Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Redirect/Archive 2021

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 2015←Archive 2019Archive 2020Archive 2021Archive 2022Archive 2023Archive 2024

Should a redirect wizard be added to this page?

I came across the page WP:MAKER today, which contains a wizard to automatically create redirect pages. Would it make sense to add such a wizard to this page as well, for ease of use? Yitz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

To editor Yitz: good idea! Rather than fit the wizard into this pretty full page, WP:MAKER is now linked as a "Main page" at the top of the How to make a redirect section. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Minimum utility threshold for redirects?

Current guidelines provide several standards for minimum redirect utility. I propose revising #5 in WP:RKEEP to remove some ambiguity that places it in conflict with other guidelines.

WP:RKEEP: 5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. The pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility.

The text is vague enough to justify a redirect for every possible misspelling no matter how obscure so long as a few users find it. It is a far lower standard than those suggested elsewhere in the guidelines:

WP:RPURPOSE: Likely misspellings (for example, Condoleeza Rice redirects to Condoleezza Rice).
WP:RDELETE: 8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful... Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.

Now assume a new Dictionry redirect to Dictionary recieves 10 PVs. The target topic recieves 500,000 PVs in the same period. This implies a utility of helping 1 in 50,000 users, which fails the "likely misspelling" test. However, given the 10 PVs, it passes the "someone finds them useful" threshold.

To provide greater clarity, I'd propose revising reason #5 to include language that suggests a clearer utility threshold:

5. Someone Wikipedia users find them useful. If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you Respect that users browse Wikipedia in different ways. The Redirect Views tool can provide evidence of real world utility. Redirects that account for fewer than 1 in 5,000 PVs generally fail this test.

Interested to hear your feedback or better proposals for text revisions. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  • No change is necessary. As repeatedly explained at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#COVID-019, relative page views are completely irrelevant - if a redirect helps n people find the content they are looking for then that is equally useful whether that is a 10th or a millionth of the views for the target and/or any other redirect to it. R#KEEP #5 does indeed refute R#DELETE #8, which is the stronger depends on the individual redirect taking into account all the circumstances. Whether a given redirect is plausible and/or useful is something that editors can and do disagree on, but the closer of the RfD discussion will weigh all the arguments presented and determine what the consensus is based on them. This works well and so there isn't a need to change it, let alone to something as arbitrary as suggested. Thryduulf (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for the feedback. The language ("likely", "unlikely", and "obscure") in RDELETE and RPURPOSE do imply that the frequency of occurance relative to correct spelling is relevant. Will await input from additional editors but if the consensus is as you've stated, it may be helpful to update RDELETE and RPURPOSE accordingly. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Just going to clarify that the guidelines don't conflict – if both an RDELETE criterion is met and an RKEEP criterion are met the redirect should be kept according to the text at Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons. Thus, there is no actual "conflict" of the guidelines. WP:RPURPOSE doesn't say that unlikely misspellings should be deleted, but rather that a redirect being a likely misspelling is a reason to create and maintain that redirect. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    That's a great point. I missed that RDELETE gives deference to RKEEP. Then no direct conflict here but rather one guideline (KEEP #5) counters and effectively negates another (RPURPOSE and DELETE #8). - Wikmoz (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with Thryduulf and J947; however, it is also easy to see how it would be acceptable to clarify the text with the above ideas to help less experienced editors better understand the guides. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 05:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Which ideas specifically? There is no consensus that relative weights (with any values) are relevant so including that would be misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Idea! R#KEEP #5 does indeed refute R#DELETE #8, which is the stronger depends on the individual redirect taking into account all the circumstances. Whether a given redirect is plausible and/or useful is something that editors can and do disagree on, but the closer of the RfD discussion will weigh all the arguments presented and determine what the consensus is based on them.
Idea! if both an RDELETE criterion is met and an RKEEP criterion are met the redirect should be kept according to the text at Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons. Thus, there is no actual "conflict" of the guidelines.
Such thoughts could be used as a basis for clarifying the guides to aid newer editors. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • If there is consensus that absolute values are the appropriate metric then RPURPOSE and RDELETE may be the guidelines that benefit from rewording to eliminate words like "likely" that suggest a probability test. Reducing the ambiguity would make the RDEL nomination and discussion process a lot more efficient. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It is a probability test, with the absolute values being one of multiple data points used to make the determination. Given the variety of reasons why a given redirect may or may not be useful (not all of which apply to every redirect) it is inherently a subjective judgement. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Got it. The point of confusion for me was in the word "likely". To me, a typo that's 1 in 1,000,000 is unlikely. However, others read it as "likely to happen at all" (supported by a few PVs and off-site examples). If that is the threshhold then it would be worth adjusting the wording in RPURPOSE from "likely" to "potential" (or something else) and indicate in RKEEP that several PVs and off-site examples may be sufficient to support typo redirects. I'll try to come up with a proposal. - Wikmoz (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
      • No you've still not fully understood. "Likely to happen at all" is not the standard used, Musuem is a typo I make all the time for example (possibly even more often than correctly typing "museum" first time) but it would likely get deleted (not particularly common or more plausible than other transposition errors), despite a few instances of other people making the same typo. A large number of page views can, but will not always, result in it being kept and typos may be kept with or without external links. It all depends on the individual circumstances, and yes it is subjective but that's because it's not possible to make it objective. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Musuem would likely get deleted... despite a few instances of other people making the same typo... but that is an example of a decision that would go against current guidelines, which very clearly point to keeping Musuem. My hope is that the guidelines could be written in a way that if 10 random editors were presented with Musuem, a majority of editors would arrive at a common solution. And that outcome would be the same as the one produced by a majority of the next 10 editors. I recognize that guidelines will always be subject to some interpretation, argument, and consensus but my feeling is that the current guidelines are overly vague, if not contradictory. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @CycloneYoris, P Aculeius, Shhhnotsoloud, Narky Blert, Rosguill, MB, Dominicmgm, Less Unless, Zindor, J947, BDD, Tavix, Hog Farm, Mazca, 1234qwer1234qwer4, and CrazyBoy826: Inviting some recently active redirect editors to expand discussion. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Your ratio seems reasonable enough, but I'm wary of setting any numbers into stone, because they'll be arbitrary by nature. I'm sympathetic to the concern that RKEEP 5 seems quite broad, that one editor could say "I find this useful!" and that's the end of the discussion, but in practice, it doesn't usually work out that way. As a frequent RfD closer, it's a very weak argument, much like simply pointing to WP:CHEAP or WP:COSTLY. It's always better to elaborate on an argument with why you find a redirect useful. Again, in practice, I think this usually works out. --BDD (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I tried to find a number that was so low, it would be well below the point of debate but I see that's not the case. The current practice seems even more abitrary--based on which editor shows up to the RfD discussion. A redirect that was a delete yesterday could be a keep today. "it's a very weak argument" Can the guideline language be adjusted to not encourage this argument? - Wikmoz (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
      • The issue is that it isn't always a weak argument - it's a weak argument in contrast to a well-explained rationale for deletion when not accompanied by an explanation of why it is useful, but a couple of people saying "That's obviously useful" is stronger than a single "I don't like it". Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I'm expert enough for my opinion to make much difference, but I think the existing wording is better. It's certainly more inclusive, and I don't think we need to quantify what "useful" is, at least in terms of page views. Generally we're better off deciding on redirects on a case-by-case basis than trying to establish a threshold that many pointless redirects may meet, but potentially useful ones might fail. At least, that's my impression. I think I agree with BDD—the guideline may seem broad, but in practice it generally comes down to how persuasive the argument is. I think the present wording is fine as it is. P Aculeius (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Wikmoz:, thank you for inviting to this discussion. I tend to agree with BDD above. As the RFD discussions are not majority vote, but rather a discussion aimed to reach consensus, I don't think there's a problem here. "Finding it useful" needs a justification which can convince other users to keep the redirect or show the editor's subjective desire not backed by the arguments and therefore will not be supported by the community. Less Unless (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I have a problem with the breadth of WP:RKEEP#5 as currently worded. It makes RKEEP #3 and #6 redundant. Clarification would be useful. Narky Blert (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
RKEEP #3 is very feebly written. "They aid searches on certain[which?] terms. For example, if someone sees the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article." Wut? The true test is, Is there useful information about this search term on the target page? Narky Blert (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
There ought to be the information that this hypothetical person is looking for--that Keystone State is one of the nicknames. Pre-WP, in printed sources an encyclopedia or encyclopedic dictionary would be the likely places to look, so the redirect is highly appropriate. But in this case, it's moot, because the information is a/ in the infobox, right near the top, and b/ there's a full section in the article about nicknames explaining this and other nicknames. If there weren't , the appropriate action would be to add the information, not delete the redirect. Do you have an example where this would be the only justification? DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Redirect hatnote issue

United Kingdom had the hatnote: {{Redirect-multi|2|UK|United Kingdom}} which is really incorrect since United Kingdom is not a redirect, it is the article title. It was switched to {{Redirect-multi|2|United Kingdom|UK}} (because an editor preferred that order) which caused it to be placed in Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review. Why wasn't the error caught when United Kingdom was listed second? Posting here because the template TP has no activity. (I have fixed the article with a different hatnote. Looking for someone to investigate/fix the template. MB 21:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking at the problem now. The problem is almost certainly in Module:Redirect hatnote rather than in Module:Redirect-multi, as the latter mostly calls the former, and only the former does the redirect checking. After staring at it for a few minutes, my current hypothesis is that it's a loop logic error, caused by both relying on an argument's initial state and overwriting it (which breaks the test for all further redirect arguments), but I need a bit of time to a) test properly and b) design and sandbox its solution. Give me an hour or few and I'll probably have it fixed; thanks for catching the problem. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 23:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, it should be fixed. I did a first pass, missed that a second argument had the same problem, and then worked around that as well. It could probably still use a touch of cleanup on the testing functionality (which was the origin of the problems), but that's for another time. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 02:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Seeking guidance on bypassing foreign-language template redirects

I have looked on this page for specific guidance about bypassing foreign-language template redirects, e.g. {{Bokref}}, which redirects to {{Cite book}}. Many editors argue, correctly, that having foreign-language redirects to templates trancluded in pages make it more difficult to maintain the encyclopedia. For example, if there is a tool or script that works with {{Cite book}}, it won't work with {{Bokref}}.

These useful template redirects are created to help editors translate Wikipedia pages from languages other than English for publication here at the English Wikipedia. Instead of showing a redlink to a template, they render, or partially render, the template, often with helpful error messages that can assist editors with translation of parameter names.

I see this current guidance: Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect. I propose modifying this text to read: Spelling errors, other mistakes, and foreign-language redirects should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled or foreign-language redirect. I would also be fine if the foreign-language guidance applied only to template redirects, something like: Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect. Template redirects in foreign languages should also be corrected.

I looked in the archives, and I did not see this guidance discussed in relation to foreign-language template redirects. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I would support something like "foreign-language redirects to templates should be replaced by a direct link", but "foreign language redirects" is a much, much broader set that includes redirects like Deutsches Bundesarchiv (→ German Federal Archives), Carte blanche (→ Blank cheque), and many others that are unproblematic to link to in the right contexts. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

What should the guidance be on redirects from misspellings in template space?

There have been a number of recent RFDs about redirects from misspellings in template space. Links to this guideline have been provided in the RFD discussions, but most editors have been voting "delete", typically without citing any guidelines. See: RFD for Template:Cute book, RFD for Template:Cote web, RFD for Template:Cite jorunal, RFD for Template:Cute news.

Current discussion: new RFD for Template:Cute news.

There are currently over 100 templates that transclude {{R from misspelling}}, which contains the instructions Use this rcat template in any namespace.

Each redirect listed above was created because an editor made such a spelling error or typo (e.g. "cute" for "cite", just one letter away on the keyboard) on an actual page, causing a template red link to appear on the page. Creation of these redirects, as with all redirects, allows the editor's intention to be fulfilled (in this case, with a rendered template) until a bot or a gnome can come along and fix the minor error.

The current guideline says that one of the purposes of redirects is Likely misspellings (which the above are, as demonstrated by their occasional appearance in error reports), and that one of the reasons for keeping a redirect is Someone finds them useful. (#5)

Based on the consensus of editors in the above-linked discussions, it appears that these criteria may no longer have consensus when it comes to template space. Should they be changed? If so, how? I can envision a few different options, but there may be more. Note that these options are not necessarily mutually exclusive; for example, we could choose "1 and 2".

  1. Change "Likely misspellings" to "Likely misspellings, except in template space".
  2. Change "Someone finds them useful." to "Someone finds them useful (note that this criterion does not apply in template space)."
  3. Add a note to this guideline that all redirects from misspellings (and foreign languages? See above section) in template space should be changed to the redirect target. We could probably recruit a bot operator to catch and fix any templates transcluding {{R from misspelling}}.

Whatever change we make, we should probably adjust the wording in the documentation of {{R from misspelling}}. I welcome your thoughts. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd support any of the three changes. A bot to fix transclusions would satisfy me, as well as disallowing such redirects altogether. I think regardless, these should have a much higher level of scrutiny than typo redirects in other namespaces. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we should absolutely forbid misspelling redirects in template space (and we need to be clear that things like "color" → "colour" are not misspellings) but they should be very strongly discouraged. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
All of the RFDs linked above have been closed as "delete" (the relisted RFD for the last one is in progress, but the conclusion is inevitable). Even though I disagree, I will change our guidelines and the documentation at {{R from misspelling}} accordingly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
These edits were partially reverted by Tavix, who did not participate in the above discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I haven't closely followed these recent discussions, but WP:RFDO is probably a better place to document prescriptions like these. Anything we put directly on this page is going to look like a hard rule, which is unusual for RFD. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC on hiding redirect categories

There is a discussion on the talk page of {{tt:Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler}} that would benefit from your input. Thanks in advance! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 22:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Project Banner

I'm looking for some guidance. I realise we do not add categories to redirects and I thought that we in general don't add project banners but after re-reading the policy again I can't find clear guidance. I have an editor who is edit warring to restore a project banner I removed so I would like to fact check before I act again. WCMemail 12:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

There's no point in adding project banners to redirects. No one sees them, unless they add &redirect=no to the URL. Except for special cases such as WikiProject Redirect, a redirect just shares the project(s) of its target. Categories are added to redirects, occasionally explicitly but usually via redirect templates. For example, {{R from subtopic}} populates (surprise, surprise) Category:Redirects from subtopics. Certes (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@Wee Curry Monster: I've just realised that you may have meant the case when the talk page of a redirect is not itself a redirect, such as Talk:Colour. Perhaps there has been discussion about where the redirect should lead, which we wish to preserve rather than redirecting the reader to the talk page of the article's current target. I can see that being an edge case when a project might want to add its banner, because the project is interested in the discussions. Is that what you meant? Certes (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
It's a long story. Falklands topics used to be plagued by nationalism and originally one of these disruptive editors (multiple sock puppets) created a non-neutral article as a POV fork that was converted to a redirect. It wasn't noticed that they'd then removed the talk page redirect for a bit of a rant and it stayed that way for all this time. The original article was recently recreated and then converted back to a redirect. We've then had a situation where this editor is claiming there isn't a consensus for a redirect and was demanding that we recreate his article whilst it was discussed. As he has started a discussion he's placed a project banner on the talk page. WCMemail 13:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Your comment was actually really helpful @Certes: I've moved the discussion and recreated the redirect. WCMemail 13:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
In general, it's good to defer to projects regarding how they'd like their banners to be applied. Most, in my experience, don't use them for redirects. Exceptions include the United States and video game projects. When an article that had banners has been converted to a redirect, I at least will usually change the |class= parameter to redirect rather than remove the banner. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@Wee Curry Monster: There are two separate issues here. First, I realise we do not add categories to redirects - often we do, particularly when a category is directly relevant to the redirect but inappropriate for the ultimate page - it's covered at Wikipedia:Redirect#Categorizing redirect pages. In cases where people ask why, I usually mention Honey Lantree, so see my comments at:
search for "Honey Lantree" in each case. Second, we in general don't add project banners - a number of project banners recognise an explicit |class=redir (and in the absence of that, will autodetect that the talk page is that of a redirect) - this is not a feature of the standard set of class ratings, nor even of the extended set - it needs to be deliberately provided. It's in widespread use: see Category:Redirect-Class articles which indicates that more than a thousand WikiProjects recognise this class, so a not-insignificant number must want their banners to be added to the talk pages of redirects. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
There can be many reasons why the talk page of a redirect is not also a redirect, most often because there has been discussion about the redirect (e.g. an RfD) or about an article that used to be or is proposed to be at that title. Wikiproject banners are another such reason - if they have been placed don't remove them. Talk pages of redirects should not be converted to a redirect without a good reason - {{Talk page of redirect}} exists to direct people to a different talk page if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
A wise man said above, leave it to each project to decide. I came to point out there are presently 17K album directs and 36K song redirects. They are useful when somebody decides some NN song should not be a redirect. Other projects may view differently. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice everyone, the project wasn't keen on the banner either. So it's all worked out. WCMemail 17:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate redirects?

WP:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect? is unclear (see Talk:Line feed#Inappropriate redirect.).

If article foo mentions an application of bar but does not actually describe bar, is it valid to redirect bar to foo? Is it valid to delete such a redirect? Does it matter whether bar is notable? I'm concerned with two cases:

  1. bar is a subset of foo, e.g., redirecting car to vehicle.
  2. bar is sometimes used in constructing foo. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Redirects don't have to pass notability, though obviously the threshold is higher than merely WP:NOTEWORTHY: a biography article will typically mention a large number of other people associated with the subject, but creating redirects for any of them will normally be a bad idea.
Now, assuming the topic is redirect-worthy, if the target article has relevant content, and there's no better potential target, then the redirect is usually appropriate. I don't believe there's a need for the conceptual relation between the redirect and the target article to be of a certain kind, it's enough that there is some relevance. However, if a subject is covered in several articles, and no single one of them is more suitable than the others, then it's possible to get the redirect deleted per WP:XY. – Uanfala (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
The reason that I mentioned notability is that when I changed Line feed from a redirect to the stub <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_feed&oldid=1035929760>, User:Onel5969 reverted it with the comment Restore redirect - wholly uncited, no indication of notability. I'm looking for clearer guidance on when to add a redirect, when to delete one and when to convert a redirect to a regular article. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Chatul, hi. In restoring the redirect, I was not making any comment on it's appropriateness, simply removing uncited material, which is one of the main policies of WP, WP:VERIFY. If you believe the redirect is inappropriate, the proper course of action is to either create an article which both shows the article's subject passes WP:GNG, and is sourced well enough to pass WP:VERIFY. Barring that, the other choice is to send it to RfD. Which I see you have done, per my suggestion on the redirect's talkpage. And there is pretty vibrant discussion going on there. Onel5969 TT me 20:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@Chatul: Yes, I think you're looking for guidance that doesn't exist because every case is different and werely more on consensus and overall policy. The problem with the stub wasn't that it was converted from a redirect, the problem was that it was unsourced. An alternative approach would be to use WP:AFC. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Redirect protection: when there's "no reason for it to be edited"?

The section Wikipedia:Redirect#Redirect protection lists several reasons why a redirect may be protected, and the first one is There is no reason for it to be edited. That's odd, as it applies everywhere and nowhere: as with everything else in this collaborative encyclopedia, it may be the case that one editor decides that everything with the redirect is perfect the way it is, only for somebody else to come along and disagree. One obvious case where this applies is rcats: there's almost always scope for categories to be added, removed or refined. There are more substantial changes too: for example, all redirects to sections are liable to changing if the target's section is renamed. Similarly for redirects to targets that get moved, merged, split or deleted. But even when everything is eternally perfect between a redirect and its target, there are always forces operating outside this little system – other pages may show up that will vie for the status of a target. Every redirect is, in principle, open to being retargeted, disambiguated or nominated at RfD.

This is a vague and subjective criterion that shouldn't realistically apply anywhere. Therefore, I propose that it's dropped altogether. Or is there anything I'm missing? – Uanfala (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Sounds like a relic from pre-Rcat days. I understand what it's getting at—Obama, Hitler, and 9/11 are highly unlikely to ever point elsewhere, but you never know, in the future. If you're just talking about striking #1, that sounds fine. If you're talking about changing the underlying principle, e.g., loosening protection for such redirects, let's think about that first. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
    Well, there are plenty of redirects that are equally unlikely to ever get changed, but they have never had any protection – like London, England or Moscow, Russia. If Obama and Hitler are protected, I believe that's because they're likely vandalism targets, and that's criteria #3 and #4 (I'm not suggesting unprotecting them, though the fact that the protection of those two redirects is both full and indefinite is a relic from the days before extended-confirmed, and would be difficult to justify nowadays, but that's another matter).
    So yeah, my aim was just abolishing the criterion. And a technical question: should we just remove it and renumber the other three criteria, or should we keep the numbering as there may be references to them in project pages and discussions? – Uanfala (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Uanfala Definitely suggest keeping the numbering, as has been done with other criteria (e. g. speedy deletion) earlier per your argument. I can also make a simple query listing all the fully protected redirects if you wish. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     20:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

How many redirects are there?

Does anybody know? I looked for stats in the usual places, but couldn't find the number. – Uanfala (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Database reports/Page count by namespace. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah, how easy that was! Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Got there before me! Based on that, I'd say there are about 6.9 million pages that are redirects? Tom (LT) (talk) 07:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed redirect template similar to PROD/MERGE

I dislike how redirecting can be a form of a stealthy deletion, with no notifications required. But rather than change the existing rules (which is hard), I would like to propose the creation of an optional template based on WP:PROD/WP:MERGE (Template:Proposed deletion, Template:Merge), which would follow the same principle. It would say that "this article has been proposed for redirecting to [target], because of [rationale]." We don't need to overcomplicate this - there is no need for admin review of intervention. A discussion can be started, there can be a notification template to be added to the target page of the creator, hopefully to be integrated to TWINKLE and like, and after some amount of time with no objections, the redirect can be carried out. Note that this is not intended to replace any current system, but could serve as a form of best practice for the future. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, but I am not very familiar with the whole deletion process. You should probably post this at WP:VPP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
VPP is for policy changes - WP:VPR (proposals) would be better. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CREEP. We already have a plethora of processes and this would be an additional one generating additional complication and confusion. It would exacerbate the issue of "stealthy deletion" because, as a new and unsupported process, it would not be known to the bots which do things like notify projects or the patrollers who attend to the current mergers, redirects and deletions. It would therefore be counterproductive, making matters worse rather than better. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a problem here, but I'm unsure of the best solution. I've even seen the occasional article redirected to the unrelated subject of a SNOW AfD as an "alternative to deletion", and occasionally check for such stealth. (That query currently shows only good-faith edits.) Certes (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Categorising redirects

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Categorising redirects. Qwerfjkltalk 11:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Music video maker

Thanks you so much 175.100.6.92 (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

What is your question? Are you in the right place? ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 23:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Using new R country data

See here for objections. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Buller County, Queensland

What's the point of redirects like this one? ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a redirect to the closest thing to an article until something like Douglas County, Queensland, is created. Under "Purposes" on this page, the closest description is Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Bot to correct miscategorized sortname redirects.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Bot to correct miscategorized sortname redirects.. Qwerfjkltalk 21:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Redirect/Archive_2021&oldid=1094497696"