anyhow, this template would not seem to apply to lofty sounding redirects, such at &rarr; Defecation. So what should replace it? The tried and true standard is R from alternative name, but are there more appropriate choices?

The category page does mention R from technical name as an alternative, but this redirect (at the moment) is used by only one redirect, &rarr; Heavy water. The same holds for R from systematic name, only used by &rarr; Halley's Comet. Both templates were created by Skittleys last month. Should their further use be encouraged? -- ToET 09:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * After talking with Skittleys I've decided that these new templates are a good thing, and have started using them. -- ToET 01:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

R from Eponym
I was wondering if it would be a good idea to have a R from Eponym template as a lot of medical articles have a term which is mainly used and an Eponymous term after the person who discovered it etc. A R to Eponym may also be a good idea.

To put this into context, I just created a couple of redirects for this reason just today Pancreatic duct of Santorini and Pancreatic duct of Wirsung. Thanks,  Captain n00dle  T/C 00:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Moved from User talk:Thinking of England and edited slightly -- ToET 03:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * After telling you that I had no good advice, I do have some thoughts after all.
 * I don't know that your redirect hatnotes in the examples you provided are the best choices as the terms are also emboldened in their leads. If a hatnote is desired, then perhaps for2 would be a better choice.
 * You mentioned http://www.whonamedit.com/azeponyms.cfm/A.html in your note to Skittleys, perhaps implying that you were planning on creating a bunch of these redirects. I think that would be a fine plan.
 * My first concern was over the meaning of "Eponym" as I more commonly use the form "eponymous", as in "an eponymous name", and I thought that eponym might refer only to the person, such as Giovanni Domenico Santorini in your first example. The wiktionary entry does give the person as the first definition but also gives the related word as the second, and I see that http://www.whonamedit.com and Medical eponyms follow that latter use as well.  The eponym article only gives the first definition, but it appears to use the second sense as well.  How would these templates apply to redirects such as  &rarr; Marshall-Smith syndrome?
 * Without a new template, these redirects would presumably fall under R from alternative name. Is there any reason to create a more specific template (and category)?  Skittleys recently created R from systematic name and R from technical name presumably to provide a clear alternative to R from scientific name, which was created specifically for scientific names in the sense of biological nomenclature.  (The "why" question touches on the question of the overall purpose of redirect templates in general.  It is not clear to me that a consensus exists that all redirects need to be tagged, although I suspect that enough editors are interested in doing so that there is no stopping it (perhaps that is one definition of a consensus) even if the only purpose is satisfying the human desire to classify things.)  A reason in favor of creation would be to help keep Category:Redirects from alternative names from growing overly large.  A reason against would be the prevention of template proliferation, although mitigated by the suggested large number of candidates for this new template.
 * So, my overall sense would be in favor of creating the new templates, but it is tempered by a lack of understanding of the fundamental philosophy behind redirect templates in general, an understanding that would weigh on deciding the balance between large categories vs. template proliferation. -- ToET 03:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your ideas! I shall do my best to reply..
 * Just to cover your 1st point; I know what you mean and I think that perhaps Distinguish would be a better bet for those two pages I used as an example.


 * Referring to your second point; I shall get started then!


 * Can I clear up your 3rd point up by saying that I was referring to the alternative eponymous terms used, not redirects from the people themselves (the example which you used was ) as idealy wikipedia would have a separate article about this gentleman, but wikipedia does not need two separate articles for & Accessory pancreatic duct (for example) as they are the same thing. (So yes, I meant the second definition here: wiktionary entry). However it might be possible to cover both definitions in the template, I'm just not sure how to word it.


 * The reason I thought for creating a new template was that these templates could classify redirects as a subcategory of Category:Redirects from alternative names and Category:Eponyms and perhaps explain why a user was redirected. It would also be a useful way of categorising eponymous terms. I understand what you are saying about using R from systematic name and R from technical name however, the two terms are not seen to be either more or less technical, but simply interchangeable.
 * It might be worth noting here that there is already a category for eponymous terms Category:Eponyms, however it doesn't appear to be used much(!) and I don't know how that would affect things.

A problem is that the main article could be at either the non-eponymous (the synonymous term? I'm not sure what the opposite of eponymous is!) term or the eponymous term, depending on which term was more commonly used. So we could have either of these two situations:
 * 1)  &rarr; Accessory pancreatic duct to be tagged with R from Eponym
 * 2) Accessory pancreatic duct &rarr;  to be tagged with R to Eponym


 * Also, personally I don't feel I have enough experience editing to debate about template proliferation vs. large categories. (And redirect templates in general).


 * I have tried to provide two potential template implementations here, if you would also like to voice any feedback:


 * Possible R from Eponym or R from Eponymous: User:Captain-n00dle/Sandbox4
 * Possible R to Eponym or R to Eponymous: User:Captain-n00dle/Sandbox5

I hope I have given a good reply to the points you raised, and thanks again for your thoughts, best regards  Captain n00dle  T/C 18:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah I have just noticed on Category:Eponyms that things are not generally added to that category because of over-categorisation, but terms are more generally added to the lists. This does question whether a redirect template is needed, however it would still provide the user with a reason why they were redirected (or a user which was wanting to edit the redirect page).  Captain n00dle  T/C 18:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused by this proposal. Where does the "explain why a user was redirected" part come into the question?  I'm assuming that you've proposed something exactly like R from other capitalisation, which is transparent to the reader.  (See Action Film as an example.)  "R from" templates are invisible to readers.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a fair point WhatamIdoing, this entire discussion rests on "why have redirect templates" in the first place. So what is their point? Is it to add categories, denote unprint-worthy redirects or something else?  Captain n00dle  T/C 01:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see it as another method for searching for specific information. -- &oelig; &trade; 07:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification: The category Category:Uncategorized redirects has been nominated for discussion
Please see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_15 for a Cfd discussion related to this WikiProject. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Template:This is a redirect has been Nominated for deletion
Please see: Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_15 for a Tfd discussion related to this WikiProject. (related to the above notification)

Not positive I have the terminology correct, but believe this is whats called a 'meta-template', a template used to create other templates. The template: Template:This is a redirect was created by User:Lenoxus, a member of this project. The template allows easily creating a specific template used to put TYPE redirects into a specific redirect category - "redirect of TYPE", e.g. "schools" and "hospitals", or "from alternative spelling" and "from alternative name". Categorizing redirects may also serve to facilitate disambiguation. -MornMore (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:R from talkpage
Template:R from talkpage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Cenarium (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Cross namespace redirects
I've created a few templates and categories to better handle and navigate through cross-namespace redirects, they are documented at Template:R to other namespace. They aren't deployed yet. Suggestions are welcome. Cenarium (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Autocategorization of redirects
There is a proposal for an autocategorization of redirects (by the software itself). Cenarium (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)