Wikipedia talk:Redirect

message: 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? StAnselm (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK. Is there a way to reword it to make it clearer, or it is just me? StAnselm (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The full text is .  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)
thread_title:  Template typos 

message: WP:BLAR suggests . Is there a template (e.g. simliar to ) that we can use to satisfy this? ~Kvng (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, editor , the only template associated with WP:BLAR that I know of is , which is a notice for the talk page of the blanked article's creator. For this purpose the general  template can be installed on the target's talk page below any project banners with a short notice about the blank-and-redirect. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'm interested in creating something. I wanted to first verify that it didn't already exist. ~Kvng (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Pleasure, editor ! If you do create something like  with a shortcut redirect something like , please remember to mention it at WP:BLAR, so other editors will be aware of its usage. Thank you for your edits! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created the template based on . I'm new at templates and haven't figured out how to use the sandbox yet but I have added it to a couple articles I recently WP:BLARED (see Talk:Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter, Talk:Mortiis) and it seems to be working as expected. I'll wait for any comments on my work here or at Template talk:Blank and redirect notice before updating WP:BLAR to mention this option. ~Kvng (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like your new template has potential! Did a little minor copy editing and such. Very good job, editor ! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLAR]] notification 

message: Here. Still think these should be discussed at RfD, but I'll page a notice here instead. J947 ‡ edits 21:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification of CfD discussion ([[:Category:Redirects of dubious utility]]) 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § Improper disambiguation redirects.  * Pppery * it has begun... 05:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed new CSD criterion

message: , , and  all redirect to  and the template states that "". I am planning on going ahead and creating (or making edit requests to create) those rcats, however I wanted to mention it here per suggestion of @Paine Ellsworth in case anyone disagrees with this change.
@SMcCandlish I also wanted to ping you as you created , even though it was back in 2012. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Subcategorization should have happened ages ago.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New redirect templates 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § RfC: enacting X3.  ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 18:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: enacting X3|Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion §&nbsp;RfC: enacting X3]]

message: The redirect Wikipedia:→ 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  until a consensus is reached.  Nickps (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Wikipedia:→]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A talk page is just a regular page and can therefore also be a redirect. This is sometimes done when turning a page into a redirect and always done when moving a page since that also moves its talk page. Doing this during a move is fine in my opinion but in almost every other case, redirecting a talk page is a bad practice that should be discouraged. The reason is that if someone retargets one of the redirects but forgets to retarget the other, editors who wish to discuss the redirect will do so at the wrong place. Redirecting the talk page also provides no benefit in comparison with  which already acts like a soft redirect that can update itself when its page is retargeted. 
So, my proposal is that we add this to WP:R or WP:TALK:
The talk page of a mainspace redirect should not be redirected unless that was the result of a page move or as specified in WP:TALKCENT. In all other cases,  should be used instead.
Otherwise we end up with cases like Acts of God (book) where the page itself is a redirect to Acts of God (disambiguation) but its talk page redirected to Talk:Acts of God (novel) before I . Note that the utility of talk page redirects is much higher in other namespaces. Someone who looks up WT:R probably wants to end up here instead of discussing the redirect itself. So those should be allowed but people should still remember to  (not likely that WP:R will ever change but other shortcuts might). I'd also be open to the idea of having a bot sync up such redirects automatically. Nickps (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging participants of the previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines/Archive_8#Are_redirect_talk_pages_also_redirected?:  Nickps (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also  from Wikipedia_talk:Redirect/Archive_2018#Talk_page_of_redirects Nickps (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Well, I thought about it again and I'm going about this the wrong way. I'll just ask at WP:BOTR first and if it gets declined then we should consider this. But, if someone else thinks that the change I proposed above is worth making anyway, they are free to pick this up and even open an RfC. Nickps (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here goes nothing: . Nickps (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I vaguely recall some cases where a talk page was kept so that its history was retained. That is, the talk discussion had some possibly useful information regarding the now-redirected associated page? Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deprecation of redirecting the talk page of a mainspace redirect 

message: If a subtopic is mentioned in the lead of a page of a larger topic, is there guidance on whether the redirect for the subtopic should be:
*Targeted to a specific section on the page related to the subtopic
*Untargeted, where context of the subtopic's relation to the larger topic is introduced in the lead
Some examples are:
*Kansas City Kings: Redirects  to , but there is mention of Kansas City Kings in the lead
*Travis McMichael: Redirects to Murder of Ahmaud Arbery.  There is a later section , which has an overview of involved people.
*Tou Thao: Redirects to , but there is mention of Tou Thao in the lead.
—Bagumba (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about any policy, guidance, or essay that answers this specific question. My answer would be to think about where the reader would like to be redirected to and point to that. An easy example is if the subject of the redirect is not mentioned in the lead. In that case, it seems pretty clear to me, you'd redirect to the section where the subject is mentioned. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that if there is meaningful mention in the lead, then being redirect to the top would be preferable to being dropped in the middle of a page, often with no immediate context of where and why you ended up here. —Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Linking to a section from a redirect creates more WP:ASTONISHMENT than linking to the top of an article where the linked term is mentioned (ideally in bold). The first two examples get this right. The third is a little confounding but I can't think of a way to improve it so would advocate for leaving it as it is. ~Kvng (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtopic in lead: use targeted or untargeted redirect? 

message: I'd like to make WP:Wikimedia Design Style Guide point to https://design.wikimedia.org/style-guide, but I don't know of any prefix that goes to design.wikimedia.org. How can I achieve this? Sdkb talk 21:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't it redirect to https://doc.wikimedia.org/codex/latest/ since the Design Style Guide will soon be deprecated? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I didn't realize the style guide is being deprecated. Yes, that seems like a better target. But the same question still applies. Sdkb talk 22:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by m:Interwiki map, it looks like wmdoc: is the interwiki code for doc.wikimedia.org, so you could potentially do something like . All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 23:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That worked; thanks! Sdkb talk 04:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trouble making a quasi-external soft redirect 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect § Unclear talk page scopes.  Sdkb talk 21:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect#Unclear talk page scopes|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect §&nbsp;Unclear talk page scopes]]

message: 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) 01:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for deletion of [[Template:R to sports team]] 

message: Template:R from gap in series 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) 01:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for deletion of [[Template:R from gap in series]]