Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Redirect and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 120 days ![]() |
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | This is the talk page for WikiProject Redirect. Please feel free to create a sub-page in order to branch out from this page if you wish to create a new proposal. If you do so, please leave a comment here so that other editors know of its existence! |
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirect § Trouble making a quasi-external soft redirect. Sdkb talk 21:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Unclear talk page scopes
[edit]It's not all that clear from the talk page banners which conversations belong here and which belong at WT:Redirect. Is it that that page is only for discussions about possible changes to the guideline? This should be sorted out and the talk page banners adjusted accordingly to provide clear instruction. The talk pages could even be merged to centralize if needed. Sdkb talk 21:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think it makes sense to merge and redirect this talk page to WT:REDIRECT. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure - my impression was that WT:R was for discussions about the guideline, whereas this WikiProject talk page could be used for discussions about redirects in general/other aspects of redirects that don't directly involve the guideline. There probably is a bit of overlap, but I'm not sure right now that merging the talk pages would be best. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 23:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Seems to me that most of the discussions are pretty similar. Compare Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Subtopic in lead: use targeted or untargeted redirect? with #Correct categorization for redirects to/from yyyy-mm-dd (ISO 8601) dates. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure - my impression was that WT:R was for discussions about the guideline, whereas this WikiProject talk page could be used for discussions about redirects in general/other aspects of redirects that don't directly involve the guideline. There probably is a bit of overlap, but I'm not sure right now that merging the talk pages would be best. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 23:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:R to sports team
[edit]Template:R to sports team has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
R to soft redirects
[edit]Are redirects to soft redirects allowed? Example: Special:Diff/1222266997. Sometimes, Wiktionary prefers one term over the other, in this case it means "Exhibiting monosexism". This one can be justifiable, but in the case of awomen, Wiktionary defines it as "Alternative form of awoman". So I believe awomen should redirect to awoman. --MikutoH talk! 05:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- To editor MikutoH: just a little question: we see at the previous edit in that Special:Diff you mentioned that you moved "monosexist" to "monosexism" and cited WP:NOUN. It seems that you don't consider "monosexist" to be a noun, but it is, isn't it? Why the page move, then? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Some nouns are preferred over the others, that's why we have heterosexism and not heterosexist (or monosexuality and not monosexual). But that could also be a case of Wikipedia:COMMON NAME. --MikutoH talk! 05:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Where is this in WP policy that some nouns are preferred over other nouns? I don't see that at WP:NOUNS. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Let me comment what I perceived: WP:NOUN is often used as a reason for accepting uncontroversial request moves, see here.
- But why would you ask me it if you're already a page mover? You know more than me. Or maybe you're testing me. --MikutoH talk! 05:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- We read below very sound explanations from revered and respected editors that you are correct. Sincerely, I was not testing you; however, if I had been testing you, then I believe you passed. I'm sorry that I off-tracked your initial question. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think it makes sense to prefer the basic "ism" noun and redirect from the "ist" noun which is about a person who adheres to the "ism", as in Buddhist redirecting to Buddhism.
- It ought to be possible to have the two soft redirects, with a {{R avoiding double redirect}} to make sure that if an article is created at some point the trailing redirect is redirected. I added it but it didn't work because a soft redirect isn't technically a redirect: there should be some equivalent template for cases where multiple terms, which would redirect to the same article if there was one, are currently redirecting to a Wiktionary item. PamD 07:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I would just add a note on the talk page of both soft redirects. I would guess that this situation isn't all that common such that another template and tracking category are needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Where is this in WP policy that some nouns are preferred over other nouns? I don't see that at WP:NOUNS. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Guideline help on redirects for non-notable actors to their work
[edit]I created a redirect from Jayden Revri, who is not notable enough for his own article, to his most recent work that just came out. What's the policy or guideline on what the target of this redirect should be? He has several other credits, at least a few of which have their own articles. Presumably it should be the show he's most known for? — TARDIS builder✉ ★ 14:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Unless one of the articles actually says something substantive about the actor, I think it would be better to leave it as a redlink to make it clear there is no article rather than directing readers to some article that has little more than a passing mention of the actor's name. older ≠ wiser 14:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed; he currently has two main cast billings (Dead Boy Detectives and The Lodge) and one recurring cast billing. I do suppose if he's more well-known or visible in either of the first two I would redirect to that cast list, but otherwise I concur that a redlink might be more "valuable" at this point in time. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:R from gap in series necessity
[edit]I recently brought {{R from gap in series}} to TfD. It was closed as no consensus due to low participation, with the caveat that it would be overturned to delete if this WikiProject finds the template unnecessary. As such, I'm bringing the question here: do folks think this template is needed? Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 15:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like this is not a very strong issue with editors, either here or at TfD. Probably the best person to ask whether or not this rcat template should be kept is its 2022 creator, editor Jochem van Hees. I'm neutral on whether or not this template is necessary, but I would like to learn the details about why it was thought necessary to keep track of these gaps by sorting them to their own category. What was gained? and what would be lost if the template and category were to be deleted? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Voorts and Paine Ellsworth: hey there! I've been quite inactive on Wikipedia lately so I didn't notice the discussions. I created this redirect category after an Rfd about exactly these redirects in December 2021/January 2022, during which jnestorius proposed this template. The RfD closed as no consensus, but I thought this template could be useful to explain why these redirects are there if we're gonna keep them anyway. It happens every now and then that someone recreates the article even though the topic is not notable, so having the redirect itself state that it is not notable could maybe help.
- Looking back, I don't think it made any difference. Been digging through article histories a bit and a total of one of these redirects, Turkey in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979, was turned into an article (and subsequently reverted) despite having the template. However, most of these articles remain untouched since the template was added. Furthermore, I don't recall any instance of me using the category; all I've ever done is add the template and leave. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think the reasons people are asking "what is the purpose of this template?" are that its documentation is sparse and contradicts itself and that it has not been added to enough articles to allow its purpose to be inferred by looking at its Whatlinkshere. IIRC my original suggesting was for cases where the real world entity was absent, rather than merely where there was not (yet) a (standalone) Wikipedia article for the entity. Readers might manually iterate through a sequence of articles and wonder why there was a gap; {{Category series navigation}} can semi automate such iteration. Distinguishing realworld gaps from Wikipedia gaps is important. Examples of the former would include Pope John XX or many of Category:Events cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There are cases of realworld gaps with full non-redirect articles (eg 1940 Summer Olympics) but if there is only a redirect then this Rcat is appropriate. Seldom but not never will the redirect be {{R with possibilities}} Sometimes but not always will the redirect be {{R to list}}. This can be in the documentation. jnestorius(talk) 11:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Colors script
[edit]Is there a color change script for redirects? I only know a gadget for disambiguations. Or was it disallowed? Because in ptwiki and eswiki there's a gadget. --MikutoH talk! 01:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Notice of discussion at Talk:Popverse#Redirect templates
[edit] There is currently a discussion at Talk:Popverse regarding the use of {{Avoided double redirect}} in correlation to a miscapitalization redirect pointing to the same entry. The thread is Redirect templates. The discussion is about the topic Popverse. Thank you. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- In particular, we could use someone who is into redirect tagging to take a look and clarify what to do, so we can settle a dispute. Dicklyon (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Discussion of redirects from draftspace to mainspace not from move
[edit]A discussion has been initiated regarding redirects from the draftspace to the mainspace that are not the result of a move. Interested editors are welcome to comment at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Redirects from draftspace to the mainspace which are not the result of a move. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirects in hatnotes
[edit]You are invited to a discussion about the use of redirects in hatnotes at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Redirects in hatnotes again. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Recommended redirect templates
[edit]There are recommendations at Wikipedia_talk:Template_index/Redirect_pages that may interest editors of this WikiProject. Tule-hog (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)