Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Redirect/Archive 5

4448: 175:. 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 5457:. 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. 31: 4145:

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.

4401: 3513: 1312: 572:), 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".) 1779: 1644: 1052:, 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. – 1547:. 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. -- 298:, 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 Knowledge (XXG)) should be involved in any such proposed changes. 3427:, 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 6022: 4341: 3660: 1806: 1587: 711: 652: 4788: 4747: 3979: 163:. 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 5460:

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. –

3353:

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? –

4920:? 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 3336:, 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. 5988:

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

5404:

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.

4883:

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

2133:

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

1359:

Let's take Snuggles State College in Wyoming. If it was formerly Snuggles State Teacher's College so that gets a redirect and a {{R from former name}}. 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

2868:

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

5469:

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

4543:

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

3220:

3019:

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

2826:

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

218:

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

4299:

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

4252:

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

4179:

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

2873:

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

2663:

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

564:

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 Knowledge (XXG) is generated by a template. And the template doesn't always match a page here.

5459:

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

5389:

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

2837:

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

1986:

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

1740:

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"

4144:

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

3352:

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

1932:

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

939:

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

1919:

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

219:

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

5176:, 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 419:(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 1268:

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

3447:

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

1987:

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 Knowledge (XXG) for a reasonable length of time with only a single edit is almost certainly a redirect.

4018:

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

2883:

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. –

2878:

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.

2576:

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:

2097:

Hi all, hope this is the right place. On a few occasions, I've followed a link typically from Twitter or Reddit to a Knowledge (XXG) article where either due to a typo or quirk of the formatting, the incoming Knowledge (XXG) redirect is missing it's closing bracket.

901:

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..

1419:

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.

193:, 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. 4050:

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.

824:

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

5282:

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

2341:

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

122:

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.

5501:

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)<foo:

5253:. 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. 1333:, 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. 5212:

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

2806:

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

2997:

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.

6078: 820:, 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. 2134:

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?

975:) 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 4261:, a spelling that does not represent Canadian ( American) spelling. I challenge anyone to demonstrate that the “target of the redirect” represents the “more common variation” or “prevalent spelling” in all cases. — 5147:

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.

6253:

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.

2115:

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.

5279:

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)

3719:

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.

148:

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

4631:(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. 2842:

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.

5980:

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

4137:

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.”

159:

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

1219:

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 <type: -->

5225:

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.

2165:, 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, 2111:

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.

450: 2346:. 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. 1469:

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

3063: 4590:

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.

3267:

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.

1024:"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. 5742:

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

3156: 1326: 5750:

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

3310:. 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. – 6233: 829:

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?

5985: 3809:(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? 3021: 1224:

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. --

1180: 4725:

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

3743:

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

2463:

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:

1712:, 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. 357: 3045: 2934: 2123: 2664:

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?

2002:

Is there any way to generate a list of all the redirects that I have created? In the early days of Knowledge (XXG), I made quite a few before we started categorizing them at all.

2263:, 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 Knowledge (XXG)—maybe the same could be said for 1817: 4529:?), 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 3206:?), 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 1541:

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,

5882:, 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. 4069:. 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. -- 1783: 1771: 3082: 1741:

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

3376:

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

575:

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.

423:; 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 1709: 5637:

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).

4609:

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.

3286:

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.

5185: 5017: 1924:

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

3637:

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. -

2421:

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.

1081:

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

89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 5611:

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

1920:

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

1705: 2911:, 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, 626: 5350:. 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 1493: 532: 1698: 1192: 5214: 5177: 5173: 4921: 3887:

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.

1543: 2528: 1473:. 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. 810: 3339:

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

2976:

RfD discussion for all Duc4Wikmedia redirects without mention. They would all be substantially identical since they'd be nominated for the same reason. --

5075:

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

4540: 3740: 3217: 3114: 5878:

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

4796: 1494:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed new CSD criterion: R5, for redirects with malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers

4479: 2103: 2130:. 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. 3903: 3798: 2710:

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.

2493: 1680: 923: 4257:, an example of Canadian (non-British, American) English, and followed by dozens of other examples. Conversely, the first R from American item is 5041: 4957: 3770: 1380: 5947: 5314:

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

5249:

Redirects for the purpose of data collection seem to be somewhat-accepted on Knowledge (XXG). Currently, they are used on the main page, such as

6144:

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

4360: 2548: 2022:

Hmmm, actually the method for finding redirects in user contribution history described above seems to do the job. Calling this solved for now.

1006: 47: 17: 4115: 4283:

Anyway, if no one objects, I will update these templates’ wording shortly, and later come up with a concrete proposal to reconfigure them. —

1648: 863: 503: 3756: 3527: 3333: 2778:

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.

2158: 1085: 6250: 1849:

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!

5024:(many of which look as if they should probably be disambiguation pages rather than redirects - that one seems just as likely to refer to 5322: 3362: 2543: 2434: 1606: 1557: 1134: 1113: 1061: 979: 933: 251: 5318:. Standardized titles would be internally important; however, these will probably all be piped like the link in the covid-19 banner at 1431: 3877: 1203: 1164: 1154: 999: 972: 223: 233:

template should handle the printworthy of those files. Not some random template that 99% of the editors would never guess does it. --

6122: 6041: 4533: 4432: 4352: 4333: 3541: 3210: 2162: 1751:

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

1344: 1144: 989: 730: 4411: 280:

automatically tags 27k pages, with acnchor, that alone is more than half of the category. That can be handled with a simple fix. --

5355: 5180:)" or similar - but I suggest that we need a new category and a new Rcat template for these botanical author abbreviations. Yes, 4356: 4095: 3431: 1602: 1470: 1075: 1047: 5879: 5569:

Putting the redirect in the Knowledge (XXG) namespace will cause issues for any reusers/mirrors that don't copy that namespace.

3307: 859: 5689: 5628: 5592: 5560: 5454: 5436: 5414: 5358:

is often left to Wikignomes to accomplish. So perhaps full protection could be lowered a bit to allow easier access? Thank you

5262: 4706: 4454:

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

4105: 3603: 2371:

I'd go with "R from shorter name" and "R from modification", but I haven't consulted any other editors here about that myself.

2319: 790: 770: 427:(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 5619:. 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. 5424: 5823: 4548: 3225: 2151: 1745: 1598: 1579: 671: 476: 424: 172: 1199:

At one point up until 2014, the character and element templates were indeed meant for list entries, at least by their name,

4565: 3242: 2838:

wiki article about this album, though French wiki needs either a dab page at the album title or a hatnote at their article

2396: 1813: 4702: 4628: 4222: 3139: 1247: 800: 780: 6159:

I will compile all information in this place for organization purposes, feel free to contribute to the list if you can.--

4455: 3956:"? That is redundant, and the category for the redirects tagged with the template should just be a subcategory of those. 6118: 6037: 6033: 6014: 5616: 4212: 3950: 1384: 1213: 726: 722: 703: 667: 6029: 5217:, and except for those with an "abbreviation" that is just their surname, almost all of them have a redirect. See e.g. 4348: 3667: 1594: 718: 659: 5926: 5887: 5847: 5812: 5762: 5727: 5086: 4968: 4889: 4773: 4734: 4714: 4678: 4636: 4614: 4320: 4243: 4170: 4056: 3991: 3961: 3892: 3778: 3614: 3590: 3492: 3441: 3404: 3327: 3291: 3149: 3090: 3071: 3053: 3003: 2942: 2831: 2693: 2376: 2327: 2301: 2230: 2195: 2180: 2058: 1892: 1831: 1717: 1520: 1456:

Having the redirects in both categories seems excessive. I can't think of a good reason for a redirect to be in both.

1443: 1396: 428: 416: 6224:

Template_talk:Redirect#Suggestion:_display_certain_hatnotes_only_if_the_user_has_been_redirected_from_certain_targets

6064: 4383: 3702: 2268: 1629: 1221:", but the categories are still being named and created as "to lists", making some of the entries in them incorrect. 753: 694: 186: 3048:. I still don't think a mass nomination is that good, but if somebody goes ahead and merges them, I wouldn't argue. 2460: 2296:

I think creating this is fine; however, I have no knowledge of the topic. How many of such redirects are out there?

5912: 5869: 5783: 5222: 5115: 4601: 4202: 3913: 3278: 3103: 968: 881: 844: 457: 38: 5121:. Not sure another rcat template and category are needed, though, nor who would volunteer to track/maintain them. 4407: 4232: 3630: 333:

I have proposed changing which redirects can be speedily deleted under criterion G8. Please see the discussion at

6153: 6099: 5981: 5538: 5485: 5380: 5136: 4992: 4836: 4487: 3575: 2750:

What would be the best way to convert a redirect into an article? For example, I am thinking about doing so with

2508: 2215: 1954: 663: 644: 569: 524: 385: 314: 209: 6040:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 5751: 4359:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 3678:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 3474: 1692: 1605:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 729:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 670:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 182: 5787: 5605: 3752: 3349:. And at least some of these contain information about the subdomain itself. Stuff like this is surely okay. 2798:

Your first option (drafting) works, as is drafting in your sandbox and copy/pasting over the redirect. I would

2264: 2169: 2120: 961: 5519: 3773:

is what should be used in the other cases. I agree the rcat is named confusingly, and suggest opening a CfD.

5218: 5025: 4815: 3358: 2904: 2430: 2279: 2211: 1553: 1109: 1057: 817: 484: 274: 4436: 2755: 6263: 6228: 6223: 6168: 6134: 6102: 6048: 6008: 5965: 5930: 5922: 5916: 5898: 5891: 5883: 5873: 5851: 5843: 5837: 5816: 5808: 5799: 5777: 5731: 5723: 5707: 5693: 5664: 5646: 5632: 5596: 5578: 5564: 5548: 5541: 5513: 5488: 5464: 5440: 5418: 5399: 5383: 5307: 5266: 5234: 5207: 5167: 5139: 5090: 5082: 5070: 5007: 4995: 4972: 4964: 4943: 4893: 4885: 4878: 4857: 4839: 4782: 4777: 4769: 4738: 4730: 4718: 4710: 4696: 4682: 4674: 4667: 4658: 4640: 4632: 4618: 4610: 4604: 4580: 4491: 4467: 4440: 4367: 4324: 4316: 4310: 4293: 4271: 4247: 4239: 4190: 4174: 4166: 4159: 4078: 4066: 4060: 4052: 4040: 3995: 3987: 3965: 3957: 3930: 3896: 3888: 3870: 3857: 3782: 3774: 3760: 3729: 3686: 3646: 3618: 3610: 3594: 3586: 3578: 3546: 3500: 3463: 3418: 3396: 3366: 3314: 3295: 3287: 3281: 3257: 3168: 3126: 3094: 3086: 3075: 3067: 3057: 3049: 3033: 3014: 3007: 2999: 2985: 2967: 2960: 2946: 2938: 2920: 2888: 2861: 2819: 2793: 2772: 2735: 2719: 2697: 2689: 2675: 2650: 2632: 2563: 2518: 2451: 2438: 2408: 2380: 2372: 2365: 2331: 2323: 2305: 2297: 2283: 2234: 2226: 2219: 2199: 2191: 2184: 2176: 2145: 2082: 2062: 2054: 2037: 2017: 1996: 1980: 1968: 1957: 1900: 1858: 1839: 1795: 1759: 1735: 1721: 1713: 1669: 1613: 1572: 1562: 1524: 1516: 1505: 1479: 1464: 1447: 1439: 1426: 1414: 1400: 1392: 1369: 1349: 1298: 1283: 1258: 1233: 1117: 1099: 1065: 1033: 1018: 957: 953: 911: 895: 737: 678: 637: 610: 588: 558: 544: 513: 488: 465: 439: 399:

Hi everyone, a few weeks ago I took over development of the redirect categorizing script Sagitarius+ from

388: 346: 317: 289: 266: 242: 212: 132: 3324:

Hi all, I think the way we add redirects from domain names could use a little looking at. Some prelims:

1929: 404: 6130: 5977: 5842:

Not sure about "↳", though that seems reasonable, but "statistical" sounds much better than "tracking".

4762: 4646: 4558: 3837: 3825: 3538: 3235: 2646: 2628: 2312: 1854: 1501: 1341: 867: 830: 509: 454: 116: 4130: 3557: 2900: 362: 334: 247:

Also, just to be clear, episode titles are printworthy, this means that over 14k redirects tagged with

1649:

Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (technical)#Automatic redirects from non-breaking hyphens in page titles?

6087: 5790:

would be better than using "tracking" as well, so we definitely don't suggest we're tracking people.

5680:

I'm proposing we use this template when linking the tracking redirect, not on the tracking redirect.

5526: 5473: 5368: 5273: 5124: 5029: 5011: 4980: 4824: 4755: 4483: 4011: 3940: 3563: 3414: 3388:, our search is plenty good enough to find our article on Reddit with that search term. Best Wishes, 2751: 2141: 1942: 1925: 1871: 1683:

that proposes to remove the "Pandora's box" section of that essay. You are invited to comment there.

1330: 945: 596: 533:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirects with database (e.g. Wikidata) identifiers

372: 301: 196: 166: 153: 106: 2416: 2400: 1388: 6259: 6189: 5833: 5795: 5773: 5703: 5685: 5642: 5624: 5588: 5574: 5556: 5509: 5432: 5410: 5303: 5258: 5230: 5048: 4799:. The /doc page still needs to be created, and that should be done by the rcat template's creator, 4165:

Thanks, I've been thinking that for some time as well, except that Welsh English is still British.

4121:, and possibly others, carry the wording “This is a redirect from a term in English spelling to a 4074: 4036: 3884: 3841: 3833: 3821: 3817: 3767: 3748: 3725: 3458: 2523: 2478: 2404: 1992: 1688: 1095: 1029: 633: 606: 580: 540: 435: 420: 342: 4726: 4134: 5660: 5250: 4463: 3716: 3381: 3354: 3164: 2815: 2715: 2609:. However, it's harmless - in the absence of one of those, it defaults to the top of the article. 2559: 2483: 2426: 2343: 2291: 2275: 1791: 1752: 1548: 1360:

Snuggles University? And if so, is there an appropriate template or even a non-template category?

1276: 1105: 1053: 949: 907: 480: 257:

are marked as unprintworthy, if the editor did their job right and tagged them with an anchor. --

3449: 451:

Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 14#Category:All redirect categories

6121:, which is currently a redirect (to a different redirect category template). Please comment at 5081:

are in that category, and I think "scientific abbreviation" should be understood as just that.

3528:

Template talk:R to project namespace#RfC: Should we categorize redirects to the same namespace?

3066:. I've also notified the user at their talk page about the problem with the created redirects. 1434:: “There are some situations where placing a redirect in an article category is acceptable and 858:

02:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC) P.S. I will be cross-posting a notification of this discussion at

6211: 6164: 5461: 5395: 5272:

My first thought is that there should be a redirect categorisation template for them (pinging

3679: 3390: 3311: 2885: 2590:

template is a useful way of listing a redirect as-such without going through it to the target.

2473: 1818:

Knowledge (XXG):Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 25#Template:Wikimedia Meta-Wiki redirect

1756: 1569: 1461: 584: 6114: 4180:

use those categorizations in contexts where they are not helpful or potentially misleading. —

4141: 3478: 2050: 6126: 5961: 4692: 4654: 4305: 4288: 4266: 4185: 4154: 3926: 3883:

additionally though, and created the redirect you proposed with the appropriate rcats. When

3853: 3845: 3829: 3813: 3642: 3533: 3377: 3372:

I think one of the main issue is around a lot of them being a little unlikely search terms.

3306:

There's a proposal under way to rewrite the guidelines about links to disambiguation pages:

3157:

Knowledge (XXG):Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 17 § Template:R from historic name

2956: 2916: 2788: 2770: 2642: 2624: 2498: 2455: 2077: 2032: 2012: 1914: 1866: 1850: 1497: 1365: 1336: 1294: 1229: 1014: 941: 285: 262: 238: 128: 5722:

I endorse Thryduulf's point that "ny name should not suggest that we are tracking people".

5453:

The use of tracking redirects has mostly been rendered obsolete by the availability of the

5276:, who knows far more about them than me). Other thoughts about using a standardised title: 4028: 3873:

the necessary parameter in January already, not sure what's unclear now. I've tagged it as

3634: 2880: 2875: 2638: 1921: 1875: 499: 6199: 6149: 5755: 5754:(or a better name) that took syntax like {{tracking redirect|Foo}} that creates a link to 5652: 3867: 3411: 2597: 2538: 2503: 2137: 528: 400: 4027:

and new redirect created for Sayuki the geisha, or would it be better to discuss this at

2422: 1934: 762:

Templates using Module: Science redirect: consensus for activation of further parameters?

431:

to somewhere in your userspace and load that page rather than my or SamSailor's scripts.

6255: 5999: 5908: 5865: 5829: 5791: 5769: 5747: 5699: 5681: 5671: 5638: 5620: 5584: 5570: 5552: 5505: 5428: 5406: 5359: 5347: 5299: 5254: 5226: 5198: 5158: 5061: 4934: 4874: 4853: 4758:

Could you please check if any maintenance pages/lists should now be updated to include

4596: 4576: 4070: 4047: 4032: 3721: 3556:

An editor has found some work for those WikiGnomes who might be interested. Please see

3455: 3424: 3273: 3253: 2852: 2703: 2533: 2356: 2106:

for instance due the need to sometimes (but not always???) escape bracketed characters.

1988: 1684: 1092: 1025: 924:

Template talk:R to TV episode list entry#Issues with the name and scope of the template

630: 602: 576: 536: 432: 412: 358:

Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 18#Category:Middle-earth horses

338: 5346:). I like the idea of this innovative and important role for redirects and agree with 2392: 6058: 6045: 5921:

Indeed this has been the case a few minutes after I posted my comment above already.

5675: 5656: 5021: 4459: 4377: 4364: 3696: 3683: 3160: 3122: 2811: 2725: 2711: 2683: 2665: 2571: 2555: 1971:. It's not limited to uncategorized redirects, but they are easy to find that way. -- 1787: 1623: 1610: 1270: 903: 747: 734: 688: 675: 619: 565:

Sometimes I can just fix the link directly on Meta, but sometimes that's hard to do.

550:

Created new template, but could use assistance on categorization, documentation, etc.

4554:

almost every one of them is wikilinked. So I think it'd be nice, perhaps, to have a

3231:

almost every one of them is wikilinked. So I think it'd be nice, perhaps, to have a

6160: 5950:

has long experience of using statistical redirects (though not that term). Here's

5768:

that also explained the purpose, both making it clear we are not tracking people.

5391: 5329: 4015: 3747:(since it is what's on the tin, a "redirect to a disambiguation page"...). Cheers, 3675: 3671: 3652: 3384:, or something more outlandish. I don't get what we gain from having a redirect at 3373: 1457: 1327:

Knowledge (XXG):Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 5#Template:R to anchor 2

1264:

should be used together with this template when applied to a redirect in mainspace.

523:

I've started a discussion about the speedy deletion of this sort of redirect (e.g.

408: 4917: 1881:

be able to yield some results. Such a list would likely be super unwieldy though.

1786:. I decided to post this here because hardly anyone watches category talk pages. 1515:

What rcat should be used when “United States” is exchanged with one of the above?

6229:

Template_talk:Redirect#Different_hatnotes_depending_on_what_the_user_searched_for

2618:, so that it would appear in the hypothetical printed index in the correct place. 1933:

templates. You are both on good paths, so we hope your editing is productive and

1784:

Category talk:Redirects from Chinese-language terms#Subcategorisation as Mandarin

1772:

Category talk:Redirects from Chinese-language terms#Subcategorisation as Mandarin

5957: 5284: 4866:

Oh, so this is why my watchlist exploded 😂😂😂. Glad it's being taken care of!

4800: 4688: 4650: 4302: 4285: 4263: 4196: 4182: 4151: 3973: 3920: 3864: 3849: 3638: 2952: 2928: 2912: 2908: 2779: 2763: 2584: 2068: 2044: 2023: 2003: 1731: 1475: 1422: 1410: 1361: 1290: 1225: 1010: 821: 366:

category of redirects that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help

295: 281: 258: 234: 143: 124: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2754:. Should I build the article in the draftspace or userspace and then request a 6251:

Knowledge (XXG):Bot requests/Archive 83#Restoring redirects to recreated pages

6194: 6184: 6145: 4924:

etc. Have I missed noticing an appropriate template, or should we create one?

3484: 3475:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Merging#Request for comment: Proposed blank and redirects

3385: 3025: 2992: 2977: 2127: 1972: 1910: 1884: 1823: 5188:

but I can only see 4 other authors there, and we must have hundreds of them.

4586:

Makes sense. There's a tiny overlap between the two .... some emojis such as

3263:

Makes sense. There's a tiny overlap between the two .... some emojis such as

2724:

Snarky or not, never knew about Ctrl + F. Thank you both, that's a big help.

5990: 5904: 5861: 5189: 5149: 5100: 5052: 4950: 4925: 4868: 4847: 4804: 4624: 4591: 4570: 3268: 3247: 2843: 2347: 1657: 5020:

does not show any other authors, only abbreviations almost all of the form

3802: 3585:

I will probably start myself now, but I 22 thousand is quite a big number.

3155:

have been nominated for merging. Your thoughts and opinions are invited at

3022:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 21#Airspace (film)

629:

but I didn't create the category in case you had a different name in mind.

3909:

Someone may want to take a look at this one – it doesn't use the standard

1537:

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Redirects for a

5758:

with documentation explaining its purpose. We would place something like

4510: 3187: 3118: 6021: 4517:. While the correctness of these redirects may be arguable (should that 4340: 3659: 3631:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Redirect § Minimum utility threshold for redirects?

3194:. While the correctness of these redirects may be arguable (should that 1805: 1586: 710: 651: 4509:

to an article (usually the article that the emoji's about, for example

3186:

to an article (usually the article that the emoji's about, for example

2468: 568:

I've created a number of such redirects in the past (just one example:

407:

so that the three script versions don't get confused. With the help of

5828:

do you mean the "↳" suggestion, the "statistical" suggestion or both?

5523:" would be avoided so that the TR could be reused instead of deleted. 3477:

might be of interest to anyone who happens to watch this page but not

1928:

and setting the filters to find redirects only. It's all really great

1729:

Are they doing any harm? If not, I'd be inclined to just ignore them.

6094: 5533: 5480: 5375: 5131: 4987: 4831: 4254: 4014:. It appears that the redirect was created as part of a page move to 4007: 3794: 3570: 1949: 1289:

Already set up like you said. Maybe just the doc out of sync here. --

380: 309: 204: 5956:

from 2016 on the page formerly known as New York (disambiguation).

5743: 3115:

Template talk:R to article without mention#Refining/clarifying usage

2593:"#" only works if the bit following it points to a section title or 504:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Council#RfC about tagging redirects

5655:, which has an "IsRedirect" option to see if a page is a redirect. 4125:. The prevalent spelling is given by the target of the redirect.” 1170:. 3 of these templates have sub-categories in the naming style of: 4526: 4522: 4514: 4506: 4300:

that is different from the target's title” makes no sense to me. —

4258: 4024: 3806: 3203: 3199: 3191: 3183: 2870: 2869:

the redirect. It appears to have been in this case (a redirect to

2259: 1488:

Redirects with malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers

4663:

Thanks! I started replacing them, but one thing: Should I remove

3812:

Also, it is likely when the show actually announces casting that

1568:

Wouldn't anyone like to answer the questions in the interview? –

5494: 5390:

agree that adding a maintenance template would be desirable. —

5290:

For these reasons I think a prefix might be better than a suffix

4884:

is just regular tagging like I would do it with any other rcat.

4020: 2839: 2513: 2488: 2250: 5105:

the only other alternative at present would be what you did at

2119:

As I said, I've done this a few times, but one such example is

5498: 5315: 4395: 3516: 3401:

Hi Deacon. I don't quite follow you. Why would the removal of

3346: 1315: 25: 3064:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 1

2093:

Missing closing brackets on redirects - a technical solution?

6123:

Template talk:R from related word#Requested move 30 May 2021

6020: 4339: 3658: 3633:. It addresses a point of debate that regularly comes up on 2395:

because some of these redirects look very dodgy, especially

1820:. Interested editors are welcome to participate. Thank you, 1804: 1585: 709: 650: 171:

to the redirect's code, which changes the categorization to

6079:

tt:Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler

5903:

looks like the caching has been appropriately updated now.

5405:

We could maybe start the titles with an obscure character?

5298:

Such redirects should be excluded from R3 speedy deletion.

5181: 5032:, and there's no "redirect" hatnote at the target to help). 1130:

I'd like to get input from editors here. We currently have

475:

Would an editor familiar with editing templates please see

5583:

Fair enough. I guess article-space is necessary for that.

4129:“More common variation” is false. Our relevant guidelines 1496:

which may be of interest to editors who follow this page.

3986:. In fact, it took about three minutes to complete this. 3113:

Hi fellow redirect folks. I'd appreciate any feedback at

3046:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30

2935:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 27

2758:? Or can I just build the article on the lines below the 1471:

wikiproject-based categorization of redirect's talk pages

1432:

Knowledge (XXG):Categorizing redirects#Article categories

6234:

User:Popcornfud/The_problem_with_disambiguation_hatnotes

6081:}} that would benefit from your input. Thanks in advance 6055: