Wikipedia talk:Redirect/Archive 2012

Archive 2005

←

Archive 2010

Archive 2011

Archive 2012

Edit request on 10 January 2012

Please change de:Weiterleitung to de:Hilfe:Weiterleitung. While a point can be made that the existing page will eventually lead to the German help page as well, it should not be required to read about HTTP redirects just to bring an alternative title in line with its common usage.

93.198.216.251 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Done. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

total amount of redirects

In "About Wikipedia" page is a sentence: It has 3,838,250 content articles, and 25,903,671 pages in total. I was wondering how many of those almost 26 million are redirects? For example this Wikipedia:Redirect itself has 3 shortcuts, i.e. redirects. It would be okay, if those were only redirects, but they actually have the same article in a different address. So, this "redirect" page in fact uses four times more space than it would without redirects. 85.217.35.190 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't count redirects as articles, and I was wondering about the high number of non-article pages. Special:Statistics, however, does not give this info.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirects are redirects; they do not constitute "the same article in a different address" and do not "use four times more space than it would without redirects." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably, s/he is concerned about an overhead to search engines. Probably, it is a problem, but not our ☺ Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Do not use 4 times more space? Why not? For example: "Wikipedia:Redirect", "Wikipedia:R", "Wikipedia:RDR" & "Wikipedia:REDIR". The address bar reads one of those four respectively but the article is still the same Wikipedia:Redirect. Are you suggesting it just seems the redirect would be on different address? That it is sort of an "illusion"? The Special:Statistics page suggests otherwise: first there is "Content pages" with 3,857,198 pages and just below "Pages (All pages in the wiki, including talk pages, redirects, etc.)" with 26,087,859 pages. Why would the redirects be counted if they aren't there? 82.141.66.232 (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The REDIRECT pages are indeed pages, but they take up only a very small amount of space, not four times the target article's space, and very little server resources to execute. As Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#The guiding principles of RfD says: "Redirects are cheap." Anyway, the number of article redirects, according to Wikipedia:Database reports/Page count by namespace, is about 5.2 million, so even by that measure it's nowhere near four-fold. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

name change request

Please change Breitspurbahn to Nazi broad gauge. 101.128.177.35 (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It called "Breitspurbahn" across all Wikipedia except Japanese. Even in Cyrillic-based Russian and Ukrainian where non-Cyrillic titles are used only for brand names. Nope (or try {{Requested move}}). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of "do not fix redirects"

Does this apply to template redirects? For example, {{Cn}} and {{Fact}} that point to {{Citation needed}}. If I'm going to already be editing a page and it happens to have a redirected template like that, I think it should be changed. Either way the section should give positive or negative affirmation if templates should follow this guideline, as right now it is unclear. –meiskam (talk•contrib•block) 20:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to replace {{cn}} by {{citation needed}}, I have no serious objection, although I think it's a waste of effort. The important takeaway is that you should almost never replace [[redirect]] by the piped form [[target|redirect]]. --Trovatore (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirects and Wikipedia:Books

Headbomb recently added the bullet below.

• Redirects found in Wikipedia books should be bypassed or removed entirely. The reason for this is that Wikipedia books are collection of articles, and thus if an article used to be standalone, then redirected to another (because of a merge, or similar reasons), it might lead to the book containing duplicated articles (for example Descent 3: Mercenary redirects to Descent 3, including Descent 3: Mercenary in the book would mean rendering the Descent 3 twice).

I have reverted the edit pending discussion here. I understand the need to avoid duplication in the Books. I'm not sure that a blanket prohibition against redirects is the best way to solve this problem, though. Any Wikipedia article can become part of one or more Wikipedia books. While a redirect could create a duplicate entry in the book, the most efficient way to resolve the duplication is to remove the redirect from the book's table of contents. In the example above, the book is defined at Book:Descent series. Removing the merged page from the table of contents removes any duplication of content.
I note by the way that the redirect in the example above still exists (though not in the Book's table of contents). When I downloaded that book, I found no duplication despite the redirect still existing in the project. Rossami (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss really. Books should not contain redirects, they are just way too dangerous to have around. That's why bots (like User:NoomBot) will alert people that books contain redirects, so people can make sure that articles are not duplicated, or that the redirect's target is still topical. Duplicates should be removed, but duplicates are not the only danger. The target can just be plain wrong. This has been standard practice for as long as books have been around, it's just never been mentionned on this page.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed nothing to discuss: this note should be removed from this page. It is WP:Books-specific and thus should be noted there, not here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The change, as written, can be interpreted to say that no redirect can point to any page in a Wikipedia Book. That is patently not the case. Many pages in existing Wikipedia Books have inbound redirects. It does not cause duplication.
Your proposed change also explicitly says to bypass redirects. The only interpretation I can put on that clause is that they can not be used outbound on any Wikipedia page in a Book - that every outbound link must be a direct link and never a redirect. This may be the current practice but the justification offered above does not substantiate the practice. An outbound redirect creates no automatic duplication in the Book. Neither does it make any assurances about the ongoing relevance of the redirect any more or less than the ongoing relevance of any other link. Any target can become "just plain wrong" as editors rewrite the text of a page. That's not a reason to eliminate links.
Regardless, these are technical problems for the Book project. They should be resolved by the editors working on the various Books but not at the cost of a blanket prohibition on redirects which will be misunderstood and misused.
So let's go back to first principles. What, exactly, do you mean by "Books should not contain redirects"? Your example above does not illustrate the problem. Rossami (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It means exactly what it says, Wikipedias book should not contain redirects, instead they should contain direct links to the articles. This is not a matter of being technically possible to have them, it's a matter of what should or should not be done. This concerns good practices to prevent duplication, bad targets, and clear the various maintenance backlogs associated with books (e.g. [1]). A classic example is someone creating a book such as Book:American_Carriers, which at that time contained USS Reprisal (CV-35), USS Iwo Jima (CV-46) which now both redirect to Essex class aircraft carrier, and CVN-80, which now redirects to Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier following merge discussions. Bots flag redirects so people know there is a good chance something is wrong with the book, and books need to be updated accordingly. Another example would be a book on female comic characters which included say Bitchy Bitch, which is now redirected to its creator Roberta Gregory, which is not what was meant to be included in the book.

Keeping these redirects in the book serve zero purpose, clutter cleanup backlogs, and will very often drastically cripple books by making them contain duplicated articles, or simply articles that were never meant to be included. This is no different than updating navigational templates to use the actual links rather than redirects, except in this case the consequences of failing to do so are much worse than having something display in bold or not. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So trying in good faith to understand your latest examples:
Interpretation 1: You are talking about the table of contents of the book. Allowing redirects to be listed on that index page does create the duplication you talked about. Removing the redirect from the list of pages that constitute the book makes sense. If that is the case, then a) the proposed change should be changed to something more like "redirects should not be in the list of pages that define a book". That would be uncontroversial. To say that "redirects should not be in the book", though, is ambiguous since the book consists of both that index page and all the constituent pages assembled by it. If this interpetation is the case, however, the b) I agree with Czarkoff above - that is a problem to define and discuss in the Wikipedia:Book policy pages. It is unnecessary and potentially confusing here. Only the small subset of Book editors would benefit from that instruction and better Help pages exist for them.
Interpretation 2: You want to exclude all redirects from use on any page that is included in a book because of the potential that some future editor will use the Add pages withoug visiting them function and will mess up the book more than to fix it. If that is the case, then I strongly disagree. Editors can add any number of irrelevant articles if they fail to pay attention to what's actually on the other side of the link. Books, while important, remain a minority effort of Wikipedia. The many other values that redirects bring outweigh the maintenance costs to the subset of folks working on and maintaining Wikipedia books. Rossami (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Good then we agree. Hopefully you won't revert it this time. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

But I'm counting hours to do it. Your concerns, though IMHO completely valid, are just not appropriate on this page. You should post it to Help:Books or Help:Books/for experts instead. Here it is just a case study with undue weight given to it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC) OK, hold on, Headbomb — what do you mean by "bypassed"? To a lot of people, that means "piped". Extreme justification is needed to recommend pipes. If you don't mean "piped" then we need to make that clear; if you do, then you have a much higher burden of proof. --Trovatore (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the book. Sometimes it means removing pipes (e.g. changing :[[P. Diddy|Sean Combs]] to :[[Sean Combs]] if you want the article to be displayed as 'Sean Combs'), sometimes it's adding pipes (e.g. changing :[[P. Daddy]] to :[[Sean Combs|P. Diddy]] if you want the article to display as 'P. Diddy'), sometimes it means adding them (e.g. :[[P. Daddy]] to :[[Sean Combs|P. Diddy]]), and sometimes it's about updating the pipes (e.g. :[[The Family Jewels (Marina and the Diamonds album)|''The Family Jewels'']] to :[[The Family Jewels (album)|''The Family Jewels'']]). Or if they lead to duplication, then the duplicated article should just be removed. But books should not contain redirects (much like nav templates shouldn't contain them). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree on what???!!! You still haven't made clear what change you are hoping to accomplish or what scope you mean this change to apply to. Nor, by the way, have you responded to Csarkoff's concerns about fit or my and Trovatore's concerns about "bypassed". The only reason I have not already reverted again is that it would put me in violation of the three-revert rule. You have not demonstrated consensus for this change to a core policy of Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You spent the entire first half of that post agreeing that the changes made sense (the second half of which is discussing something else entirely). Everything is backed by numerous examples, diffs, and detailed explanations, black-on-white. How is anything remotely unclear? And, BTW, this page is not a 'core policy', it's an editing guideline.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted for now as I think the current wording is unclear. I don't know much about books but taken what has been said here at face value I understand the need for it. However I only understood the current wording after reading the talk page so I think the wording needs more discussion before inclusion. When I first read the start of this I assumed that what it meant was that if an article was in a book all the redirects in that article should be bypassed and what followed did not help clarify it in my mind. It was only once I looked here on talk that I realised what was being referred to.

In my opinion the fact that someone doesn't understand something that has been added suggests that the wording needs work. Guidelines and policies should be understandable to the vast majority of wikipedia editors seeing as how they are so key to how wikipedia works. In this case two different editors (Rossami and me) didn't understand it when we read it. This is not desirable for a guideline. Although I now agree with the intent of what has been added I think a clearer form of words needs to be worked out before it's included as I feel less harm will come from not including this in the guideline for a short while than people possibly misinterpreting what has been added and so acting inappropriately, especially given that, it appears, a bot already makes book editors aware of the problem. Dpmuk (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If the problem is the wording, then all that needs to be done is make the wording clearer, not remove the whole thing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be much less confusing to follow Czarkoff's suggestion to keep the book-related specifics somewhere at Wikipedia:Books (where it doesn't seem to be mentioned at all so far)? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

By that logic, we should remove the advice on nav-templates because it's template-related. The point is to have the advice here because people would look for WP:NOTBROKEN, and this is an exception from the usual NOTBROKEN advice. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I gave my reasons for removing the whole thing - namely that I think it will result in less harm. To explain that further, if the wording you added caused people to bypass redirects in article space it could create a lot of drama as these sort of minor edits often do for no good reason. I suspect most people creating books won't look here and so will find out about the issue via bot no matter what's here. Hence I see no harm from not having any text about it here and some possible harm if we have unclear text. Hence I think the text should be clear before it's included. There's also the point that changes to guidelines and policies need consensus - see WP:PGLIFE. Although there's nothing wrong with bold changes once they have been objected to we require consensus for their insertion. All that said, if I could have come up with an alternative wording myself I would have done. I thought about it for quite some while after the removal but without much success - possibly due to my lack of experience with books. I have a preference for this going on a book specific page but can see arguments both ways so wouldn't object to it being here. Dpmuk (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in [2] that remotely suggests that redirects found in articles should be bypassed if the article happens to be part of a Wikipedia book. It very clearly speaks of redirects found in books, not redirects found in articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I suggest you try looking at it from the point of view of someone that only understands books at a very basic level (which I suspect is most editors). My point is probably best illustrated by an example. Book:Alaska_class_cruisers has in it the article Alaska class cruiser. The first sentence of this article includes a link to a redirect - Battlecruisers. This redirect is therefore included in the book (for example the pdf version has a link to [3]). Hence in my opinion this redirect is found in a Wikipedia book (even though it originates in an article) and so meets the very first sentence of the proposed addition you link to. It's clear that this isn't what you meant but it's how I and, I think, others interpreted it. No amount of argument on your part will change the fact the we incorrectly interpreted when we read it. If people can easily misinterpret it then it needs clarifying. Dpmuk (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"Redirects found in Wikipedia books (located in either the Book: namespace or at User:USERNAME/Books/Foobar) should be bypassed." It's the very first thing that's written. Is the Battlecruisers article located in either the Book: namespace or at User:USERNAME/Books/Foobar? No. Then the advice does not apply to redirects found in Battlecruisers. It's black-on-white. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not in the book space but, when I first read this, I viewed that as clarification of where books are stored (and so an attempt to help editors not familiar with books - many may never have come across them) rather than a definition of where the redirect originates. It may be "black-on-white" to you but it clearly isn't to others. Please accept that just because it's obvious to you doesn't mean it is to everyone.

Can I suggest "Redirects found in the definition of Wikipedia books"? I'm not sure definition is quite the right word but what I'm trying to get across is that what we're referring to is redirects found in the meta-data that defines a book rather than the content of the book. Dpmuk (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Please just stop this. WP:R is improper place to discuss WP:Books practices. Period. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:R is exactly the place to discuss what happens with redirects. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WP:R is an appropriate place to discuss what happens with redirects, but your addition isn't about that. Instead you describe the practices of editing WP:Books regarding redirects, which is only appropriate in WP:Books-related guidelines and is place waster here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is! It's an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN, and it should be mentionned at the place where all other exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN are mentionned. I.e., in WP:NOTBROKEN. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's put it another way: where is your addition applicable outside WP:Books? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

How is that remotely relevant? Books are part of Wikipedia, just like navigational templates are. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

For one, navigational templates occur inside articles and are frequently seen by average readers. The book index page (which is not the same as "the book") is only seen by the small minority of people who look for and work on that specific page. Rossami (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

So? They are no less part of the encyclopedia than our articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

In Wikipedia policies and guidelines it is normally considered inappropriate to intermix site-wide and local guidelines. Eg., the guideline on judging the notability of companies and organizations (and other notability guidelines with a narrow scope) is separated from WP:Notability. The same reason applies here: if the information is site-wide (as eg. the navigation templates), it is included here; if it is only limited to several thousands of pages in a single namespace, it just should go to the guideline with an appropriate scope. Do you now understand the difference? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Protection

While you discuss this, I've protected the page to give it some stability. You're all plenty experienced enough to know not to edit war, but if I blocked you, then the discussion wouldn't happen, so take that as a warning if you like. GedUK  12:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should WP:REDIRECT contain advice related to redirects found in Wikipedia books?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed. No consensus for change. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Currently, WP:NOTBROKEN gives advice on where it's acceptable to ignore WP:NOTBROKEN. Specifically, the section gives advice about the use of redirects in the Media: namespace (where redirects simply do not work) and Template: namespace (where redirects are undesired for technical reasons) but it gives no advice about the use of redirects in the Book: namespace (where redirects are unsafe and potentially crippling to books).

Since all the other typical exceptions to WP:BROKEN are listed in WP:BROKEN, I propose that we also add the following (or something equivalent) to the list of exceptions.

• Redirects found in Wikipedia books (such as Book:Descent series) should be bypassed as their presence can lead to problems, such as the same article being included twice in the book, or the inclusion of articles that were never meant to be part of the book. For example, if Book:Descent series contained both Descent 3 and Descent 3: Mercenary (which redirects to Descent 3), it would render Descent 3 twice. Because of this danger, redirects found in books are flagged by bots on the book's talk page so they can be reviewed by editors. In the case where the redirect causes a duplication, one of the duplicates should be removed from the book (in this example, Descent 3: Mercenary should be removed). In the case where the redirect leads to the intended article (e.g. Mac OS X → OS X), bypassing it (either by using [[OS X]] or [[OS X|Mac OS X]]) will remove the redirect from the cleanup backlogs.

Or in condensed version if the examples are not desired

• Redirects found in Wikipedia books (such as Book:Descent series) should be bypassed as their presence can lead to problems, such as the same article being included twice in the book, or the inclusion of articles that were never meant to be part of the book. When a redirect causes a duplication, one of the duplicates should be removed from the book. When a redirect leads to the intended article, bypassing it will remove the redirect from the cleanup backlogs.

This would follow the principle of least astonishment, as well as prevent well-meaning editors unfamiliar with books telling other editors that they shouldn't update redirects found in books because or WP:NOTBROKEN (as currently written). – Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Please also note the discussion in the previous that concerns this subject. Dpmuk (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Support

• Support, as proposer. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support the principle but Oppose that wording as being unclear, as discussed above. I also think that wording is too long when compared to the other reasons. If it's felt an example should be included I'd propose it being included as a footnote or on a page specifically about books with a link provided here. Dpmuk (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

  I wouldn't oppose the new condensed version as I think removing the examples actually makes it clearer that we are dealing with the technical details of books rather than anything in article space. That said, per my comment in the discussion, I think it's probably possibly to make it clearer still somehow. Dpmuk (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• Strongly oppose the current wording as unclear. More generally, inclined to oppose the inclusion here. This is detail that fits better in the Help pages dedicated to Wikipedia Books. Here, it will confuse more readers than it helps. Rossami (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose to the whole principle of scratching "local" policies (effective on a single namespace) to the site-wide guidelines (as opposed to local guidelines). The section in question belongs to Help:Books and/or Help:Books/for experts, but no way here. Specifically the first version as it nearly doubles the WP:NOTBROKEN while still being unclear. Though even one-liner won't solve the problem of being inappropriate in WP:R due to its scope. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – editors who want to create books will consult Help:Books first; the special requirements of books should be spelled out there (where, extraordinarily, REDIRECTs are not mentioned). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per the issues addressed above. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 20:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Other

Neutral: For a non-Book namespace editor, it's hard to understand what is being asked. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 00:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Dpmuk/Rossami, the wording is not the same as before, following the feedback in the previous section. Did you read it or did you just assume it was the same? What is unclear about the current wording?Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • That version still assumes an understanding of what a Wikipedia Book is and how to recognize the Book namespace which the average new editor will not have. Remember that people reading this page are predominantly new editors. Experienced editors read this long ago. The examples add many lines but do not clarify the situation for anyone not already deeply familiar with how the Book function works.
    A big part of the problem in my opinion is that the Book project team has not yet come up with a unique word to describe that index page. "The Book" is both the index page (which you are concerned about) and the articles which make it up. See, for example, the very first line in the Wikipedia:Books page which opens "A Wikipedia Book is a collection of Wikipedia articles that can ..." Saying 'no redirects in the book' or even 'no redirects in the Book namespace' remains ambiguous to most readers.
    By the way, narrowing the definition to 'pages in the Book namespace' is also technically incorrect. The Book Creator tool puts the index pages in the Book namespace by default but users can create a Wikipedia Book anywhere by manually pasting in {{saved book}}. The 'expert help' documentation even recommends doing so on a user subpage.
    I think what you are trying to say could be summed up as:

  Redirects on the index page that defines a Wikipedia Book should be fixed since they can create duplication and other maintenance problems.

  I still don't think the rule fits here but that wording might have prevented a lot of confusion. Rossami (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

  • • Yes, I did read it and it is better, but I still don't like the first part of the first sentence. I have a similar problem to Rossami in that I think there should be a reference to that "index" page but I'm not aware of a commonly used phrase for it nor can I think of a succinct way of saying it (index doesn't work as books have indexes, Meta-data is too unlikely to be not understood and anyway isn't quite the right term. I could support something like "Redirects found in the definition of a Wikipedia book (i.e. redirects located in the Book: namespace)...". Something like that would solve my main objection. I also don't like the length of what follows although this isn't a show stopper as it isn't misleading and would likely be edited to something more succinct over time. Unless I've missed something I do think the sentence referring to bots could safely be removed as it doesn't help explain the exception or how it should be dealt with. Dpmuk (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Just seen the condensed form. I'm happy with that apart from those first few words which I think could still do with a little bit more clarity as discussed immediately above, I really do think we need a reference to the "definition" or similar (I'm sure there must be a better phrase). Dpmuk (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is just my opinion, rooted in pessimism and cynicism, but since Headbomb is the only one who actively maintains that namespace, he should just write the rules on that namespace and be done with it. If he has to make changes to how something works because of the restrictions inherent to the namespace, so be it. I can understand that he wants to get approval, but let's be honest here, he's the pretty much the one that understands the namespace and pretty much the only one that cares about it. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: targeted anchored

I was ever confused by such terms as "targeted/untargeted redirect". Obviously, the redirect's target is the link in square brackets, so there is no untargeted redirects. This terminology was apparently introduced much after bugzilla:218 by someone lacking an attitude to select words carefully. Note that in bugzilla's discussion the people spoke about anchors. So, the distinction between redirects with and without #-fragments should be called anchored/unanchored. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care one way or the other, but since it starts off with a definition, I don't think that the existing terms are likely to generate that much confusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for a bot to bypass redirects in rare cases that are exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN

All interested editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 63. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 02:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Seeking clarification on when redirects are acceptable for existing articles

I have come across some instances of existing Wikipedia articles which have been blanked and redirected to another article (eg, a locality article) without any prior discussion, thus effectively deleting the article. I cannot find any guidelines on this page as to the current practice and what is acceptable. I can understand that a redirect is acceptable if an article has been tagged for merging and and no objections are received, but I am concerned that some editors are effectively drive-by tagging articles and then using the redirect process to bypass AfD for articles that they feel are not notable. I've also found instances of articles that have been redirected simply because of a lack of references. See the edit history of Loreto Secondary School Kilkenny, Kilkenny for instance. It's very easy to tag and redirect an article but it takes much more time to seek out reliable sources. I would be grateful for clarification on this issue, and also on the acceptable procedure for reverting redirects. Dahliarose (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The practice you describe is entirely acceptable and routinely practiced. It has nothing to do with "deletion" as we use that term here at Wikipedia. Deletion is a specific term that means the deletion of the page and it's page history. Deletion requires special admin powers to execute and special admin powers to undo. The pagehistory is unavailable while deleted.
Removing content from a page, even to the point of blanking the entire page and turning it into a redirect, can be executed and reversed by any editor with no special powers required. It also leaves the pagehistory intact and fully visible (ensuring compliance with the attribution requirements of GFDL and CC-BY-SA). Turning a page into a redirect is not deletion. AfD is not relevant and the nomination of a page to AfD with a recommendation merely to "redirect" would be immediately closed as "snow keep" (meaning keep the pagehistory, not necessarily keep-as-is).
If you think a decision to turn an entire page into a redirect was in error, be bold and revert the action. Or if you think that decision will be controversial (and given the history you describe, this one might be), open a discussion on the Talk page and seek consensus there about whether the page can or should stand alone. Rossami (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dahliarose. Few Wikipedia readers know how to look at a redirected article history and even fewer bother checking histories when reading articles. Why not propose a merge via discssion at WP: afd instead? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

AfD is not for merge discussions. The outcome of the discussion can be a consensus to merge, but that is not the purpose, and it could be considered an abuse of process to start an AfD with that goal in mind.

Merges and redirects can be done boldly, as long as you're willing to be reverted and then talk about it in good faith. Or, if you want to seek others' input in advance, you can start a merge discussion with the {{merge to}} and {{merge from}} templates. --Trovatore (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I have in practice reverted redirects that I have thought were inappropriate, but I am still concerned that the practice exists and that quite lengthy articles can seemingly be redirected unnoticed, often on the whim of a rogue editor. I appreciate that the page history is preserved, but to all intents and purposes the end result is the same as deleting an article. The article is hidden from public view, doesn't show up in search engine results, and only more experienced editors who understand the system will know how to restore the article. The only difference with deleted articles is that only admins can see the hidden content and restore the article. It seems entirely contrary to one of our core policies Wikipedia:Wikipedia is free content, so I'm really wondering why we allow such a practice. Dahliarose (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The issues are not particularly different from any other change to the article. Presumably editors that care about the article have it on their watchlists and will notice if it is redirected somewhere. It is true that the non-editing reading public is out of luck with regard to articles that no editors care about, but that issue is not specific to redirection (it's probably even worse for them if the article is subtly vandalized with misinformation, and that won't be corrected either if the article is not watched). --Trovatore (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Trovatore, are you suggesting that articles that are not popular at Wikipedia have no value? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  Not at all. I am saying that if an article is not watched, then it is not possible to protect its content, whether or not that content is valuable. There is no special issue involved because the removal of content involves a redirect. --Trovatore (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that it's more of a problem to have unpopular articles effectively censored by allowing them to be redirected on the whim of a single editor. At least if a vandalised article is present in mainspace anyone finding the article has something to work with. It's much more difficult if the article is hidden from view. Surely there should be a policy that articles can only be redirected if there is no more than a sentence of content. I would have thought that if editors have any concerns about an existing article the recommendation should be to request a merge or to take it to AfD. Dahliarose (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Dahlia, honestly I don't know what you're talking about. Redirects are not "hidden". Changing a redirect back into an article is no more difficult than restoring content that has been removed. --Trovatore (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand the content will not appear in search results. It will not be immediately obvious to a new editor that an underlying article exists beneath the redirect. This is contrary to our policy that Wikipedia should be an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. We shouldn't be hiding existing articles away for no good reasons so that people can't see them. Dahliarose (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

They do appear in search results, if you mean Wikipedia search. If you mean Google search, perhaps not, but Google search is not a particularly useful editing tool.

Nothing is being hidden; redirects are not hidden, period. Please stop making this false assertion. --Trovatore (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If articles aren't showing up in Google searches because they've been redirected then they are effectively hidden. People often find Wikipedia articles through Google searches. They might then be encouraged to start editing the article. They can't edit an article they can't find. Dahliarose (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No, they are not "effectively hidden" just because they don't show up on Google. --Trovatore (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, you should use WP:Proposed merges (not AFD; see the FAQ) if you (using your very best editorial judgment) expect the merge to be controversial. On the other hand, if you (also using your very best editorial judgment) believe that it's not going to be controversial, then you should WP:Just do it, and skip all the needless, time-wasting bureaucratic processes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I realise people can just go ahead and do it and that is what I see as the problem, because this power is being abused, and there's a limit as to how many articles people can watch. Dahliarose (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal does nothing to solve that problem, though. If there is a limit to how many articles a person can watch, then that person will miss the change whether it's simply boldly executed or executed by a tag on the page first (which is all the warning that a deletion discussion provides). Nor, as Trovatore has repeatedly tried to say, is this the slightest bit different from a bold editorial decision to chop out a paragraph or overwrite the contents of a table. We trust that there are more good editors than bad and that there are a sufficient critical mass of good editors to watch the articles. It's not a perfect process but surprisingly it works. Rossami (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I've only identified a problem rather than suggesting a solution. I suggest that this guideline should be amended to encourage editors to propose a merge rather than redirecting articles that contain pictures or are of more than a certain length. Dahliarose (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Dahlia, I'm not sure that we're looking at this from the same perspective, so let me try an example:
I want to merge the article Foo to Metasyntactic variable. Foo is on your watchlist. When I boldly merge-and-redirect it, your watchlist is going to have an item that says something like:
Foo 12:00:00 . . (-6,424)‎ . . ‎WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs)‎ (←Redirected page to Metasyntactic variable)
If I propose a merge, your watchlist could say something like this:
Foo 12:00:00 . . (+24)‎ . . ‎WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs)‎
Do you really believe that the second item is easier to notice than the first? Do you really think that a user who misses the first one, with the bold red numbers and the announcement of the redirect, will somehow see the second one, in which a {{mergeto}} template is added at the top of the page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No we're not looking at this from the same perspective. If an article is on someone's watch list then redirects are easily spotted. If an article is not on a watch list it's a different matter altogether. I've come across a number of articles quite by chance that have been redirected quite inappropriately, and sometimes even by administrators, which has given me cause for concern. I've no idea of the extent of this practice, but there's no easy way of tracking redirects, whereas proposed merges are categorised and you can check merge lists to see if any articles have been tagged for mergers inappropriately. And of course, as previously stated, once an article has been redirected, it's much more difficult for new users who might have an interest in the subject to find the article. Dahliarose (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Watchlists are THE methodology for detecting bad changes to articles. If your point is that there is some other way that once in a while, by chance, might detect a bad change, and that this way is less likely to work if an article has been redirected, I'm sorry, but this is not a problem and there is nothing to be fixed. --Trovatore (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, Dahlia. If the page is not on your watchlist, then you will not notice it being merged—or deleted, or gutted, or expanded, or subtly vandalized. That's a consequence of not watching a page, but it's not a unique problem for merging.

Yes, pages tagged for merging get listed in the categories (temporarily, until the merge is completed). In my experience, however, almost nobody actually looks at these categories, so the tag-and-wait cycle on most pages tends to result in nothing ever happening. That's why we have proposed merges that have been in the cats for up to four years. So far as I know, there is no centralized permanent record of pages tagged for merging. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• WhatamIdoing, Can you please educate me (and other lurkers): what categories are you talking about? Where can one see proposed merges that have been in the categories for up to 4 years? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  See Category:All articles to be merged also monthly cats under Category:Articles to be merged. There is presently 1 article in Category:Articles to be merged from May 2008 (four years ago). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Trovatore, How do you know there is nothing to be fixed? Can you provide statistics on what percentage of wiki-redirects are those that also blanked previous content? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  There is nothing to be fixed because Dahlia's argument is explicitly about what happens when watchlists fail. But there is no provision for what happens when watchlists fail, nor does there need to be. Watchlists are the methodology for watching for bad changes to articles. Occasionally bad changes may be found some other way, and that's fine, but it doesn't enter into our considerations. If an article is not watched, it's cold dark matter. --Trovatore (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there is no easy way of even accessing a list of redirected articles. Merges are a different problem altogether, and if someone chooses to redirect a page that has been proposed for a merge for a long time, the I don't think it's a problem. However, I've come across some of these redirects which are not being done correctly and the person doing the redirect has not made any attempt to include the subject of the article in the target page, making it very confusing for the reader. It seems to me that in these cases redirect is effectively being used to delete (ie hide) the article rather than to complete the proposed merge. Dahliarose (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Except in those situations of obvious bad faith, in my experience it is because the editor making the page into a redirect honestly believes that there is nothing worth merging into the target article. You may disagree with that assessment but it is fundamentally no different than the routine editorial decision to slash out large parts of an existing article or to omit to move in large parts of some other article. It is not "deletion" because it is easily seen (via the watchlist, etc.) and just as easily undone. I am very strongly opposed to changing that standard. I see no potential upside and a very substantial downside to the added bureaucracy that such a change would require. Rossami (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Rossami, relying on people to watch pages may have worked in the past, but as Wikipedia grows more articles, and less Wikipedians per article, I wonder if this approach will continue to be effective. Ottawahitech (talk)

• Dahliarose, I guess I am even more extreme in my views than you are. I do see a problem when someone deletes an existing article by blanking it and then redirecting, EVEN when such a "merge" has been proposed for a merge for a long time. The one advantage of going through a formal process such as wp:afd is that at least the person who created the article is notified formally of the proposal on their talk page, so if they are not around when the deletion takes place (not everyone is on Wikipedia every day, every week, or every month), at least they will find out about it eventally. I hope there will be even more safegards in future (such as notifying more Wikipedians who had contributed to an article and an explsnation of how to appeal deletions). Ottawahitech (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  Excuse me for some strong language but that approach is inherently anti-wiki. It violates the core principles of WP:OWN, WP:BOLD and WP:NOTBURO to name just a few. Even at AfD, notification of the original creator of an article is only a minor courtesy (the idea of making it a requirement has been repeatedly proposed and rejected every time) - and we extend even that courtesy only because, as was said above, "deletion" of a page and its history is fundamentally different from the mere removal of content from a page. What you are proposing are not safeguards which will protect only the "good" articles but process inhibitions which will bog down the pace of innovation and improvement of all articles. It would be a dramatic step backwards from the very processes that have make Wikipedia a success. Rossami (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree: introducing bureaucratic delays that have zero effect on the outcome is anti-wiki. "Wiki" means "quick", and bureaucratic delay is anything but quick. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

AFD does not require the creator to be notified, so Ottawa's "one advantage" is non-existent. Furthermore, AFD is not for merges (please do read the very short FAQ).

Here are some pages I "speedy-merged" during the last year:

• Founder mutation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Adrenergic bronchodilator overdose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Extrinsic incubation period (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Purse party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (was tagged for a merge)

I haven't checked, but I believe that in every case the material either already existed in the target article, or I moved it there. Do any of you really think that waiting for a week or having a big discussion at WP:Proposed mergers would have resulted in a materially different outcome? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• WhatamIdoing, I am still having trouble following the discussion here. This is why: in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia it says: “Wikipedia's licensing requires that attribution be given to the original author” – it is not clear to me how this can be accomplished when one “speedy-merges” pages? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• You use suitable edit summaries as described at WP:MERGETEXT. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Redrose64, WP:MERGETEXT is another part of Wikipedia that I have not noticed before. Two questions come to mind:

- Why is there no mention of this text on the redirect page?

- Can "speedy-merges" be accomplished using this method – or will this bog down the process? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:R describes redirects, not page merges. Those are described at H:M (the same doc that contains WP:MERGETEXT), where in paragraph 2, we find

Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such generally does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merger, as described below.

This, I think, covers the situation which you refer to as a "speedy merge". --Redrose64 (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Rossami, (re your comment: "Excuse me for some strong…") would you be kind enough to explain why you believe my approach is anti-wiki? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said above, because the proposal violates the core principles of WP:OWN, WP:BOLD and WP:NOTBURO among others and as WhatamIdoing notes, it's not "quick" which is the very definition of "wiki". It violates WP:OWN because the proposal assumes that there is some person (and specifically, some one person) to notify. Wikipedia contributions are submitted for everyone and are subject to immediate revision, correction, removal, etc. It violates WP:BOLD and WP:NOTBURO by adding approval layers and decision layers that inhibit the quick, iterative and self-correcting collaboration that makes Wikipedia work. Rossami (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Dahlia, there isn't a list of redirected articles, because it would be unwieldy, but Category:Wikipedia redirects includes more than a million redirects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the category. It was on the Redirect page all along but I hadn't spotted it. I've no wish to introduce more bureaucracy and a bold merge or redirect is often the best option. I'm really thinking that there ought to be something added to this guideline to the effect that editors should be encouraged to check for sources first and perhaps initiate a discussion on the article's talk page before redirecting articles of any substance. There seems to be a rash of editors who are drive-by redirecting articles. The editors don't seem to make any attempt to read the articles first. The redirect is done without merging any of the content (eg, school articles are redirected but the notable alumni are not moved to the target article). Dahliarose (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Is wp:notbroken not contradictory to page move advice?

Should the advice include a sentence specifying that WP:NOTBROKEN this does or does not apply after a page move? I don't know if this is addressed anywhere in the archives, but I think a sentence would be advisable. See Wikipedia:Move#How_to_move_a_page. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a page says to fix double redirects: that is, redirects where the target is itself a redirect. Let's say that page Foo is a redirect to Bar, and then we move Bar to Baz. The page move process creates a redirect from Bar to Baz.

Users clicking on links formed as [[Bar]] will be taken to Baz, so the link still works and WP:NOTBROKEN applies. However, any links formed as [[Foo]] will no longer work, therefore are broken, and so WP:NOTBROKEN does not apply. This is a double redirect, so the single page Foo must be amended to point to Baz instead of Bar. Articles containing the link [[Foo]] can be left alone - and generally should be, unless there are good reasons to amend (such as Foo being a misspelling of Baz). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain your comment in regards to point 5?

5. In the section of that page marked filters, click on the button labeled "Hide links". This will result in the page only showing redirects to the prior name. Open each of the redirect pages (best to do so in new tabs), click edit this page for each one, and change their target to the name of the page to which you have moved the page. Though this is an important cleanup step, if you miss some, they will normally be fixed by a bot shortly afterwards.

This is what I find contradictory, or at least confusing to the layman. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think its indicating to open each of the redirects and change their target in that sentence. -DJSasso (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The bullet you quote (#5 in the Moved Page instructions) is poorly written in my opinion. What it is trying to ask you to do is a) go back to the pre-move title of the page ("Bar" in the example above). b) From that page, click WhatLinksHere. c) Now use the Hide Links filter so that the list only shows the inbound redirects to "Bar". Inbound regular-links to "Bar" will pass through properly to "Baz" and do not need fixing. Inbound redirects (such as "Foo") will not pass through properly to "Baz" and do need fixing. d) Fix those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossami (talk • contribs) 00:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Duplicating section title anchors creates invalid XHTML

Re Targeted and untargeted redirects: if you make an anchor with the same name as a header, the generated XHTML will have two elements with the same id, which is invalid. As noted at Template:Anchor/doc. I've created a Warning section about this as well as case sensitivity. ··gracefool☺ 19:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

justifying beyond R templates to avoid RfD

Sometimes, I create a redirect and think it may need a justification to preclude a RfD, a justification more specific than one communicated by an R template. For example, I may provide a citation to a source using the alternative term, to show the reasonableness of a redirect. The question is how to provide that information so that anyone considering a RfD nomination will find it. My solution has been to write a comment, but that depends on someone involved with the RfD opening the redirect in Edit mode before a final decision is made, and I don't know if editors do that. Probably all the redirects I created are on my watchlist, but we don't want to depend on a single editor (viz., me) ever looking. Adding it to the talk page only helps if RfD-concerned editors look at the talk page. I haven't much considered writing the comment content as a noncomment on the redirect non-talk page, which might make it visible on the redirect page without entering the edit mode, but again RfD editors would have to look there and I don't know if that's normal. If a redirect is turned into an article or a disambiguator, the comment can be either rewritten or deleted at that time; it might serve as a starting point for research. I don't think always omitting the information is a good idea. Are there any suggestions? Should the redirect editing procedure be clarified to accommodate this issue? Nick Levinson (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC) (Corrected my misspelling: 20:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC))

There's always Wikipedia:Editnotices, but again that would depend on the person editing the page, but which someone considering an RfD would do anyway right? -- œ^™ 00:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

More reasons to delete redirects?

A lowercase/capital redirect for the sake of people being lazy, like Felix hernandez to Felix Hernandez, or Fantasy island to Fantasy Island; such redirects are redundant, since we have a search engine for this purpose. --Thenewguy34 (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, any new types of these redirects aren't very useful and should no longer be created for that purpose, but some of the older ones may still be linked from external sites. Also, some of these redirects, for whatever reason, are used as wikilinks in some places, so before deleting them we'd need to check the "what links here", in order to prevent turning them into red links. -- œ^™ 00:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if we could massively delete redirects like that or at least tag them as misspelling. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

These are very cheap, and they are needed because the Mediawiki software is no good at normalizing the capitalization in the URL. The redirects are not redundant to the search engine because they permit direct linking, unlike the search engine. In general they ought to be simulated by Mediawiki if they don't exist, but until then they have to be created manually. I create them myself whenever I try to load a URl that fails to work because of capitalization. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult for any software "to be good at normalizing the capitalization", because page titles in Wikipedia are case sensitive but the first character of {{PAGENAME}}. Suppose, we have articles "The Foo bar" and "The foo Bar", but not "The Foo Bar". What should the reader see at the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Foo_Bar ? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I remark somewhat tangentially that it is almost always a bad idea to have article titles distinguished only by case. If a foo bar is a special kind of chinup bar, and Foo Bar is a place to get drunk, then if neither is "primary topic", they should be disambiguated foo bar (exercise equipment) and Foo Bar (drinking establishment). But there's probably some obscure case someone can come up with where this would seem wrong, so I won't claim it's a hard-and-fast rule. --Trovatore (talk) 07:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Two articles those titles differ only in the case are extremely rare. But an article and a dab page (or redirect(s) to a dab page), with the same titles but the letter case, seem to be an established practice. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that is not a good idea as a general rule. Maybe for some cases where the difference in case is very obvious, say between cobra and COBRA. But whenever two users employing plausibly different capitalization styles would have typed the two search terms, intending the same meaning, the two search terms should go to the same place, with navigational helps proceeding from that common page. --Trovatore (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Strongly object. No deployed feature should be assumed to be used by everybody. Particularly some editors (including me) find Wikipedia's search engine's behavior unusable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Pagelinks

Just a heads up: {{pagelinks}} and the {{ln}} family of templates now include &redirect=no in their primary page links, which means they are now effective for linking redirects (in any namespace). BigNate37_(T) 04:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not feel that redirect=no, as well as the use of {{fullurl}}s for all links, is an improvement. Customization of classes such as a.mw-redirect, and even a finer link sorting is not uncommon, but externally-formatted links disrupt the function of this. I found very handy that appearance of any redirect in my Web interface is distinct from regular pages. Certainly, redirecting on attempt to get the main page link may be quite disturbing, but it is not a major problem because "edit" and "history" links are in place. To warn readers about the redirect is not a difficult task.

Could you make the use of {{fullurl}}s (in {{lx}}'s main link and "talk") optional? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of the templates belongs at Template talk:Lx (see Template talk:Lx#redirect=no). BigNate37_(T) 06:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

• Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion Reasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

While I was reading Wikipedia:Redirect, specifically WP:R#CRD, I saw some work that could have been done to increase the amount of visible shortcuts in the shortcut template. However, while doing so, I ran across some information that prompted me to post a merge proposal: to merge Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion Reasons into Wikipedia:Redirect.

I noticed that the section directly below where WP:R#CRD starts (WP:R#HARMFUL)) is its own stand alone "subarticle" of Wikipedia:Redirect, the article being Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion Reasons. There is a template in WP:R#CRD that directly transposes everything from Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion Reasons and pastes it there. From what I was able to see, Wikipedia:Redirect was created in 2001 and Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion Reasons was created in 2005. At this point in the history of Wikipedia, I feel as though the fact that another article is transposed into another article causes issues for editors trying to fix clarity issues in a situation such as this. Also, all shortcuts that point to information in Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion Reasons end up directing the reader to a section in the Wikipedia:Redirect article. Doing something such as this might have served a purpose in Wikipedia's past, but where Wikipedia stands right now, this could actually cause confusing for editors trying to improve the quality of Wikipedia:Redirect. For these reasons, and more, I feel as though Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion Reasons should be merged into Wikipedia:Redirect.

Thank you for your time and consideration on this topic. Steel1943 (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, wanted to point this out regarding how Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion Reasons being its own stand alone article transposed into Wikipedia:Redirect creates issues: I posted the Template:Merge to on Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion Reasons, and it shows up in WP:R#HARMFUL on Wikipedia:Redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't see that as an issue because you can put the merge template inside <noinclude> tags. I'd have gone ahead and done it but I don't think it's a big deal in projectspace, it may even be a good thing for folks to notice that it's a subpage transclusion insofar as advertising the merge proposal goes. BigNate37_(T) 15:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Lastly, I didn't notice this before, but I just noticed that Wikipedia talk:Redirect/Deletion Reasons redirects to Wikipedia talk:Redirect. I posted this proposal thinking that the two articles had separate talk pages (and thus two different discussions.) So, at this point, if I don't hear any responses in the next few hours, I'm going to be bold and merge the two articles. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• This sounds to me as a single endpoint for redirect-related policies. Strong support, given that the redirect-related bits elsewhere are properly linked to WP:R once spotted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• I am opposed to simple merging (but I am not in support for the status quo per se), as it is unclear to me what the intention is for Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion in this merge proposal. The reason for transclusion here is that the list is useful both on WP:R and RfD, and without transclusion the lists were not being updated in parallel. This is evidenced by the HTML comments in Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?, which state "If you modify this list, do the same to the copy at WP:RfD." Immediately below that line and above the transclusion of Wikipedia:Redirect/DeletionReasons, it says "Apparently this is too complex for some people to follow. Let's try it this way, then." I agree that the current situation is not great, but if this list is to exist in both locations, subpage transclusion is best. If having this list in only one location is preferable to subpage transclusion, then I'm leaning towards having the list at RfD and simply linking there from WP:R instead of the other way around: WP:R should be describing good and bad ways to use redirects, whereas RfD should be delineating exactly why they should sometimes be deleted. RfD is already a very algorithmic, prescriptive page and editors often have trouble there nonetheless. Making it more abstract by removing information and linking to it would aggravate that problem. BigNate37_(T) 15:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • BigNate37, I now see what you are saying about WP:RfD. I could not understand what was being stated in the invisible text, but now I see it: this article is transluded into WP:RfD as well. Definitely something to consider in regards to this proposal. Steel1943 (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes I should have said so explicitly, in fact I didn't even think to check if I did come right out and say it the first time. That's the heart of the matter. BigNate37_(T) 16:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• In fact, now that I think of it, I might have a counterproposal to my own merge proposal: Move. That way, at least this article is taking out of the Wikipedia:Redirect space and made its own article. I'm proposing this in lieu of my other proposal due to an article that is not part of the Wikipedia:Redirect space being reliant on the information in Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion Reasons (the other article, of course, being WP:RfD.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• I would propose to perform the merge and replace the transclusion at WP:RFD with a link. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have left a note at WT:RFD#Redirect deletion reasons section linking to this discussion. Bear in mind it sometimes takes a good 24 hours to get all the regulars to see it, as they're not all in the same time zone. BigNate37_(T) 16:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Article feedback blacklist

Working redirects are automatically blacklisted from the article feedback tool (as they are not articles), but redirects under discussion are not. I would fix this but am not sure how to do so without breaking things. See Template talk:Rfd/core#Article feedback blacklist for more information. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is Natalie McLennan redirected?

Just wondering why Natalie McLennan is redirected to Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal. Thanks. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E? Although she is not even named at the landing page, perhaps deletion would be in order. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the speedy response, TheRedPenOfDoom. I think you are saying that this was one of those under-the-radar deletions? But if so - where is the original article? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I certainly dont think there was anything "under the radar" at all. The only thing she is notable for as far as I can see is her relationship to the scandal; and her attempt to leverage that notoriety. But her book about the scandal did not even get any reviews so we are left with nothing but a tangential relationship to a scandal. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• I know nothing about Ms. McLennan, I was just wondering why a bot would redirect her page to another article when I can see no original article "under" the re-direct. Thanks again. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

As you might notice form the bot's edit summary, in july 2010 the then-current target was itself a redirect to Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal, so the bot merely bypassed it in order to avoid double redirection. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That would make sense, but it doesn't appear to be true. The previous target was NY Confidential, which has apparently never pointed anywhere other than Jason Itzler. One might then wonder if the Itzler page had previously been a redirect to the Spitzer scandal, but there's no evidence of that either. I don't really understand what has happened here. --Trovatore (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, OK, looking at the timestamps more carefully, it probably makes sense. The bot action was on 20 July 2010. On 28 July 2010, the AfD for NY Confidential was closed as delete, and the redirect to the Itzler page was created on 6 November 2011.

So the timeline is probably something like this: On 20 July 2010, at the time the bot retargeted the McLennan redirect, there was probably controversy over whether "NY Confidential" was notable enough for an article, and one of the participants redirected it to the Spitzer-scandal page. The bot came along and fixed the double redirect. Then someone undid the redirect of "NY Confidential", and the AfD was filed. The NY Confidential article was deleted, which is why I now can't see this history I'm inferring.

More than a year later, someone created the existing redirect from NY Confidential to Jason Itzler, but no one updated the McLennan redirect (and indeed, who would think to?).

So now the McLennan redirect is just hanging around, pointing to a page that doesn't mention McLennan. --Trovatore (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What about the following scenario?

If we have a redirect Motorola Mobility, which redirects to Google. And if I want to delete Motorola Mobility redirect for making an article in same name. Actually if we see article history, I'm not the starter of the article, if I don't remove redirect first. Is it ok if I remove redirect? --Stryn (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with overwriting the redirect. Why should it be deleted? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

One reason (yeah, I know it's not a good reason) is that I don't see the article in articles started list. And actually it's like Reasons for deleting #10, if article Google doesn't tell anything about Motorola Mobility. --Stryn (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please, don't take it too personal, but the "articles started" is not "not a good reason", but it is dramatically bad reason. To me it is more of a reason to disregard your opinion on a matter entirely. #10 also doesn't apply here, as per deletion policy you should consider other actions which would help to avoid deletion, and in this particular case you are inclined to take one of them. You are dangerously close to gaming the system. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry for butting in here but I don't see Motorola Mobility as a re-direct. What am I missing? Thanks. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Stryn chose the well-known name for the purpose of illustration. It is not a redirect, and it was at the time of initial comment in this discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• @czarkoff, thanks for responding and sorry for taking so long to respond. I checked the history of Motorola Mobility but I still don't see a direct? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What happened to Stamp duty land tax

I see that Stamp duty land tax has been re-directed. How can I find out what was its original content? Thank. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The article was moved to Stamp duty in the United Kingdom. You may see the page history for details. See also Help:History for information on how to accomplish that without disturbing others. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for directing me to Help:History#Moved_and_deleted_pages - this explained my question, but just to make sure I understand what you said above: are you saying that I should have not asked this question here and that it disturbed you that I did? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Reactions to the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks re-directed?

The article Reactions to the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks was moved to Reactions to the reactions to Innocence of Muslims. Is this proper? - this topic was an issue in the United States presidential election debates, 2012, so I hope it does not become a victim of an AFD Ottawahitech (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are you asking here? The redirect from the old location is proper imho, but nominate it for discussion if you think otherwise. This isn't the place to discuss whether moves were proper - the article talk page is the place for that, or if you think a requested move was closed improperly see Wikipedia:Move review. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank for responding, Thryduulf. I don’t believe posting this question on Talk:Reactions to the reactions to Innocence of Muslims will yield results since this page has only been viewed 19 times in the last 30 days. As far as a requested move which was closed improperly – I don’t believe there was such a request to start with, but I may be wrong. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is almost always the best place to discuss things like this, but if it isn't well watched or you want to get outside input then there are several legitimate ways to advertise the discussion. An invite on the talk page of relevant WikiProjects can often (although not always) attract discussion and is the usual first step; you could also specificlly invite users who have commented on the talk page previously. In all cases make sure your invite is neutral and that your selection of any editors to invite specifically is objective and includes those from both sides of any previous discussion.

If that fails to attract attention then you could in this situation try initiating a requested move yourself (WP:RM), or if the discussion doesn't generate a consensus then try starting a request for comment (WP:RFC) - do not do both, and do not launch an RfC unless a talk page discussion has failed.

It is also worth reading Wikipedia:Publicising discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry for constantly introducing off-topic elements to discussion here - but I find Wikipedia full of contradictions and I never know where to address them. In regards to Thryduulf comment above which says talkpages are the best place to discuss issues, I have recently tried to do just that but received a comment on my own talk page (which I prefer to keep only for brief and necessary communications) telling me that the talk-page I tried to start a discussion on was not a suitable place. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Just to illustrate my point, check out this cooment posted on that talkpage more than a week ago. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• 
  Caption1
• 
  Caption2

Need some advice about fixing BrokenRedirects

I visit the Special:BrokenRedirects page twice a week and usually I see a lot of low-hanging fruit which is easily solved by csd tagging or by actually redirecting to a valid target. I feel justified in G8 tagging a user page like User:XXX/ACME Fruit Stand when it points to a deleted target. But I often see a situation like User:XXX/sandbox which redirects to a recently deleted target, sometimes through AfC. Should I just blank such a user sandbox, or should I leave it alone, as I have done previously? BusterD (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• If they clutter up the broken redirects page, then I'd be tempted to change them to soft redirects or just stop the redirect functioning (remove the # or something), leaving an edit summary (and if the user isn't clearly long gone) talk page explanation of what you're doing and why. That way you are preserving any history there is, which may or may not be useful, but is unlikely to be harmful. Anything that we later discover is/may be can be dealt with by CSD/MfD as appropriate. I don't feel comfortable with the idea of routinely speedy deleting userspace pages of active users for something fixable like G8. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Thryduulf, just clean the sandbox. No reason or justification for deleting. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Always OK to bypass template redirects

I've added an entry to the exception list, noting that the reasons for not bypassing redirects do not appear to apply to template redirects, and some of the other Wiki software seems to have problems with it. This is based on a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#AWB vs. WP:NOTBROKEN. Are there any reasons for not bypassing a template redirect? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I 100% agree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed your addition that was not discussed anywhere besides at the AWB talkpage, as it needs wider discussion. The main reason for not bypassing template redirects is that there's no point to cluttering the diffs with changes that make no difference to the rendered page. Especially when the redirect bypassing is for the sole reason that AWB users find it difficult to write regular expressions to process pages including template redirects; instead, AWB should be improved or better tools should be used. Even when the page is being edited for other reasons, there's no point in arbitrarily bypassing template redirects in other areas of the page. And regarding the claim that the books software has problems with template redirects, (and it's probably a bug that needs to be fixed in the books software instead of hacked around). Anomie⚔ 15:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The undiscussed edit was indeed bold, but not every edit needs wider discussion. That main reason of avoiding cluttering the edit history is (possibly) a reason to avoid making edits that only replace template redirects. (a) There is no reason to avoid replacing template redirects along with other edits -- this is different than the other "not broken" reasons, which are reasons to avoid replacing redirects in any edit -- so replacing them isn't hacking around. (b) Keeping the tools from breaking (which is the concern raised) is a reason to make the edit all by itself until/unless the tools are changed, as the benefit being worth the cost of an extra edit in the edit history. (c) I am an AWB user and a regular expression writer, and I'm unaware of any problem with regular expressions processing pages with template redirects. Regular expressions would see all templates as templates, and would have no trouble with template redirects that they didn't also have with non-redirect templates -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

These are the related previous discussions I could find. Can we at least agree that, in edits that make other changes, it is fine to replace template redirects with the target template?

• Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects#Consensus
• Wikipedia talk:Redirect/Archive 2010#Template redirects and WP:NOTBROKEN
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive218#Block review: User:Magioladitis
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive693#Yobot and inconsequential changes yet again

--JHunterJ (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If the template invocation itself or the adjacent text is being edited, bypassing isn't a big deal. But if you make one change to the "See also" section and bypass template redirects through the entire article, it's not much different IMO than if you made an edit just to bypass the redirects. It still makes it difficult for anyone coming after to see what were the substantial changes and what was useless redirect bypassing. As for "keeping tools from breaking", I'd still like to see concrete evidence that anything actually is breaking and a better reason than "We don't want to wait 2 weeks for a fix to be deployed" for making otherwise-useless edits to articles. Re the AWB issue, I've heard that excuse from other AWB users for why they have to bypass template redirects all over the place (and, in some cases, why they have to change {{foo}} to {{Foo}} all over the place); I'm glad to hear an AWB user contradict those excuses. Anomie⚔ 17:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

AWB was never replacing {{foo}} to {{Foo}} so please keep the discussion on the initial question. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

AWB has been used to do so, with that sort of justification. Anomie⚔ 18:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If you make one change to the article, it will clutter the edit history (this clutter is the only real cost of bypassing template redirects). Once that cost has been paid (by any visible-to-the-reader change), template redirects throughout the article could be bypassed in that same edit without cost. I disagree that it makes anything difficult (as opposed to slightly tedious). After finding the discussions above, the AWB problem appears to be that, if a template has three redirects, I'd have to write 4 regexps instead of 1 (or make the 1 clunkier). I'd also dismiss that as a trivial cost -- it's not more difficult at all, just slightly tedious. But I still see the "bypass any and all template redirects along with any visible-result edit" as an easy middle ground to gather cheerfully at.-- JHunterJ (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There's really no benefit to bypassing template redirects in the first place. By definition the template redirect has exactly the same behavior as the template it redirects to. Thus there is no reason for people to bypass them. We tolerate it when other edits are being performed at the same time, but there is no reason to encourage it, because it has no benefit, and because some editors take the encouragement too far and think they should go around "cleaning up" the redirects, even though they are not broken. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that's well within the middle ground to avoid encouraging it and to avoid discouraging it. None of the reasons given for keeping article redirects seems to apply to keeping template redirects. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been talking about cluttering the diff, not cluttering the edit history. While it's useless whitespace changes rather than template bypassing in this example, consider how long it takes to find the substantial changes in this edit versus this edit. Anomie⚔ 18:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

And that's the difference between tedious and difficult. A quick scroll through one allows the WP highlighting to easily reveal the non-whitepaces changes among the not-quite-useless whitespace changes. The diff is longer, but not so cluttered as to hide the other changes among the ones you're not interested in. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Taking much, much longer to examine the diff because of needless changes is both tedious and more difficult than necessary. Anomie⚔ 00:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It has been claimed that somehow the redirect Template:end box breaks when books are being generated. Can anyone actually give an example of that, or point to the bug in the mediawiki bugzilla? — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to see this example. Anomie⚔ 18:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There is also the parameter of code readability which I would like to add. Reading a code consisting of shortcuts is unpleasant. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Really? I find it more pleasant to see {{cn}} or {{fact}} than {{Citation needed}} all over the place, since it's shorter. In other words, personal opinion doesn't count for much when others can easily hold the opposite opinion. Anomie⚔ 18:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

And I find it easier to read {{citation needed}}, {{wiktionary}} and {{disambiguation}} over {{cn}} {{wikt}} and {{dab}}. Shorter isn't the same as more pleasant. There was a consensual move of templates to the readable, full-word and full-phrase forms for readbility; the consensus opinion should count there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless whether there was consensus for the template renaming (much of which was never discussed), that does not translate to a consensus to mechanically go through existing uses and change them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The point here though is on the readability. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh look, you have entirely missed my point. I'll state it again: Your personal opinion as to which is easier to read doesn't matter any more than does my personal opinion. Anomie⚔ 00:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You must have missed my entire response. I'll finish it again: There was a consensual move of templates to the readable, full-word and full-phrase forms for readbility; the consensus opinion should count there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, the templates were renamed; but that does not extend to a consensus to go through every article that uses the old name and change it to the new name. There has never been a consensus to just go through and bypass redirects blindly; that is reflected both here and at BRFA, where bots to do it are not approved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

In fact, if there were no false positives like Infobox Officeholder we wouldn't need a bot to do it. We could do it via MediaWiki on save. But I think the discussion is more if it worth going and replacing redirects or not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The point here though is on the readability. The new point seems to be repeating this subthread. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Several people have pointed out that "readability" is entirely subjective. Different editors will have different opinions about which template name is more readable in source code. For subjective things like that, the way we handle them it so simply allow each article come to its own consensus about what to use, based on the editors that happen to edit that article. The process for renaming templates is lightweight partially because editors of a specific article don't have to worry about that the name "really" is, they can use a redirected name instead if they prefer. If every rename required editors everywhere to switch to it, we would need to move to a much higher-involvement process for renaming templates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is to say that bypasing redirects in a section being edited for other reasons is tolerated as long as it doesn't obscure the non-pointless changes. At all other times and in all other places it is disruptive because it makes diffs more difficult to read and causes watchlist clutter, obscuring significant changes and making the job of recent changes patrollers more difficult. Thryduulf (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. Anomie⚔ 18:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that wording reflects the overall practice. The key point to me is that the article is being edited for other reasons. Edits whose main purpose is to bypass redirects should be avoided, unless there is a specific reason (e.g. a deletion discussion) that the redirect needs to be bypassed immediately. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to avoid calling the changes (of whitespace or of template redirects) "pointless". And, as above, it's not more difficult, although it may be more tedious, and template redirect changes with "significant" changes will not cause watchlist clutter. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification — by "bypass" do you mean actually replacing one template invocation by another? I don't have (much) of a problem with that, but I don't think it needs to be mentioned in NOTBROKEN, which is really mainly about "pipes considered harmful". As far as I know there is no way to pipe a template (am I right about that?).

I would like to see NOTBROKEN more cleanly focus on why pipes are (usually) bad, and not on the (mostly) red-herring issue of unnecessary edits. --Trovatore (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, bypassing a template-redirect is done by replacing the template-redirect with the target template. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's a completely different thing from using a pipe. I don't think they should be discussed in the same place. --Trovatore (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree. The spirit of the NOTBROKEN has to do with pipes! -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The spirit of WP:NOTBROKEN, IMO, has to do with not making edits to point directly to the target rather than accessing the target via a redirect. Whether that is done by piping the link, unpiping the link, or replacing the link or transclusion entirely is beside the point. Consider the example currently in the guideline That is, editors should not change, for instance, [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] just to "fix a redirect". That's not piping, but is still included here. Anomie⚔ 00:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think it's beside the point. The name NOTBROKEN is a somewhat unfortunate legacy name; the real point is that pipes are problematic in ways that redirects are not, and so it is ordinarily better to have the redirect than the pipe. Whether there is an edit or not is somewhat beside the point (it is often correct, for example, to change a pipe into a redirect).

The FDR case is sort of a good point, but it's still not about making edits. It would be correct to change Franklin D. Roosevelt to Franklin Roosevelt (no pipe) if the latter worked better stylistically in the text given, and it would also be correct to change it the other direction for stylistic reasons. --Trovatore (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue of piping is tangential to NOTBROKEN, which has always been primarily about not "fixing" redirects that are not actually broken. older ≠ wiser 15:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. It has always been written in a way that talks about unnecessary edits, but in my opinion that's because it has not been well written. The real underlying issue is that pipes are bad. Not one of the enumerated "reasons not to change" has anything to do with the change being bad. Every single one of them is valid as an argument to change a pipe to a redirect. --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No, there is nothing inherently bad about piping. The raison d'être for NOTBROKEN has always been about not making edits that have no tangible benefit. older ≠ wiser 21:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That's just false. Look at the list of reasons (starting with "redirects can indicate possible future articles") and go through them one by one. Every single one of them is about why a redirect is better than a pipe in that circumstance. (The more general reason, that pipes are analogous to hard links in a filesystem whereas redirects are analogous to symbolic links, is omitted.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, because one way that editors "fix" redirects is by using piped links, then of course some (and not every single one) of the reasons to avoid this practice are going to highlight the drawbacks of piping. But the point is that piping is not the only method of "fixing" that is deprecated here. It is also applicable to not changing a redirect to an unpiped direct link. It is not that pipes are inherently bad -- your language -- piped links are an inherently useful feature of wiki software. Perhaps you only intended a limited context for this, but that wasn't clear. I stand by my claim that NOTBROKEN has always been about not making edits that have no tangible benefit. older ≠ wiser 03:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Every single one of the reasons in the section I pointed you to is absolutely about why redirects are better than what people want to replace them with, not about the non-useful edits. Look at them one by one. There are exactly six (six bullet points), and every one is about why the redirect is better.

As to piping being a useful aspect of the software, yes, in the same sense that hardly anyone wants to remove goto from the C language (see goto considered harmful if you're not a programmer). There are cases where it's necessary, or better than the alternatives. But it's more or less a last resort, and if a stable redirect is available instead, the redirect should always be used, even if it takes an edit to put it there. --Trovatore (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You read toh-mah-toes, I read toe-may-toes. These are about non-useful edits. And yes they are about why redirects are better than the alternatives (which is not limited to piping as you previously said).

And no, this section does not in any way claim that if a stable redirect is available instead, the redirect should always be used -- what the section attempts to explain is that editors should not change redirect links to use an alternative (i.e. avoid making edits that have no tangible benefit). older ≠ wiser 04:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not say the section claims that the redirect should always be used if stable and available. Nevertheless, it should always be used, and the section explains why. None of the six bullet points says anything at all about non-useful edits. Every single one of them is about which state is better, not about whether edits should be used to get there. --Trovatore (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) (Tangentially, I'd like to clarify what I mean by "stable". You might occasionally come across a redirect that appears to point to the "wrong" article — say, perhaps there's a notable concept that's probably a better target for the search term, and anticipate that an article will eventually be written at that title, or at some other title but with the redirect pointing there. In that case it is reasonable to substitute a pipe, because the redirect, even if it has only one edit in its history, is not "stable"; it's likely to change.) --04:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no obligation to always use a redirect. That is a terrible idea and has nothing whatsoever to do with this section. Your claims about the bullet points are baseless. The section taken in it's entirety is about avoiding unhelpful edits. older ≠ wiser 04:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If there's a solid redirect that makes sense and isn't going to change, you should always use it in preference to a pipe. And the bullet points say nothing whatsoever about unhelpful edits; they are about why redirects are better. --Trovatore (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not what this section recommends and I still think its a terrible idea. And I seriously question if we're reading the same section. Read the ENTIRE section and then again try to say with a straight face that it is not about avoiding "unhelpful edits". older ≠ wiser 12:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think what happened is that the section, historically, started out as an annoyed response to people who were changing [[redirect]] to [[target|redirect]]. That's the reason for the unfortunate legacy name NOTBROKEN, which misses the real point, the real point being that [[redirect]] is (with rare exceptions) actually better than [[target|redirect]]. The bullet points are largely about why it is better (they are all, without exception whatsoever, completely about why a redirect is better than what would replace it, and not one of them has anything at all to do with unnecessary edits). --Trovatore (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with that reinterpretation. The section is still about not fixing redirects that aren't broken. One of the clearest "bad" ways to fix them is by replacing [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]],but it also applies to not replacing the redirect with direct link in some cases. I'm not sure why you are fixated on the bullet points and ingore the rest of the section in which "unhelpful" figures prominently in the rationale. older ≠ wiser 13:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

@Magio: That is one aspect, but not the only one. We could have a bot that immediately replaces all template redirects, so that they are not used. But consensus has always been against having such a bot, and NOTBROKEN also covers that consensus. Unfortunately, some editors take it upon themselves to "fix" template redirects, apparently ignoring the fact that if we wanted that to be done a bot would be able to do it much more efficiently. The spirit is the same: redirects are not broken, so there is no reason to replace them solely to avoid using the redirect. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

At least we could "split" (if they were ever together the two things so we can ask a real dialogue on the matter. The last time we tried the editors' participation was not that high. By "splitting" or "separating" I refer to the use/not use of pipes and use/not use of templates redirect. I think we all agree to the redirects of mainspace pages policy. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

And yes... there is one more similar discussion in Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Page_move_bot.3F. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, the spirit of the NOTBROKEN is related to either pipes (which renders a change inside the edit box but may not be seen in main space) or unpleasant visual changes outside! Whichever it is I think we can agree, if we are being realistic, it can't be applied to bypassing template redirects, especially those where no pipe or visual change is involved. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If I've understood your comment correctly, that NOTBROKEN prohibits/discourages making changes that have no visual effect unless the edit is bypassing a template redirect, then no we do not agree. The spirit of NOTBROKEN prohibits all changes that have no visual effect except, to a limited degree, when other changes in that section of the article are being made, or following explicit consensus about a specific template at TfD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The spirit of NOTBROKEN is in preserving the benefits of using a redirect; that non-visual-effect changes are avoided is a side effect of the guideline, not its spirit. If there's a reason to fix a redirect, then it might be fixed as the only change in an edit, and if there's no reason to "fix" a redirect, then it shouldn't be done even with other changes in a single edit. The possible middle ground here would be to say that template-redirects might be fixed but the AWB guidelines of avoiding no-visual-effect edits should be adhered to (WP:AWB#Rules of use #4). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

In general, there is no reason to fix the redirects. However we tolerate changing back and forth when it's done on a small scale, because an editor who focuses on a particular article may prefer to use only one form (which could be the redirect or the target, depending on the editor and article). The thing that should be avoided is making large-scale runs solely motivated by bypassing redirects, unless the redirect itself is about to be deleted or repurposed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly back and forth. All changes are done on the direction of reducing the redirects. If the redirect name is better then we should rename the template itself. Something we have done in many cases in the past. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If a particular editor prefers to use a redirect on an article that they have been editing, rather than the target, they are perfectly free to change the templates in the normal course of editing. This is true both for redirecs to articles and redirects to templates. There is no policy, guideline, or consensus that redirects should be avoided in general or should universally be replaced with their targets. If there was, we wouldn't have this conversation, because a bot would already have replaced the redirects with their targets... Such bots are never approved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No. I disagree. They are not free to change it. This will cause indefinitely edit wars. The standard name reflects the consensus on the naming too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

For some years there were exceptions ofcourse like the days that "fact" was the main name and "citation needed" was the redirect but this was fixed by renaming the main template. Exceptions can only exist if there is a consensus for them. Community's direction should be name/code standardisation. I understand that we are still in the prehistory of Wikipedia and that when Live Editor comes into play there will be no discussion for redirects, but we have to be patient till then and try to standardise as much as possible. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "we have to"? There has never been a consensus to go through and standardize these alternate names, quite the contrary: we have always allowed editors to use any name they prefer, as is also true of every other optional stylistic matter. This is because all the redirects work exactly as well as the target template, and so there is no actual benefit in standardizing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The benefits of standardising have been repeated before and this is the reason that the community moved forward in standardisation of page titles, etc. This includes standardisation of hatnotes, wikiprojects, tags and many others. This is also the reason we merged a lot of infoboxes (great example is the Infobox settlement which replaced dozens of older templates once and for good). With the phrase "We have to" I express my opinion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There has never been consensus for automated standardization (i.e., substituting one with another with no functional change). And there has always been consensus for allowing editors to use whichever name worked best for them. Your great example of Infobox settlement is indeed a great example in that there continues to be a multitude of both redirects as well as specialized "wrapper" templates that allow editors to continue to use the template names they are accustomed to use and not have to use a monolithic one-size-fits-all monstrosity. older ≠ wiser 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I never used the word "automated". There is a consensus for standardisation. The disagreement was, yes, if this must be done in mass scale automated or slowly by editors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Many editors read "standardization" as a license to make said changes on a mass scale, regardless of whether done with assistance of a tool or manually. I don't agree that there has ever been agreement about such standardization in usage. older ≠ wiser 12:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to encourage bypassing template redirects; on the contrary, we have several cases where we 'seed' a WikiProject Some Country as a redirect to WikiProject Continent, or Some Sport to Group of Sports, and this absolutely does not need 'fixing', on the contrary. In addition, WhatLinksHere output is better with redirects because you can actually occasionally gain some insight from it. If anything should be done, WP:BRINT should be repealed because it's making WhatLinksHere output flat, i.e. you can't see what's linked inline and what's linked en masse through a navbox. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You're talking about a template {{WikiProject Some Country}} redirecting to {{WikiProject Continent}}, not of a Wikipage Wikipedia:Wikiproject Some Country as a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Continent? Those WikiProject templates would not be in article space, but on Talk pages, right? If that's an issue, we could clarify that the guideline here is for redirects in articles, not on Talk pages. I'm afraid I don't understand the note about not being able to tell what's link through a navbox, unless you're talking about redirects that are created for use only in a navbox. Are there such redirects? They would still have the problem mentioned in WP:BRINT of hiding circular redirects, right? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Much of the issue with bypassing template redirects is for templates used on articles. For example, if I put a correctly dated {{cn}} tag on an article I am editing, it does not need to be bypassed to {{citation needed}}, and the community historically has never approved bots for the purpose of automatically bypassing templates in that way. AnomieBot does bypass the redirect if it adds a date parameter, but if the date parameter is included correctly from the beginning it does not touch the template. On the other hand, it's not clear why NOTBROKEN would apply to links between articles but not to links between pages in the Wikipedia namespace. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

And I find it easier to read {{citation needed}}, {{wiktionary}} and {{disambiguation}} over {{cn}} {{wikt}} and {{dab}}. Shorter isn't the same as more pleasant. - Exactly, J. Moreover, {{cn}} is less meaningful (even less, in an edit box) than {{Citation needed}} and that is the same spirit that made way for WP:COMMON NAME (i.e. latter is more easily recognizable and detectable). That said, I think were supposed to figure whether {{end box}} → {{s-end}} change is acceptable. Let's take it step by step, can we? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, AnomieBOT's TagDater never bypasses redirects. Smackbot/Helpful Pixie Bot used to, and other people who've done the task in the past have, but I've never seen the point. Anomie⚔ 22:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I just want to clarify a couple things here. CBM States the "community historically has never approved bots for the purpose of automatically bypassing templates" but the community doesn't approve bots, the Bot Approvals Group approves bots. So although the BAG folks are members of the community, they can and have told bot operators no after a community consensus has supported a change. Also, a lot of attention has been paid to to WikiProject Templates but these are by no means the only ones. Infobox's frequently have this problem as do several other templates. Additionally, clarity is a real factor. CN might mean something to some of us advanced editors but it frankly doesn't mean shit to the new or inexperienced editor without clicking on it. Citation needed however is pretty clear to even the most novice editor. A final point is that the English Wikipedia is a source of articles for most other pedia's so if we have a bunch of redirects on a page, that may not correspond to the others, it makes it that much harder, unnecessarily so, to translate the article into the other pedia. There are plenty more reasons but these are just a few for all my fans to fight and argue about how I don't know what I'm talking about. Kumioko (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue of translations is completely irrelevant as it applies regardless of what the template is named and whether it is linked via a redirect or directly. Standardising hatnotes, something I do a lot of, is also not the same issue as this one as the consensus was and is to standardise the presentation of the hatnotes. Even though edits like [4] do not change the displayed text at present, it standardises the formatting so that if the desired style changes in the future this hatnote isn't left with a relic of the old style. What we're talking about here is the complete lack of any benefit from changing instances of {{this}} and {{otheruses4}} with {{about}}.

Finally, the source of this very section shows very clearly that different editors prefer to use different names for the same thing - linking to templates has been done by using all of {{tl}}, {{tlx}} and {{temp}} a perfect illustration of readability being subjective. Thryduulf (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There a couple things you mention that I think is important to discuss. You say that there is no value in converting {{this}} and {{otheruses4}} with {{about}} but CBM has also stated that Redirects are for Synonyms. This None of those three appear to be Synonyms of the other too and all three could be interpreted a variety of ways by different readers. Also of note is your mention of editors here using {{tl}}, {{tlx}} and {{temp}} interchangebly. This is also a point I made above that is confusing to novice editors. They and even some of the more experienced ones wouldn't know automatically that the three are all very nearly the same. Kumioko (talk) 03:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

We're splitting hairs about a very trivial thing. Kumioko you earlier stated that you these templates have problems with book name-space and I believe you were not joking. So, is there any way we could cross-check/verify it? Not asking for diffs (although it would be great if you could deliver one) but can you confirm this possibility anyhow, maybe by asking an editor who can attest to that claim or can prove the problem or can check it? If there is even a chance of that problem occurring then our case will be ever more credible. Let's be practical guys. Thanks Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

On any page that is linked from a navbox, which is in turn transcluded by any number of articles, you can't discern which of those links are generated by the navbox by looking at the Special:Whatlinkshere output of the linked page. You have to go to each of those articles and find the link manually. Navboxes could, and should, be modified in a way that they bold not only the links that exactly match the article title, but also the links that match some other text, for example "$title (navigation)", similar to how we have "$title (disambiguation)" for WP:INTDAB. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a distinct proposal to use "$title (navbox)" redirects, then, and concerns redirects in the article namespace being used in templates, not the use of redirects in the template namespace being used as synonyms for other templates (which is what the rest of this section is about). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't, I was telling you this as an example of why template redirects are useful. With them, you can actually see how many times each particular form of a template name was used. If you remove them, you lose that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"$title (navigation)" is not a template redirect, which is why I missed that point. I understand the utility of seeing when links to an article are in article body text vs. being in navboxes. What is the utility in seeing how many times {{cn}} or {{fact}} or {{citation needed}} are each used? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You can use it to gauge the actual most common name for a template when deciding on a rename, or to detect patterns when deciding on a split. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Template redirects, how are they even helpful?

Note: Not talking about meta templates that are like to be never used in the body of an article. The comments left herein are directed mainly towards maintenance tags and the templates which are used inside the body of an article-page.

---

I know this might seem a bit too contentious but I would like to initiate a discussion about this. Why? Because most (if not all) of the reasons for creating and maintaining redirects become invalid when they come to template-redirect. I think this is what the heart of the issue is in the above discussion. Some see the value of template-redirects and others simply don't.

I would like to argue template redirects create nothing but chaos and needless complication in form of excessive diversity at the cost of recognizably and consistency. But the problem goes deeper.

1. There is a standard and consistent design for article message boxes.
2. There is a standard and consistent pattern in article names.
3. There is a standard protocol for everything we do in Wikipedia.
4. There is a standard and consistent design for article redirects (which are limited/bound by the policies of Notability, Existence of Reliable sources, etc)

....and so forth.

We need standardization. But under the current guidelines, nobody did or could stop anybody from creating a totally unrelated redirect of a template simply because someone thought it's cool to shorten the name of a template and that too, at the cost recognizability.

Recognizability

In case of Article redirects, recognizability is a primary determinant of a redirect's validity, but that seemingly does not exist in case of template redirects. Example: redirects of {{citation needed}}.

Notability of the redirect name

Same as recognizability; notability at the time of choosing a title for a template redirect is almost absurd. Templates are not discussed in reliable sources, come on.

Length of the title

This is also a reason why we use redirects of Articles. Again, we might also notice that the names of most maintenance tags are quite small and preponderance of them contain one/two words. If we can put up with long article titles we will surely handle the already short original template names with panache. and Finally

Scope

An article redirect needs to meet a number of guidelines (some of which are mentioned above). But unlike in case of the articles, nothing has explicitly laid down the guidelines for template redirects. If {{this}} and {{Otheruses4}} goes to {{About}}, then where does it stop? It doesn't stop. People can create and has already created scores of absolutely redundant redirects basing on nothing but their own preferences. Where is the discussion before each time one wants to create a template redirect? How is it community consensus then? The fact is community doesn't even know how many redirects have already been created.

There is actually a bundle of needless redirects that actually, basing upon the sheer diversity, makes it harder to remember there names. If I make an unhelpful edit people ask me why did you I do that, it's not making any significant change. Now I am asking you guys, how is the creation or usage of a redirect as opposed to the original template a necessary change? No it's not necessary nor is it important to lend credence to one's argument solely because he/she likes that change. If that is so, then I also like to replace the template-redirect. You cannot say my edit is unnecessary and the first edit was necessary.

The creation arbitrary creation of template redirect (without a discussion) does more harm than good, it creates more complication/confusion than it actually resolves.

Hence, I propose we should replace as many unrecognizable (e.g. {{cn}}→{{citation needed}}) template-redirects we can in the body of an Article. Wikipedia is not a vote nor is it a democracy (where numbers alone speak). We should operate on the merit of the arguments presented rather than how many dislikes it. Feel free to weigh in. Thanks, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC) 12:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

More: I also believe that Kumioko was telling the truth that redirect templates are problematic in BOOK name space. Nevertheless I am awaiting confirmation of this. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Template redirects

1. Avoid the creation of duplicate templates. We don't want to have a Template:Unsourced and a Template:Unreferenced, and people have no way of knowing the one single correct name
2. Enable swifter editing: e.g. the "correct" name may be Template:Afd bottom, but Template:Ab works just the same, is faster to type, and since they are both substituted anyway, makes no difference whatsoever afterwards.
3. Make the redivision of templates possible. What I mean is this: Template:Infobox journalist now is a redirect to Template:Infobox person. If we ever decide that journalists do need a separate infobox anyway, we don't need to change all articles on journalists, we can start changing the infobox (turning it into a "real" template instead of a redirect
4. When renaming a template, you don't need to "correct" all pages that used the old name; allowing template redirects thus saves hundreds or thousands of rather pointless edits

• I've probably forgotten a few ones, but whether they may be bypassed during automated editing or not, there can hardly be discussion about the fact that they are useful and should not be deleted (except for different reasons, like insulting redirects and so on). Fram (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree completely with Fram. In addition to the points he mentions, other reasons for keeping them are
    • Accessibility - we want to make it as easy as possible for someone to contribute, and by having redirects from equally plausible names helps this
    • Attribution, particularly if templates have been merged
    • History - if a template is renamed or superceded then maintaining a redirect from the old title means that it isn't necessary to educate every single editor about the change (a task that would be impossible if you tried), so that an article editor can continue adding content without a template that worked yesterday suddenly breaking - forcing them to hunt for a deletion or move discussion then to hunt through that to find what the replacement template is (which may not be obvious), then go to that template page to check the usage instructions, is a Very Bad Thing. Breaking things like that is very bad for editor retention.
    • Old revisions - keeping redirects from old names means that views of old revision do not break (old revisions transclude the current version of a template, if one exists; see bugzilla:34244). Old revisions are important for many reasons.
  • In summary, it must be remembered that as behind-the-scenes editors that our job is to facilitate the readers and editors of encyclopaedic content; we must make our tools work with what benefits readers and editors, we must not make their life harder because it makes our life more convenient. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I forgot to mention that you are incorrect when you say there are standards for article redirect naming. Spend some time at RfD and you will see that as long is useful and not harmful (and the threshold for usefulness is very low, the threshold for harm is quite high) then it is almost always kept. The standard for template redirects is only very slightly higher. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

@Fram: Avoid the creation of duplicate templates. - delete the duplicate and in the log tell the user where he or she could find the original one, like we do for lots of articles.

Template:Infobox journalist now is a redirect to Template:Infobox person. If we ever decide that journalists do need a separate infobox anyway, we don't need to change all articles on journalists, we can start changing the infobox. - I do not think so. It actually makes creation of Infobox Journalist even a bigger problem. What about the parameters? We will anyway need to change all the parameter-names in those pages otherwise it won't work correctly. If we kept all the parameters same then what's the point of creating a new infobox in the first place.

renaming a template - We're not talking only about creation of templates that are inevitably formed by renaming templates. I am talking about those that are created by us through a fairly arbitrary process (own judgement). Come on, Fram. None of that actually necessitates arbitrary creation of templates. There are many redundant redirects of Citation needed this is what I am specifically against.

@Thryduulf: I forgot to mention that you are incorrect when you say there are standards for article redirect naming - Yes, there are many guidelines inherently (by their nature) pertaining to and limiting Article Titles.

Spend some time at RfD and you will see that as long is useful and not harmful - I didn't see many template redirects and out those not many were redirects of the templates I am talking about. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

For the first point, we usually keep redirects in such a situation in articlespace as well; for the second one, splitting templates will often involve keeping the existing parameters (perhaps hiding some unwanted ones if needed), and adding additional ones. Changing the name of parameters is to be avoided if possible. As for your third point, that's covered by my first point: just having these as a log entry is hardly helping when it is much more convenient for most editors to just use these redirects and be done with it. Fram (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, getting rid of these redirects is making it easier for coders but harder for editors. That too me isn't an acceptable trade-off. Fram (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• How is it making it harder for the editors? The same way a new editor can get a hold of {{cn}}, he can get familiar with {{citation needed}}. In fact CN/Fact is not the first thing that comes to a new editor's mind when he/she wants to express his doubt about an unsourced info. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I am "familiar" with many, many templates, that doesn't mean that I know by heart what the "correct" name is for it. I gave the example above of Template:Ab, I had to check to se what the actual correct name was. Is it Template:uncat, Template:Uncategorized or Template:Categorize? Template:Unsourced or Template:Unreferenced? Template:Multiple issues or Template:Many issues? Template:IPblock or Template:IP blocked or Template:IPblocked? I know that all these templates exist, but I don't remember all of them correctly of the top of my head, never mind that they can get renamed. I know Template:Db-catempty, I don't remember Template:Db-c1 as easily. Why would you make it harder for me, as an editor, by removing one of them? Fram (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf: Accessibility is an issue?? You mean the original templates are inaccessible? Can't we create categories to address that issue? Surely, creating a redirect is not necessary for making a template accessible. For example, the connection of redirect {{fact}} with {{citation needed}} is, at best, vague and misleading. How is its creation helpful? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why CBM goes around and replaces templates with redirects like here other than making a point. Check this article. The original template was added 2 years ago and it was not the result of a replacement. Nobody touched the template till yesterday. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, that name is more specific, much like "infobox journalist" is more specific than "infobox person". The "otheruses4" template generates "This article is about XXX. For YYY see ZZZ." while the "about" template can generate many different types of output. So although the templates have the same effect, they have different connotations. By using the more specific name, (1) we can see from the source code what type of output is desired and (2) if we ever need to spit the "about" template apart again we will be ready. Moreover, that page is on my watchlist and I've added quite a bit of content to it, so I am one of the editors who is likely to be working on it again. I work mostly on mathematical logic articles, and I am now working on making sure that their hatnotes are all standardized. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Mrt: By accessibility I mean that they are easier to access, and there are several different ways this can be the case. In the example of {{fact}}, it is because the template was at that name for a significant amount of time it is most accessible to allow it to continue to work for the editors using it; without the history it wouldn't necessarily be a logical creation today; even without history {{needs citation}} is an entirely logical naming for the template and so its existence improves the accessibility of Wikipedia.

@Magioladitis: That edit is a very good example of a pointless one, but a change in the other direction would be exactly as pointless. Switching a direct link and a redirect, in either direction, for any reason where the redirect is not about to be retargeted or deleted, is the very definition of an edit that should not be made. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's an edit that should not be made by a bot or AWB, or a user pretending to be a bot. But it's fine for individual users to make changes to individual articles that they have been frequently editing; that's the epitomy of the local consensus model that we use. Problems only occur when a user begins to try to standardize styles across articles that they have no other interest in. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If fact Carl's idea of creating redirects for each profession and then replacing in the existing articles might be a good idea. This is similar to the Infobox officeholder which has 100 redirects but they serve a reason. Should we discuss in Infobox person? We could add redirects of Infobox person based on categories. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I learned about Infobox Journalist from Fram. But this has been my opinion about "about" from the beginning. It's good to have a metatemplate to make sure the same CSS classes get applied to every hatnote, but "about" gives no indication of what sort of output was desired, while the more specific redirect names do. In other words the choice of redirect can have semantic information that is not recognized by Mediawiki but is recognized by editors. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Another reason we use template redirects, which I don't think was mentioned above, is that they allow many editors to ignore discussions about renaming templates. If every decision to rename a template required editing every article that used the template, then it would become a much Bigger Deal, and we would have to be much more careful about it. At the moment, we can allow people to move templates without too much discussion because the "real name" of the template doesn't affect very much. Imagine an alternate world where, just when a template was renamed, bots sprung into action to change all of its uses... the problems with that are easy to imagine. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

they allow many editors to ignore discussions about renaming templates - There is no substitute for discussion, if something allows one to ignore discussion, then I don't think that helps the project. If a template is to be renamed, then redirect is not a solution, it should be renamed in spite of a redirect. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I am "familiar" with many, many templates, that doesn't mean that I know by heart what the "correct" name is for it. - That's precisely my point. You don't remember because of the existence of so many redirects of that template.

Request: please keep this thread continuous. Put comments below the latest before you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Often there is no discussion at all before a template is renamed; someone just does it. That is the way that many of the current "spaced" names were obtained, by the way, without any discussion. But that only works because most users can completely ignore what the "real" name is, and can use whatever name they prefer as a redirect. If changing the name meant every editor had to change their editing, this sort of lightweight process would become impossible. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Spaced names proved to be a very idea though. I also didn't like them some time ago but now I see that they reduced red underlinked words in my browser. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

But of course, the same would have been achieved if these "spaced names" were created as redirects to the existing templates, instead of moving the templates... Fram (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

'reply to Mrt3336 above) No, I don't remember because there are too many things I already need to remember, and I am very glad that template names aren't among them. There is for me, as an editor, not a single advantage in not having these redirects. Fram (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Often there is no discussion at all before a template is renamed; someone just does it. That is the way that many .. were obtained, by the way, without any discussion. — Yes, Exactly. All this happens without discussion. With that very reason then their substitution should not be opposed with the mention of "community consensus." It should not be considered a disruptive edit when one is not even sure whether or not the renaming or redirect was ever under the auspices of community's consensus. You claim too many things basing on the community consensus but where is this clear-cut consensus?? How many years ago was this consensus established?? This consensus, I dare say, was not established. Besides, consensus changes over time. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec x2) I strongly disagree with the propositions by Mrt at the opening of this section. I am largely in agreement with Thryduulf, Fram, and CBM. IMO, having template redirects available makes using the templates easier to use. older ≠ wiser 13:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Where is fram's comment???

(edit conflict)No, I don't remember because there are too many things I already need to remember - then I must have guessed it wrong. But surely it is perplexing for a new editor if he see's a {{fact}} inside the edit box instead of a {{citation needed}}. He, unlike you, might be confused because of that reason I gave. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have put a clarification above. To make it clear as to what I am proposing/opposing. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that Mrt3366 is changing the text of his proposal to a quite different (and much more restricted meaning) long after the discussion has started, making many of the above comments potentially no longer applicable (or less so). Edits like this one (to just take the latest of them) make this a pointless exercise in discussing things, and are quite perplexing coming from an editor who posted "Request: please keep this thread continuous. Put comments below the latest before you." I am done with this discussion, I may join later, proper discussions on the same topic of course. Fram (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's clear that the original proposal were heading for rejection at the time the changes were made. I don't think that there is consensus for the revised version, but it is impossible to say. I request that this section is hatted with a note that the proposals do not currently enjoy community consensus at this time, with no prejudice against a future, proper discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Are we still discussing the separation of NOTBROKEN in two different parts? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that Mrt3366 is changing the text of his proposal to a quite different (and much more restricted meaning) long after the discussion has started, making many of the above comments potentially no longer applicable (or less so). - No, Fram. I simply showed you that this is what I was talking about. The comments which you're referring to were -right from the very beginning- inadvertent digressions. They were never applicable. They were not addressing the issue, wasting time. If you want to disengage then do so. But please don't pin it on me. It's a shame that you guys couldn't grasp the core-meaning of the proposal. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Just a point of clarification. I don't and never have thought we should be forcing editors to input something they don't want to do. So if a user wants to put in a template redirect because its shorter and easier to remember that's fine. I also think there is nothing wrong with a bot coming back around and standardizing them. The problem I see here is that there seem to be roughly the same number of people arguing both sides. Some like the status quo with confusing myriads of templates because thats what they are comfortable with. Others of us want to replace the Template redirects with the actual redirect that applies to that. At this point I don't think either side is right or wrong, but they are polar opposite views. Its the same group of us always arguing about the same thing with neither side really seeming to gain any ground. This seems to be causing a consensus paradox. There's no consensus to change and there is no consensus to stay the same, so we stay the same because there is no conensus to change. I think the points that Mr. T, Fram, Thryduulf and others have made are all good but again they are in stark contrast. Some of the arguments are really weak in my opinion like saying we need to keep them for historical sake. No, we don't. We also do not need a bunch of redirects with differing confusing names. The bottom line here is that no matter how much I and others want to clean up the garbage template redirects, many of which cause other problems as has been pointed out, we simply can't because there is no consensus and never will be. There is no reason to continue to beat a dead horse here. This discussion will go on forever wasting lots of time and energy with no return on the investment other than to log each others different views. Kumioko (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree with the premise. The availability of template redirects is not inherently causing chaos. The posted example about the various synonyms to "[citation needed]" is, in my view, exactly the reason why the feature is good, not bad - you don't have to remember the exact name of the template, and the readers nevertheless get a standardized formatting as a result. It's true that forcing editors to run through a template redirect in order to understand the article source is clumsy, but that's a minor problem compared to e.g. having to understand a typical infobox template. It's true that people can create messy template redirects; but this kind of 'chaos' can happen even if we restrict their use - people will still be able to change the content of a template and I see no reason to think that this would significantly reduce the overall amount of disruption. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The only problem is that you assume that someone editing (not just viewing) will know what {{CN}} means over {{Citation Needed}}. Also, that's a rather obvious example that one could easily figure out. A better example of how these become confusing was given by CBM up above with {{this}}, {{otheruses4}} and something else all meaning the same things but looking completely different.

— Kumioko — continues after insertion below

I don't assume that. Like I said already, the existence of these redirects is "forcing editors to run through a template redirect in order to understand the article source". By that I mean they have to take every distinct {{foo|...}} in the source and visit [[Template:foo]] to find out what it does. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Also remember that trying to compensate for all the redirects when we make bots and scripts is rather difficult. For example, in order for some logic to work to fix and cleanup certain things in templates (like setting, renaming or deleting parameters) we need to compensate for a lot of variations. Using WikiProject templates as an example, there are over 1500 templates and most have at least 1 and some as many as 100 redirects. That means we need to individually program the code for each one because they don't all start with WikiProject. In this case standardizationis good, just as it is with Infobox's and many other things. Can you imagine if we have no standard way of defining a category? What if you had ten or 15 different ways to do that?

— Kumioko — continues after insertion below

Can you clarify, what exact code do you have to modify like this? Your code should be generic, and it only needs to recurse a single level - IOW it should check once if a transcluded template is actually a redirect to a template. If you're having to maintain a static mapping of e.g. {{DisambigProject}} to {{WikiProject Disambiguation}}, I agree that's a pain - so you shouldn't do that if you are working with computer code - one that can handle that for you. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Another misnomer is that you believe that template redirects do not cause problems. Some don't and that's true but many do and that has been stated repeatedly. Sometimes we are able to work through them, sometimes they occur on sites outside Wikipedia (like sister wiki's, Facebook, mirror sites, etc.) that do not and cannot compensate for the template redirects like Mediawiki can. Kumioko (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know of an actual example of this behavior you're mentioning. Can you be more specific? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am not going to spend another 3 or 4 hours to argue a lost cause. Yes I could provide diffs and have in discussions in the past but I have no desire to go down that rabbit hole again. I have provided examples, I have exlained my position and that is as far as I am prepared to go. Suffice to say this hsa all been discussed many times before and both sides present good arguments. The end result is always and will continue to be the same. Status quo. Kumioko (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I simply haven't seen these previous discussions. Some more exact pointer to a particular talk page archive would be helpful. I searched through Wikipedia talk:Redirect/Archive index but didn't find it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand completely. This may help. Dozens of discussions including several current ones have taken place on the Village pumps, ANI, Bot related noticeboards, my talk page archives, the talk page archives of Helpful pixie bot/Smackbot, Rich Farmbrough, CBM, Magioladitis and others. They have also occurred at WP:AWB. Here are a couple but there are a lot more.

1. Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#AWB vs. WP:NOTBROKEN
2. Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects#Consensus
3. Take a look at the history of the changes for the Template redirect page for AWB. This gives an idea that there are several editors besides me and the ones on this discussion that think cleaning up the Template redirects has some merit. This page also applies to other Wiki's by the way but may differ.

One thing you'll notice is it's the same folks arguing both sides with no victor so I see no reason to spend a lot of time digging through diffs and arguing the same points that have been argued an uncountable number of times before. For the problems with the Book namespace, facebook and others you would probably be best looking through the Bugzilla archives or the archives of the Village pump (technical). Its a daunting task that's why I have no desire to go through it again as I have several times before. Kumioko (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Why should we care about Facebook? What they do with our data is surely their problem, not ours.

I've been hanging around WP:VPT for about three years, and don't recall any threads mentioning template redirs causing trouble in Book: namespace. I do recall that there have been other problems for Book: namespace - the most recent was in June 2012.

Anyway, somewhere on this page, Template:End box was named. That is one of three redirects to {{s-end}}. This template is in Category:Exclude in print, which according to Help:Books/for experts#Fixing problems behaves differently from a similar template which isn't in Category:Exclude in print - for example, {{end}}, which has 22 redirects.

Therefore, a group of formal tests should be carried out. These should involve the preparation of a book from a page involving a table, such table to be constructed using templates (like a succession box which uses {{s-start}} etc.). Each of the four possible combinations of the following alternatives should be tested:

1. Table ended using: {{end}} or {{s-end}}
2. Table end marker (above) used: directly or via a redirect

This should reveal if it's the redirect that causes the problem, or the ultimate template that has been invoked. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I think your partially right we should wrap ourselves up worrying about Facebook however they are consumers of our data as are others and in my opinion we should be aware of that and try and mitigate problems that occur. Otherwise we are just paying lipservice to our license that the data is freely usable by all. Also in regard to the Village pump I am not sure exactly where, but it has been on there in some fashion a couple times, in technical I think if I remember correctly but I admit I do not remember because there have been so many discussions in so many different places.

I also agree some testing would be useful to determine the problems. Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The issues with AWB and other tools is an example where the focus has gone wrong - we modify the tools to make the encyclopaedia better, we don't modify the encyclopaedia to make tools easier to code. Likewise, we don't modify the encyclopaedia to fix problems with Facebook. Template redirects help editors in the ways that have been documented above, therefore they should remain. If you want to change the status quo, the onus is on you to convince people that the change is beneficial - the arguments you keep using have not done so. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

With respect that's a rather weak argument if you are not one of the ones participating in the development of said tools and scripts. Why require that we add 10, 000+ line of code when less than 5 would do if we standardize. But this is really a little off point anyway. Kumioko (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It was never the status quo that is also what I tried to argue above. The templates are created and renamed without discussions. Some prefer to use the original names of the templates and others prefer specific shortcuts of specific templates. The onus falls on those who created unrecognizable redirects and then somehow got way without having to explain their action.
Template redirects help editors in the ways that have been documented above - some are not even valid (i.e. non-detectable, unrelated to the original templates) let alone their usefulness. Unrecognizable redirects are not useful on their own, rather they are misleading. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever it is, bypassing unrecognizable template shortcuts with recognizable original names should be counted as a positive edit and encouraged not the vice-versa. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Many template redirects are, in fact, the original names. For example "Fact" is the original name of "Citation needed". It was moved to "citeneeded", then to "citation needed", then back to "fact", where it stayed for 3 years, then back to "citation needed". — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, what is "unrecognisable" is very subjective - {{xt}} is used several times on this page, a name that is opaque to me, in preference to the original name {{Example text}}. {{about}} and {{otheruses4}} are, to me at least, equally understandable and how does one choose between {{citation needed}} and {{needs citation}}? It seems like changing them would be asking for lame edit wars. Far from being encouraged, bypassing template redirects when making no other changes is disruptive for reasons explained more fully elsewhere in this discussion (e.g. diff, edit history and watchlist pollution). Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There can be no general rule. There are redirects that their name is equally "recognisable" as the original name. But there are (many) cases which this does not hold. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree Magioladitis, and I would like to clarify (seeing that each of my words somehow is in need of a long clarification) by "unrecognizable redirect" I mean the redirect of a template whose name doesn't unambiguously indicate (inside edit box) what its function is. If the original name doesn't indicate the function clearly then the "original name" ought to be the name that indicates the function as clearly as possible (for making the editing easier). Also I am more interested in maintenance tags and templates that are vehemently used in the body of an article. For example, {{fact}} can be interpreted (regardless of its status as original name) in a number of ways. One might even take it as an endorsement of credibility rather than an expression of doubt. That is utterly misleading. Do I need to elucidate further? How hard can it be to get this simple idea?

P.S. Not every redirect is an unrecognizable redirect. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No, what you're proposing is to force all editors to work from a limited palette and effectively deprecate the use of extremely popular shortcuts (such as {{cn}}) -- or in the alternative, the proposal would effectively authorize the blanket replacement of such canonical shortcuts. older ≠ wiser 13:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I can just imagine the outcry if replacement of template redirs became policy: {{Harvard citation no brackets}} is widely used, but rarely directly - it's normally invoked via the redirect {{harvnb}}. I can't imagine that there are no Books which use {{harvnb}}, yet I've never heard that it causes trouble in Book: namespace. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

@Bkonrad, don't put words in my mouth. What I'm asking for is explicit permission (as opposed to a mandate) to those who do want to replace unrecognizable template-redirects with recognizable ones owing to the reasons mentioned above by me. Didn't I write, "Whatever it is, bypassing unrecognizable template shortcuts with recognizable original names should be counted as a positive edit and encouraged not the vice-versa.", wasn't I clear enough? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

To put it more clearly, I say in Kumioko's words, "I don't and never have thought we should be forcing editors to input something they don't want to do. So if a user wants to put in a template redirect because its shorter and easier to remember that's fine. I also think there is nothing wrong with a bot coming back around and standardizing them." — Yes, he used "BOT" but I am going a step further, IMHO there is nothing wrong if an editor comes and replaces them (i.e. Unrecognizable redirects only and with the recognizable name). Acceptable, no?

Let's not squabble about the minutiae of phraseology used and focus on the core of the problem. That would be more time-saving and effective. All of us should have understood what is being proposed by now. Let's focus on how to reach a conclusion. Let's be realistic, consistency will help to reduce needless confusion and make editing easier for novice editors through easily recognizable templates (definition lies above) when inside the editing window. Please.

P.S. I am relatively new editor here and I will humbly accept the consensus reached. Thank you all, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 18:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with a user replacing things like {{cn}} with {{citation needed}} if they are making other constructive edits to the same section. I don't have a problem with a user or bot changing {{cn}} to {{citation needed}} when dating it. What I do have a problem with is replacing a template redirect for no other reason than replacing the template redirect, regardless of the motivation. There is simply no need to make such edits, and the tiny potential benefit they bring (it takes seconds to find out what an unfamiliar template does when it isn't obvious from the context) is vastly outweighed by the direct harm of poultion and the indirect harm this causes by making vandalism harder to spot. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A major argument for replacing {{fact}} with {{citation needed}} is an assertion that new users won't be able to guess what (some) redirects mean. (Other redirects are clearer than their targets.) I don't believe that this holds up under scrutiny. If you encounter an unfamiliar template, and you want to know what it does, then hit the preview button and look. With a few exceptions (like {{-}}), you should be able to quickly figure out that Now is the time for all good men{{fact}} to come to the aid... produces Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid... —and if you can't tell what that curly-bracket bit is doing from preview, then you won't be able to figure it out no matter what name it displays. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, "There is simply no need to make such edits" - There is no need to not allow others to make such edits also.

@WhatamIdoing, "you should be able to quickly figure out that" - Should? Expression of obligation or likelihood? You mean I am obliged to? Maybe it's easy for you. But it's purely subjective what others should be able to quickly figure out. You cannot stop somebody from replacing that template with a good-intention to make editing tiny bit easier for those who might not find it sufficiently easy to detect an "unrecognizable redirect" (definition is above). And you may not assume the authority to decide what is good enough or sufficiently significant. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"There is no need to not allow others to make such edits", on the contrary there are several: Diff pollution, edit history pollution, watchlist pollution, disguising the usage figures, invitation to trivial edit war, implied tollerence of other harmful pointless edits, etc. as detailed several times in this thread.

"you may not assume the authority to decide what is good enough or sufficiently significant", so what gives you the authority to decide what is "unrecognisable"? By your logic we should avoid all links, shortcuts, templates and redirects that do not explicitly detail what they produce/link to. Instead to of <ref name="Johnson1993">{{cite web}}</ref> we should instead use <start of container that puts the enclosed citation template in the references section at the bottom of the page. This reference has the unique identifier "Johnson1993" and this can be used elsewhere in the article without the need to enclose the citation template again>{{Citation of a website that supports the text immediately to the left}}</end of container for citation template> Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I already gave the definition of unrecognizable and don't wish to repeat it ad nauseam. WP:Diff pollution, WP:edit history pollution, WP:watchlist pollution, WP:disguising the usage figures, WP:invitation to trivial edit war, WP:implied tollerence of other harmful pointless edits, etc. - I couldn't find these pages. Am I missing something here or are you simply making stuff up based on your own preferences?(Pardon my candor) Besides, the use of the word "pollution" is predicated upon an implicit presupposition that these are actually needless? This has not been established yet. So this sort of circular thinking is not helping any of us.

"By your logic we should avoid all links, shortcuts, templates and redirects that do not explicitly detail what they produce/link to." - wrong. By your misinterpretation of my logic. I never said "we ought to bypass all links, shortcuts, templates and redirects that do not explicitly detail what they produce." I didn't say such a thing. And we ought to and indeed do replace confusing/ambiguous elements of Wikipedia, whenever we can (without destabilizing the project), with something that is clearer and unambiguous. But that's for another day. This has been a long-standing spirit behind many of the Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No. We have to find short and very accurate names which at best follow English grammar rules. Moreover, why there are edit wars exactly? If we have standard names, etc. they won't be any edit wars. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. If we no longer have editors replacing template names, then there won't be any edit wars. Having "short and very accurate names" won't help, people will still use redirects instead of the actual names, people will still disagree over which name is the most accurate, people will want to capitalize the names (or decapitalize, whatever), and so on. "find short and very accurate names which at best follow English grammar rules" would mean that Template:Reflist should be moved to e.g. Template:List of references (or whetever people would prefer); such a move would be useless but in itself harmless, but then changing the 2 million plus pages that apparently use this template would be extreme overkill, and for years people would still be using "reflist" anyway since they are used to it, and it is shorter. The sama applies to many other templates. Why, by the way, should template names follow English grammar rules? Template:BLP unsourced hardly follows these rules, but what would be the benefit of changing it? Template:EstcatCountry is used on over 10,000 category pages, why should it be changed to follow English grammar rules? They aren't content, they are tools, backoffice instead of frontoffice. If people would worry less about them and just leave them alone, we wouldn't have these discussions and edit wars. Fram (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

What EstcatCountry stands for? The documentation didn't help me to understand what this template does! -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Then the documentation needs to be updated. The "what links here" button is your friend in such situations. Fram (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• @Fram, IMHO {{reflist}} is indicative of its function. Ref+list=Reflist cannot be termed as fully unrecognizable. But that's only my opinion. Besides, just because achieving something is extremely hard, it doesn't mean it is a wrong thing. Moving it might actually prove to be a positive thing. It must be noted that nobody said we must bypass all of the 2 million redirects of Reflist should we chose to move it. I don't care if it's moved or not (anyway the proposal to move it merits a wider discussion). What I am proposing is merely a permission (not a mandate) or acknowledgement that bypassing an Unrecognizable template is a positive edit made with a good-intention. It should be fairly simple. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, the arguments of diff, edit history and watchlist pollution is just rubbish. These arguments are no more valid than the arguments you say against the desire somem of us have to clean up these things.

@Fram, your right in many cases the documentation does need to be updated. In some cases the naming needs to be clearer but both of this issues, although related to the topic in general, don't really relate to this discussion.

@Several, We seem to be getting wrapped up in just one or 2 reasons trying to shoot holes in the entire idea of cleaning up template redirects. I and others have already said that in some cases its pointless and simply isn't worth the fight. A lot of them though, for various reasons, really need to be cleaned up. Again, just some of the reasons to clean them up are:

1. To standardize the naming of things (Infoboxes should start with Infobox, WikiProject Templates should start with WikiProject, etc.)
2. To reduce or eliminate the proliferation of outdated naming of deprecated or redirected template names. If we leave them there, they are more likley to be copied to another article compounding the problem.
3. To make it easier to program (its really hard to write logic for 1500-2000 WikiProject templates if you have to take into account every variation of redirect. As is most logic is written so it only applies to WikiProject X. If the template or redirect is called X WikiProject or something else it won't fix the problems with the template. This is only one example of many.
4. Template redirects sometimes have undesired effects on things. Particularly other things outside Wikipedia like sister Wiki's or even sometimes in other namespaces.
5. Avoid confusion, particularly for new editors. It is known to be extremely difficult to learn how to do things in Wikipedia and this problem is compounded by the utter lack of standardization (yes some variaty is good and helpful but 10 - 100 names for something is not). I don't have to learn that X does Y, I have to know that X does Y but so does A-W, sometimes in upper or lower case or variations of the 2, sometimes includes 123 and sometimes is written in another language. Just to add additional confusion we sometimes use foreign language variations as well. This doesn't work for stop signs, this doesn't work for the signs that says Danger or Caution, and it doesn't really work here unless you have been editing for a very long time and have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are.
6. Other reasons as already discussed numerous times.

I do not believe anyone here is saying that we must force users to use a certain thing but we can encourage it. We also aren't saying that some redirects aren't useful, they are, but less so for templates and we don't need a dozen or more variations of them. I also do not beleive people are saying that editors need to go around changing them if they don't want too. What I do think we are getting at is that editors should be allowed to do it if they want (its their time and we do not have to worry about system resources) without being blocked, threatened with being blocked or bullied by some editor that doesn't think the edit is worth the time or effort. I also do not think this subject is going away, both sides have good points and bad but I doubt any amount of discussion is going to change anyones mind and turn them to the other side at this point. We have all made up our minds for our own reasons and that's fine but we need to find some middle ground here. There should be a give and take in our society and I think all too often these days its a take it or leave it. We are not the US Congress and we need not operate that way here. Kumioko (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

With respect to #3, as a bot operator who has tasks which handle template redirects, I don't get that statement. I find it easy to handle with minimal lines of code (find redirects, create a regex, use regex to catch template or redirects). If you want sample code (Perl, but same approach should work in all regex supporting languages), let me know. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, I was wondering when someone might refute that statement and I am somewhat prepared for that question. Let me begin with, some things are easier to program than others and some of us are not, admittedly, the best programmers. Using myself as an example, I can usually make it do what I want but the code might not be as sexy as others like yourself can make it. For example, look at User:Kumioko/WikiProjects. Here we have encoded pretty much all of the WikiProject Templates and their associated redirects. As you can see there are a lot of them. Now if we want to fix something within one o those templates its easy enough to do with simple regex. However if we want to do something against all WikiProject temaplates (or Infoboxes, or Stub templates, etc.) those templates become very hard to work with en-masse so standardization in the beginning of the code set makes things flow much easier. Then later we can write our code so that we look for WikiProject X, rather than have to program against every WikiProject template, with redirects, individually. For now and for the sake of conciseness I will leave it to your imagination what kinds of changes could and do need to be done but suffice to say this should give some idea that standardizing the names and cleaning up the redirects can be helpful and useful. If you know of a better way though I am open to suggestions. Kumioko (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Build the regex dynamically instead of hard coding it. In terms of pseudo-code:

for each template in templates

regex = template

retrieve redirects of template

for each redirect in redirects

regex += "|" & redirect

end for redirect

regex = substitute " " with "[ _]" in regex

replace regex in article with replacement

end for template

Instead of repeating the same command over and over, use a loop. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That's true and I had tried to do something like that initially but ran into some other problems. For one some of the redirects use diacratics and it didn't like those. There were also some that had some strange coding that didn't fit the norm (double pipes, missing + and others) that it didn't always work. Additionally it made the page really confusing when there were a lot of different formats. It also seemed to be really slow, because I would need to run this about 30 or 40 times for all the edits I was doing. Which if I remember right was the main reason I went with the other way. Again I admit it could have been my code.Kumioko (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Any issues with redirect titles also exist with template titles. Yes, querying the redirects adds a bit more time (a second or so per template at the most), but bots have the time. The complexity of dealing with template parameters far outweighs that of dealing with template redirects. It is quite fair for the community to expect any bot operating against templates to be able to deal with template redirects. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

As your arguments now seem to be "everyone else is wrong, please listen while I say the same thing again" it's clear that we're not going to get anywhere. Just accept that your views do not presently have consensus and that this discussion is not going lead to a change in that. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thryduulf, please stop making this about me and my views. Its more than just me, there are at least 5 of us. With that said I agree and have said so at least twice in this discussion that its not going anywhere and that neither side has a consensus (since its essentially even) so the status quo will be maintained because there is no consensus. Also, I would appreciate if you didn't start throwing arbitrary BS hyperbole because you and a few others don't agree. I do not agree with your views either but I have at least tried to minimize my critical statements of your views on the matter. Which frankly is saying something since I have a reputation for hurting editors feelings apparently. Kumioko (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

For a second let's forget who has the consensus or not (neither side has one btw), let's focus on reason and merits of the argument, shall we? One side is forcefully barring the other from making well-meant, reasonable and non-disruptive edits (hardly one edit in one article, if at all). One side is asking the other to simply "accept" whatever they think is right as the way forward. One side is trying to establish a consensus, the other is explicitly suppressing it. And I am merely asking, why? You've not deposited a single policy-based reason so far in favor of your position, Thryduulf. If there is no consensus then eliminate the barriers that prevent a consensus and let's work together hand-in-hand to reach one ASAP. "Some consensus" is better than confounding "no consensus". Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The "side" that I support does not want to prohibit non-disruptive edits, I (and the others on my side) hold the position that the edits you are proposing are disruptive for the reasons explained upthread several times. The apparent rationale is that those wanting to make the edits believe that the status quo of multiple template names, some of which are "unrecognisable", is confusing for new editors and that the changes will make it less so. On the other hand, those in favour of the status quo believe that in almost all cases it's obvious from the name and/or context what a template does and that in almost all of the rest of the cases it's trivial to work it out (preview, viewing the template, etc), with the remaining tiny percentage best being fixed by improved template documentation. Therefore, the benefits of the edits are at best extremely tiny and at worst non-existent, while the disruption caused by unnecessary edits far outweighs this; some also state that bypassing redirects will prevent useful information being known about the redirect and/or its target. In terms of policies, the key one is "don't disrupt Wikipedia" and there is the WP:NOTBROKEN guideline too, but that is dispute by those wanting to make the changes (frankly how it can be read to support that position I don't understand, but that's a different argument). I haven't found any policies citied to support the pro-change position.

This can all be summed up thus: One "side" wants to make changes they think are beneficial and not disruptive; the other "side" believes the changes would be disruptive and either without benefit or actually harmful.

We can further distill this into the three camps, "1. the edits should be encouraged as beneficial", "2. the edits should be discouraged as pointless (this is effectively the status quo)", and "3. the edits should be prohibited as disruptive". Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Your getting wrapped up on only one of the reasons which is to make it easier for new users but that's not the only reason. Its one of about 10 reasons. Also, these edits aren't disruptive to anything except users watchlist's which is not a valid excuse. Many of the excuses for not doing these changes really boil down as you put it to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Using your arguments most edits of any kind currently made to the articles that don't add content could be considered tiny and not worth doing. As I mentioned earlier in the discussion it matters less to me because I have all but given up editing articles here for many reason because some entrenched editor, commonly an admin threatening a block, seems to always have some reason why an edit cannot or should not be made to an article. Every edit these days is a fight and frankly its just not worth it to me these days. So in the end it seems you win the argument to keep the status quo but at the cost of a lot of edits not getting done. I'm not sure if I should say congratulations for the win or....I'm sorry. Kumioko (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to make clear once more, since I re-read the discussion and it noticed some editors keep bringing same examples: Of course there are exceptions of template redirects that should not be bypassed. The thing is that in most(?) cases redirects can be bypassed in benefit of the community. This is something nobody disagreed and I would like to see this reflect in Wikipedia:Redirect. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"Nobody disagreed"? In most cases, there is no "benefit of the community" in bypassing template redirects. The minimal benefit that may exist in some cases certainly doesn't outweigh the disadvantages of making edits solely for this purpose (which some have advocated). Coupling them with more substantial edits is less problematic, I wouldn't mind if such changes weren't made then either but in general it doesn't bother me enough to object to them. Fram (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"there is no 'benefit of the community' in bypassing template redirects." — I know, you've made your views very clear about it. But simply repeating it ad infinitum won't make it so. It's flat-out subjective, Fram. And yes, people disagreed. But neither side proved that their disagreements were in line with community consensus. I, for one, don't claim that my views are supported by community consensus. Heck, I don't even know what is community consensus on this! Was there an RFC performed or anything like that? (Just curious) since when and basing on what do you claim that something is not in the benefit of the community?

I along with Kumioko, Magioladitis, JhunterJ, etc have tried our level best to explicate multiple, otherwise obvious reasons as to why the prospect of exempting unrecognizable template redirects from WP:NOTBROKEN might be worth considering. But they don't seem to be getting the attention they rightly deserve. Whereas the opponents of the proposal, while claiming that they represent community consensus or the "status quo", have not given us anything remotely resembling a policy or guideline or even an RFC. Why is this much obduracy? It almost seems that some editors here are predetermined not to let this fair proposal pass regardless of how many reasons are adduced. FYI, the proponents are not demanding that it serve as a mandate, we are merely saying that don't use WP:NOTBROKEN to ward off legitimate edits made by well-meaning editors (which it is currently doing). What is so wrong about that, Fram? Don't you think that I deserve a clear (and polite) reply? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If you've nothing more than ad hominem to present to further your argument, it might be best for all if you didn't bother. Repetitious dogmatism is not unique to only one side in this. That you don't hear the valid reasons presented by the other side does not mean that anyone is not giving a fair hearing to what is a very poorly framed proposal. older ≠ wiser 14:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually we have presented several valid reasons, the problem is that some users refuse to listen to them. Much like the American congress these days, we can't get anything done to do large scale improvements because we have a few entrenched editors trying to block and fillibuster every improvement because they want to keep things the same. I would argue that simplification through standardization for ease of use and to eliminate adverse impacts from template redirects on internal and external processes is a better justification for allowing these changes than the opposers views of Watchlist filling, this is how its always been done, I didn't or don't want to here that and assumptions of bad faith. Its also a little irritating that the many of these opposing editors are admins who have inferred throughout the discussion in different ways that they are admins and know better and that we are just a bunch of dumb editors who don't know the rules or how things work (if we were we would be admins presumably) which is wrong. I have been here longer than some of them and know just as much or more. In fact other than having the admin tools I have done as many or more admin actions (I just had to ask another admin to implement them).

The problem is, there is a pretty much equal cast of characters on both sides so the wiki way is to stick with the status quo, regardless of whether its better and regardless of arguments from either side. The bottom line here is that Not broken does not apply here because they are, in many cases, broken, in a variety of definitions. No one is talking about article redirects, this is only template redirects which are, just as different from article redirects, as Category redirects. That is why we use a special template, to redirect categories to the correct place. Because time and experience has proven that the namespace does not properly function using regular redirects. There are reasons for this, which I do understand (before someone argues I don't) but I am not going to fill this full of irrelevant technical crap no one really cares about. Kumioko (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That's another lengthy post. Here's a short one: you state "they are, in many cases, broken, in a variety of definitions" - in what way do template redirects break things? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I already posted several examples here and elsewhere as have others. I'm not going to do it again. Kumioko (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can find no such thing. The closest that I can find is at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects#Consensus where at 14:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC) you wrote "... as I have said before. Some template redirects have undesired effects on other things outside WP such as Facebook, Wikibooks, printing to PDF and the various sister wiki projects. The first one that comes to mind is {{S-start}} and {{S-end}}." I can find several comments along the lines of "I have given examples before and will not do so again"; frankly, that is not good enough. Exactly what problems are caused by {{s-start}}, {{s-end}} or any other redirected template? Either present your evidence or drop your case. Thank you. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

First I don't appreciate that I have repeatedly identified in multiple places why these are bad to have someone come and tell me I can't find it. I have worked with you in the past and I know you are a very smart person so I am not buying that you can't find it other than you don't want too. I also want to set the record straight that being "broken" is only one of many reasons why we should at least be allowed to do these if that is how we wish to spend our time (remember we don't need to worry about WP:Performance). I also don't feel like making the time to go seaching through diffs so, as has been done in the past a couple times, someone can tell me, ok you have some good points but these are isolated incidents and not worth changing things, "not good enough", its because the flux capacitor wasn't connected to the doomaflotchy or whatever. They have caused problems with sister wiki's, there was a problem with some templates and template redirects not working with the Books namespace a while back. There was a problem when Facebook started linking to our data that caused errors on the page when there was a template redirect, which was often. There are occassional problems with these when mirror sites access the data (which isn't a priority I admit but as consumers of our data we should be somewhat responsive to the problem unless we want to change the rule that anyone can freely use our data). Some templates do not work and need to use a wrapper template (Like the states and projects that are supported by Template:WikiProject United States. I should just be able to redirect these but I can't because they don't show up correctly. There are a lot more examples of this where a wrapper template or something is needed but either people don't know how to use a wrapper template, don't know it exists or don't bother with it. Those are some examples of "Broken".

Here are some examples of it just generally being a nuisance: Its a real pain to write code when we have to account for hundreds or thousands of redirects as I mentioned above, its confusing to have to decipher what seamingly meaningless template names are, Why do we need a dozen or more ways to say Cite for each of the dozen or so cite templates like here(24) and here(15) just to name a couple? Are you really going to tell me that you think Template:Lien web is an intuitive way of saying Cite web? What practical purpose does it serve to have more than a dozen ways to say Infobox person? If we need to be able to tell what is what (actor, performer, military, etc.) would it not be better to add a parameter and a category? I think so. So there is some evidence again.

As for dropping it that could be argued both ways. Why is this such an important issue that so many are willing to fight tooth and nail to ensure we do not standardize and fix template redirects? Personally I would prefer it be done by a bot as a recurring task and then its basically hands off and low impact. There would be a bit of a peak in the beginning but it wouldn't even take that long to line everything up. Then we could get rid of some of the meaningless ones entirely. How is that a bad thing? Kumioko (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't tell you why Template:Lien web exists, you should ask Debresser, who created it. If you can find a template redirect with my name on it (there are 16 in total), I will tell you why I created that one.

I also can't tell you why so many redirects exist, but some will undoubtedly be from moves and merges; there have been a lot of infobox templates taken to WP:TFD and receiving a closure like "merge to {{infobox person}}" (example). Setting up a parameter (and, if you like, a category) to determine which are actors, etc. means that a wrapper template needs to be constructed, which handles every parameter. There are at least two downsides to this: one is increased processing time, another is that when a parameter is added to the inner template, it must also be added to the outer one, or it won't be recognised. Using a redirect, on the other hand, has negligible effect on processing speed, and also needs no special coding for it to pass every single parameter through, regardless of future changes to the parameters of the template to which it redirects.

Even if you bypassed all the redirects with the intention of having the redirect deleted, it would still have to go to WP:RFD and there satisfy WP:RFD#HARMFUL. Now, TFD may be populated with deletionists, but RFD isn't. I've gone back a month, and I can't find a single case of a template redirect being deleted at RFD - they all closed as either "keep" or "retarget". --Redrose64 (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

First in regards to the comment about creating wrapper templates. What I as actually thinking was just add a parameter to Infobox person that allows the various subtypes(Actor, voice actor, etc.) that generates a category instead of all the redirects. That's if they are even needed at all. You also bring up a point, whether you intended too or not about "a redirect...has negligible effect on processing speed". So as I understand how redirects work, and I could be wrong so please let me know if I am, the software and the servers must look at the link and decide for lack of a better word if its a redirect and then proceed. So if it finds its a redirect it then follows the link, which takes more time and processing power that could better be used somewhere else. Now I know that we don't need to worry about that, but it seems reasonable to me that we would want to manage that sort of thing to minimize the load as much as possible because load and memory (among other things) = $. So the more load and the more memory the more money it costs. Also using the example you give of "needs no special coding for it to pass every single parameter through", why then does Template:WikiProject Utah (or any of the others that are supported by WPUS, need to be wrapper templates. It seems by your statement that they should support a "parameter" but they don't. How do you add a parameter or multiple parameters to a Redirect? Maybe I just never learned how to do that and a big part of this argument is moot? Kumioko (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

How should I know why {{WikiProject Utah}} needs to be a wrapper and not a redirect? I didn't convert it to a wrapper. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I can tell you exactly why its a wrapper template, because, as I have been saying for the entirety of this discussion, sometimes template redirects cause problems and don't work. Kumioko (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, for the entire discussion you've been saying they cause problems. At no point though have you explained what problems or actually provided evidence that they do. As for the parameters question, if I've understood it correctly (and I might not have done) then you don't add parameters to redirects at all, you just add the parameters to the target and they work with the redirect also. For example {{cn}} accepts the "date" parameter of {{citation needed}} and if a "moonphase" parameter was added to the latter then {{cn}} would accept the "moonphase" parameter instantly and in exactly the same way. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The wiki way is always that a change to the status quo requires a consensus that it is better than the status quo, this is a Good Thing. This consensus is established by editors evaluating the arguments to see whether they agree with them or not. That no consensus exists for a proposal is evidence that the arguments have failed to convince people that it would represent an improvement, not that "a few entrenched editors trying to block and fillibuster every improvement because they want to keep things the same." (which is a significant assumption of bad faith). Speaking about this specific case, I support the status quo because I do not believe your proposals represent an improvement. Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually changes do not always have to be by consensus. There are a number of examples of where changes were thrust upon us by the developers and several were poorly received so there is a precedant for doing them if needed. With that said, You are partially correct. In many occassions consensus is a good thing however more and more eften lately, over the last couple years expecially it is harder to get a consensus on anything, regardless of who submitted it or what it was. There seems to always be a group of editors who don't want it. Its been evidenced on RFA, teh Village pump, bot requests, etc. Also, My statements weren't an assumption of bad faith but a statement based on facts presented above and repeatedly ignored and dismissed by those who mostly don't care because most are unaffected because they aren't doing the things that cause the problems. I would also clarify this wasn't my proposal, I didn't start it I am just one of many editors who are presenting and if it doesn't psas its really no loss to me as I have already stopped doing the things affected, many because its just to much effort to code some of the changes into a bot or script when I have to take into account hundreds or thousands of variations, when too many editors fight and quibble and complain about their watchlist or some other dumass thing about every edit. If it where up to me I woudl start a policy that the statment as justificiation "because its filling my watchlist" or its equivelant could never be used as justification for not doing an edit. Also, as Mr T. stated before, what policies or guidelines are being broken if any? Can you even name some, no body else seems to be able too other than NOTBROKENKumioko (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here, and I believe I have a good understanding of the issues, and can also shed some light on some historical quirks. Please forgive the delay in commenting, I am largely absent from the project these days. I will attempt to be comprehensive, which may mean repeating some of the above.

Why are template redirects necessary? There are at least six reasons

1. Two templates are merged.
2. A short-cut is created to save typing.
3. A long-cut is created to save typing {{-stub}} for example
4. A common typo is supported
5. A template is moved
6. A template name used on another project is supported (examples, {{Lien web}}, {{...}}).

What are the disadvantages? The disadvantages are various

1. Some template names are not clear ({{Otheruses4}} for example), and indeed some are downright contradictory (Example, {{References}}, {{Unreferenced}} are synonyms).
2. Some template names have actually been deprecated as not AGFing ({{Fact}} for example).
3. Template redirects can cause divisiveness, due to manifestation of WP:OWN, which can have long term harmful effects.
4. Name-space pollution is a slight problem: names wasted as redirects cannot be used until the redirect is orphaned - even then there are potential problems
5. Learning one's way around the templating system is much harder with many redirects in place. It is as if one had to use Troy, Imperial and SI units all at the same time, it can be done, but there is much more to learn, and moreover the systematisation is obscured. Example: For every WikiProject but one an editor can use the project page name as the banner name. This is obscured by the many hundreds of redirects still in place, some of them used thousands or tens of thousands of times.
6. The use of redirects has implications for automation - no solely within the wiki, but for those analysing the data for commercial, voluntary and academic needs. It is true that this can be got around by better programming, and the canard "let the computers do the work so we can do as we please" is widely supported. However the actual fact is that we are creating work for hundreds of people to create more complex (and hence harder to maintain) software.

Why don't we just have a bot run and delete them?

While superficially attractive, there are four potential problems with this approach.

1. Many many edits would be generated, whether these would be "worth" the benefit does not yet have consensus
2. Simply deleting unused redirects can cause problems with history.
3. Of the reasons that redirects are created, not all are compatible with deletion even if they are orphaned
4. Some (at least 4 or 5) highly used templates are at the wrong name currently, an the redirect may be preferable

There are also benefits:

1. It would establish a protocol
2. It would be a one-hit for existing redirects
3. It would free up certain valuable template names
4. It would achieve the goal quickly

What ways forward are there?

I have always espoused minimal disruption and broadly proposed that, with the exception of scarcely used redirects

1. The vast majority of redirects be replaced when another edit is being made
2. Consideration be given to bot runs to "tidy up" the last 10-20%
3. Deliberative treatment of orphaned redirects, either deletion, deprecation, adding to an automatic replace list, or

Disadvantages:

1. Statistics show that even with the heavy lifting bots and AWB gen fixes doing this replacement, the timescales are considerable, running to low numbers of years, rather than months
2. Some people say that they cannot understand diffs where these replacements are made.

What about doing nothing? Advantage

1. Easy
2. No dramah

Disadvantages

1. Things get more broken with the passage of time

Rich Farmbrough, 20:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC).

Example

An example is that if I type "Skeletal system" in the search box or if I follow the link Skeletal system, I will be taken to the article Human skeleton with a note that reads (Redirected from Skeletal system)! 198.228.201.143 (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification of blanking+redirect

Removing all content in an article and leaving a redirect in place is a common practice that sometimes causes trouble and has been found problematic by several editors (see previous talks about it here and here).

I'm in favor of allowing it freely according to WP:BOLD, without requiring previous requests and discussion. The main problem with this is that WP:BOLD only works with the accountability that a bold, revert, discuss cycle provides; but this practice makes it extraordinarily difficult to detect when an article has been blanked in this way, so other editors won't be able to notice a case where they would disagree and start a BRD. Only people following the blanked article will get any notice, but not those that follow a link to it after it has been blanked-and-redirected; because the target article's history doesn't show the blanking of the original, and the subtle "Redirected from:..." notice doesn't distinguish between articles created as redirects and those that were created with content and later turned into redirects.

Can we add a line to the guideline that requesting, or at least strongly suggesting to add a notification of this blanking at the target article's talk page? (maybe using a template similar to Template:Copied). This would provide the required checks and balances that make the collaborative editing process work. Diego (talk) 10:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Tl;dr: The "Redirected from:..." notices and history pages don't allow editors to discover blanked articles; let's find a way to work around that technical problem to increase editor's accountability, without requiring a long bureaucratic process. Diego (talk) 10:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not sure I'd want to require it, but I can't see any harm in encouraging this as good practice. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • What do you think of this wording? It could be a subsection of What needs to be done on pages that are targets of redirects? I think it summarizes the previous consensus in the discussions I linked above. Diego (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Redirects that replace previous articles

See also: Reasons for not deleting.

Removing all content in a problematic article and replacing it with a redirect is common practice, known as blank-and-redirect. This practice is supported by the guideline to be bold when editing; if other editors disagree with this blanking, its contents can be recovered, as the article has not been formally deleted.

To make it easier for other editors to find the history of the blanked article, it's good practice to add a short notice at the talk page of the target article, even if no content has been merged there. If the redirect is replacing an article that had been deleted by an administrator, this notice is the only way for editors to know that a previous version of the article existed at all.

Note that certain forms of blanking are not allowed. Illegitimate blanking of valid content without reason is considered vandalism, a form of disruptive editing.

Other forms of blank-and redirect, although not vandalism, are still undesirable. If you want to rename the article by cutting and pasting text to a new article with a different title, you should instead move the page with the Move option. If you want to keep some content from the blanked article and add it to the target article, you should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge. Both processes will create proper links to the edit history, which is required by the Wikipedia license for legal reasons to preserve attribution of content to its authors.

It should give some indication that certain forms of blank-and-redirect, although not vandalism, are still undesirable, such as those covered by WP:CUTPASTE. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated the text above to include your suggestion. I've also added the case of a redirect that replaces a deleted article, which will hide the existence of a previous history to non-admins (see for example the WP:BLA redirect where this has happened). Diego (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added a new section with the text above and expanded it with generic advice and wikilinks to related guidelines. Feel free to discuss anything that you find problematic. Diego (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)