Wikipedia talk:Special:DoubleRedirects

message: Who decided to change the page format so that fixed redirects are shown struck-out instead of just disappearing?  And why doesn't anyone announce these types of changes before they make them?  If it were up to me, I'd have put the format in a CSS selector instead of a hard-coded  element, so that individual users could decide for themselves how they want the list displayed.  But nobody asked me....  Russ (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In concur I do not like the strikeout.  Now if I want to fix one I have to scroll through thousands of them to find one thats not struck out.  Not a very efficient use of time.--Kumioko (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, it looks ugly. I cleared out almost every single Double redirect (some 60 pages) on the list, and I think it should be fixed -75.173.147.186 (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format change 

message: Shouldn't some double redirects stay in-case an article is split later?
I assume that many double-redirects are created when articles are merged, but if articles are merged and then expanded they might be separated again, so what's the harm in keeping the double-redirect if it makes sense?
I realize that 99% of double-redirects are not helpful, but there should be a way to flag your double redirect as being deliberately created so that the bots will skip it.
Example:
# Say you have a redirect One-Way Valve  -->  Valve
# But the Valve article is a stub, so it becomes a section in the Plumbing article.
# So this creates the double redirect One-Way Valve  -->  Valve  -->  Plumbing
# And the bot "fixes" it by creating One-Way Valve  -->  Plumbing and Valve  -->  Plumbing
# But then you have One-Way Valve  -->  Plumbing which is fine unless the Valve and Plumbing articles are split eventually, which is likely to happen as they are expanded.
# So then, if this redirect is missed, we end up with One-Way Valve  -->  Plumbing even though there is an article entitled Valve
SO THE QUESTION IS if removing double-redirects on a article that is being merged for lack of content, but that will likely be split again later, has the potential to create problems in the future, then why not keep these rare but useful double-redirects, since they are invisible to the average reader anyway?    72.197.190.17 (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought double redirects didn't even work. As in, you didn't really get redirected. 200.127.223.79 (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pointless to me, as one of these 'rare but useful' double-redirects can always be added back later with minimal effort. And to my understanding double-redirects are not invisible to the average reader as the MediaWiki software will only redirect once. CKBrown1000 03:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't some double redirects stay? 

message: I've noticed that the redirect bots are working a lot more slowly than usual, if they are working at all.  This could become extremely problematic in the event of page moves when disambiguation pages are created.  Since I do not have the skill set to create a redirect bot, should this be posted in some more highly visible forum, such as WP:AN? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To go with this, why hasn't it updated in over two weeks? Chris857 (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reply  - This is exactly the problem.  I have taken it upon myself to post a thread about this at WP:AN. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like bug 53227 (Stale non-slow maintenance Special pages on Wikimedia wikis: bi-weekly updateSpecialPages.php no longer successfully running), fixed ~ 2013-11-08. --Jeremyb (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are double redirects still being fixed by bots? 

message: Special:DoubleRedirects mentions:(bold added)
: It is usually not necessary to fix these by hand. Bots will go through the entire list periodically and fix all of the double redirects, except for protected pages. 
But the page does not seperately list the protected pages and also does not mark the protected pages,  so it is difficult to see which pages do need to be fixed by hand.
Could there be a (sub) list of Double Redirects that do need to be fixed by hand? (or , a lesser solution, a mark that the first or second redirect is a protected page) Thanks WillemienH (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  would suggest a seperate list of protected double redirects 

message: Add :Category:Redirects to special pages Dpleibovitz (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 31 May 2018