Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect/Archive 5

R to anchor and R to section
Is there a reason why R to anchor has automatic assignment of printworthy, while R to section doesn't? Seems these two should be identical in this aspect and it should probably work like R to section, as it's strange having these templates handle the printworthy-ness of a redirect, as these are very technical and tangent to the actual redirect. --Gonnym (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * while I was not the one who originated unprintworthiness for the anchor rcat, I did do some research years ago and found the reasons why the creators made anchor redirects unprintworthy with this rcat. The R to anchor is used on TV episode redirects, software metadata redirects for links from images, it is used on approximately 43,000 redirects at present, the vast majority of which are not suitable for a printed Wikipedia. Several years back I finally came across an anchor redirect that I thought should be printworthy (I've categorized a lot of these and found most of them to be unprintworthy.), so I coded the option as noted in the template documentation. When an editor decides that an anchor redirect is printworthy, all they need to do is add to the redirect's code, which changes the categorization to . For the most part, the thinking is that if a subject is a good search term and yet does not have enough notability to even be a section header, then it is generally and usually unsuitable for a printed version of this encyclopedia. To remove this default unprintworthiness function from the rcat would mean that thousands of redirects that are now categorized as unprintworthy would become uncategorized in terms of printworthiness. I don't recommend this because the WMF since 2003 has been using the printworthiness of redirects to decide what should go into printed versions of Wikipedia, so removing so many redirects from the "Unprintworthy redirects" category would make them all questionable in terms of whether they should or should not be included in print. That would just make the 1.0 team's job of sorting redirects much more difficult.  Paine Ellsworth ,  ed.  put'r there  17:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a flawed system though. Being an anchor or a section or a list entry says nothing about the redirect. There are some editors I know that add anchor to section headers and then change the redirect to the anchor, as that is less likely to change than the section header. I know for myself that when I tag with anchor printworthy redirects, I've never even imagined that the anchor template will place it in an unprintworthy category. As I said on your talk page, if some meta data or files are the issue, then those should have a redirect for themselves (and maybe they already do? Like R from file metadata link) and that template should handle the printworthy of those files. Not some random template that 99% of the editors would never guess does it. --Gonnym (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, just to be clear, episode titles are printworthy, this means that over 14k redirects tagged with R to TV episode list entry are marked as unprintworthy, if the editor did their job right and tagged them with an anchor. --Gonnym (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * NASTRO comment automatically tags 27k pages, with acnchor, that alone is more than half of the category. That can be handled with a simple fix. --Gonnym (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind, Gonnym, that I do not agree nor disagree with you about printability. Where I do disagree with you is whether or not printworthiness should be altered without discussion, and that the creators and the 1.0 team (who are ultimately responsible for what does and does not go into a printed version of Wikipedia) should be involved in any such proposed changes.  Paine Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  22:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criterion G8 with respect to redirects
I have proposed changing which redirects can be speedily deleted under criterion G8. Please see the discussion at WT:CSD. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Category discussion
There is a discussion ongoing at Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 18 about an example category of redirects that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help!  Paine Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  17:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Coming update to Capricorn (formerly Sagitarius+)
Hi everyone, a few weeks ago I took over development of the redirect categorizing script Sagitarius+ from, renaming it Capricorn so that the three script versions don't get confused. With the help of and  I was able to add support for every RCat in Category:Redirect templates (and some subcategories). Because of this, the interface you've come to know will be shuffled and the organization of the checkboxes will change a good deal. I'm putting some final touches, but it should be ready early next week. Once it is out, feel free to leave feedback or bug reports on my talk page; I tried my best to make the organization sensible, but feedback on reordering or regrouping is very welcome. If you can't wait or want to test for bugs now, you can load User:Wugapodes/CapricornDev.js (but it's not stable so you should know what you're doing before trying). If you want to opt-out, copy the current revision of User:Wugapodes/Capricorn.js to somewhere in your userspace and load that page rather than my or SamSailor's scripts. Wug·a·po·des​ 06:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Separating fiction-related redirects
Please see the current proposal under discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 14. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:redirect-several
Would an editor familiar with editing templates please see Template talk:Redirect-several. Thanks. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC
There is an ongoing request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council which is of interest to this project. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects with database (e.g. Wikidata) identifiers
I've started a discussion about the speedy deletion of this sort of redirect (e.g. Aisa Bint Ahmad (Q30904322) → Aisa Bint Ahmad) at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Please comment there to keep discussion together. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Created new template, but could use assistance on categorization, documentation, etc.
Hello. I created Meta redirect as a template to use for links coming in from Meta that require redirection. As noted there, generally these come from the Language Committee/Requests for new languages section of Meta, where the link to Wikipedia is generated by a template. And the template doesn't always match a page here. Sometimes I can just fix the link directly on Meta, but sometimes that's hard to do.

I've created a number of such redirects in the past (just one example: Masovian dialect language), but have simply made them straight redirects. It seems to me it would make more sense to template them and categorize them, so I created this. My intention would be to start using this from now forward, and eventually to clean up backwards. (You would potentially find these by going to my contributions, filtering for page creations, and looking for any page name ending in "language".)

I'm not sure how I should categorize and subcategorize these. I can (and will) write documentation, but would appreciate some guidance on this first. Thanks for your help. StevenJ81 (talk) (clerk of the Language Committee) 19:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * is my go-to person for this sort of question. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've standardized the template using rcat and added the documentation template. It adds Category:Redirects from a cross-project target but I didn't create the category in case you had a different name in mind. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:R from long name listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:R from long name to be moved to Template:R from longer title. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Template:R from related word listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:R from related word to be moved to Template:R from related term. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Templates using Module: Science redirect: consensus for activation of further parameters?
Last year summer, a bunch of redirect templates (r from scientific name, r to scientific name, r from monotypic taxon, r to monotypic taxon and r from alternative scientific name) were swapped over to use Module:Science redirect, allowing for the use of parameters to sort the redirects into relevant tracking subcategories. At the time, the only parameters that were activated were those for which the appropriate subcategories already existed. User:Ahecht mentioned to me at the time that several other hooks were built in and used on at least some of the relevant redirects, but were commented out due to the appropriate categories not existing. Of these, I've found during sorting those redirects that there definitely are sufficient redirects for amphibians and for molluscs. Is there consensus for the creation of the relevant subcategories for those two groups and the activation of those parameters? AddWitty NameHere  02:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC) P.S. I will be cross-posting a notification of this discussion at WP:WikiProject Animals and WP:WikiProject Tree of Life as this discussion is also relevant to those projects. AddWitty NameHere  02:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the main redirect cats need to be broken up. I think if the categories would be big enough, then they should be made.  Matching them to the Tree of Life subprojects would make maintenance easier:  Amphibians and Reptiles, Gastropods, cephalopods, etc.. --Nessie (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:R to TV episode list entry
I've posted at Template talk:R to TV episode list entry, but it's probably under-watched.

Currently R to TV episode list entry name and description intend for this to be placed on episode redirects leading to a list of episode article. However, not all episode redirects are to these articles. Articles such as crossovers or multi-part story arcs, have redirects from the individual episodes redirecting to them, such as Legends of Today and Legends of Yesterday redirecting to Heroes Join Forces, or Attack on Central City and Attack on Gorilla City redirecting to Gorilla City (The Flash).

The template name should probably be changed to Template:R from TV episode (or Template:R from television episode) and it's text updated to reflect that it can also lead to targets like those given above ("to a related work or lists of episodes"). This will also make it similar to other fiction-related redirect templates like R from fictional character, R from fictional element and R from fictional location and the other related categories at Category:Redirects from creative works. --Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "R from television episode" would be a better name for the template; less specific about the nature of the target, and consistent with other redirect templates related to ficitonal works. Plantdrew (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

R from ___ English
I just tagged a redirect with, thinking that would be appropriate (article title used British spelling of a word, while the redirect had the American spelling). But the template gives the message that the redirect target is the more common variant, which seems...inappropriate. Is the rcat template note correct? Should it be changed? Should the template name be changed? This all seems a bit wonky. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The rcat R from American English is for redirects between substantially different lexical items such as Pharmacy/Chemist, Trunk/Boot, etc. If the difference is a spelling variant, like Tire/Tyre use R from alternative spelling. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That works; thanks. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Input on redirect to lists category naming
I'd like to get input from editors here. We currently have R from fictional character, R from fictional element, R from fictional location, R from television episode. 3 of these templates have sub-categories in the naming style of:

- so for example:. Location is the only category that is using:, so.

At one point up until 2014, the character and element templates were indeed meant for list entries, at least by their name, R to character list entry and FictR to list entry but that was already 5+ years ago. The episode template changed recently to match them. Since then the template text and documentation have changed to support redirects from "fictional to a related fictional work or list of ", but the categories are still being named and created as "to lists", making some of the entries in them incorrect.

I'm thinking it's time these categories match the template name and usage that the template describes and change them to match the location style. Any comment would be appreciated. --Gonnym (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Printworthy possibilities
I note that the text of R with possibilities states: R printworthy should be used together with this template when applied to a redirect in mainspace.

Surely there is some way of doing this automatically? Quite a few templates will add categories to pages they are placed on if (and only if) those pages are in mainspace. Wouldn't it make sense to use the same sort of markup to enable mainspace articles labelled as possibilities to also be automatically listed as printworthy? Grutness... wha?   12:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Already set up like you said. Maybe just the doc out of sync here. --Gonnym (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

TfM and template "repair" notice
Please see Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 5 – to merge to Template:R to anchor, and stop the latter from auto-categorizing things as unprintworthy when it's not forced to do otherwise. A template (like a bot) cannot make printworthiness determinations, and the "2" template was forked simply as a workaround for this problem. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Redirect from Future?
Let's take Snuggles State College in Wyoming. If it was formerly Snuggles State Teacher's College so that gets a redirect and a. The Wyoming State Government has passed a law saying the school will become Snuggles University on January 1, 2021... Should their be a redirect from Snuggles University? And if so, is there an appropriate template or even a non-template category?Naraht (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Rcats and normal cats
Many redirects in are also in its supercat. Is this a legitimate break of WP:OVERCAT or should the redirects be removed? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The redirects category was incorrectly categorized. DexDor(talk) 14:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO redirects simply don't belong in article categories. However, we don't have a clear rule saying that and editors keep putting redirects in article categories so we end up with categories like this with a few articles hidden amongst hundreds of redirects. DexDor(talk) 14:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Categorizing redirects: “There are some situations where placing a redirect in an article category is acceptable and can be helpful to users browsing through categories.” I don't know how helpful it is in this case. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Having the redirects in both categories seems excessive. I can't think of a good reason for a redirect to be in both. older ≠ wiser 19:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Categorization in "Redirects..." categories (for editors, bots etc) and categorization in content categories (for readers) are largely (if not completely) separate issues. Note: There's also wikiproject-based categorization of redirect's talk pages. I don't see much (if any) point of any of that categorization of redirects and when we get content categories that are mostly redirects it's a nuisance. DexDor(talk) 13:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Redirects with malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers
I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion which may be of interest to editors who follow this page. Narky Blert (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

US, USA, United States, United States of America
What rcat should be used when “United States” is exchanged with one of the above? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Signpost Interview
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Redirects for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 19:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't anyone like to answer the questions in the interview? – Uanfala (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:Talk page of redirect listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:Talk page of redirect to be moved to Template:Talk page of a redirect. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

A challenge for any of you with technical knowledge
You are invited to join the discussion at Village pump (technical). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Pandora's box
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects are costly that proposes to remove the "Pandora's box" section of that essay. You are invited to comment there. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from alternative languages
There are a couple empty categories in there, such as and, tagged with a template telling that the category should not be deleted. I don't understand why this is the case. If there are no such redirects, there is no need for the category. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are they doing any harm? If not, I'd be inclined to just ignore them. DexDor(talk) 12:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * These are sort of maintenance categories: redirects get added and removed, and there are times when some of the smallest categories may be empty. It's alright to keep them as they are – we wouldn't want to have to constantly delete and re-create them. However, an empty "R from/to other language" category may be an indicator of a problem somewhere else, for example the templates might be putting the redirects into a differently named category. If in doubt, try using R from other language with the relevant parameters and see if the page gets categorised in the intended category – if it doesn't, you can ask for help at Template talk:Lang. – Uanfala (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Category talk:Redirects from Chinese-language terms
You are invited to join the discussion at Category talk:Redirects from Chinese-language terms. I decided to post this here because hardly anyone watches category talk pages. Glades12 (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Wikimedia Meta-Wiki redirect
A redirect related template, Template:Wikimedia Meta-Wiki redirect, has been listed at Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 25. Interested editors are welcome to participate. Thank you, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 06:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Finding uncategorized redirects?
Hi! If I want to categorize some redirects, is there any sort of a tool or search I can use to find a list of uncategorized ones? Thanks! DemonDays64 (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Paine Ellsworth might have some insight, otherwise a request at WP:RAQ might be able to yield some results. Such a list would likely be super unwieldy though. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 08:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for the nod, Godsy. I've been looking for and finding uncatted redirects for a long time, and they are easier to find than one might think. I still come across them every day, because there are a lot of redirects "out there". I look for shortcuts on project and help pages. Shortcut redirects are easy and quick to categorize. Watch for closed move requests, since there are still some page movers who leave uncatted redirects behind. Also monitor WP:RFD for closed discussions that resulted in "keep". Having the new page reviewer user right will help you find new redirects that need to be reviewed. Do this by going to Special:NewPagesFeed and setting the filters to find redirects only. It's all really great Wikignome work! You might not get a lot of thanks for it; however, it can be personally rewarding if one has reached a level of not needing a lot of outside recognition. On a quest like this, you might even find other work you like to do, like becoming a page mover, reviewing new articles, even editing templates. You are both on good paths, so we hope your editing is productive and fun fun fun!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 09:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I usually use Special:RandomRedirect. It's not limited to uncategorized redirects, but they are easy to find that way. -- Tavix ( talk ) 10:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Once you've found a uncategorized redirect, you can usually find more by look at the contribution history of the redirect's creator. Set the contribution search to Namespace=(Article) and "Only show edits that are page creations". If you really want to narrow the search down, add "Only show edits that are latest revisions". With latest revision, you will miss some cases where a redirect has edited after creation to point to a different target, but any page that has been any Wikipedia for a reasonable length of time with only a single edit is almost certainly a redirect. Plantdrew (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there any way to generate a list of all the redirects that I have created? In the early days of Wikipedia, I made quite a few before we started categorizing them at all. BD2412  T 03:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, actually the method for finding redirects in user contribution history described above seems to do the job. Calling this solved for now. BD2412  T 03:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, in your case, XTools is not able to create the list. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I have basically done it manually. BD2412  T 22:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing closing brackets on redirects - a technical solution?
Hi all, hope this is the right place. On a few occasions, I've followed a link typically from Twitter or Reddit to a Wikipedia article where either due to a typo or quirk of the formatting, the incoming Wikipedia redirect is missing it's closing bracket.


 * Reddit example: It's very easy to make this mistake in markdown for instance due the need to sometimes (but not always???) escape bracketed characters.


 * Twitter example: User-error can also happen particularly on Twitter, where a forgotten bracket can get lots of engagement, and even if the user is aware of their error, cannot correct it easily.

In both of these cases, I've tended to create a redirect to the correct article for the benefit of people actively following through from Twitter or Reddit. I don't do this with inactive discussions obviously.

As I said, I've done this a few times, but one such example is Wirehead (science fiction being discussed here, which is actually very busy. There appears to be clear consensus on this item that this class of redirect appears 'useless' and I'm not going to die on that hill particularly.

Since I believe there is a clear benefit in handling missing bracket redirects where needed, but the redirection review editors feel otherwise, could this be an area where a technical solution could be implemented? I can't imagine there are many (if any?) articles which open a bracket and don't close it? Could that be reported on technically? If so, the Mediawiki software could be extended to automatically add a missing bracket onto article names which open a bracket and fail to close it in some configurations?

Deku-shrub (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Redirects to sections
I suggest categorising this category into instead of, because the first categorisation is far not always true. There may be a section on a page only covering something similar or even more general. If the section is actually explaining a subtopic, R from subtopic should be (and is) used additionally. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've recategorised it then. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Music Production
Music Production Hebert.travis.tah (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding! 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

New category for gene symbols?
Seems to me there ought to be a beast like this:


 * {R from HGNC symbol}

for things like BRCA1, the symbol for one particular gene of breast cancer fame. And now that I think of it—and have done a bit more research here on Wikipedia—maybe the same could be said for EC numbers? As for me though, I've never even created a category, let alone autopopulated one.

What do y'all think?—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think creating this is fine; however, I have no knowledge of the topic. How many of such redirects are out there? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:R to century
I've just created Category:Redirects to a century; encouraging related editors to populate the rcat. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Template for +/- "The "
I've created many redirects but not paid much attention to categorising them. Now starting to try to add the templates, so I have a question: which template applies to a redirect from a version with, or without, "The "? Like the one I've just made from Public Law Project. Is it just "R from shorter name" or is there something more specific? And if it had been in the other direction, with "The " included in the article title? Thanks in advance for any advice. Pam D  10:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd go with "R from shorter name" and "R from modification", but I haven't consulted any other editors here about that myself. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Anyone like deleting redirects?
Please take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Afshaarn because some of these redirects look very dodgy, especially Mother of the Nation of Great Britain for one. Up Uranus (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This user currently has an open SPI case going on. I don't know what that will reveal, but in any case, these are pretty much all bad and should probably be nuked.  WP:AN might be a better place to bring this up first. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 18:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:R from plausible term
Template:R from plausible term was deleted. I took a stab at replacing it in the 17 redirects using it, but I don't normally use these templates, so someone is welcome to check to see if I replaced it correctly: Messrs. · Andor Szentivanyi · Santiago Meza Lopez · El Pozolero · GLLI · Georgia Legislative Leadership Institute · W. Clarke Wescoe · Stanley Learned · Government Rubber-Styrene · GR-S · Rubber Reserve Company · Southern Convention · Adams County Christian School (Natchez, MS) · The Stew Maker · What the Duck? · Midnight Raid at Chennault, Georgia · Country Progressive and National Party Frietjes (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good work! I've gone through those and most look fine. I've bookmarked a few for further investigation, to check for possible better targets (and in one case, where there's no mention in the target, to see if we have a good target at all). A couple of technical points:
 * The -r template is a useful way of listing a redirect as-such without going through it to the target.
 * "#" only works if the bit following it points to a section title or anchor; see e.g. . However, it's harmless - in the absence of one of those, it defaults to the top of the article.
 * I DEFAULTSORTed, so that it would appear in the hypothetical printed index in the correct place.
 * Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All done. The one that looked fishy is now at WP:RFD. Narky Blert (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Search tool
Hello. Doing NPP work, I come across a significant number of redirects. Many are relatively easy to evaluate (e.g. the redirected term is boldfaced in the first paragraph of the target, or it is a variation of the name of the target). But sometimes I come across something where it redirects to a lengthy article, and while not readily apparent, it is buried in the 10th paragraph (with no # to that particular section). Is there a tool which can search within a WP article?  Onel 5969  TT me 16:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Like Ctrl+F? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, that's not as snarky as it potentially sounds. I suppose one could (in theory) use  for the page name and then add in your redirect term to search within the page, but at that point you might as well just use your browser's search. Primefac (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Snarky or not, never knew about Ctrl + F. Thank you both, that's a big help. Onel 5969  TT me 22:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Best way to convert redirect into an article?
What would be the best way to convert a redirect into an article? For example, I am thinking about doing so with L'Ère du Verseau. Should I build the article in the draftspace or userspace and then request a WP:USURPTITLE? Or can I just build the article on the lines below the  part?  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 04:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would advise going the draftspace route, so there is no question that this is the proper article when it is moved to the occupied title. BD2412  T 04:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Your first option (drafting) works, as is drafting in your sandbox and copy/pasting over the redirect. I would not build the article under the #REDIRECT, because that's a great way to have all of your work removed. I will say, though, that if you want to just remove the redirect and replace it with enough of a stub to survive, that works too. Saves on the copy/pasting and moving.
 * All in all, you can kind of do whatever you want. Primefac (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd go for just overwriting the redirect with a solid little stub with adequate sourcing from the start (up to you whether you create this first in your sandbox or just go for it live - but don't hit "Publish changes" it until it has a couple of good sources or is othewise safe against relevant CSD criteria). Add Under construction if it isn't yet as polished as you're going to make it within the next couple of days. Once you've got something saved you can create any necessary incoming redirects (eg from title without the "L'"), and make interwiki links if any in the left-hand sidebar (though I see that there isn't a French wiki article about this album, though French wiki needs either a dab page at the album title or a hatnote at their article https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%88re_du_Verseau on the astrological era, to which the album title currently redirects, to refer people to the album's listing in the band's discography!), and then come back to upgrade the article. That's my process. Pam  D  14:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The advice above is all good, but it applies to any situation where there might be concerns about notability. Are there any here? There may or may not be. But the issue is only to do with the redirect, and the only relevant question is whether the article you intend to create is on the same topic as the redirect. It appears to have been in this case (a redirect to Yelle being replaced with an article about a Yelle album), so you just create your article over the redirect (remembering not to leave any of the redirect bits in it). There's absolutely no need to waste yours or other people's time with drafting. If you already have a draft somewhere, then it's best to ask at WP:RMT for the draft to be moved over the redirect (or you can just copy and paste it: assuming you're the only author, there's no need to leave a trail of attribution). If, on the other hand, the redirect is for a different topic than your intended article, then it's tricky. WP:DAB becomes relevant here, and often creating a dab page over the redirect may be the best course of action. If your intended article is indisputably the primary topic, then it's best to move the redirect and then create your article at the old redirect's title as above. – Uanfala (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Are these redirects warranted?
I'm looking at the recent contributions by User:Duc4Wikmedia--redirects like Blue Tulip Productions, which link to Jan de Bont, but there is no mention of that production company in De Bont's article. There's dozens and dozens of those, and I'm wondering what to do about them. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've nominated two of them at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 27, let's see how the debate turns out. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, that one--yeah. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you've volunteered, perhaps it'd be best to have one RfD discussion for all Duc4Wikmedia redirects without mention. They would all be substantially identical since they'd be nominated for the same reason. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit unsure about that (partly because I had done a mass nomination recently that was closed as a trainwreck). Also, some of the redirects are of the form "John Doe productions" to "John Doe", which could be a bit more helpful. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those would be fine to exclude from a mass nomination. With this case, a mass nomination is fine. The only reason for someone to object to a single redirect would be if content is added to the target, in which case that redirect can be stricken at that time. For example, I did several batches back in 2017 for a particularly egregious case, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 21 for an example. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've nominated five more at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30. I still don't think a mass nomination is that good, but if somebody goes ahead and merges them, I wouldn't argue. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * More nominations of recently created ones at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 1. I've also notified the user at their talk page about the problem with the created redirects. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, I've opened an ANI topic now. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

R without mention discussion
Hi fellow redirect folks. I'd appreciate any feedback at Template talk:R to article without mention. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

R from former or historic name
R from historic name and R from former name have been nominated for merging. Your thoughts and opinions are invited at. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Specific template/category for emoji redirects?
There are a lot of redirects that go from an emoji to an article (usually the article that the emoji's about, for example 🦷 redirects to Tooth. While the correctness of these redirects may be arguable (should that really redirect to Tooth, or should it go to Emoji?), my proposal doesn't really relate to that -- the thing I want to ask about here is whether they ought to have their own template. Right now it looks like they're all under R from Unicode character, which adds them to Category:Redirects from Unicode characters with approximately 28,409 members. I think that specifically having a category for emoji redirects would be useful, especially in cases like the aforementioned (what if we change our minds about what to redirect them to? How will we even know how many there are?), etc. There's a considerable number of them -- in Emoji (Unicode block) almost every one of them is wikilinked. So I think it'd be nice, perhaps, to have a R from emoji, which adds them to a new Category:Redirects from Unicode emoji. jp×g 14:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. There's a tiny overlap between the two .... some emojis such as  ♥  are grandfathered in from the old days, meaning that they will appear on most mobile devices as elaborate, colorful pictures like the other emojis, but are not part of the Emoji blocks.  — Soap — 15:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd support this too. Besides, not all emoji are technically a singe Unicode character (skin-tone modifiers and ZWJ sequences), so this category would catch those too. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Dablinks
There's a proposal under way to rewrite the guidelines about links to disambiguation pages: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. This has potential relevance to situations where a redirect is retargeted from an article to a disambiguation page, or when a redirect is created that targets a disambiguation page. – Uanfala (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Domain name redirects
Hi all, I think the way we add redirects from domain names could use a little looking at. Some prelims: populates Category:Redirects from domain names, which currently has ~4900 members. There are a handful of subcats for redirects from specific top-level domains (TLDs) which are all populated manually as far as I can tell. We should probably either kill the subcats (which I'd favor) or just have the Rcat template auto-sense and add as appropriate.

But more significantly, I think most of these shouldn't exist. Some are certainly okay: for example, we have some redirects from subdomains to TLDs, like redirects to .ie. And at least some of these contain information about the subdomain itself. Stuff like this is surely okay.

But after this, it starts to get iffy. The main drawback here is that domains lapse, change hands, etc. There are some reasonable cases to keep these, like when a company has some major branding with its domain or is specifically known by it or when there's information in an article about the domain/brand itself. But it seems that the vast majority of these were created in a (semi-)automated fashion with a script that pulled from a page's infobox. It would be helpful to set down some guidance on when (not) to create these, and maybe start to go through and start deleting the questionable ones. Thoughts? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think one of the main issue is around a lot of them being a little unlikely search terms. Amazon.co.jp for example. I'd be ok with some domain level redirects that might be valuable search terms, if the domain is significantly different from the article title, such as maybe wst.tv redirecting to World Snooker Tour, or something more outlandish. I don't get what we gain from having a redirect at Reddit.com, our search is plenty good enough to find our article on Reddit with that search term. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Deacon. I don't quite follow you. Why would the removal of s benefit the project? Best, Sam Sailor 17:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirects are also useful for allowing AccidentalLinking, so while domain names may be unlikely search terms, many of these are probably more useful for linking in prose. I don't think that's a large use case, but it is something to consider when deciding whether a domain name redirect is helpful. I would oppose axing the subcats since they are useful tracking categories. Instead I think (1) we should merge R from top-level domain and R from domain name and (2) have the merged template auto-sense the appropriate category. As for when to create/keep a domain name redirect, I don't have much of an opinion. If the domain name is a stable identifier of the subject's online presence, I don't see much harm in having a redirect from it per WP:CHEAP. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Blank and redirect
Wikipedia talk:Merging might be of interest to anyone who happens to watch this page but not WP:CENT. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 22:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC on categorizing redirects to the same namespace
Please see: Template talk:R to project namespace

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Discontinuation of comments subpages
An editor has found some work for those WikiGnomes who might be interested. Please see WT:DCS for more info.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 16:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I will probably start myself now, but I 22 thousand is quite a big number. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As a result of the discussion, a new redirect category, R from comment subpage, was created and populated. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Redirect editing guideline change proposal
Recently kicked off a discussion in. It addresses a point of debate that regularly comes up on WP:RFD and may be worth clarifying in editor guidelines. Current guidelines allow for any redirect so long as "someone" finds it useful. Interested to hear your feedback. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Rfd listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:Rfd to be moved to Template:RfD. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Possible change(s) to the RfD discussion header
At Template talk:Rfd2 there are currently two suggestions related to the links at the top of RfD discussions. One will alter their position, the other will add another link. Please comment there to keep discussion in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Non-intuitive templates/categorisations
I don't understand why Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages is only for pages that have (disambiguation) in their title. Wouldn't it also be logical for pages that link to disambiguation pages in general? Anyway, confused me after putting it here (since it is what's on the tin, a "redirect to a disambiguation page"...). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @RandomCanadian is what should be used in the other cases. I agree the rcat is named confusingly, and suggest opening a CfD. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Espana
The page Espana includes Template:R from title without diacritics, however it does *not* redirect to España, it redirects to Spain (to avoid a double redirect). However under situation, it doesn't seem to qualify for the template. Should the information shown by having the template be tweeked to handle this case?

Also, it is likely when the show actually announces casting that Drag Race Espana will redirect to the article Drag Race España. However right now Drag Race España redirects to Drag Race (franchise). Should Drag Race Espana right now A) redirect to Drag Race España causing a double redirect, B) direct to Drag Race (franchise) which means it will have to be edited when Drag Race España is created, or C) should no creation of Drag Race Espana  be done to avoid the issue?Naraht (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Naraht added the necessary parameter in January already, not sure what's unclear now. I've tagged it as R avoided double redirect additionally though, and created the redirect you proposed with the appropriate rcats. When Drag Race España is created as an article, the avoided double redirect template will report an error and put the redirect into a tracking category, so it can be fixed soon. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:R because of 2018 NCGAL changes
Someone may want to take a look at this one – it doesn't use the standard Redirect template. – SD0001  (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, why should it "also be tagged with R from move and R from modification"? That is redundant, and the category for the redirects tagged with the template should just be a subcategory of those. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @SD0001 ✅. In fact, it took about three minutes to complete this. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sayuki redirect
The Sayuki is part of what is being discussed at Talk:Fukagawa Geisha. It appears that the redirect was created as part of a page move to Fiona Graham back in 2011. It seems inappropriate that a relatively common Japanese female name such as Sayuki should be redirected to a single article about a non-Japanese who use "Sayuki" as her professional "geisha name". Can the redirect can be boldly changed into a DAB page like Mika or Akemi and new redirect created for Sayuki the geisha, or would it be better to discuss this at WP:RFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Marchjuly By the time there is discussion here, you could as well have started an RfD... I think you can be bold and create the dab page though: in the worst case scenario, it will be moved to a corresponding title with "(disambiguation)" and recreated as a redirect. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response . I actually tried RFD before posting here, but never went beyond "Show preview" because an error kept showing up that I didn't know how to fix. I'll give it another try. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Templates R from regional English
In templates R from American English, R from British English, R from South Indian spelling, and possibly others, carry the wording “This is a redirect from a term in [whichever] English spelling to a more common variation. The prevalent spelling is given by the target of the redirect.”


 * 1) “More common variation” is false. Our relevant guidelines WP:TITLEVAR and WP:ENGVAR allow for less common variations, and indeed in many cases the article title dictated by guidelines and consensus may well be less common. They should be reworded “to an alternate spelling variation.”
 * 2) “From American/British” is also false, reflecting a WP:BIAS against other English-speaking nationalities. Yes, English is commonly subdivided into British and North American main branches, but perhaps the third largest branch is Canadian, which is a variety of North American English but in many instances uses spellings coinciding with the British. Other larger and smaller varieties of the language like South African, Nigerian, Newfoundland, Midlands, Welsh, Australian, and so on, have some of their own conventions unique and separate from British and American. These templates that reinforce a bias against the equal standing of regional Englishes should just be replaced with generic “alternate spelling” templates, or with one unified “other regional English” template.

—Michael Z. 19:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've been thinking that for some time as well, except that Welsh English is still British. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In one sense all English is considered either “British” (including Australian and Indian), or “(North) American” (including Canadian and Newfoundland). In another, of course, Welsh English is different from all other British Englishes (and Newfoundland is “American,” but not). Anyway, we shouldn’t use those categorizations in contexts where they are not helpful or potentially misleading. —Michael Z. 02:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mzajac Use Welsh English redirects to Use British English (so does Use Scottish English, while Use English English was deleted recently). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that was merely an example of the breadth of language varieties. I had Canadian English in mind as my top example, because it may best exemplify how the template copy implies false assumptions about English spelling. When I check “what links here” for R from British English, the first item in the list is colour, an example of Canadian (non-British, [North] American) English, and followed by dozens of other examples. Conversely, the first R from American item is liter, a spelling that does not represent Canadian ([North] American) spelling. I challenge anyone to demonstrate that the “target of the redirect” represents the “more common variation” or “prevalent spelling” in all cases. —Michael Z. 14:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, if no one objects, I will update these templates’ wording shortly, and later come up with a concrete proposal to reconfigure them. —Michael Z. 14:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Updated the wording in these three templates. Not sure if it perfectly matches the logic where it refers to the optional first parameter, because I have no idea why it would ever be used, and the documentation’s explanation “ may be used to alter the text when the non-British spelling is of a name that is different from the target's title” makes no sense to me. —Michael Z. 19:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's for avoided double redirects. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:R from molecular formula listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:R from molecular formula to be moved to Template:R from chemical formula. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

طلب تحرير شبه محمي في 25 مارس 2021
78.95.22.62 (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback wanted for my essay on redirects
It is at User:NotReallySoroka/No such redirect as "Dorian Fried". Feel free to comment on its talk page, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 16:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Specific template/category for emoji redirects?
There are a lot of redirects that go from an emoji to an article (usually the article that the emoji's about, for example 🦷 redirects to Tooth. While the correctness of these redirects may be arguable (should that really redirect to Tooth, or should it go to Emoji?), my proposal doesn't really relate to that -- the thing I want to ask about here is whether they ought to have their own template. Right now it looks like they're all under R from Unicode character, which adds them to Category:Redirects from Unicode characters with approximately 28,409 members. I think that specifically having a category for emoji redirects would be useful, especially in cases like the aforementioned (what if we change our minds about what to redirect them to? How will we even know how many there are?), etc. There's a considerable number of them -- in Emoji (Unicode block) almost every one of them is wikilinked. So I think it'd be nice, perhaps, to have a R from emoji, which adds them to a new Category:Redirects from Unicode emoji. jp×g 14:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. There's a tiny overlap between the two .... some emojis such as  ♥  are grandfathered in from the old days, meaning that they will appear on most mobile devices as elaborate, colorful pictures like the other emojis, but are not part of the Emoji blocks.  — Soap — 15:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd support this too. Besides, not all emoji are technically a singe Unicode character (skin-tone modifiers and ZWJ sequences), so this category would catch those too. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Restoring from archive. It appears that created  (for some reason, without notifying this discussion), but instead of using an rcat template, directly added it to each one of the redirect pages. I suggest this is converted to a proper redirect category. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Created template Template:R from emoji. --Gonnym (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I started replacing them, but one thing: Should I remove R from symbol on such redirects as well? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think so as the emoji is a sub type maybe? --Gonnym (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, is a subcategory of . 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will probably finish this tomorrow, but for now, I have expanded the template to provide a bit more information, making the replacement helpfuller. It should probably also link to WP:REMOJI somewhere. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Should be ✅ now. @Paine Ellsworth Could you please check if any maintenance pages/lists should now be updated to include R from emoji? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ to the index. The /doc page still needs to be created, and that should be done by the rcat template's creator,, or perhaps by the idea's creator, . The documentation page at R from antonym is similar and can be used as a starting point.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 22:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Documentation's been written. jp×g 05:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, so this is why my watchlist exploded 😂😂😂. Glad it's being taken care of! jp×g 04:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That is actually unrelated to this. I added some new emoji redirects to the category after cleaning up those that transcluded the category directly, without the template (which was the result of your Cat-a-lot actions), but I did not mention this here nor is it really relevant to the discussion as it is just regular tagging like I would do it with any other rcat. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

R from standard botanical author abbreviation?
What Rcat template should I use for K.Põldmaa? It's the standard botanical author abbreviation for this person, and seems a useful redirect to provide. It's an abbreviation, but also a short form of her name: it seems useful to categorise it as not just any old abbreviation (with non-standard spacing) but an official code from an international system - see List of botanists by author abbreviation (A) etc. Have I missed noticing an appropriate template, or should we create one? Pam D  10:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @PamD Best I could think of is R from scientific abbreviation. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the correct rcat template.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 22:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure: looking at Category:Redirects from scientific abbreviations does not show any other authors, only abbreviations almost all of the form A. americanum (many of which look as if they should probably be disambiguation pages rather than redirects - that one seems just as likely to refer to Arceuthobium americanum as to its target of Amblyomma americanum, and there's no "redirect" hatnote at the target to help).
 * A further point of note: the text at R from scientific abbreviation has "Scientific abbreviation" piped to "Scientific notation", which is a very different thing. Pam  D  10:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're probably right about the disambiguation page – this is a reason why I'm not a big fan of the abbreviated taxon redirects. However, redirects like are in that category, and I think "scientific abbreviation" should be understood as just that. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * the only other alternative at present would be what you did at and use R from short name. Not sure another rcat template and category are needed, though, nor who would volunteer to track/maintain them.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 19:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So, any other views on where redirects from standard botanical author abbreviations should go in the Rcat hierarchy? Surely there must be a lot of them around, as it seems an obvious helpful redirect to provide. Pam  D  10:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just gone through the "PA and "PB" entries in List of botanists by author abbreviation (P), looking at abbreviations for bluelisted authors which weren't just a surname (ie abbreviation of surname, or added initials), and found a couple which hadn't got redirects and almost none whose redirects were already categorised. Copying an idea found on one of them I've added a note (See List of botanists by author abbreviation (P))" or similar - but I suggest that we need a new category and a new Rcat template for these botanical author abbreviations. Yes, L. is in Category:Redirects from scientific abbreviations but I can only see 4 other authors there, and we must have hundreds of them. Pam  D  15:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I regularly create botanist author abbreviation redirects, but I have felt happy with any of the existing Rcat templates; botanist redirects are the only redirects I regularly interact I leave without an Rcat. There are 4,452 articles in Category:Botanists with author abbreviations, and except for those with an "abbreviation" that is just their surname, almost all of them have a redirect. See e.g. User:Korg/botanists/M-Z and User:Korg/botanists/list_5 for portions of lists that have links to the full name (as given in IPNI) and the abbreviation. I'd prefer a Rcat specifically for botanist abbreviations if it wouldn't be too small of a category. Plantdrew (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Proper way to do "data collection" redirects?
Redirects for the purpose of data collection seem to be somewhat-accepted on Wikipedia. Currently, they are used on the main page, such as COVID-19 pandemic*. We should probably establish consensus as the proper way to do this, whether that is with an asterisk, subpages of a project-space page, or something else, so it's clear to editors what these are, and that they should not be replaced or deleted. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 15:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My first thought is that there should be a redirect categorisation template for them (pinging Paine Ellsworth, who knows far more about them than me). Other thoughts about using a standardised title:
 * It should be flexible enough to allow multiple concurrent redirects to the same target (e.g. to allow determination of whether traffic is coming from page A, page B or direct you need two redirects at least)
 * It should be reasonably related to the search term and/or target, such that the "redirected from" notice isn't gobbledegook, but not so similar as to cause confusion in the search box (which would also reduce the utility of the data collected, see also phab:T24251)
 * For these reasons I think a prefix might be better than a suffix
 * Any name should not suggest that we are tracking people.
 * Such redirects should be excluded from R3 speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just off the top of my head, if it is decided that these need to be tracked, a maintenance category could be used as well as other tools such as Quarry. Standardized titles would be internally important; however, these will probably all be piped like the link in the covid-19 banner at In the news/special-header. It looks like chose to use an asterisk at  because of the asterisk's "wild card" nature in search engines (as opposed to a sans asterisk search). I like the idea of this innovative and important role for redirects and agree with . It would be good to get more of a handle on data-collection redirects. One thing I note is that none of these would be suitable in a printed or DVD version of Wikipedia, and that  is often left to Wikignomes to accomplish. So perhaps full protection could be lowered a bit to allow easier access? Thank you  for thinking about me!  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 19:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, the addition of the asterisk wasn't really to do with wildcards, though that's an interesting point. I actually just wanted something that closely resembled the real name, so as not to confuse readers unduly. I also thought about adding a period or replacing spaces with something else. I agree that adding a maintenance template would be desirable. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I could create an rcat for this, that seems to be the rough consensus here, if no one has any objections. Standardizing the name (and writing a policy page) should still be done, though. I think the idea of an asterisk is acceptable, too, though I do worry it might be too prominent in search results. We could maybe start the titles with an obscure character? Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 04:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I created a draft policy at Tracking redirects, feel free to modify it. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 05:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The use of tracking redirects has mostly been rendered obsolete by the availability of the the clickstream dataset. Still, there are some niche uses left: for rarely visited links (no clickstream data gets published for links with fewer than 10 hits a month), if it's necessary to have day-by-day breakdown (the dataset only has monthly totals), for current and time-sensitive setups (the dataset for a month is obviously unavailable before the end of that month), or when it's desirable to distinguish between several links to the same target from a given article. Still, it will be a good idea to write down some best practices. In my opinion, it's best to go for redirects that, while obscure, would otherwise still be considered plausible, so their existence is not considered disruptive. The order of preference is: a) use an existing redirect if there's one with negligible traffic; b) if none is available, create one whose title is plausible; c) if that's not possible and you end up creating a redirect with funny symbols, prefixes or suffixes, then make sure the experiment doesn't run for too long, and – some time after it's over – take care to have that redirect deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the use of more general names like "TR-1", "TR-2" and so on, would render tracking redirects reusable? When a TR is no longer being used, then it can be disabled. The category that monitors these TRs will show those that are still in use in italics, while disabled TRs will not be italicized and appear ready for reuse.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 05:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * TR-1 is already in use as a redirect to the TR1 dab page. I would avoid anything so general as they will receive hits from typos, misclicks and those confused with similarly named topics, leading to potential confusion and diluting the utility of the data collected. Something like "(TR1) " (where is the target page title) might work. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Good points. Then perhaps the full name,, oslt. Use of " " would be avoided so that the TR could be reused instead of deleted.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 17:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No reason these have to be in mainspace. would work just fine. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Putting the redirect in the Wikipedia namespace will cause issues for any reusers/mirrors that don't copy that namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I guess article-space is necessary for that. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 14:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thinking... we could have a template trackingredirect that takes the input of a page and automatically links the relevant tracking redirect, assuming we come up with an agreeable way to systemically generate them (like  might go to Donald Trump (tracking redirect 1). This makes it clear in the wikitext why the redirect is used, as well as what page is meant to be targeted. Just a thought. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 14:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're proposing I don't see how that is any different from a normal R cat template? Templates can't do redirection (as far as I know). Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not 100% sure what you mean, but we do have Module:Redirect, which has an "IsRedirect" option to see if a page is a redirect. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm proposing we use this template when linking the tracking redirect, not on the tracking redirect. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 15:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah that makes more sense. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I endorse Thryduulf's point that "[a]ny name should not suggest that we are tracking people". 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How about something very simple and fairly intuitive - just prefixing the redirect with ↳. The character is the closest one in unicode to a redirect arrow, is used in only one page title ↳ which is a redirect to arrow (symbol) that says what the symbol is - an arrow. So it is unlikely to be searched and it will make tracking redirects easy to find and maintain while causing minimal disruption. We could create Template:Tracking redirect (or a better name) that took syntax like that creates a link to ↳Foo with documentation explaining its purpose. We would place something like  that also explained the purpose, both making it clear we are not tracking people.  Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe template:Statistical redirect and template:R for statistics would be better than using "tracking" as well, so we definitely don't suggest we're tracking people. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, great suggestion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * do you mean the "↳" suggestion, the "statistical" suggestion or both? Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure about "↳", though that seems reasonable, but "statistical" sounds much better than "tracking". 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of these suggestions sound good to me. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 07:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now moved and adapted all the involved pages to use "statistical" rather than "tracking", Unfortunately, I did not think well enough when moving, as I should have known that purging the cache of a page is not enough to update category transclusions: a null edit is required, which I do not have the rights to perform. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * looks like the caching has been appropriately updated now. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 13:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed this has been the case a few minutes after I posted my comment above already. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Disambiguation has long experience of using statistical redirects (though not that term). Here's  from 2016 on the page formerly known as New York (disambiguation).  Certes (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata redirects
Hallo, Canoeing and kayaking came to my notice as a disambiguation page at AfD to which I was alerted (although actually labelled as a set index), but I see from its history that it used to be a redirect from a Wikidata term, in Category:Wikidata redirects. It is now at AfD as an inadequate dab page. I don't know anything about such redirects, but the editor who created this one, now blocked and locked, seems to have created a lot around that time. Should this exist? I tried reverting to the redirect but was reverted. Is there someone out there who knows about Wikidata redirects and can help or explain? Thanks. Pam D  11:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:R from related word listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:R from related word to be moved to Template:R from related term. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

RfC on hiding redirect categories
There is a discussion on the talk page of that would benefit from your input. Thanks in advance!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 22:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There's currently a proposal to move an existing WP:RCAT template to Template:R from related term, which is currently a redirect (to a different redirect category template). Please comment at Template talk:R from related word. Thanks. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Displaying hatnote redirects only when redirected.
Hello, I am gathering information about the issue of redirect hatnotes appearing too often in order to fix it. For a concrete example I'm using Human body, there is a hat note linking to Gray's anatomy that should only appear if the user has searched for Anatomy of the Human Body.

I will compile all information in this place for organization purposes, feel free to contribute to the list if you can.--TZubiri (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

that have intrusive hatnotes.

 * Human body
 * Weezer (Blue album)
 * Pink Floyd
 * Internet access

that could have hatnose if they were less intrusive

 * The Present Tense

Discussions

 * Template_talk:Redirect
 * Template_talk:Redirect
 * User:Popcornfud/The_problem_with_disambiguation_hatnotes

Restoring redirects to recreated pages
There is currently a discussion at Bot requests/Archive 83 about the possibility of an automated and/or semi-automated process for restoring redirects to a deleted page when that page is undeleted and/or recreated. Please comment there to keep discussion in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)