![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 2020 | Archive 2021 | Archive 2022 | Archive 2023 |
Best of everything to you and yours this holiday season! and...
Norwegian Bokmål has ISO language code 'nb', and so works in {{ R from alternative language}}, but does not categorise to Category:Redirects from Norwegian-language terms. Instead it goes to the broader Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms. What to do?
Note: Category:Redirects from Norwegian Nynorsk-language terms exists; Nynorsk (from looking at the wiki page, I don't know Norwegian myself) seems to be similar to Bokmål in what it is. Should there be a similar category for Bokmål? Furthermore, should those two be subcategories of Category:Redirects from Norwegian-language terms? CharredShorthand ( talk) 07:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
["nb"] = {"Norwegian Bokmål"},
and so I wouldn't expect
Category:Redirects from Norwegian-language terms to be used, but
Category:Redirects from Norwegian Bokmål-language terms instead. That's a redlink, so I think the problem is simply that
Category:Redirects from Norwegian Bokmål-language terms doesn't exist. If created, I think that it should contain these two lines: {{Redirect from alternative language category|nb}}
{{emptycat}}
{{
R from alternative language}}
uses
Module:Lang to fetch the language name associated with the language subtag in {{{1}}}
of the template call. {{
Redirect from alternative language category}}
in the category redirect templates
Category:Redirects from Norwegian Bokmål-language terms and
Category:Redirects from Norwegian Nynorsk-language terms extracts the language name from the category title (via {{PAGENAME}}
).{{R from alternative language}}
.{{
db-author}}
. You could also remove the {{
emptycat}}
too, just in case. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
17:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
If there is a subtopic that is mentioned in the lead of a page, should the redirect for the subtopic go to the lead or subsection about the subtopic? Generally, I find that the lead provides me overview of how the subtopic fits in with the overall topic. With a targeted redirect to a subsection, I'm usually wondering
If there is no mention in the lead, I agree a targeted redirect is best.— Bagumba ( talk) 09:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this edit whereby one of the edits consists of changing links of "Cultural Appropriation" to "cultural appropriation", I changed it to comply with the WP:NOTBROKEN fixing of "Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect." section. However, that page mentions nothing about what happens to links on direct quotes, such as this...
Online media outlets reported on the content of his YouTube videos, such as "In Defense of John Lasseter" and "In Praise of Cultural Appropriation", as well as those showing support for the controversial Gamergate harassment campaign.
So, how are these types of links like "Cultural Appropration" handled? I also did some discussion at User_talk:Qwertyxp2000#Redirects about the confusion I was getting. Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 05:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Tool for bypassing redirects in see also sections. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
19:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
National Interfraternity Music Council was previously deleted, however the member groups are still in a category by that name, is it reasonable to redirect the mainspace page to the catspace page of the same name, as that would give the most useful information, which groups are in the NIMC? Naraht ( talk) 14:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, ACATR is as clear as mud to me. I'm looking for some guidance/consensus about which kinds of redirects warrant categorizing; I've seen a lot of them being categorized with regular article categories, most recently stuff like this (and the preceding edit), which seems superfluous to me. (I couldn't find anything useful in the archives for this talk page either.) Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 15:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Wikipedia:MIXEDCAPS has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 15 § Wikipedia:MIXEDCAPS until a consensus is reached. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
19:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTBROKEN contains some bullshitty language like "It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]" that is just some random editor's highly subjective opinion/bugbear incorrectly expressed as a hard fact. It's also written as if it's a hard policy prohibiting redirect bypasses, but the community very plainly does not accept it as such, so it should not be written in such a prescriptive and absolutist way.
It's a clear fact that many, many editors do in fact replace redirects with piped direct links; the very existence of "bypass redirect" and "bypass redir" as stock phrases on WP could not be possible if it were not a common and accepted practice. It is the purpose of our guidelines to describe best practice, not to try to change well-accepted practice into some other behavior pattern someone wishes it would be.
Direct links (piped as needed) are objectively better than redirects for our readers, for a number of pretty obvious reasons. Just three of them, and there are probably more: 1) They reduce the " surprise" level of using the site (redirs are not "invisible" to the reader, and can even be confusing, especially if the material at the very top of the target doesn't use the exact same name/term that the person clicked on). 2) When you look at where the link is pointing (mouse-hover over the link, in most browsers), it tells you the full path of the link to page you'll end up at (or think you'll end up at); when this is correct instead of a redirect the user doesn't expect, then it again reduces surprise/confusion. 3) People change redirect targets all the time, often without cleaning up afterward; usually they are constructive changes, e.g. to a new article instead of to a section, or to a better section at article A than the section at article B that the redirect originally pointed to; but with a zillion editors, there will always be unhelpful instances. Then we also have the issue that a great many redirects are unprintworthy (common typos, etc.).
All that said, yes, we do have a worthwhile underlying principle here: making redir-bypassing changes as the sole reason to make an edit, and doing a lot of that, is apt to be taken as WP:MEATBOT behavior, and annoys watchlisters. Do it as part of a more constructive edit (fix some typos, impove some citations, etc.). While if it were not often permissible to bypass redirects, the very phrase "bypass redirect" would not be stock WP terminology; on the flip side, if it were always, for every imaginable reason and case, okay to bypass redirects, then NOTBROKEN would not have been written (even in a better, less "my way or the highway" version). The main reason for that guideline is, basically, "don't fight about it", and it should be rewritten with that in mind. And it needs conforming cleanup at WP:NOPIPE, which makes the patently false claim (clearly inspired by this excessively strident and opnionated version of NOTBROKEN) "It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects". In reality, it is clearly considered good practice by the majority of our community of editors, because they usually do write with pipe (why would we even have pipes, really, if not to use them?), and very often update material to do that when it wasn't written that way orginally.
PS: The only actual rationale offered in favor of not bypassing redirs is, at NOPIPE: "the number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page". But in over 17 years here, I have never encountered a single split case where such an idea was a determining factor; usually the redir stats are not consulted at all. Articles are usually split based on length and detail considerations, as well as a show of independent subtopical notability. And the title of the split article will be subject to
WP:COMMONNAME and the other
WP:CRITERIA, not determined by redirect wording.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
21:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
[[Toyota#Japan]]
. After a dedicated article about Toyota's dealership in Japan was created (
Toyota dealerships (Japan)),
Toyota Store's target was updated to [[Toyota dealerships (Japan)#Toyota Store]]
, and that was simple enough. The problem is that all unnecessarily piped links to Toyota Store: [[Toyota#Japan|Toyota Store]]
then needed to be individually fixed to point to the new article, whereas had the redirect [[Toyota Store]]
been used in the first place, all this link fixing would not have been necessary. --
Deeday-UK (
talk)
13:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[[Hugh Dowding, 1st Baron Dowding|Hugh Dowding]]
when [[Hugh Dowding]]
does the job just as well (and has other advantages too), does not help build a better encyclopedia, in my view. --
Deeday-UK (
talk)
16:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)It is almost never helpful to replace- it is cautioning against changing a redirect to a direct link: this is the exact opposite of your objection. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 21:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[[redirect]]
with[[target|redirect]]
.
Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replacea little to "not usually helpful" or something. I don't really see the need for it though, and it is probably a bit late to clarify the proposal given the overwhelming response. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 08:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[[redirect]]
with[[target|redirect]]
.
[[redirect]]
is usually better than [[target|redirect]]
. --
Trovatore (
talk)
16:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
[[target]]
instead of a detour?
The Banner
talk
16:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
[[U.S. states to legalize recreational cannabis]]rather than
[[Legalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States|U.S. states to legalize recreational cannabis]]is silly. - BRAINULATOR9 ( TALK) 03:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
[[smallertopic]]and smallertopic was a redirect to biggertopic. Then somebody changed the text to
[[biggertopic|smallertopic]], purely because they hate the idea of redirects. Then later, smallertopic got its own article. Now the link points to the wrong thing. It's kind of maddening when this happens. And especially if you have a background in computer science, where use of indirection is a good thing and not something to be tracked down and removed. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Redirects involving BLP privacy issues. user:
A smart kitten
meow
06:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I have just stumbled across this for the first time: consensus is that typos in the template namespace, unless they are very common, should remain as red links until they are fixed. This seems incredible to me: I understand leaving typos in talk pages and other discussion pages, but typos in the templates themselves? Anyway, I have a couple of questions: was this consensus the result of a discussion? If so, where? Can anyone give me an example of a template typo that should be (and has been) kept as a result of this guideline? St Anselm ( talk) 18:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
redirects from typos in the template namespace. Although not explicitly stated, it's the (absent) redirects, rather than the typos, that are in Template:. Certes ( talk) 22:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:RDEL#D8 states: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful." I had inserted "or refers to a subtopic of the main topic" but @ A smart kitten thought "this feels like a change that should be made by consensus, rather than boldly, as it widens one of the redirect guideline’s reasons for deletion." Fair enough. I was thinking of cases such as " Kefirah", a term which is not mentioned in the redirect's target page. (It might be related to another redirect, " Kofer", but don't get too hang up on this particular case.) As another example, if Wanda (character) existed as a redirect to Characters of the Mario franchise, it could be deleted, since that obscure character is not mentioned in the target article. fgnievinski ( talk) 02:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 2020 | Archive 2021 | Archive 2022 | Archive 2023 |
Best of everything to you and yours this holiday season! and...
Norwegian Bokmål has ISO language code 'nb', and so works in {{ R from alternative language}}, but does not categorise to Category:Redirects from Norwegian-language terms. Instead it goes to the broader Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms. What to do?
Note: Category:Redirects from Norwegian Nynorsk-language terms exists; Nynorsk (from looking at the wiki page, I don't know Norwegian myself) seems to be similar to Bokmål in what it is. Should there be a similar category for Bokmål? Furthermore, should those two be subcategories of Category:Redirects from Norwegian-language terms? CharredShorthand ( talk) 07:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
["nb"] = {"Norwegian Bokmål"},
and so I wouldn't expect
Category:Redirects from Norwegian-language terms to be used, but
Category:Redirects from Norwegian Bokmål-language terms instead. That's a redlink, so I think the problem is simply that
Category:Redirects from Norwegian Bokmål-language terms doesn't exist. If created, I think that it should contain these two lines: {{Redirect from alternative language category|nb}}
{{emptycat}}
{{
R from alternative language}}
uses
Module:Lang to fetch the language name associated with the language subtag in {{{1}}}
of the template call. {{
Redirect from alternative language category}}
in the category redirect templates
Category:Redirects from Norwegian Bokmål-language terms and
Category:Redirects from Norwegian Nynorsk-language terms extracts the language name from the category title (via {{PAGENAME}}
).{{R from alternative language}}
.{{
db-author}}
. You could also remove the {{
emptycat}}
too, just in case. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
17:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
If there is a subtopic that is mentioned in the lead of a page, should the redirect for the subtopic go to the lead or subsection about the subtopic? Generally, I find that the lead provides me overview of how the subtopic fits in with the overall topic. With a targeted redirect to a subsection, I'm usually wondering
If there is no mention in the lead, I agree a targeted redirect is best.— Bagumba ( talk) 09:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this edit whereby one of the edits consists of changing links of "Cultural Appropriation" to "cultural appropriation", I changed it to comply with the WP:NOTBROKEN fixing of "Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect." section. However, that page mentions nothing about what happens to links on direct quotes, such as this...
Online media outlets reported on the content of his YouTube videos, such as "In Defense of John Lasseter" and "In Praise of Cultural Appropriation", as well as those showing support for the controversial Gamergate harassment campaign.
So, how are these types of links like "Cultural Appropration" handled? I also did some discussion at User_talk:Qwertyxp2000#Redirects about the confusion I was getting. Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 05:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Tool for bypassing redirects in see also sections. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
19:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
National Interfraternity Music Council was previously deleted, however the member groups are still in a category by that name, is it reasonable to redirect the mainspace page to the catspace page of the same name, as that would give the most useful information, which groups are in the NIMC? Naraht ( talk) 14:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, ACATR is as clear as mud to me. I'm looking for some guidance/consensus about which kinds of redirects warrant categorizing; I've seen a lot of them being categorized with regular article categories, most recently stuff like this (and the preceding edit), which seems superfluous to me. (I couldn't find anything useful in the archives for this talk page either.) Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 15:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Wikipedia:MIXEDCAPS has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 15 § Wikipedia:MIXEDCAPS until a consensus is reached. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
19:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTBROKEN contains some bullshitty language like "It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]" that is just some random editor's highly subjective opinion/bugbear incorrectly expressed as a hard fact. It's also written as if it's a hard policy prohibiting redirect bypasses, but the community very plainly does not accept it as such, so it should not be written in such a prescriptive and absolutist way.
It's a clear fact that many, many editors do in fact replace redirects with piped direct links; the very existence of "bypass redirect" and "bypass redir" as stock phrases on WP could not be possible if it were not a common and accepted practice. It is the purpose of our guidelines to describe best practice, not to try to change well-accepted practice into some other behavior pattern someone wishes it would be.
Direct links (piped as needed) are objectively better than redirects for our readers, for a number of pretty obvious reasons. Just three of them, and there are probably more: 1) They reduce the " surprise" level of using the site (redirs are not "invisible" to the reader, and can even be confusing, especially if the material at the very top of the target doesn't use the exact same name/term that the person clicked on). 2) When you look at where the link is pointing (mouse-hover over the link, in most browsers), it tells you the full path of the link to page you'll end up at (or think you'll end up at); when this is correct instead of a redirect the user doesn't expect, then it again reduces surprise/confusion. 3) People change redirect targets all the time, often without cleaning up afterward; usually they are constructive changes, e.g. to a new article instead of to a section, or to a better section at article A than the section at article B that the redirect originally pointed to; but with a zillion editors, there will always be unhelpful instances. Then we also have the issue that a great many redirects are unprintworthy (common typos, etc.).
All that said, yes, we do have a worthwhile underlying principle here: making redir-bypassing changes as the sole reason to make an edit, and doing a lot of that, is apt to be taken as WP:MEATBOT behavior, and annoys watchlisters. Do it as part of a more constructive edit (fix some typos, impove some citations, etc.). While if it were not often permissible to bypass redirects, the very phrase "bypass redirect" would not be stock WP terminology; on the flip side, if it were always, for every imaginable reason and case, okay to bypass redirects, then NOTBROKEN would not have been written (even in a better, less "my way or the highway" version). The main reason for that guideline is, basically, "don't fight about it", and it should be rewritten with that in mind. And it needs conforming cleanup at WP:NOPIPE, which makes the patently false claim (clearly inspired by this excessively strident and opnionated version of NOTBROKEN) "It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects". In reality, it is clearly considered good practice by the majority of our community of editors, because they usually do write with pipe (why would we even have pipes, really, if not to use them?), and very often update material to do that when it wasn't written that way orginally.
PS: The only actual rationale offered in favor of not bypassing redirs is, at NOPIPE: "the number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page". But in over 17 years here, I have never encountered a single split case where such an idea was a determining factor; usually the redir stats are not consulted at all. Articles are usually split based on length and detail considerations, as well as a show of independent subtopical notability. And the title of the split article will be subject to
WP:COMMONNAME and the other
WP:CRITERIA, not determined by redirect wording.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
21:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
[[Toyota#Japan]]
. After a dedicated article about Toyota's dealership in Japan was created (
Toyota dealerships (Japan)),
Toyota Store's target was updated to [[Toyota dealerships (Japan)#Toyota Store]]
, and that was simple enough. The problem is that all unnecessarily piped links to Toyota Store: [[Toyota#Japan|Toyota Store]]
then needed to be individually fixed to point to the new article, whereas had the redirect [[Toyota Store]]
been used in the first place, all this link fixing would not have been necessary. --
Deeday-UK (
talk)
13:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[[Hugh Dowding, 1st Baron Dowding|Hugh Dowding]]
when [[Hugh Dowding]]
does the job just as well (and has other advantages too), does not help build a better encyclopedia, in my view. --
Deeday-UK (
talk)
16:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)It is almost never helpful to replace- it is cautioning against changing a redirect to a direct link: this is the exact opposite of your objection. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 21:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[[redirect]]
with[[target|redirect]]
.
Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replacea little to "not usually helpful" or something. I don't really see the need for it though, and it is probably a bit late to clarify the proposal given the overwhelming response. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 08:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[[redirect]]
with[[target|redirect]]
.
[[redirect]]
is usually better than [[target|redirect]]
. --
Trovatore (
talk)
16:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
[[target]]
instead of a detour?
The Banner
talk
16:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
[[U.S. states to legalize recreational cannabis]]rather than
[[Legalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States|U.S. states to legalize recreational cannabis]]is silly. - BRAINULATOR9 ( TALK) 03:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
[[smallertopic]]and smallertopic was a redirect to biggertopic. Then somebody changed the text to
[[biggertopic|smallertopic]], purely because they hate the idea of redirects. Then later, smallertopic got its own article. Now the link points to the wrong thing. It's kind of maddening when this happens. And especially if you have a background in computer science, where use of indirection is a good thing and not something to be tracked down and removed. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Redirects involving BLP privacy issues. user:
A smart kitten
meow
06:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I have just stumbled across this for the first time: consensus is that typos in the template namespace, unless they are very common, should remain as red links until they are fixed. This seems incredible to me: I understand leaving typos in talk pages and other discussion pages, but typos in the templates themselves? Anyway, I have a couple of questions: was this consensus the result of a discussion? If so, where? Can anyone give me an example of a template typo that should be (and has been) kept as a result of this guideline? St Anselm ( talk) 18:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
redirects from typos in the template namespace. Although not explicitly stated, it's the (absent) redirects, rather than the typos, that are in Template:. Certes ( talk) 22:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:RDEL#D8 states: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful." I had inserted "or refers to a subtopic of the main topic" but @ A smart kitten thought "this feels like a change that should be made by consensus, rather than boldly, as it widens one of the redirect guideline’s reasons for deletion." Fair enough. I was thinking of cases such as " Kefirah", a term which is not mentioned in the redirect's target page. (It might be related to another redirect, " Kofer", but don't get too hang up on this particular case.) As another example, if Wanda (character) existed as a redirect to Characters of the Mario franchise, it could be deleted, since that obscure character is not mentioned in the target article. fgnievinski ( talk) 02:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)