![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
I encountered the word “printworthiness” in one of the R from templates; so I looked it up in Wiktionary:printworthiness. Nothing there: it must be a Wikipedia-only neologism. Still curious, I went to Wikipedia:Printworthiness, which brought me to this WikiProject's style guide subpage. I am still unenlightened: I gather it applies only to redirects? And it has something or other to do with a print version of Wikipedia?
Somewhere (on the style guide subpage or perhaps in a new page replacing the Wikipedia:Printworthiness redirect) there should be an explanation: How would it be used? What are the guidelines on what is “printworthy”? — teb728 t c 20:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Дракуля which redirects to Dracula is listed as a Template:R from alternative language which is absolutely fine. *However*, Дракула is the spelling used for Dracula in a number of languages with the Cyrillic Alphabet including at least Russian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Serbian and the old Belarusian(be-x-old) (I found wikipedia pages under those names for the Original Novel at least in those languages). Do I put five copies of Template:R from alternative language into the article, one for each language, do I choose one(how?), or do I just leave it as unspecified? Naraht ( talk) 17:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
[show]
link, then you will see the text generated by the {{
Redr}} template. Near the top is a hatnote that links to the article on
Cyrillic script. While fixing the flaw you helped me find, I also tweaked the text to include the possibility of more than one language. Now click to open the Edit screen and take a look at the code to see how that page is generated. That code is my suggestion for how to handle this type of redirect. Hope this helps – Joys! –
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX!
21:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
|e#=
parameter. The
Дракуля redirect should probably be deleted because it really does not represent a "language" redirect and it is not mentioned on its target page. Because of this, I intend to self revert the edits I just made to RFAL because the correct usage would almost always be from one language to one language. I have been rcatting a long time, and there has never been a need to use one rcat more than one time on a redirect. Using the same rcat more than once on a redirect would probably just add to confusion. –
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX!
01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)I've been asked on my talk page about foreign language redirects. The ones in question are බණ්ඩාරනායක, නලින් ද සිල්වා, and ඩී.එස්. සේනානායක. Would these be OK as redirects if they're not romanized? Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
{{Redr|from alternative language|p1=si|n1=en|unprintworthy}}
|p1=
parameter holds the "from" language code for the
Sinhala language, "si", and the |n1=
parameter holds the
English language code, "en". I held up, because I think the targets might really be Romanized (Latin) versions of the redirect scripts, so now I'm stuck a little myself. I usually just use the "en" for the "to" language, but as you mentioned the redirects are not Romanized, so it may be incorrect to say that their targets are in the English language. Maybe someone else will be able to help us with this? –
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX!
19:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Just wrote an essay on printability ( printworthiness) at:
Maybe another step toward a
guideline?
–
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX!
07:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
They've gotten better but:
No thanks. Categories should be categories. We should be sending them to a help page, or a section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.164.90 ( talk) 18:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask, but is there any advice/guidance to best practices for categorizing what should essentially be double redirects? The case I just came across is as follows. Evodia rutaecarpa is a (very common) misspelling of Euodia ruticarpa, which in turn is an alternative scientific name for Tetradium ruticarpum. Should Evodia rutaecarpa be categorized as a misspelling (however the redirect target, Tetradium ruticarpum is not the correct spelling of the misspelled name). Should it be categorized as an alternative scientific name (but it's a misspelling of a scientific name)? Should it get both redirect categories? This also comes up with redirects from scientific names to common names and redirects from alternative scientific names. E.g., Lagenaria vulgaris is an alternative scientific name for Lagenaria siceraria, which redirects to the article at the common name Calabash. If Wikipedia allowed double redirects, this would be easy to resolve. I'm inclined to categorize as if double redirects were allowed although this means the rcat template text will be saying something incorrect about the redirect target (i.e. I'm thinking Evodia rutaecarpa should be categorized as a misspelling even though the target isn't the correct spelling of the term, and Lagenaria vulgaris should be an alternative scientific name even though the target isn't the correct scientific name). Any thoughts on how to handle these? Plantdrew ( talk) 20:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
{{Redr|move|typo|p2=Euodia ruticarpa|unprintworthy}}
{{Redr|move|typo|p2={{-r|Euodia ruticarpa}}|unprintworthy}}
{{Redr|from alternative scientific name|p1=plant|printworthy}}
To editor
Plantdrew: Sorry, I haven't felt up to these more intricate apps, lately, as I just had an operation on the 9th. To cover your second example above, it seems that one way would be just to alter the text a little, so that is what I did at {{
R from alternative scientific name}}, which now reads "This is a redirect from an alternative scientific name of an organism to the common name or (edit reverted) the accepted scientific name." If you can think of a better way, then do feel free to make it so. –
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX!
10:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
To editor P64: In your "#1" above, the double redirect is covered by the 1st parameter in {{ R typo}}, which changes the text to "This is a redirect from a misspelling or typographical error. The correct form is (parameter 1's correct spelling)."
{{DEFAULTSORT}}
may be used on a redirect anytime the sort should be different than the redirect's page name. Both Fichstrom and Zemack can carry {{DEFAULTSORT:Fichstrom, Harvey}}
and {{DEFAULTSORT:Zemack, Harve}}
, respectively. I always put that sort on the fifth line – in example:#REDIRECT [[Harvey Fichstrom]] {{Redr|from spouse|printworthy}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Fichstrom, Harvey}}
To editor Plantdrew: As noted above my edit to the alt-sci-name rcat was reverted, and this discussion ensued. Hopefully, this will be the appropriate categorization for now. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Do we have a redirect template where a title for a person has been redirected to a more suitable article? For example, Heather Cho was recently redirected to Nut rage incident. It seems to be it would be good to categorize these, where there is not enough material for a standalone article and there are BLP concerns ( WP:BLP1E comes to mind). But I'm not sure if there's already something like that. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm curious what would be considered best practice for handling an R from Merge when you wish to change the target. From the text of the template and from discussions like this I gather that attribution is the central concern and I appreciate that, but if the target is altered then the text of the template is inaccurate, and it seems considerably less likely that the edit history of the redirect will even be re-discovered at a future date.
I find concrete examples are often easier to understand so here's my example:
How should I proceed in this example? One option I can see is to change the target and add a note below the "R from Merge" template explaining about the old target and the merge. Another option might be to change the target and replace the "R from Merge" template with a note explaining the old target and the merge. Or would it be OK to just change the target and forget about the inaccuracies caused by the text of the R from Merge template? Or should I change target and remove "R from Merge"? If anyone could provide some direction in this matter I'd be grateful. - Thibbs ( talk) 10:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
copied}}
should be placed on the talk pages of both the redirect and the merged article.
Anon124 (+2) (
notify me of responses! /
talk /
contribs)
19:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)I have opened an RfC at the Village Pump, regarding a bot request that will create over 77000 redirects. Please reply there with any comments. Jamesmcmahon0 ( talk) 21:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
{{ No redirect}}, a template used on 49,963 pages for the purpose of producing a link to a redirected page (rather than a link to the redirect's target), is not working. More detail on the template's talk page. A good sign is that the equivalent template on the French Wikipedia is working with the expected behaviour. Can someone please have a look? Place Clichy ( talk) 16:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
An RfC has been opened to see if WP:NOTFAQ and WP:NOTHOWTO should or should not apply to redirects. For the discussion, see WT:NOT#RfC: Should we add a footnote to WP:NOTHOWTO/WP:NOTFAQ stating that it does not apply to redirects? -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 04:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I've been doing a few merges at Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion, and typically I just remove the wikiproject banners from the resulting redirect. Should I leave the banners and change the class to redirect? I don't see any point in keeping the banners, but I may be missing something. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 23:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Placement of redirects in article categories, as an alternative to placement of target articles there, is inadequate for general navigation; it provides navigation only down the category tree, downward navigation. So the practice isn't worth general support; as a guideline it's one to be broken frequently.
Prompted by discussion elsewhere ( WT:Categorization of people, section "Clarification sought ...", now section 4, which cannot be linked directly), I have provided some further explanation (there) and illustration of one workaround that (previously suggested here and there without illustration).
Illustration of workaround:
Thus, voila, navigation at one remove to Category:Kate Greenaway Medal winners (Janet) and Category:British children's book illustrators (Janet and daughter Jessica Ahlberg), no:Allan Ahlberg and pl:Allan Ahlberg.
The workaround does not provide navigation from Allan Ahlberg at NO.wiki or PL.wiki to coverage here, or in Catalan or French languages, which is joint. Such reciprocal interlanguage linkage needs incorporation of Wikipedia redirect pages by Wikidata (perhaps in a fancy way needing software upgrade) or maintenance for this purpose of the related articles in all languages. -- P64 ( talk) 22:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Seems that when {{
R fully protected}}
was changed in 2014 to specify full protection, it was still being used on semi-protected redirects. Many of those redirects thus sit flagged with a now inaccurate template. This obviously isn't urgent, but if you're bored, maybe one or two of you will look through its transclusions and replace with {{
R semi-protected}}
where appropriate.
173.209.211.211 (
talk)
10:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Category:Printworthy redirects and Category:Unprintworthy redirects have been nominated for deletion.
I would assume that {{ printworthy redirect}} and {{ unprintworthy redirect}} are also affected
-- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 06:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
...at Talk:William Sloane Coffin, Sr.. There's a couple of questions there, one of them specific to redirects. BMK ( talk) 23:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to a discussion at MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr to help determine consensus in regard to whether or not to use the {{ This is a redirect}} (shortcut is "Redr") template to apply {{ R from move}} automatically to redirects that are left behind from page moves. Happy holidays! Paine 12:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Over at village pump (technical), I've suggested creating a bot to check that section redirects actually go to valid sections, and aren't broken. If you'd like to participate, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 142#Bot to check redirects to section. Cheers. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
A proposal has been made to extend the What Wikipedia is not policy to forbid the creation of certain redirects. If you would like to comment on the proposal, please see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal: Extend "Wikipedia is not a Directory" to cover unnecessary redirects. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 21:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
While trying to categorize some uncategorized articles, I stumbled across Category:All redirect categories, and I have to say it seems like a mess to me. There are so many categories in it, particularly the myriad character and episode redirect categories, that it is difficult to find the category you need for a particular article. I think it would be better for this category to be a top-level category, and then put other categories below it. For example, all fictional character redirects to lists could be only in Category:Fictional character redirects to lists, which in turn is in the all redirects category. Right now many of these fictional character redirects to lists are double-listed in both the fictional character redirects category and the all redirects category, which creates a lot of clutter. Does anyone object to me beginning to make changes like this?-- Danaman5 ( talk) 15:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Heya, I've been making a fair number of redirects based on XFD outcomes, and I realized that while {{ r from merge}} works when two pages are merged together, there isn't any "r from XFD" template that would allow for the outcome to be pasted. Would it make sense to create such a template? My thought would be to have a parameter be the link to the XFD outcome. Primefac ( talk) 03:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I am presently concerned with fixing redirects to sections that have been since renamed or perhaps removed, e.g. the redirect Mayor of Pitcairn redirects to Section 1: section #Local Heads of Government (1790–present) of the article List of rulers of the Pitcairn Islands. So, in the scenario that the section title were to be renamed as #Local Heads of Government since 1790, the redirect would subsequently only link to the article in question (and no specific section in particular), as that section title would no longer exist. Unless an editor notices the redirect is partially broken and decides to fix it, the redirect itself is redundant as it links to a dead article section. Is there any swift way to fix this problem? Thanks.-- Neve – selbert 06:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
A proposed user right, Wikipedia:Page mover, would expand the ability to move pages without leaving a redirect behind to non-administrators. Interested editors can express their opinion at Wikipedia talk:Page mover#RFC - Proposed: "Page mover" permission to be created.— Godsy( TALK CONT) 19:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Is there a template or category for redirects such as "President John Doe" -> "John Doe"? I can't see one but this seems such an obvious category that I'm sure it must be in there somewhere. In the unlikely event that it's not been thought of many times before, would it be a useful addition? Certes ( talk) 16:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
A recently created article (currently at AfD) has been redirected twice but the redirect keeps getting reverted without any real rationale given. The article in question is Murder of Ingrid Lyne. Because murder has not been proven but death has, it seems to me that 'murder' is not only inaccurate but inappropriate, POV, and a possible case of libel in regard to the suspect. The article could be changed to 'Death of Ingrid Lyne'. Originally (from what I saw) it was just 'Ingrid Lyne'. Can someone please help and advise on this? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
This presently displays as "a redirect: From an
initialism", which is both wrong an confusing. Cases such as
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. and
Proc Natl Acad Sci are numerous, and they should not be showing this message, while
PNAS should. I'd suggest that a separate template message is needed for redirects from abbreviations. Indeed, replacement with {{
R from ISO 4}} might be better for many of these. It's worth pointing out that most articles in
wp:WikiProject Academic Journals have this as parameter |abbreviation=
in {{
Infobox journal}}
LeadSongDog
come howl!
19:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Considering how US government sources often list personnel as Surname, Given name, as here for example, is there any merit for hosting redirects in this form on Wikipedia? Is it enough to warrant the creation of a whole class of redirect? I apologize if this has been previously asked. Thank you.-- John Cline ( talk) 23:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for comments regarding a proposed change to the {{ rfd2}} template, which affects this WikiProject. Users participating in the project may be interested in the request for comments. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 13:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Wondering if there's appetite to explore allowing non-admins to close a redirect discussion (for example, this one) which are obvious delete results. Currently, per WP:BADNAC, non-admins are not allowed to close discussions where they can't carry out the result. My thinking is a non-admin user could close such a discussion as "consensus to delete (nac)" and then tag the redirect WP:G6, referring to the discussion. This will help with the backlog by allowing more of the obvious result threads to be closed without waiting for a patrolling admin. There's of course some risk that a user could abuse this to get a redirect deleted out of process, but redirects are cheap and that kind of thing would get noticed and repaired pretty quickly if it resulted in significant disruption. A while back they tried this at WP:TfD and it seems to be working just fine. I do have some ideas for conditions in mind, but don't want to waste time on it if there's just no interest in talking about it at all. What do you think? Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 04:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually I was one of the people who pushed for the clause "[NAC is inappropriate if the] result will require action by an administrator" a few years ago, because it wouldn't reduce the amount of work that needs to be done by admins. But I made that argument in the context of AfD. I'm now open to the idea after reading the argument here, noting that the problem we have is we have very few regular closing admins, so an effective stall would happen if all admin regulars opined in a discussion. Maybe non-admin "delete" closures will even attract admins to take an interest in RfD. tl;dr: Let's experiment. Der yck C. 22:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
|
Please see Template talk:R to project namespace#Let's stop pointlessly adding redundant rcats (which I suppose in theory could apply to some other namespace-related rcat templates, though that one in particular seems to be the biggest problem). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
PS: In a similar vein, I've WP:BOLDly narrowed the scope of {{ R to subpage}} a bit [1], because I keep seeing it used in ways that don't do anything useful for us.
PPS: Some of these rcat templates are at "Redirect to/from" names and some at "R to/from" names; we should probably normalize them to the more explanatory names, and have redirs from the shorthand versions.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
Redirect from..}}
or {{
Redirect to..}}
templates. These are redirects to existing "R from ..." and "R to ..." templates and do not, at present, do anything new about categorization.{{
Person data}}
was a potentially useful piece of metadata that could have had more value as an editorial tool. I'm not sure that Wikidata will be updated by as many editors as might have been willing to maintain that field.{{
Cross namespace redirect}}
template that auto-categorises into "Cat:Cross namespace redirects from foo" and "Cat:Cross namespace redirects to bar" (and potentially "Cat:Cross namespace redirects from foo to bar") if these cats are seen as useful. It might also have a tracking cat for non-XNRs incorrectly tagged.{{
R to project namespace}}
since its target of
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters is already what we'd expect, and we have no maintenance reason to tag/cat. it. We arguably also do not need to tag
MOS:CAPS, since all "MOS:" pseudo-namespace redirs go to "Wikipedia:" targets. Adding these categorization rcats to all "MOS:" redirs is just obsessive, omphaloskeptical "documentation of documentation of documentation" for no reason, a drain on editorial productivity. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
02:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Hey people, Would it make sense if for a wikipedia search over a certain number of characters, the search yields no article but it would if the last two letters were reversed, it should be redirected? Cheeseinacan ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm planning to make {{
Redirect category}}
not place every category in the top-level
Category:All redirect categories, as it does at present. If anyone thinks it might be a bad idea, please comment at
Category talk:All redirect categories#Too many subcategories. Thanks.
Uanfala (
talk)
08:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new user group with an abbreviated set of administrator user-rights, as an option for editors to request instead of requesting the entire sysop user-right package. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 21:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
A proposal to summarily delete a large amount of redirects created by Neelix after a short period of time has been suggested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Neelix redirects. Interested editors are welcome. Thank you.— Godsy( TALK CONT) 17:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:Redirect to be moved to Wikipedia:Redirects. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 00:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:CATRED, Wikipedia:CATREDIRECT, and Wikipedia:CAT-R. Since these are redirect related redirects, interested editors may want to participate in the redirect discussion if they have not already done so. Best Regards, — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 07:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Template:Double soft redirect has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –
Uanfala (
talk)
10:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
A proposal to expand the criteria for speedy deletion to include redirects with specific disambiguation errors has been made at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirects with specific disambiguation errors. Interested editors are welcome. Thank you. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 18:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:R from initialism to be moved to Template:R from abbreviation. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 09:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Good day WikiProject Redirect followers! There is a proposal regarding redirects left from moving accepted drafts to article space being discussed at the Village Pump. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Draft Namespace Redirects. Cheers! Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 14:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 5#Space before comma. -- XXN, 16:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I tried to use the form to make my request, but I got an error message saying that "Hollywood" already existed, so I am posting my plea here.
The vast number of references to "Hollywood" in Wikipedia are to the motion picture industry in the United States and not to the neighborhood in Los Angeles. I specialize in Los Angeles neighborhoods and have just spent several hours editing articles so that "Hollywood" in the motion-picture sense points to "Cinema of the United States." I realize now it is a sisyphean task. There are simply too many uses of "Hollywood" referring to the U.S. film industry to go through every single one by hand. It would be easier to simply ask Los Angeles editors (like me) to type in Hollywood, Los Angeles, when they want to refer to that neighborhood, which already has a hatnote stating exactly what the article covers.
Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 18:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I just saw that {{ R from list topic}} adds Category:Printworthy redirects too. But some redirects are at the same time tagged with {{ R unprintworthy}} which adds Category:Unprintworthy redirects too. E.g. see 2007_elections. Solution? Christian75 ( talk) 11:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Two soft commons redirects, i.e. Flags of active autonomist and secessionist movements and List of cultural flags, contain see also sections, {{ Lists of flags}}, and categories, and the latter respectively also contains a references section. The pages are halfway between an article and a soft redirect. What action, if any, is due? — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 05:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:R from ambiguous page to be moved to Template:R from ambiguous term. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Came across Draft:Template: R from middle name and surname combinations. It seems like a pretty obscure rcat, but I thought I'd see what yall thought before I do anything with it. Primefac ( talk) 17:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I am an editor who lives in South Australia and who mainly writes about things South Australian. I am posting here to get some feedback on the proposal.
I have created between 100 and 200 redirects that include the ‘redirect with possibilities’ template. A recent example is the article about the cadastral unit known as the County of Jervois which is currently the target of 34 redirects. These redirects are concerned with the cadastral units known as ‘Hundreds’ which make up the County.
An editor has criticized this practice on the basis that there are no ‘red links’ in any source articles where the redirected links have been located with the result that other editors who may be interested in creating new articles will not know that there is not yet an article for that link.
My proposal is to create a category with a name such as “South Australian redirects with possibilities” which be added to all of redirects where the ‘redirect with possibilities’ template has been used and which can be accessed from Wikipedia:WikiProject South Australia. The benefit of this would be twofold - access to a list of potential articles by editors interested in writing articles and a resource that may be of some use for managerial activities, i.e. planning for editahons.
My questions are as follows:
Regards Cowdy001 ( talk) 01:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Since there doesn't seem to be a dynamic list of uncategorised redirects, I started using Quarry to generate lists of redirects to feed to a bot or AWB. Before I build something, I should ask: Is there already a script or workflow for this process?
There are several resources for uncategorised articles, but they exclude redirects (as they should). I haven't found any such lists for redirects. Category:Uncategorized redirects was deleted in November 2009 after a CfD vote, and there is no tracking category in Category:Wikipedia redirects for unsorted redirects. — Ringbang ( talk) 22:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
AND cl_from IS NULL
. —
Ringbang (
talk)
22:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Template:Wikispecies redirect has been
nominated for deletion. Interested editors may participate at
the template's entry at templates for discussion. —
Godsy (
TALK
CONT)
05:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I need admin assistance to fix up a confused redirect-cum-disambig mess with Kanata. I just changed this from a redirect targeting a town, to a redirect targeting Name of Canada. Imho, it should be a disambig page instead, but that would require a delete to complete. Full details at Talk:Kanata#Redirect target. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 22:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Does English Wikipedia have a template for this? Redirects to user pages that are deleted in favor of global user pages end up on the "Broken Redirects" maintenance page. On Incubator, I created incubator:Template:User page redirect for that purpose. I would either (a) like to share this template, if it would be of user here, or (b) find the one that already exists here so that I can link to it through Wikidata. Thanks. StevenJ81 ( talk) 16:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Would {{
R from modification}}
be sufficient to cover redirects that use a
hybrid name cross mark scheme? For example,
Hunter x Hunter redirects to
Hunter × Hunter,
Romeo x Juliet redirects to
Romeo × Juliet.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
23:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I started a thread on doing these redirects at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Redirects from older names of Colleges.2FUniversities and would appreciate comments. Naraht ( talk) 15:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
This redirect is currently discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 30#Template:No source. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
A proposal to add {{ redirect category shell}} to all redirects which only contain a single redirect template via bot has been put forth at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposal)#Adding {{Redirect category shell}} to redirects containing just one redirect template? Interested contributors are welcome to participate. Thanks, — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 23:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Suggesting creation of new rcat template: Template:R from different spelling of alternative name and corresponding category.
This is because of redirect BodyBriefer, which is actually an alternative spelling [a] of body briefer, which in turn is an alternate name for Foundation garment.
For now, I've tagged "BodyBriefer" as {{ R from alternate spelling}} of Foundation garment (but that's clearly not true) and also as {{ R from alternative name}}, but that's not really true either. So neither categorization currently at BodyBriefer is really accurate. That why we need a new template.
OTOH, there may not be a lot of call for this category. If there isn't, maybe we can sacrifice accuracy, and just leave it as is? Mathglot ( talk) 07:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Notes
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
I encountered the word “printworthiness” in one of the R from templates; so I looked it up in Wiktionary:printworthiness. Nothing there: it must be a Wikipedia-only neologism. Still curious, I went to Wikipedia:Printworthiness, which brought me to this WikiProject's style guide subpage. I am still unenlightened: I gather it applies only to redirects? And it has something or other to do with a print version of Wikipedia?
Somewhere (on the style guide subpage or perhaps in a new page replacing the Wikipedia:Printworthiness redirect) there should be an explanation: How would it be used? What are the guidelines on what is “printworthy”? — teb728 t c 20:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Дракуля which redirects to Dracula is listed as a Template:R from alternative language which is absolutely fine. *However*, Дракула is the spelling used for Dracula in a number of languages with the Cyrillic Alphabet including at least Russian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Serbian and the old Belarusian(be-x-old) (I found wikipedia pages under those names for the Original Novel at least in those languages). Do I put five copies of Template:R from alternative language into the article, one for each language, do I choose one(how?), or do I just leave it as unspecified? Naraht ( talk) 17:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
[show]
link, then you will see the text generated by the {{
Redr}} template. Near the top is a hatnote that links to the article on
Cyrillic script. While fixing the flaw you helped me find, I also tweaked the text to include the possibility of more than one language. Now click to open the Edit screen and take a look at the code to see how that page is generated. That code is my suggestion for how to handle this type of redirect. Hope this helps – Joys! –
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX!
21:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
|e#=
parameter. The
Дракуля redirect should probably be deleted because it really does not represent a "language" redirect and it is not mentioned on its target page. Because of this, I intend to self revert the edits I just made to RFAL because the correct usage would almost always be from one language to one language. I have been rcatting a long time, and there has never been a need to use one rcat more than one time on a redirect. Using the same rcat more than once on a redirect would probably just add to confusion. –
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX!
01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)I've been asked on my talk page about foreign language redirects. The ones in question are බණ්ඩාරනායක, නලින් ද සිල්වා, and ඩී.එස්. සේනානායක. Would these be OK as redirects if they're not romanized? Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
{{Redr|from alternative language|p1=si|n1=en|unprintworthy}}
|p1=
parameter holds the "from" language code for the
Sinhala language, "si", and the |n1=
parameter holds the
English language code, "en". I held up, because I think the targets might really be Romanized (Latin) versions of the redirect scripts, so now I'm stuck a little myself. I usually just use the "en" for the "to" language, but as you mentioned the redirects are not Romanized, so it may be incorrect to say that their targets are in the English language. Maybe someone else will be able to help us with this? –
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX!
19:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Just wrote an essay on printability ( printworthiness) at:
Maybe another step toward a
guideline?
–
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX!
07:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
They've gotten better but:
No thanks. Categories should be categories. We should be sending them to a help page, or a section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.164.90 ( talk) 18:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask, but is there any advice/guidance to best practices for categorizing what should essentially be double redirects? The case I just came across is as follows. Evodia rutaecarpa is a (very common) misspelling of Euodia ruticarpa, which in turn is an alternative scientific name for Tetradium ruticarpum. Should Evodia rutaecarpa be categorized as a misspelling (however the redirect target, Tetradium ruticarpum is not the correct spelling of the misspelled name). Should it be categorized as an alternative scientific name (but it's a misspelling of a scientific name)? Should it get both redirect categories? This also comes up with redirects from scientific names to common names and redirects from alternative scientific names. E.g., Lagenaria vulgaris is an alternative scientific name for Lagenaria siceraria, which redirects to the article at the common name Calabash. If Wikipedia allowed double redirects, this would be easy to resolve. I'm inclined to categorize as if double redirects were allowed although this means the rcat template text will be saying something incorrect about the redirect target (i.e. I'm thinking Evodia rutaecarpa should be categorized as a misspelling even though the target isn't the correct spelling of the term, and Lagenaria vulgaris should be an alternative scientific name even though the target isn't the correct scientific name). Any thoughts on how to handle these? Plantdrew ( talk) 20:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
{{Redr|move|typo|p2=Euodia ruticarpa|unprintworthy}}
{{Redr|move|typo|p2={{-r|Euodia ruticarpa}}|unprintworthy}}
{{Redr|from alternative scientific name|p1=plant|printworthy}}
To editor
Plantdrew: Sorry, I haven't felt up to these more intricate apps, lately, as I just had an operation on the 9th. To cover your second example above, it seems that one way would be just to alter the text a little, so that is what I did at {{
R from alternative scientific name}}, which now reads "This is a redirect from an alternative scientific name of an organism to the common name or (edit reverted) the accepted scientific name." If you can think of a better way, then do feel free to make it so. –
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX!
10:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
To editor P64: In your "#1" above, the double redirect is covered by the 1st parameter in {{ R typo}}, which changes the text to "This is a redirect from a misspelling or typographical error. The correct form is (parameter 1's correct spelling)."
{{DEFAULTSORT}}
may be used on a redirect anytime the sort should be different than the redirect's page name. Both Fichstrom and Zemack can carry {{DEFAULTSORT:Fichstrom, Harvey}}
and {{DEFAULTSORT:Zemack, Harve}}
, respectively. I always put that sort on the fifth line – in example:#REDIRECT [[Harvey Fichstrom]] {{Redr|from spouse|printworthy}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Fichstrom, Harvey}}
To editor Plantdrew: As noted above my edit to the alt-sci-name rcat was reverted, and this discussion ensued. Hopefully, this will be the appropriate categorization for now. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Do we have a redirect template where a title for a person has been redirected to a more suitable article? For example, Heather Cho was recently redirected to Nut rage incident. It seems to be it would be good to categorize these, where there is not enough material for a standalone article and there are BLP concerns ( WP:BLP1E comes to mind). But I'm not sure if there's already something like that. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm curious what would be considered best practice for handling an R from Merge when you wish to change the target. From the text of the template and from discussions like this I gather that attribution is the central concern and I appreciate that, but if the target is altered then the text of the template is inaccurate, and it seems considerably less likely that the edit history of the redirect will even be re-discovered at a future date.
I find concrete examples are often easier to understand so here's my example:
How should I proceed in this example? One option I can see is to change the target and add a note below the "R from Merge" template explaining about the old target and the merge. Another option might be to change the target and replace the "R from Merge" template with a note explaining the old target and the merge. Or would it be OK to just change the target and forget about the inaccuracies caused by the text of the R from Merge template? Or should I change target and remove "R from Merge"? If anyone could provide some direction in this matter I'd be grateful. - Thibbs ( talk) 10:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
copied}}
should be placed on the talk pages of both the redirect and the merged article.
Anon124 (+2) (
notify me of responses! /
talk /
contribs)
19:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)I have opened an RfC at the Village Pump, regarding a bot request that will create over 77000 redirects. Please reply there with any comments. Jamesmcmahon0 ( talk) 21:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
{{ No redirect}}, a template used on 49,963 pages for the purpose of producing a link to a redirected page (rather than a link to the redirect's target), is not working. More detail on the template's talk page. A good sign is that the equivalent template on the French Wikipedia is working with the expected behaviour. Can someone please have a look? Place Clichy ( talk) 16:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
An RfC has been opened to see if WP:NOTFAQ and WP:NOTHOWTO should or should not apply to redirects. For the discussion, see WT:NOT#RfC: Should we add a footnote to WP:NOTHOWTO/WP:NOTFAQ stating that it does not apply to redirects? -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 04:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I've been doing a few merges at Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion, and typically I just remove the wikiproject banners from the resulting redirect. Should I leave the banners and change the class to redirect? I don't see any point in keeping the banners, but I may be missing something. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 23:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Placement of redirects in article categories, as an alternative to placement of target articles there, is inadequate for general navigation; it provides navigation only down the category tree, downward navigation. So the practice isn't worth general support; as a guideline it's one to be broken frequently.
Prompted by discussion elsewhere ( WT:Categorization of people, section "Clarification sought ...", now section 4, which cannot be linked directly), I have provided some further explanation (there) and illustration of one workaround that (previously suggested here and there without illustration).
Illustration of workaround:
Thus, voila, navigation at one remove to Category:Kate Greenaway Medal winners (Janet) and Category:British children's book illustrators (Janet and daughter Jessica Ahlberg), no:Allan Ahlberg and pl:Allan Ahlberg.
The workaround does not provide navigation from Allan Ahlberg at NO.wiki or PL.wiki to coverage here, or in Catalan or French languages, which is joint. Such reciprocal interlanguage linkage needs incorporation of Wikipedia redirect pages by Wikidata (perhaps in a fancy way needing software upgrade) or maintenance for this purpose of the related articles in all languages. -- P64 ( talk) 22:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Seems that when {{
R fully protected}}
was changed in 2014 to specify full protection, it was still being used on semi-protected redirects. Many of those redirects thus sit flagged with a now inaccurate template. This obviously isn't urgent, but if you're bored, maybe one or two of you will look through its transclusions and replace with {{
R semi-protected}}
where appropriate.
173.209.211.211 (
talk)
10:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Category:Printworthy redirects and Category:Unprintworthy redirects have been nominated for deletion.
I would assume that {{ printworthy redirect}} and {{ unprintworthy redirect}} are also affected
-- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 06:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
...at Talk:William Sloane Coffin, Sr.. There's a couple of questions there, one of them specific to redirects. BMK ( talk) 23:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to a discussion at MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr to help determine consensus in regard to whether or not to use the {{ This is a redirect}} (shortcut is "Redr") template to apply {{ R from move}} automatically to redirects that are left behind from page moves. Happy holidays! Paine 12:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Over at village pump (technical), I've suggested creating a bot to check that section redirects actually go to valid sections, and aren't broken. If you'd like to participate, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 142#Bot to check redirects to section. Cheers. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
A proposal has been made to extend the What Wikipedia is not policy to forbid the creation of certain redirects. If you would like to comment on the proposal, please see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal: Extend "Wikipedia is not a Directory" to cover unnecessary redirects. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 21:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
While trying to categorize some uncategorized articles, I stumbled across Category:All redirect categories, and I have to say it seems like a mess to me. There are so many categories in it, particularly the myriad character and episode redirect categories, that it is difficult to find the category you need for a particular article. I think it would be better for this category to be a top-level category, and then put other categories below it. For example, all fictional character redirects to lists could be only in Category:Fictional character redirects to lists, which in turn is in the all redirects category. Right now many of these fictional character redirects to lists are double-listed in both the fictional character redirects category and the all redirects category, which creates a lot of clutter. Does anyone object to me beginning to make changes like this?-- Danaman5 ( talk) 15:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Heya, I've been making a fair number of redirects based on XFD outcomes, and I realized that while {{ r from merge}} works when two pages are merged together, there isn't any "r from XFD" template that would allow for the outcome to be pasted. Would it make sense to create such a template? My thought would be to have a parameter be the link to the XFD outcome. Primefac ( talk) 03:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I am presently concerned with fixing redirects to sections that have been since renamed or perhaps removed, e.g. the redirect Mayor of Pitcairn redirects to Section 1: section #Local Heads of Government (1790–present) of the article List of rulers of the Pitcairn Islands. So, in the scenario that the section title were to be renamed as #Local Heads of Government since 1790, the redirect would subsequently only link to the article in question (and no specific section in particular), as that section title would no longer exist. Unless an editor notices the redirect is partially broken and decides to fix it, the redirect itself is redundant as it links to a dead article section. Is there any swift way to fix this problem? Thanks.-- Neve – selbert 06:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
A proposed user right, Wikipedia:Page mover, would expand the ability to move pages without leaving a redirect behind to non-administrators. Interested editors can express their opinion at Wikipedia talk:Page mover#RFC - Proposed: "Page mover" permission to be created.— Godsy( TALK CONT) 19:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Is there a template or category for redirects such as "President John Doe" -> "John Doe"? I can't see one but this seems such an obvious category that I'm sure it must be in there somewhere. In the unlikely event that it's not been thought of many times before, would it be a useful addition? Certes ( talk) 16:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
A recently created article (currently at AfD) has been redirected twice but the redirect keeps getting reverted without any real rationale given. The article in question is Murder of Ingrid Lyne. Because murder has not been proven but death has, it seems to me that 'murder' is not only inaccurate but inappropriate, POV, and a possible case of libel in regard to the suspect. The article could be changed to 'Death of Ingrid Lyne'. Originally (from what I saw) it was just 'Ingrid Lyne'. Can someone please help and advise on this? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
This presently displays as "a redirect: From an
initialism", which is both wrong an confusing. Cases such as
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. and
Proc Natl Acad Sci are numerous, and they should not be showing this message, while
PNAS should. I'd suggest that a separate template message is needed for redirects from abbreviations. Indeed, replacement with {{
R from ISO 4}} might be better for many of these. It's worth pointing out that most articles in
wp:WikiProject Academic Journals have this as parameter |abbreviation=
in {{
Infobox journal}}
LeadSongDog
come howl!
19:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Considering how US government sources often list personnel as Surname, Given name, as here for example, is there any merit for hosting redirects in this form on Wikipedia? Is it enough to warrant the creation of a whole class of redirect? I apologize if this has been previously asked. Thank you.-- John Cline ( talk) 23:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for comments regarding a proposed change to the {{ rfd2}} template, which affects this WikiProject. Users participating in the project may be interested in the request for comments. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 13:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Wondering if there's appetite to explore allowing non-admins to close a redirect discussion (for example, this one) which are obvious delete results. Currently, per WP:BADNAC, non-admins are not allowed to close discussions where they can't carry out the result. My thinking is a non-admin user could close such a discussion as "consensus to delete (nac)" and then tag the redirect WP:G6, referring to the discussion. This will help with the backlog by allowing more of the obvious result threads to be closed without waiting for a patrolling admin. There's of course some risk that a user could abuse this to get a redirect deleted out of process, but redirects are cheap and that kind of thing would get noticed and repaired pretty quickly if it resulted in significant disruption. A while back they tried this at WP:TfD and it seems to be working just fine. I do have some ideas for conditions in mind, but don't want to waste time on it if there's just no interest in talking about it at all. What do you think? Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 04:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually I was one of the people who pushed for the clause "[NAC is inappropriate if the] result will require action by an administrator" a few years ago, because it wouldn't reduce the amount of work that needs to be done by admins. But I made that argument in the context of AfD. I'm now open to the idea after reading the argument here, noting that the problem we have is we have very few regular closing admins, so an effective stall would happen if all admin regulars opined in a discussion. Maybe non-admin "delete" closures will even attract admins to take an interest in RfD. tl;dr: Let's experiment. Der yck C. 22:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
|
Please see Template talk:R to project namespace#Let's stop pointlessly adding redundant rcats (which I suppose in theory could apply to some other namespace-related rcat templates, though that one in particular seems to be the biggest problem). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
PS: In a similar vein, I've WP:BOLDly narrowed the scope of {{ R to subpage}} a bit [1], because I keep seeing it used in ways that don't do anything useful for us.
PPS: Some of these rcat templates are at "Redirect to/from" names and some at "R to/from" names; we should probably normalize them to the more explanatory names, and have redirs from the shorthand versions.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
Redirect from..}}
or {{
Redirect to..}}
templates. These are redirects to existing "R from ..." and "R to ..." templates and do not, at present, do anything new about categorization.{{
Person data}}
was a potentially useful piece of metadata that could have had more value as an editorial tool. I'm not sure that Wikidata will be updated by as many editors as might have been willing to maintain that field.{{
Cross namespace redirect}}
template that auto-categorises into "Cat:Cross namespace redirects from foo" and "Cat:Cross namespace redirects to bar" (and potentially "Cat:Cross namespace redirects from foo to bar") if these cats are seen as useful. It might also have a tracking cat for non-XNRs incorrectly tagged.{{
R to project namespace}}
since its target of
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters is already what we'd expect, and we have no maintenance reason to tag/cat. it. We arguably also do not need to tag
MOS:CAPS, since all "MOS:" pseudo-namespace redirs go to "Wikipedia:" targets. Adding these categorization rcats to all "MOS:" redirs is just obsessive, omphaloskeptical "documentation of documentation of documentation" for no reason, a drain on editorial productivity. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
02:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Hey people, Would it make sense if for a wikipedia search over a certain number of characters, the search yields no article but it would if the last two letters were reversed, it should be redirected? Cheeseinacan ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm planning to make {{
Redirect category}}
not place every category in the top-level
Category:All redirect categories, as it does at present. If anyone thinks it might be a bad idea, please comment at
Category talk:All redirect categories#Too many subcategories. Thanks.
Uanfala (
talk)
08:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new user group with an abbreviated set of administrator user-rights, as an option for editors to request instead of requesting the entire sysop user-right package. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 21:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
A proposal to summarily delete a large amount of redirects created by Neelix after a short period of time has been suggested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Neelix redirects. Interested editors are welcome. Thank you.— Godsy( TALK CONT) 17:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:Redirect to be moved to Wikipedia:Redirects. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 00:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:CATRED, Wikipedia:CATREDIRECT, and Wikipedia:CAT-R. Since these are redirect related redirects, interested editors may want to participate in the redirect discussion if they have not already done so. Best Regards, — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 07:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Template:Double soft redirect has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –
Uanfala (
talk)
10:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
A proposal to expand the criteria for speedy deletion to include redirects with specific disambiguation errors has been made at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirects with specific disambiguation errors. Interested editors are welcome. Thank you. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 18:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:R from initialism to be moved to Template:R from abbreviation. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 09:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Good day WikiProject Redirect followers! There is a proposal regarding redirects left from moving accepted drafts to article space being discussed at the Village Pump. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Draft Namespace Redirects. Cheers! Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 14:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 5#Space before comma. -- XXN, 16:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I tried to use the form to make my request, but I got an error message saying that "Hollywood" already existed, so I am posting my plea here.
The vast number of references to "Hollywood" in Wikipedia are to the motion picture industry in the United States and not to the neighborhood in Los Angeles. I specialize in Los Angeles neighborhoods and have just spent several hours editing articles so that "Hollywood" in the motion-picture sense points to "Cinema of the United States." I realize now it is a sisyphean task. There are simply too many uses of "Hollywood" referring to the U.S. film industry to go through every single one by hand. It would be easier to simply ask Los Angeles editors (like me) to type in Hollywood, Los Angeles, when they want to refer to that neighborhood, which already has a hatnote stating exactly what the article covers.
Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 18:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I just saw that {{ R from list topic}} adds Category:Printworthy redirects too. But some redirects are at the same time tagged with {{ R unprintworthy}} which adds Category:Unprintworthy redirects too. E.g. see 2007_elections. Solution? Christian75 ( talk) 11:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Two soft commons redirects, i.e. Flags of active autonomist and secessionist movements and List of cultural flags, contain see also sections, {{ Lists of flags}}, and categories, and the latter respectively also contains a references section. The pages are halfway between an article and a soft redirect. What action, if any, is due? — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 05:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:R from ambiguous page to be moved to Template:R from ambiguous term. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Came across Draft:Template: R from middle name and surname combinations. It seems like a pretty obscure rcat, but I thought I'd see what yall thought before I do anything with it. Primefac ( talk) 17:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I am an editor who lives in South Australia and who mainly writes about things South Australian. I am posting here to get some feedback on the proposal.
I have created between 100 and 200 redirects that include the ‘redirect with possibilities’ template. A recent example is the article about the cadastral unit known as the County of Jervois which is currently the target of 34 redirects. These redirects are concerned with the cadastral units known as ‘Hundreds’ which make up the County.
An editor has criticized this practice on the basis that there are no ‘red links’ in any source articles where the redirected links have been located with the result that other editors who may be interested in creating new articles will not know that there is not yet an article for that link.
My proposal is to create a category with a name such as “South Australian redirects with possibilities” which be added to all of redirects where the ‘redirect with possibilities’ template has been used and which can be accessed from Wikipedia:WikiProject South Australia. The benefit of this would be twofold - access to a list of potential articles by editors interested in writing articles and a resource that may be of some use for managerial activities, i.e. planning for editahons.
My questions are as follows:
Regards Cowdy001 ( talk) 01:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Since there doesn't seem to be a dynamic list of uncategorised redirects, I started using Quarry to generate lists of redirects to feed to a bot or AWB. Before I build something, I should ask: Is there already a script or workflow for this process?
There are several resources for uncategorised articles, but they exclude redirects (as they should). I haven't found any such lists for redirects. Category:Uncategorized redirects was deleted in November 2009 after a CfD vote, and there is no tracking category in Category:Wikipedia redirects for unsorted redirects. — Ringbang ( talk) 22:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
AND cl_from IS NULL
. —
Ringbang (
talk)
22:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Template:Wikispecies redirect has been
nominated for deletion. Interested editors may participate at
the template's entry at templates for discussion. —
Godsy (
TALK
CONT)
05:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I need admin assistance to fix up a confused redirect-cum-disambig mess with Kanata. I just changed this from a redirect targeting a town, to a redirect targeting Name of Canada. Imho, it should be a disambig page instead, but that would require a delete to complete. Full details at Talk:Kanata#Redirect target. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 22:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Does English Wikipedia have a template for this? Redirects to user pages that are deleted in favor of global user pages end up on the "Broken Redirects" maintenance page. On Incubator, I created incubator:Template:User page redirect for that purpose. I would either (a) like to share this template, if it would be of user here, or (b) find the one that already exists here so that I can link to it through Wikidata. Thanks. StevenJ81 ( talk) 16:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Would {{
R from modification}}
be sufficient to cover redirects that use a
hybrid name cross mark scheme? For example,
Hunter x Hunter redirects to
Hunter × Hunter,
Romeo x Juliet redirects to
Romeo × Juliet.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
23:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I started a thread on doing these redirects at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Redirects from older names of Colleges.2FUniversities and would appreciate comments. Naraht ( talk) 15:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
This redirect is currently discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 30#Template:No source. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
A proposal to add {{ redirect category shell}} to all redirects which only contain a single redirect template via bot has been put forth at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposal)#Adding {{Redirect category shell}} to redirects containing just one redirect template? Interested contributors are welcome to participate. Thanks, — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 23:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Suggesting creation of new rcat template: Template:R from different spelling of alternative name and corresponding category.
This is because of redirect BodyBriefer, which is actually an alternative spelling [a] of body briefer, which in turn is an alternate name for Foundation garment.
For now, I've tagged "BodyBriefer" as {{ R from alternate spelling}} of Foundation garment (but that's clearly not true) and also as {{ R from alternative name}}, but that's not really true either. So neither categorization currently at BodyBriefer is really accurate. That why we need a new template.
OTOH, there may not be a lot of call for this category. If there isn't, maybe we can sacrifice accuracy, and just leave it as is? Mathglot ( talk) 07:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Notes