Wikipedia talk:Double redirects

message: I propose that this be moved to Wikipedia:Double redirects. To my recollection, I never even saw the term "multiple redirect" before I stumbled onto this page a bit earlier. (Well, maybe I saw it once.) Even the page itself consistently uses the term "double redirect", except for the initial defining sentence. Eric119 04:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: Whenever we move a page, we are reminded to check for double re-directs and fix them, if any. However, whenever we merge two articles, and convert one of them into a re-direct, we do not get reminded to check for double re-directs. We should probably be reminded whenever a re-direct is made so that this problem can be remedied by the initiator of the re-direct himself. --Gurubrahma 10:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  prevention is better than cure 

message: I believe the phrase "...in order to prevent infinite loops" should be removed from this description. The limitation is simply a limitation (and there are better ways to avoid infinite loops than this kind of deficiency -- I even believe following double-, triple-, or whatever-number-of-redirects could be done within a single existing SQL statement 
without adding any additional looping in the software). Ewlyahoocom 22:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer to keep the explanation about infinite loops.  It's only a few words.  I prefer to see an explanation of why a limitation is there, rather than just be told that there's this limitation.  There may be better ways to do it;  maybe the development team will change it when they have time.  You could, if you want, start up a discussion perhaps at the technical section of the village pump or on Meta, or perhaps put in a bugzilla feature request, though I'm guessing the development team is already aware of the problem.  If it's done with a single SQL statement there would be implicit or explicit looping within the SQL statement;  perhaps the SQL interpreter automatically checks for and avoids infinite loops.  I don't know the details and I'm guessing there's some reason the development team doesn't find it easy to change this, or they would have done it already.  --Coppertwig 13:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As of now, infinite loops don't cause the browser to freeze because when ever someone gets redirected to another article, the url is the url of the redirecting article, not the url of the article they're redirected to. That prevents a double redirect from taking somebody to the article they're double redirected to. If that problem can be fixed, a double redirect could be very useful. For example, the double redirect from Coza! to Cara Operations might be useful to indicate that Coza tuscan grill should have a stand alone article but doesn't have one yet. The problem can be fixed as follows: have the article Cara Operations should have the url https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cara_Operations regardless of whether it says 'Redirected from Coza tuscan grill' and Coza tuscan grill should have the url https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coza_tuscan_grill, not https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coza_tuscan_grill&redirect=no if it still had the double redirect. Since it's possible for a YouTube video to have the same url whether or not you're signed in and whether or not it contains a comment, it should also be possible for a Wikipedia article to have the same url regardless of whether it says which article it's redirected from. In addition to that, each article url should keep an invisible record of a set of other articles in the following way: for any 2 articles article 1 and article 2, article 2 should be removed from the set of articles article 1 contains in its record when article 1 or an article in its record that contains article 2 in its record stops having a redirect, gets deleted or changes the article it redirects to to an article that doesn't contain article 2 in its record and article 2 should be added to the set of articles article 1 contains in its record when article 1 or an article in its record adds or changes a redirect to article 2 or an article that contains article 2 in its record. After that change gets made, a robot should make a null edit to every redirect page that doesn't store the article it redirects to in its record to get it in its record. Infinite loops can be prevented by having an error message appear when ever somebody starts adding a redirect from an article to itself or to an article that contains it in its record. Each article should also contain a secondary record that contains at most 1 article that works in the following way: for any 2 articles article 1 and article 2, article 2 should become article 1's secondary record if any of the following happens, adding a redirect to an article whose secondary record is article 2 from article 1 or an article in article 1's primary record, adding a redirect from article 2 to a non-redirect article, and removing a redirect from the article article 2 redirects to; and every time somebody clicks a link to an article that has a redirect, it takes them to the article that it's secondary record redirects to and says 'Redirected from [it's secondary record].' Forthermore, if Coza! still had its double redirect, then clicking a link to Coza! should bring you to Cara Operations and that article should say 'Redirected from Coza tuscan grill' and then clicking Coza tuscan grill at the top of the article should bring you to the Coza tuscan grill article and that article should say 'Redirected from Coza!.' Blackbombchu (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand what you are trying to solve. Let's assume that MediaWiki is configured to follow redirect chains of length up to 2. If there is a double redirect X → Y → Z and you visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X, your browser will not be redirected anywhere – the server will follow the redirect internally and serve you the contents of page Z with a "Redirected from X" notice. The browser address bar will still read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X. If there is a loop A → B → A and you visit page A, the server will stop after two hops and you will see page A saying that it is a redirect to B. Nothing bad can ever happen. — Petr Matas 07:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...in order to prevent infinite loops. 

message: Would it be possible for the database to fix double redirects by itself, without relying on us to find them and edit them? --Smack (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask it on Bugzilla. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 13:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix double redirects automatically 

message: I just added instructions on how to check for double redirects.  These instructions may seem obvious and unnecessary;  but let's just say that some of us are the type of people that if we write a program that handles linked lists we need to draw little diagrams with boxes and arrows, and if we write another similar program a few weeks later we need to draw the diagrams all over again.  In other words, it may be obvious to some people but confusing for others.  I hope these instructions will remain here so I can re-read them next time I move a page.  --Coppertwig 13:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added section "Checking for double redirects" 

message: The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM.  —Stemonitis 06:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *It is unclear to me that pages in the Wikipedia namespace must be bound by the same rules as article titles. If there is thus little point in making the move, then the disruption it might cause is reason enough not to move the page. --Stemonitis 06:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I see no reason to keep it in plural, either. We also have Wikipedia:Redirect, etc. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 13:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Opposed this isn't an article, WP:NC is for articles. Even the WP:NC page name is pluralized. 132.205.44.5 23:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, because there are multiple naming conventions on it. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 04:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contested move request

message: The article mentions that the "Byrial method" builds on the redirect (Topbanana) code.  What is the Byrial method, and why is it not explained or linked? Cww 03:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byrial method? 

message: The redirect page titled "ML Inequality" redirects to "estimation lemma".  Note that it has a capital initial "I".  If "ML inequality" (with a lower-case initial "i" should ever become an article rather than a redirect that points (like "ML Inequality") to "estimation lemma" then "ML Inequality" (with a capital "I") should be edited to redirect to "ML inequality" (with a lower-case "i").  Therefore, this redirect page reads as follows:
----
#REDIRECTestimation lemma
: 
If ML inequality ever becomes an article rather than a redirect, then this 
page should be changed to redirect to that.
----
It works fine as a redirect page.  But this bot called Computer changed it to read as follows:
----
#REDIRECTestimation lemma
: 
If estimation lemma ever becomes an article rather than a redirect, then this 
page should be changed to redirect to that.
----
Now think about that.  The owner of the bot doesn't think that's a problem.  And he cites THIS style page, on double redirects, to justify his bot's behavior.  That's the most unreasonable view on design of Wikipedia that I've seen in a long time.  If THIS page requires that behavior of that bot, I propose to alter it so that it still forbids double redirects but doesn't require that idiotic edit. Michael Hardy 23:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bots are often idiots; they should be supervised by thinking humans 

message: Special:DoubleRedirects says It is not necessary to fix these by hand. Bots will go through the entire list periodically and fix all of the double redirects. Is this true? If so, why do the move pages give stern warnings that fixing double redirects is your responsibility?--Yannick (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bots will fix double redirects on that list. However, that list is generated periodically which means that a double redirect can exist for sometime before it gets fixed. The move page directions are to avoid having readers being confused by double redirects in the period between the move and a bot being able to fix them. The bots are to fix ones that are missed; they shouldn't be used as a shortcut as that would be a disservice to our readers. -- JLaTondre 15:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of these page moves can produce hundreds of double redirects. That's a lot of tedious work to do by hand, something of a disservice to our editors to put this responsibility on them. How often do those bots run?--Yannick (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an issue of how often the bots run, but rather how often the double redirects page is generated. That's generated by the Wikipedia software. I think it's done daily, but I'm not positive. I gather that it is database intensive. I doubt there are many moves that "produce hundreds". The ones that are overwhelming can obviously be left to the bots. However, the nominal case of a handful should just be taken care of by the editor. -- JLaTondre 13:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this done automatically? 

message: bugzilla:4578, "Page moves should not create double redirects", has been implemented, per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Technology report#New features and this posting at Wikitech-L. That will sharply rduce the number of double redirects.  (It's possible to tell the software to let a double redirect be created, by unchecking a box before doing a move, but it seems fairly obvious that few editors will do that.)  In particular, it's now unnecessary for editors, after moving a page, to bother checking for double redirects that were created by the move.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 17:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MediaWiki software automatically fixes things 

message: I've noticed that bots now appear to be more reliable and frequent (once per day) in fixing double redirects. Should I now rely on bots to fix multiple double redirects, or should I continue to correct multiple double redirects myself out of Wiki courtesy? Tinlinkin (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I followed the posted advice that appears after I move a page, to fix only the most important double redirects and let the bot take care of the rest later. That must be a relatively new message, and I'm relieved by it. Tinlinkin (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relying on bots 

message: I think that a WikiGnome would fix double redirects (I don't know, but it seems like it would be in their nature.) If they do, it should be noted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.167.211 (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiGnomes 

message: A redirect....special page....
Tis could be misleading. They are pages that are special, but calling it a "special page" could be misleading. It is edited, has wikitext, etc. etc. So it is not a special page on Wikipedia.
Walex & 03. A Life together. (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special page 

message: An example of a double redirect is an editor redirecting to a page he has not read, unaware that it is a redirect. Therefore the double redirect could be caused of unawareness, and the only thing I can say is: Do the check, then the redirect!
Walex03. Talking, working, friending. 20:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original redirects  

message: Shouldn't Wikipedia:Example of a double redirect be listed under see also? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it should be listed under a new section labelled: "Example of a double redirect". Otherwise, under "see also", one could assume that the link had not been updated since its target page had been moved. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Example of a double redirect]] 

message: Since Special:DoubleRedirects hasn't been working for weeks, are bots actually still fixing double redirect? Kaldari (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like AvocatoBot is still working at least. I guess it must be using the move logs. Kaldari (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reply  - I've noticed as well 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) 14:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are double redirects still being fixed by bots? 

message: It seems there is a consensus that double redirects should be permitted. MediaWiki will already follow longer redirect chains if $wgMaxRedirects is set to a value greater than 1. Even $wgMaxRedirects = 2 would make the tedious manual fixing of double redirects from page moves unnecessary. A possible dispute whether double redirects should be discouraged does not matter, because bots can continue fixing double redirects even if MediaWiki is able to follow them. So, why is $wgMaxRedirects still set to 1? — Petr Matas 22:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No $wgMaxRedirects value can create infinite loops, because MediaWiki will always stop after at most $wgMaxRedirects hops. Let's assume for example, that $wgMaxRedirects = 3. If you create a cyclic chain "A → B → A" and visit page A, MediaWiki will stop after traversing the path "A, B, A, B", so you will see page B saying that it is a redirect to page A. — Petr Matas 22:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to increase $wgMaxRedirects 

message: The goal would be to allow multiple sub-redirects to simply continue pointing to the same target when a primary redirect (to another articles subsection) becomes a mainspace article and supersedes a preexisting subsection which had been 'filling in' by receiving links in the interim.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The goal 

message: A protected redirect, Wikipedia:Example of a double redirect needs updated information and redirect category (rcat) templates added.  Please modify it as follows:
* from this: 
#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Double redirect


If you can see this text and you are not looking at the edit or search page this page is not working as an example of a double redirect.
* to this:
#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Double redirect



* 
Template Redr is an alias for the  template, which is used to sort redirects into one or more categories.  No protection rcat is needed, and if  and/or  suffice, the This is a redirect template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically.  (The categories will also be automatically removed when and if protection is lifted.)  Thank you in advance! – Paine  16:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks, Mr. S ! – Paine  12:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 30 May 2015 

message: There is a discussion about "Double redirect bots working more slowly as of late" at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Double_redirect_bots.  Please contribute to the discussion at this location. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double redirect bots are working more slowly as of late  

message: See Help talk:Magic words#STATICREDIRECT. Do any bots or other tools look for and honor STATICREDIRECT on English Wikipedia? wbm1058 (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  STATICREDIRECT 

message: Green-ink letter is currently a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Should Green ink letter be a redirect (ie a double redirect?) to Green-ink letter, or should it be a soft redirect to Wiktionary? 81.141.56.172 (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason that soft redirects cannot be linked to by hard redirects.  It does not appear that hard redirects are considered "double redirects" when they target soft redirects.  I could be wrong, however I cannot find a policy nor a guideline that advises differently.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 16:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Soft redirects

message: Let's switch the debate to whether goodest of faith is acceptable. EEng 21:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, you all. Don't we have gooder things to do? – Uanfala (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Did grapple a bit betwyxt "goodest" and "bestest"; hower, the "G" in "AGF" won the day!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "goodest", but "doubleplusgood". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer Time to Newsweek. EEng 11:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Yes, or well, in my humble opinion, 2 + 2 = EEng's user page.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Goodest of faith

message: Now let's switch the debate to whether grapple a bit betwyxt is acceptable. EEng 02:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Why's everybody always pickin' on me?" – Charlie Brown  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: grapple a bit betwyxt

message: Looks like de Fun Police has arrived!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Fun Police

message: Please add Wikipedia:Example of a double redirect to :Category:Example. WT79 (speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing) 15:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is a informational page about double redirects, not an example of a double redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 9 July 2020 

message: There are some double redirects that can't be identified by the software, when there is non-obvious content after the redirect. Thingofme (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: For example? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This link. Thingofme (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no longer a double redirect. Are there any existing examples? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some double redirects 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:RR (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it affect this page? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The disambiguation page includes Wikipedia:Double redirect. I think someone believed that RR was a reasonable possible link to this page. BilledMammal (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: allows pre-emptive linking of redirect X to redirect Y, where both X and Y point to the same target. The benefit is that if Y is refactored into an article, then a bot will update X to point to Y. Useful where Y is (or ought to be) a , enough I think to be worth mentioning on this page. But any explanation would need to be worded carefully, to make sense to intermediate-level editors and so that beginners could ignore it rather than be frightened by it. To being with, maybe just add a mention in the See-also section? jnestorius(talk) 23:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:R avoided double redirect 

message: I created 41 double redirects via a page move. This article says that there are bots which correct double redirects. That's cool and all but it says nothing about how they work. I know it says "automatically" but is that "automatic" after I've made a request somewhere? Please advise. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Denniscabrams all you need to do is wait and they will be fixed. AIUI they read the move log and check whether any of tem resulted in a double redirect, and fix any they find. It can sometimes take a few hours though (it seems to depend on when the operators are awake) so if there are only one or two, or very high traffic pages impacted it is worth fixing them manually but otherwise it's not worth your time. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. And they've already been fixed! Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bots