Wikipedia talk:Redirect/Archive 2018

Creating redirect for non-related page

I noticed that some editors have been creating redirect pages of upcoming TV series leading to the TV network company (not even the channel) or an actor's page. Example: Marry Me Now, Parting Left, Something About Us (TV series), Lawless Attorney, and Handsome Guy and Jung-eum. Is this allowed? It is not an alternative name of the network and the main page has nothing written about the upcoming series. Personally, it looks like those editors are just creating the pages to increase page creation count or claim the article before someone creates it, instead of contributing proper articles. What are the rules for such things? Should they be deleted or user asked to stop doing that since they don't follow WP:POFR? CherryPie94 (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You could try tagging them with {{db-misnomer}} - if that is refused, you could try WP:RFD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2018

Please change (Redirected from UK) to (Redirected from UK) 50.67.136.85 (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

What is the purpose of edits..

..such as these? The Australian Football League (AFL) used to be called the Victorian Football League (VFL), so links to the VFL go to the AFL page. However, someone created a redirect page, changed all the links to the AFL page to this new page, which then redirects straight back to the AFL page (the same target that the links had originally pointed to) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.223.75 (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You'd need to talk with the editor who made those changes, Colonies Chris, to identify the purpose. The purpose of the redirect is clear enough, but I'm not sure why they've changed the existing links to point to the redirect instead of the target. General Ization ^Talk 02:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk page of redirects

I have a couple of queries regarding the following section (from Wikipedia:Redirect#Categorizing redirect pages):

Discussion pages. If a discussion/talk page exists for a redirect, please ensure (1) that the talk page's Wikiproject banners are tagged with the "class=Redirect" parameter and (2) that the talk page is tagged at the TOP with the {{Talk page of redirect}} template. If the discussion page is a redirect, then it may be tagged with appropriate redirect categorization templates (rcats).

• It seems to suggest that it is fine to either redirect the talk page (to the talk page of the redirect target) or keep the talk page to hold redirect-class project banners. When is one way preferable over the other? Wouldn't it be better, for consistency, to have a single approach?
• Is the "class=Redirect" really necessary? I thought it was fine to omit the class entirely as it would be automatically be classed as Redirect-class for those projects that use that class? --Jameboy (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, the talk page is kept if it has some content: discussions, {{old afd}} notices etc. If the talk page is only a redirect (say, a remnant of a page move), then it can stay as a redirect, and any fiddling with this redirect is usually a waste of time. If the talk page of a redirect doesn't exist at all, then one should not be created. I think this sums up common practice. Probably someone more knowledgeable than me will soon point out the more tricky or subtle points. – Uanfala (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirect#Categorizing redirect pages probably contains old advice that hasn't been updated in light of more recent changes to Template:Class mask - the paragraph in question hasn't been touched since this edit in August 2015. Until this edit in September 2015, |class=redir had to be set explicitly in WikiProject banners; but since 12:30, 29 September 2015, the WikiProject banners can detect that the talk page is that of a redirect, and will set Redirect-class automatically - provided that the |class= parameter is blank or absent. If it's been left set to e.g. |class=start or |class=template, the autodetection is defeated. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Shortcuts

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Shortcuts. I'm looking for help on why some shortcuts don't work on the Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion page Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way to distinguish redirects from non-redirects in a list of wikilinks?

Is there a way to distinguish redirects from non-redirects in a list of wikilinks? Like, for example, there are settings in Preferences that make blocked usernames to appear striked, and disambiguation pages to appear orange. Is there anything similar? KingAndGod 13:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@KingAndGod: Yes, if you install User:Anomie/linkclassifier, all redirects are changed from blue to green. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks. KingAndGod 14:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Question

Likewise, do not replace [[operating systems]] with [[operating system]]s. (WP:NOTBROKEN)
Why not? Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 16:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The reasons are clearly explained at Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. Do you have a specific question or complaint regarding this English Wikipedia editing guideline? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought it would be fine to “fix” that since [[operating system]]s is not a piped link and has the same number of characters. The former is a bit of an unnecessary redirect, I think. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 18:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Bypassing redirects

I understand why WP:NOTBROKEN is a policy, but isn't reverting edits that bypass redirects just wasting even more time? Raymond1922 (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It depends. A redirect like Toyota Camry (XV70) goes to a section within the Toyota Camry article. But other generations of the Camry have their own articles, such as Toyota Camry (XV50). Over time, it is likely that the XV70 information will be shifted to its own article at Toyota Camry (XV70). When this happens, all the links to Toyota Camry (XV70) will automatically go to the new article instead of being redirected. But if an over zealous editor changes all the links of from Toyota Camry (XV70) to Toyota Camry#XV70, then this changeover will not happen automatically and some editor must go through all the numerous links that lead to Toyota Camry and change the appropriate ones to Toyota Camry (XV70).  Stepho  talk  10:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

There is also a behavior modification aspect. If we let edits that violate policies stand without reverting them, it encourages editors to make edits that violate policies. If they see that any policy-breaking edits get reverted, they are more likely to give up (and we have blocks for those who don't give up). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

redirects from organizations to events

Is there a guidline about redirecting people and organizations invloved in an event to the event's page (like Adass Israel School, Melbourne)? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

How to view redirected articles

Hello I was wondering if there is any way - for purely academic purposes - to see the content of an article that has since been redirected. For example, I want to find the original wording for this candidate's wikipedia article, but it has since been redirected. Is there anyway to see who created it, its talk page and edit history?--Omer Benjakob (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@עומר בן יעקב: If you are a researcher or an administrator, then yes; it's at Special:Undelete/Nathan Larson (politician). Otherwise, no. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

User page redirect

Is one allowed to use their userpage to redirect to an article in the main namespace (or any namespace, for that matter)?

I’m asking because the user Mayamaya7 redirected their user page to the Mosquito article a little over a week ago.
Currently, it redirects to their talk page, which, as far as I know, is allowed. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 13:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Uhmm I don't see any issues of people redirecting to their own talk page, as I see bunch of other's user page are redirected to their own talk page. Mayamaya7 Poke! 09:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mayamaya7: That’s not what I was asking. I said that I believed that redirecting to one’s talk page is fine. I’m talking about redirecting one’s user page to an article in the main namespace, which you did earlier this month. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 20:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark and Mayamaya7: Redirecting from User: to User talk: is generally OK (see WP:UP#Terminology and page locations). Redirecting from User: to mainspace shouldn't be done (except for redirs from subpages, see WP:UP#Categories, templates that add categories, and redirects), as (apart from WP:EGG concerns) there are bots that follow user page links and then post to the corresponding talk page, and messages intended for one specific user do not belong on the talk page for an article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

plural

I wonder if there should be an easy way to generate redirects for plurals. Considering the operating systems and operating systems case above as one example. There are some cases where the plural isn't just a tailing s, such as analysis vs. analyses, but for the more common s case, it might be nice. Gah4 (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to a List

It seems that a redirect for a term defined within an article should redirect to that article, rather than to a list of notable instances of that term, but that's not apparent to me within the guideline. Should redirects ever go to lists? --tronvillain (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's why we have {{R to list entry}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, a redirect to a list in which the subject is an entry. What about a redirect of a subject to a list of members of that subject? As in redirecting baseball players to something like Lists of Major League Baseball players instead of baseball. Or, the one I'm interested in, redirecting Cryptids to List of cryptids instead of Cryptozoology. Perhaps there isn't a guideline that covers that, and it's purely a case by case basis.--tronvillain (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

​There is a redirect for the Cryptids/List of cryptids case: {{R from list topic}} (which I see that someone has since added).

Since Major League Baseball player is a subtopic or hyponym of baseball player, it's not the list topic, and {{R from list topic}} should not be used. There might be cases where {{R to subtopic}} might be appropriate for such a list redirect, but in this case I redirected to the section Baseball#Players, so that the reader can learn about what a baseball player is. For users who want to find baseball players rather than read about what they are, I added a hatnote. —Ringbang (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Tidying up the Royal Dukedoms but get rebuked

Hi I am trying to tidying up the Royal Dukedoms and I keep getting rid of the redirects but User talk:Surtsicna is ruining it for me, I have done this to other articles before but he is being a jobsworth. Mr Hall of England (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Mr Hall of England, the problem appears to be your sense of ownership of the articles as well as not understanding the guidelines you've been directed to by User:Surtsicna. "Fixing" redirects that are not broken is at best a pointless activity, and in some cases may actually be unhelpful. older ≠ wiser 10:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't need redirects as I think it makes articles worse, since the royal wedding he has OTT with it. They are not needed and he should grow up, I have been editing in ten years and never had this before.Mr Hall of England (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Hall of England: Are edits like this the ones in dispute? In which case, WP:NOTBROKEN applies and you should not be bypassing these redirects. Also, comment on content, not on the contributor. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Since the royal wedding all the Dukedoms have had this, I change it and it gets redone. No need.Mr Hall of England (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I do User talk:Redrose64 but since 27 May 2018 all the Royal Dukedom edits I have done it get undone.Mr Hall of England (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you admitting that you are violating WP:NOTBROKEN? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

New maintenance subcategories

There are some new sheriffs in town!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap but...

I know that we don't worry much about having lots of redirects but Ambato disambiguation has me baffled. It was created in 2009 and has no additional edit history, and no pages link to it. Speaking generally, do we keep redirects like this because they're harmless or get rid of them because they're not serving any purpose (except to confuse me). Leschnei (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I advocate getting rid of clutter. You could tag it with {{db-error}}, since there’s a correct version extant and this one’s an orphan. — Gorthian (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. Leschnei (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap is just an essay, and one that's over-cited I think. I recall the former admin who created thousands and thousands of dubious at best redirects that later took hours of volunteer time to delete. They may be cheap from a purely technical standpoint, but not so cheap if hours and hours of volunteer resources are wasted creating and deleting them. wbm1058 (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Might also mention that the essay was written about five years before the software started letting editors place visible text on redirects, which probably renders redirects a bit less cheap.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  08:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

What text do editors put on redirects, other than templates? Leschnei (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Except for the occasional good faith blurb and some vandalism, neither of which belongs there, the text on redirects is placed there by the same templates (rcats) that sort them to maintenance categories.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

That's what I thought, thanks. Leschnei (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Pleasure! Paine  

Anchor placement

@Redrose64: Fair enough, but then should we change the guidance at Wikipedia:Redirect#Targeted and untargeted redirects that states, "[a]lternative anchors for section headings are ideally placed directly in front of the text of the heading"? At a minimum, the anchors should be placed above the section headings, so that they will be visible—e.g. currently, WP:R#CRD takes the reader to just below the section heading, such that the heading itself is not visible. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

To editor Black Falcon: coupla things... back when I went on a "quest" to place the anchors within headers, I found that there was no conflict until I started doing it to project/Wikipedia-page headers. One reason was because it threw off the bots that used the headers. And a reason to place anchors below rather than above headers is that the anchor code won't be visible when an editor goes to edit the section. The edit screen will begin with the header, ==(Header)==, so an anchor just above that header won't be seen on that edit screen. Still seems to be okay to place helpful anchors within headers in mainspace, though. Hope this helps.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  08:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Thank you, it does help. It's not optimal but it makes sense. On the matter of placing anchors below rather than above headers, my preference would be to prioritize a reader's ability to see the section header when they follow an anchor link over an editor's ability to view the anchor code when they go to edit the section, as I assume the former situation arises far more often than the latter. Based on a small sample, I see no real consistency across project pages—e.g., Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion places anchors above headers, Wikipedia:Deletion process places them below headers, and Help:Link places them in front of headers. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

There are only 3 options. All have advantages. All have disadvantages.

1. Before the section header: Destination always shows the section title. Easy to get separated from the section by careless editors (especially when reordering sections).
2. Inside the section header: Destination always shows the section title. Makes long, butt-ugly summaries in the history list. Never gets separated.
3. After the section header: Destination rarely shows the section title. Never gets separated.

You can read through the archives that there has never been agreement for which is the best compromise.  Stepho  talk  00:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Option 2 can also break inward links to the section. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I tested this on an operational anchor within a header at Help:Link, both as an internal link and an external one. Since there was no problem getting to the correct section, I assume you mean those occasions when an editor installs the anchor within the header incorrectly?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

When you edit a normal section, you get the edit summary prefilled like this

/* Anchor placement */

and if you leave this prefilled portion alone and enter your summary after the */ characters, when the page is saved and you check the page history or your contribs, you will see a blue arrow → - the blue denotes a link - which if clicked, takes you to the section. But if the section heading contains a template (not just {{anchor}} but any template) those braces end up in the prefilled part, and the → link gets broken: you are taken to the top of the page instead - try out the section link arrows here. This has been mentioned at WP:VPT many times, and the agreement is that templates should be kept out of section headings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, good to know! What a bug! How useful are those history arrows?  Paine  15:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If I read what I saw in the VPT archive correctly, the Anchor template can be subst. as in {{Subst:Anchor|My_anchor}}. That results in just the == <span id="My_anchor"></span>My heading == code being used in the header. And that span code can be added manually rather than by installing a template.  Paine  15:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if it's substd the breakage doesn't happen. The problem is a general characteristic of templates used in headings, it's nothing to do with the code inside Template:Anchor. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

That is so good to know. Thank you!  Paine  12:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I suppose it comes down to the local consensus on each page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Remember that the long, butt-ugly edit summaries you mention in option 2 can be easily and quickly erased. Again, the main problem with that option is its adverse effects for bots.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

'Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken'

"There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. However, changing to a piped link is beneficial only in a few cases. Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental."

I disagree wholeheartedly. This is on two grounds:

a) that of presentation. To see the evidence of a redirect makes WP appear untidy; there is no need to see the evidence of a redirect except during a speculative search, i.e. where it is uncertain whether an article on the sought subject exists and if so, what is its title.

b) that of certainty of subject. From my time as an editor here, well over a decade, it appears perfectly possible for mistaken wikilinks to exist in articles; the use of full names and piping in links indicates at least something of the exact subject being sought, by disambiguating personal names, stating precise areas of a topic, etc.

Any disadvantage that might be thought to exist in terms of greater article length and size through extended use of piping and exactly-phrased links would, to my mind, be trivial. Harfarhs (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

So, are you arguing for always changing something like [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to either [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] or [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Franklin Roosevelt]]? Or is there some other specific example you had in mind? --tronvillain (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The first example is fine; I don't see much point in the second. Where the surname only is given in a quote, and there's no previous opportunity to link, Roosevelt would be good. Harfarhs (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

So what about redirects with possibilities (where the title may get become an article later on)? What are you proposing regarding redirects to sections of articles and/or subtopics (whether or not they may become an article later)? WP:INTDABLINK redirects? you think it worth editors time to always pipe links to articles titled in a different variety of English to the article and/or which are named using synonyms - are [[Radicalization|Radicalisation]], [[Oversize load|abnormal load]], [[3ft 6in gauge railways|Cape Gauge]] and [[Indian softshell turtle|Aspidonectes gangeticus]] really better than linking to the redirect? Do you propose to adjust every link to a redirect when a page is moved? Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Piped links are a last resort. They break the least surprise principle because the reader is generally entitled to expect that typing the link text into the search box should produce the same result as clicking on the link.

If you're familiar with Unix filesystems, piped links are analogous to hard links (as opposed to symlinks).

The main reason to use a piped link is because the link text either has no primary topic (that is, naturally goes to a disambiguation page) or has a different primary topic from the intended meaning. In those cases, there's not much choice.

But if a redirect exists, and points where you intend the link to point, then in most cases we should simply link to the redirect. I disagree that there's anything "untidy" about this. --Trovatore (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• I too disagree with the strength of opinion as written. Co-incidentally, I think.

Absolutely no issue with the most common examples, like [[Franklin Roosevelt]] versus [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] versus [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Franklin Roosevelt]]. All are synonyms for the same topic and could well be suitable titles for the same page.

what about DAB pages, links to an article section? Nosedive (disambiguation) is the case in question. Should the piped link link to Dive_(aviation), a redirect, or to Descent_(aeronautics)#Dives, the redirect target. The section title has been unchanged for eight years. I think that on a DAB page, the hovertext should indicate the page to be downloaded if you click the link. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

That's outside the scope of NOTBROKEN. NOTBROKEN is about avoiding piped links when possible, in favor of redirects, when a redirect exists that does the same job.

Your case is a pipe either way, so NOTBROKEN has no opinion about it. --Trovatore (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it's not the same situation; the relevant part of the guideline is "Shortcuts or redirects to embedded anchors or sections of articles or of Wikipedia's advice pages should never be bypassed, as the anchors or section headings on the page may change over time", as I've told SmokeyJoe at Talk:Nosedive (disambiguation). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 15:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Using the redirect is preferable because Dive (aviation) is the topic. Right now it redirects to Descent (aeronautics)#Dives, but it could become an article or the redirect target might change. —Ringbang (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you mean to ping me? That's exactly what I'm arguing in favour of, and exactly the justification I've used at Talk:Nosedive (disambiguation). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

NOTBROKEN and plurals?

In May, Guy Macon added to the section concerning not piping links to bypass redirects that it also applied to links to plural forms that redirect to the singular. I don't think this is in original spirit of WP:NOTBROKEN, as changing [[operating systems]] to [[operating system]]s doesn't concern piping. It also doesn't give any advantage in the case of potential redirects with possibilities, as redirects from plural to singular forms will almost certainly never be turned into articles. This was previously raised here, but wasn't definitely settled. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Unless there's some technical nuance I'm missing, [[operating system]]s is identical to [[operating system|operating systems]] and thus the change is not appropriate per "It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]." Spelling this out for clarity seems useful to me, but I think that this needs discussion before it can be included because at least two users have objected (you and the person in the link you give). Does anyone know for certain whether blend links are parsed identically to their piped equivalents? — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 22:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe that, absent an extant redirect, the software appends any text directly following a link into the linked text. I don't know whether it matters if the target is a redirect. Observe: [[operating system]]izationizations produces operating systemizationizations (linked to the article); [[operating systems]]ingtonville gives you operating systemsingtonville (linked to the redirect). I don't know if that helps answer the question at all but it was fun to type. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with changing [[operating systems]] to [[operating system]]s. I and many other editors make edits like that as well, and I'm someone who generally adheres to WP:NOTBROKEN. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Johnuniq, you're good with technical matters on Wikipedia. Any thoughts on this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This both is and is not WP:NOTBROKEN. The article really is not broken, so bypassing the redirects should never be the sole reason to edit a page. However if you are making other changes to the page then there is no harm in changing it - there are no benefits either, so it's not something I'd encourage somebody to do. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Both [[operating system|operating systems]] and [[operating system]]s produce identical HTML output as can be seen by viewing the HTML source of a sandbox with the text so they are technically identical. Replacing the former with the latter is one of AWB's general fixes—see Simplify links which points to MOS:PIPEDLINK as justification ("simpler and clearer"). Thryduulf has accurately described the situation. A page should not be edited only to simplify plural links but fixing them while doing a non-trivial edit is fine. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

For reference so the reader can easily try this herself:

• [[operating systems]] brings the reader to operating systems.
• [[operating system]]s brings the reader to operating systems.
• [[operating system|operating systems]] brings the reader to operating systems.

As you can see, all three look exactly the same on the page, but the links you see (on most browsers, just hover the mouse over the link) are slightly different. When you reach the page, the first one displays "(Redirected from Operating systems)" The second and third go not. And Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken is quite clear: "There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. However, changing to a piped link is beneficial only in a few cases." -- followed by sections detailing what those "few cases" are and are not. I am quite familiar with what is on that page, and use it to decide whether to ask someone to stop "fixing" links to redirects that are not broken. For example, I don't ask that if the link they fixed was to a {{R from misspelling}} redirect, or if they fixed the link as part of another edit that isn't pointless. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

"Or if they fixed the link as part of another edit that isn't pointless." This is why I think it doesn't belong with WP:NOTBROKEN. This seems to be a point where the guideline as currently written isn't very clear, but as I see it, piping links to bypass redirects should never be done, even as part of another non-trivial edit, especially when doing so would orphan a potential redirect with possibilities. But none of the listed "Reasons not to bypass redirects" could apply to redirects from plural forms, and linking to them instead of using blend links seems to be something more editors regard as a minor mistake (i.e. broken). So if the intent is, "such edits are okay when done along with other significant changes," it should probably be presented separately from WP:NOTBROKEN, which says, don't "fix" redirects that are not broken. As for whether blend links are equivalent to piped links on the back end, I think the question is rather irrelevant, as they don't create the same visual clutter. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Do redirects help search engines?

Simple question, I think. There should be some handling of this issue in the page. -Inowen (nlfte) 02:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• The simple answer is yes. If there is a redirect from a term to an article at a different title it helps associate the search term with the target article and people searching for the term not used as the article title will more likely be able to find what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Tool to check if bulk list of Wikipedia urls redirect to different Wikipedia urls

Hello, I was wondering whether someone can help. We publish hundred of Wikipedia links on our website and as a general maintenance we annually verify whether the links are not broken or redirect to other wikipedia pages with different urls. For example: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Gangwon_Province_(South_Korea) in our database redirects to https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Gangwon_Province,_South_Korea

Is there any tool that allows us to verify and check that a large bulk list of Wikipedia urls do or do not redirect to different Wikipedia urls as per the example above. Manually verifying hundred of urls is not feasible and broken links or redirect software tools like Xenu's Link Sleuth do not seem to catch the urls that redirects because it seems that Wikipedia is not using a standard 301 or 302 redirects system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.147.147.118 (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixing on non-article-space pages?

Hi. Sequence is:

• Article Akkadian renamed to Akkadian language leaving redirect at basename
• Redirect at basename converted to DAB
• Uses of basename redirect in articles fixed (most but not all to Akkadian language)
• DAB moved to Akkadian (disambiguation) leaving redirect at basename

Akkadian is still used in non-article-space[1]. Given that what remains are mostly either within other editor's comments and/or in editors' workspaces, should these be fixed or left alone? Thanks, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me that since the redirect is there, that should be fine. I don't know the specific rule on editor's workspace, but it is usual not to modify talk page entries. Gah4 (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Firstly any links to Akkadian intended for the article about the language are WP:NOTBROKEN. Generally, if links in userspace are going to the wrong target, then it's fine to fix pages that are clearly drafts of articles or active proposals for reworking articles unless there is a clear indication to the contrary. Everything else can be left. If you aren't sure then just leave the author a note on their talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• It seems that the question boils down to what types of incoming links to dab pages should be fixed. That's really a matter for the WP:DPL project, but the common approach is to fix the ones that appear in articles (either directly or indirectly via templates), or in the various documentation pages (template documentation, wikipedia essays and guidelines, help pages – though neither of these is particularly common). In other places – discussions (whatever the namespace), sandboxes, drafts, etc. – links can be fixed (in the sense that it is not forbidden: for example, fixing a link in another editor's comment is specifically allowed per WP:TPO), but that has near-zero benefits and is almost never worth the effort.
  Also, one more point: the language appears to be the primary topic here so I've retargeted the redirect back to Akkadian language, though it's a good idea to keep an eye on the traffic statistics to see what proportion of readers are looking for the other topics; if it turns out that it's best for Akkadian to take readers to a disambiguation page, then that disambiguation page should be at the base title (Akkadian rather than Akkadian (disambiguation)) per WP:MALPLACED. – Uanfala (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Ref Talk:Akkadian language#Requested move 31 March 2018, DAB should be at the basename. Although the language is most common, having the basename redirect there is an attractive nuisance as there have been more than enough instances where an alternative target was meant, and many where the link to the language is ok, but another target such as mythology or literature is probably better, so an explicit target makes things clearer. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Wording and placement of advice about targeted redirects

WP:RSECT gives no guidance to categorise "targeted" redirects with {{R to section}} or {{R to anchor}}, although I believe this is best practice. Should it be added? MOS:LINK2SECT is silent about it, although it particularly calls out usage in redirects, as well as in articles.

The only mention of these categorizing templates is at section WP:SELFRED, where the advice is:

However, linking to a title that redirects to a section or anchor within the article (redirects with {{R to section}} or {{R to anchor}}) is acceptable

To me, this implies (perhaps because of the "however") that these templates should only be used for redirects back to the same article, which patently is not the intention. I think a bit of clarification might be in order here.

To emphasise: I am not suggesting a policy change, just clearer wording. 94.21.10.121 (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)