Wikipedia talk:Redirect

See also: Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/redirects, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect, and Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/Redirect

Deprecation of redirecting the talk page of a mainspace redirect

A talk page is just a regular page and can therefore also be a redirect. This is sometimes done when turning a page into a redirect and always done when moving a page since that also moves its talk page. Doing this during a move is fine in my opinion but in almost every other case, redirecting a talk page is a bad practice that should be discouraged. The reason is that if someone retargets one of the redirects but forgets to retarget the other, editors who wish to discuss the redirect will do so at the wrong place. Redirecting the talk page also provides no benefit in comparison with {{talk page of redirect}} which already acts like a soft redirect that can update itself when its page is retargeted. So, my proposal is that we add this to WP:R or WP:TALK:

The talk page of a mainspace redirect should not be redirected unless that was the result of a page move or as specified in WP:TALKCENT. In all other cases, {{talk page of redirect}} should be used instead.

Otherwise we end up with cases like Acts of God (book) where the page itself is a redirect to Acts of God (disambiguation) but its talk page redirected to Talk:Acts of God (novel) before I fixed it. Note that the utility of talk page redirects is much higher in other namespaces. Someone who looks up WT:R probably wants to end up here instead of discussing the redirect itself. So those should be allowed but people should still remember to keep them synced up (not likely that WP:R will ever change but other shortcuts might). I'd also be open to the idea of having a bot sync up such redirects automatically. Nickps (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging participants of the previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines/Archive_8#Are_redirect_talk_pages_also_redirected?: @Aristophanes68, Thryduulf, Johnuniq, Robertgreer, Flatscan, Redrose64, and Lolifofo. Nickps (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Also @Jameboy and Uanfala from Wikipedia_talk:Redirect/Archive_2018#Talk_page_of_redirects Nickps (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I thought about it again and I'm going about this the wrong way. I'll just ask at WP:BOTR first and if it gets declined then we should consider this. But, if someone else thinks that the change I proposed above is worth making anyway, they are free to pick this up and even open an RfC. Nickps (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, here goes nothing: Wikipedia:Bot requests § Bot to sync talk page redirects with their corresponding page. Nickps (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I vaguely recall some cases where a talk page was kept so that its history was retained. That is, the talk discussion had some possibly useful information regarding the now-redirected associated page? Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I got pinged, and am here to vote keep for Inclusionism. Deleting, moving, shrinking articles makes some sense to me but I'm a huge proponent of keeping talk pages. I like Wikipedia queries to go somewhere useful, and if I end up on a page that doesn't exist, but that I expect to exist, I would like the talk page to already exist explaining why. Mathiastck (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken

The issue is the "fixing" of correct piped links by making them redirects. That seems at odds with the mentioned: Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Before I start a new discussion, where was this discussed earlier? The Banner talk 13:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The most recent discussion was Wikipedia talk:Redirect/Archive 2023#NOTBROKEN needs to be moderated. older ≠ wiser 13:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, I took part in that discussion. The Banner talk 16:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I support starting a new discussion, coming from an inclusionist perspective. Mathiastck (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the OP is suggesting, but I very strongly agree with the consensus in the previous discussion that replacing [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]] is something that should not be done. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with that consensus.

I think the OP was about people changing [[target|redirect]] to [[redirect]]. I think I've seen some consensus that such changes should generally not be done as the only reason for an edit but should instead be done alongside a more substantive edit. Mgp28 (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

As well as I know it, an important reason to use the redirect is that it might be worth its own article someday. For the [[target|redirect]] case, one should consider the possibility of a new article, and which one should be used. I suspect most often it should be [[redirect]], but maybe not always. Gah4 (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Over the past few weeks I've been removing piped links using User:Nardog/Unpipe. In all this work I've had one objection that doing so may create a situation where there are multiple links pointing to the same target, potentially some using one redirect and some using another and some direct. The inconvenience this poses for readers is that their browser can't accurately track which articles they've visited and change blue links to purple appropriately. I don't see this discussed in WP:NOTBROKEN but it does seem to be a valid concern. I have been addressing this by eliminating unnecessary duplicate links and editing the article to use consistent terminology and thus consistent linking. ~Kvng (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, but as above, link names should consider the idea of a possible new page replacing the redirect. I can imagine, though maybe not think of an example, where one might use the redirect, and one not. The context of the links could be different in a way not so obvious to me right now. Gah4 (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I frequently run across examples of this. I'll try to remember to pop back here and update next time I run across one. An unpiped link is more robust in terms of WP:ASTONISH and general maintenance this is probably a more important concern than the link tracking. ~Kvng (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

That didn't take long. This edit replaces a piped link with Computer Music Melodian which has potential as a stand-alone article. ~Kvng (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Template redirect categories

Are there any redirect categories for specifically intra-template-namespace redirects? Tule-hog (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

(It seems what I was looking for was {R from template shortcut}, but I suppose the question still stands!) Tule-hog (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirects in hatnotes

You are invited to a discussion about the use of redirects in hatnotes at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Redirects in hatnotes again. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

An input request

In context to WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT, an input request has been made at Wikipedia talk:Merging#Any rules of thumb?. Bookku (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

New rcat

{{R from word reorder}}

was split from {{R from modification}}. It doesn't have a unique category and it isn't in the template index yet. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I've redirected it to {{R from modification}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I've posted on template talk. @Hyphenation Expert, in the future, you should inform the editor who created the template that you're starting a discussion about it. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

on interpretations of the blar section

for a while now, wp:blar has been interpreted at least in rfd as "undiscussed blars must be restored and taken to afd", with few regards to its content or why it was blar'd. while that's obviously not what it means every time (as always, it's on a case-by-case basis), i've been feeling that the "such as" has to do a little too much legwork to imply that there's more than one option

with that in mind, opinions on naming two or more examples, with something like "...other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as nominating the article for Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion or restoring the article and nominating it for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion."? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 23:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Encouraging BLARs to be nominated at RfD is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing, they already come here far too often. The only circumstances in which RfD should be deleting article content that has not been removed with explicit consensus is when that content would be speedily deletable if restored. The "such as" means that AfD is not required in every situation (e.g. talk page or wikiproject discussion is sometimes fine), it does not mean RfD is a suitable venue. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

per... that one discussion, i'll also disagree with this. for the most part, anyway, case-by-case and all. a blar either not being properly discussed, or being undiscussed entirely, is one part of it. the content it had being unsourced or not properly sourced cruft (as was the case there) is the big issue, that i feel most of your restore votes deliberately ignore. i, at least, trust the people in rfd to be able to look at the history of a blar and determine whether or not its sources (if any were presented) were usable. in the cases of the list of strogg in quake 2 (linked below) and dcvd, for example, they... really weren't. frankly, i'm pretty sure that list would have been bad enough to warrant a specific exception for a7's "not for software" deal at this point

this doesn't mean there's not a chance that the content was usable, or even downright good, or that there's coverage proceeding the blar or that the blarrer (that's a word, right?) and everyone else just missed until a discussion happened, but as i'm almost tired of seeing, some cases just aren't that. on the chance that they are, nice, but while this might be my pessimism talking, those tend to be the exception to the norm in rfd

also, i still have no idea why you keep bringing the "blars should only pop up in rfd if they meet csd" thing up. it was already argued against based on your reason for it being a misreading (coincidentally the exact misreading this discussion is about), the thing that was misread mentioning nothing about speedy deletion or the criteria for it, or being a criterion for anything, and your only argument against that being... bringing it up again later like tavix and i never questioned it cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 02:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Much of what you are saying doesn't make sense, and much of the rest of it is bizarrely and/or plain wrong - particularly you are misinterpreting my comments about CSD in the same way I had to correct you about more than once in the last discussion. Whether something is "cruft", whether sources are or are not reliable, are discussions of article content that belong in the venues for discussion of article content: AfD, talk pages, etc. not RfD. You may trust RfD participants to undertake research that is not relevant to RfD and that everyone who would comment on an AfD for the article will know it is beign discussed at RfD is endearing but naiive and/or wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

if i'm misinterpreting your comments about csd, it's because you took over a month to explain them in a coherent way (that is, one that didn't somehow equate rfd to reversion and speedy deletion), and still ended up being "plain wrong" per the policies you yourself cited. i also said nothing about people at afd knowing that something would be discussed at rfd, where did you get that? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

When you actually think (rather than just reading the words of policy without doing so) its very simple: The purpose of requiring deletion of articles to be discussed at AfD is so that both those involved with the article, and those who are interested in and/or knowledgeable about the article and/or its subject know that it has been nominated for deletion. This is done because the community has decided that deletion without this notice is not reasonable. If articles are BLARed then discussed at RfD then only those involved with the article know that the subject has been nominated for deletion, those who watch AfD (and these days also article alerts and deletion sorting lists) because they have opinions about the deletion of articles do not know that an article has been nominated for deletion.

Content that meets a speedy deletion criterion is an exception to this because notification is not required. Content that has previously been discussed is an exception because the consensus discussion happened previously. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

this requires that rfd somehow have no one who knows anything about article content, how blars work, how rfd nominations and twinkle work, pop culture references old enough to drink, or that more than one thing can be in rfd at a time, that that 2021 consensus shown in wp:blar be absolute and not "yeah that's usually a good idea" (see the use of "most" in wp:blar), and that that consensus not currently be in the process of being challenged cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It actually requires none of those things. Whether people at RfD are competent in certain topic area is irrelevant, what matters is that the people who are interested in/knowledgeable about the topic area know that article content is being discussed. They know that when articles are discussed at AfD, they don't know that when a redirect is at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

problem: nominating something for rfd leaves evidence on the edit history (and thus the watchlist of anyone watching it), twinkle has the option to notify the original creator and/or target talk page, you can just ping someone else involved and presumably knowledgeable, and probably sends a pigeon out to notify you personally (i can't verify this one, i live in a fictional location) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It notifies those people that a redirect is being discussed, it notifies nobody that article content is being discussed. It notifies nobody who watches AfDs, the AfD section of article alerts, deletion sorting lists (this one isn't absolute but very occasionally RfDs get added whereas almost all AfDs do), etc. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

...yes. that's the point. because it's at rfd. because blars are redirects. and redirects can have edit histories. which any voter worth their salt will check cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Except BLARs are not redirects, they are blanked articles. The edit history isn't the issue, it's the deletion of article content. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

they're redirects with history, see good ol' wp:blar cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 15:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

That history is an article. That article was blanked without consensus. Therefore it should be restored and discussed as the article it is per WP:BLAR, WP:BRD etc. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

that's not what either of them say. wp:brd-not explicitly states that brd isn't a reason to revert cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Cogsan, I disagree with your premise. "Undiscussed blars must be restored and taken to afd" has never enjoyed consensus at RfD. I would think that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 17#List of Strogg in Quake II would have disavowed you of that idea. That said, I don't think WP:BLAR needs any changes. If an editor blanks and redirects an article and another editor sees it right away disagrees with the blank-and-redirection, the best option is to restore the article and have it taken to AfD. The ones we usually see at RfD don't really make sense in the context you're quoting because there is no ongoing disagreement between editors on whether or not the page should be an article or not. If a page was redirected in 2009 and it's just now coming to RfD, it's been a redirect for a long time and should be evaluated as such. If the underlying content looks like it may be notable, restore it. If not, delete it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

i didn't say i thought that, i said it tended to be interpreted that way. i wouldn't turn to the dark side this fast, even if the dark side has cookies cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 00:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I know you don't think that, but even "tends to be interpreted that way" gives way too much credence to a vocal minority. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

fair lol. still not a fan of how easy it is for said vocal minority to start discussions spanning 2 months that end up amounting to having missed two words in a paragraph, but eh cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 01:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

That change to BLAR would contradict WP:ATD-R, which states that contested BLARs should be discussed on talk or at AfD. This reflects consensus from 2018 and 2021 RfCs. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

eh? that one also only provides restoring and sending to afd as an example (see the use of "include"). this is the exact kind of case this is about cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 00:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I interpret the Quake discussions as exceptions to the rule per WP:BURO , given the ages of the redirects and their complete lack of encyclopedic content. The general rule that things should go to AfD holds in most cases and we should not muddy the waters by affirmatively stating that RfD might be appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

then shouldn't it say that afd is usually the way to go, as opposed to only naming it as an option? i'm starting to think that the way it's currently written doesn't look good for either side cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 01:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll start a discussion to do so at WT:DELETE. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion started. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

nice-a. gonna dip my toes there when i've had my sleep cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 02:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

redirects to death of.... articles

I've been looking for any editorial policy or styleguide on Redirects from a person's name towards the article about incident which caused their death. I recall reading the debate that when we have an article which is specifically about the incident (accident, crime etc.) which caused someone's death, but they would not otherwise have been considered Notable for a WP Biography, we should name the article "death of..." or "murder of...", "killing of..." etc., and not merely their name. But, I cannot find anything about redirects for issue. Does anyone know of a consensus on this, one way or the other?

We have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) - which is about the naming convention of the article itself. Do we have a policy for whether to, or whether to NOT create a redirect from their name to that article? If so, could it please be added to the list of valid reasons Reasons FOR deleting or Reasons for NOT deleting a redirect?

The primary argument that we should create such a redirect is because it aids findability/SEO from the most likely search term (e.g. Tessa Majors redirects to murder of Tessa Majors). The primary argument that we should not create such a redirect is the same as for having the "death of..." naming convention in the first place – that a person's biography shouldn't be defined by the manner of their death (especially if the only reason they're known to the public is because they became someone else's victim).

I'm not expressing a judgement or vote! on either option, but it would be helpful if "NAME -> death of NAME" could be added to the list of valid or invalid reasons for a redirect. Wittylama 10:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• I would think that the advantages generally outweigh the disadvantages, and if the person is notable for any other reason the redirect may encourage someone to write the article. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk):
• Anyone searching or such an article would know the name of the person, but not necessarily the article title, which could take on any one of several forms – Death of, Drowning, Fatality, Incident etc, so the name would be the most useful search string, and could plausibly be the most common way to try to find the article, so I think it should be a redirect unless ambiguous. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• If I saw a "Death of ..." redirect while doing WP:NPP work, and it pointed to a section on the person's page regarding their death or to a relevant article about it, I'd mark it as patrolled. It's a useful search term and I don't see it as being likely to be deleted at RfD for that reason. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk page scope

What is the difference between here and WT:WikiProject Redirects? These two talk pages seem like they ought to be centralized. Sdkb ^talk 06:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of soft redirects

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 November 19 § Template:Wikispecies redirect. Sdkb ^talk 06:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirect assimilation

FYI, Wikipedia:Redirect assimilation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was created to redirect to Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2024

Add WP:ASSIMILATION to the shortcut list of § Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. No source needed since it's pretty obvious. 67.209.130.52 (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I have undone this change. It is by no means obvious to me what this has to do with "assimilation", and there are no nontrivial incoming links. I think this redirect should probably be deleted. --Trovatore (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Listed for RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 22#Wikipedia:Redirect assimilation. --Trovatore (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

See related recommended best practice proposal

At Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Propose_addition_of_the_following_best_practice_to_redirection_section concerning recommending the use of {{Uw-blar}} _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2024

156.229.32.214 (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

 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. ObserveOwl (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)