THC Science

(Rated Project-class, High-importance)

	This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
Project	This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
High	This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Redirect

(Rated Project-class)

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Redirect, a collaborative effort to improve the standard of redirects and their categorization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Note: This banner should be placed on the talk pages of project, template and category pages that exist and operate to maintain redirects. This banner is not designed to be placed on the talk pages of most redirects and never on the talk pages of mainspace redirects. For more information see the template documentation.
Project	This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Archives

Sections older than 6 months may be automatically archived by .

Category:Redirects from second-level domains[edit]

Looks like this redirect category is missing a corresponding template. Anyone like creating that? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: have you seen this? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Curious there are 134 redirects in this category that are all "hard" categorized instead of using a template, which could have been easily created. Or perhaps an existing rcat template could be used with a parameter? Not clear about what the questioner is asking. Do they not want to get in the way of someone who might already be creating the template? or do they not know how to create an rcat template? (there are lots of examples to go by) What exactly is being asked? P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 18:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth Given that {{R from top-level domain}} already exists separately from {{R from domain name}}, I would suggest this be created as a standalone template as well. I have quite a lot of other work to do already and am currently a bit tired from AWB due to a big recent batch, so I would appreciate if somebody else could take on the task of creating the template and replacing the category. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and

done. Just fyi, there are other categories like this one was, that is, redirect categories that are linked on redirects rather than being applied by rcat templates. I prefer templates because there is so much more that can be done with them, so those categories are on my to-do list. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 04:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth Noting that you might want to add Category:HTML entity redirects to that list. Thanks, ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done @1234qwer1234qwer4 @Paine Ellsworth (I requested Category:HTML entity redirects to be renamed as Category:Redirects from HTML entities). The template is {{R from HTML entity}}. ― Qwerfjkl talk 18:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl Maybe you also want to take a look at Category:Redirects from remixes of songs. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 19:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done (and I made {{rcat doc}}). ― Qwerfjkl talk 08:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed redirect template similar to PROD/MERGE[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

VPP is for policy changes - WP:VPR (proposals) would be better. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Categorising redirects[edit]

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

Music video maker[edit]

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

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

Using new R country data[edit]

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

Buller County, Queensland[edit]

What's the point of redirects like this one? ― Qwerfjkl talk 10:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Bot for creating redirects from biographies without middle initial[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 10. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"MOS:NOTBROKEN" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect MOS:NOTBROKEN and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 25#MOS:NOTBROKEN until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —GMX^{^(ping!)} 04:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MPNOREDIRECT[edit]

Currently, this page has the following guideline as an exception to the non-bypassing of redirects:

Links on the Main Page, to avoid stealthy vandalism by retargeting redirects. (But note, as above, that redirects to article sections should never be bypassed.

This is all well and good, but I don't see why we should have an "exception to the exception" for redirects to sections. Like all other redirects, they aren't immune to potential subtly malicious retargeting, which is the ostensible reason why we have the guideline to begin with. In general, I agree that section redirects shouldn't be "fixed" because section titles can easily change over time, but I'd argue that this is outweighed the benefit gained by bypassing these anyway – for one, Main Page links are time-sensitive, and we don't have to worry about them once they're no longer being featured there. So I believe that we can safely remove the parenthesized portion of this bullet point to remove the "exception to the exception". — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBROKEN - Change of primary topic[edit]

I have a question about the appropriate actions (if any) to take in the following situation:

Foo is currently a dab page, with entries Foo (topic 1), Foo (topic 2), etc. A fair number of pages contain links in the form [[Foo (topic 1)|Foo]].
A discussion at WP:RM concludes that Foo (topic 1) is the primary topic for Foo - Foo (topic 1) is moved to Foo, and Foo is moved (over a redirect) to Foo (disambiguation).

In this case, should the links [[Foo (topic 1)|Foo]] be changed to simply [[Foo]]? Or left as they are? Tevildo (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Foo (topic 1) now redirects to Foo, changing the links would alter neither their destination nor their appearance on the page, so they can usually be left as they are. One exception is navboxes, which normally bypass redirects if their target is synonymous with the title (i.e. not a section or other related topic). The link on the dab itself should change, i.e. '''[[Foo]]''' is a topic 1. Foo may also refer to… Certes (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Perhaps this might be explicitly mentioned in the guideline, as I'm sure it's not unprecedented. (If it is already explicitly stated somewhere, a link to that section from WP:NOTBROKEN might also be useful). Tevildo (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022[edit]

Please make a few minor wording changes to WP:NOTBROKEN.

Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect
When the template is placed on an article and contains a direct link to the same article (rather than a redirect), the direct link will display in bold (and not as a link), making

should become

When they find a link to a redirect page, some editors are tempted to bypass the redirect
When the template is placed on an article that it links directly (not via a redirect), the direct link will display in bold rather than as a link, making

The first phrase doesn't flow very well when the phrase "are tempted to bypass" is interrupted with an eight-word clause. The second phrase is a little wordy, and the paragraph contains three parenthetical phrases, so it would be good to move one of the three out of parentheses. Both of these are descriptive sentences, rather than prescriptive, so since the meaning is identical, there shouldn't be any need for a discussion. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I do not find the proposed language better overall. Please discuss. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on NOTBROKEN interpretation[edit]

Does WP:NOTBROKEN encourage or discourage bypassing redirects that are miscapitalizations, and should we clarify it? Dicklyon (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

WP:NOTBROKEN includes:

Good reasons to bypass redirects include:

...

Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect. This does not necessarily mean that the misspelled redirect should be deleted (see {{R from misspelling}}).

Is the intention that "redirects from miscapitalization" is included in "other mistakes", parallel to misspellings? The redirect name with miscapitalization is only slightly visible, via mouseover, in articles, just like misspellings. Similar to Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings, the special page Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations tabulates such links for fixing, but does not say whether piped links should be fixed; if they're not, the miscapitalization will remain in the report. See for example Elizabeth Islands with piped link English Crown. There tend to be a lot of such links when a page is moved by consensus to the WP caps style; should they be, or can they be, cleaned up as part of post-move cleanup? That's the basic RFC question here. Dicklyon (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Blatant miscapitalisations should obviously be fixed, but most cases aren't blatant. Before dedicating time to fixing anything, it's best to first make sure the form to be fixed is actually incorrect, and not merely a contextual or stylistic variant. A lot of the time both Foo and FOO (or Foo bar and Foo Bar) would be acceptable, and the fact that one of them will be chosen for the article title doesn't make the other one wrong. – Uanfala (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of each? Hopefully we'll correctly mark redirects appropriately with "other capitalization" vs "miscapitalization" to distinguish them. Dicklyon (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can see, for example, the crown estate for the Crown Estate in this newspaper [1]. The same publication's style guide, if I'm not mistaken, also recommends title case for acronyms that are pronounced as words (so the EU is in all caps, but NATO is Nato [2]). – Uanfala (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how those are examples of what you were saying. Are you saying that neither "crown estate" or "Nato" would be considered a miscapitalization, or not a blatant one anyway, just because some source does that? And we should just leave them even though they'll show up to users in a way that's incompatible with WP's case norms? Dicklyon (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. Assuming we're talking about link targets and not about displayed text: fix errors, but don't fix forms that are just "incompatible with WP's case norms". – Uanfala (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the redirect Crown estate is not marked as a miscapitalization, and shows up with incorrectly lowercase estate at English land law#Housing and tenant rights (and likely other places), and piped as owned by the Crown at Holy Cross Preparatory School#Buildings. Other uses (outside the UK context) link to Crown land, as in crown estates at Mohammad Reza Pahlavi; others that should do that instead incorrectly link to the UK article as crown estate (correctly lowercase but wrong redirect target) as at Meldal Church. So generally, the example is a mess, and articles that link through that redirect need work, and the redirect probably need to be retargeted to Crown land instead of being marked miscapitalization. Anyway, not an example of what I'm asking about. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for Nato, that's also not marked a miscapitalization, but should be as I understand it, since it's not how it should appear on Wikipedia. We'd change visible uses to NATO whether linked or not, right? Like in Liam Fox#Defence and Security Review. If that's so, we should mark it as miscapitalization, and then it might be an example of what I'm asking about. Then the question would be should we fix History of the Scottish National Party and Yalta Hotel Complex which use piped redirect NATO ([[Nato|NATO]]). The advantage of fixing such things is that then the database page of miscapitalizations would not list Nato unless other links were added. We don't currently have a way to mark a redirect as wrong case to appear in Wikipedia but not so blatant that we should fix it in piped redirects. Should we? Or is that what Nonprintworthy is for? Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would never write [[Nato|NATO]], but I would try to restrain myself from fixing it, as it is WP:NOTBROKEN. Certes (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some style guides do not like all-caps abbreviations like this, and anyway it is entirely NOTBROKEN, so no true reason to fix it, agree with Certes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Crown Estate is an example of a crown estate. I think it's the only example having an article, so it makes sense to redirect the (correctly lowercase) generic term to the (correctly title case) proper noun. Certes (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the miscapitalization is a true error, then yes, but if it's just a style choice, then no. For instance if the link was American Robin, which goes to American robin through a redirect because Wikipedia style for species is lower case, I wouldn't fix it because that's a style choice. However if there were a redirect AMErican Robin, which went to American robin, that should be fixed. In theory the difference between the {{R from miscapitalisation}} and {{R from other capitalisation}} templates should cover this, but I wouldn't count on it. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 19:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't count on it at all. There are a ton of redirects in Category:Redirects from other capitalisations that should be in Category:Redirects from miscapitalisations. For example, the are more than 50 redirects for people with the given name Aaron and the first letter of the surname in lower case. The "other" category has existed since 2006, and the "mis" category since 2016. Thousands of redirects should be transferred to the newer "mis" category. But care should be taken not to transfer redirects that are matters of Wikipedia style choice (lower case surnames are fairly straightforward errors, but even then there are exceptions, e.g. bell hooks, not Bell Hooks) Plantdrew (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The unreliability goes both ways. I haven't much looked at the miscaps category, but there are a bunch of redirects with "organisation" that some probably well-meaning American editor has decided to flag as misspellings. – Uanfala (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few of those are cases like International Organisation for Standardisation, which I've occasionally changed to -iz- and been reverted on the grounds that it's an ENGVAR choice. Certes (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How the redirect title shows up when piped; is this a bug, or a feature?

As with Nato, piping through the redirect American Robin would be an example of what I'm asking about if it were marked as a miscapitalization, but it's not. Should it be? Nine articles use it in piped redirect, e.g. as at Blue Velvet (film)#Symbolism (which also has another disambig page link to robin in a caption). It's the sort of thing I'd be tempted to clean up as a minor error, as I interpreted that clause in NOTBROKEN, but maybe it's too minor to be worth fixing. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SchreiberBike: See also the bit I wrote above about Nato. It's not clear to me what you think the theory behind "miscapitalization" is, or should be. Are you that having American Robin not marked as miscapitalization is the right thing? I agree that the question goes away if we don't make as miscapitaizations those capitalization patterns that are alternatives used in other styles but not in Wikipedia; but then I don't know what the theory of the miscapitaization marking would be, if not for finding things that ought to be fixed in articles. Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is wrong in the link text, I'd say we should only correct it if is egregiously wrong. E.g. we have a redirect for John f. kennedy. That's not acceptable by any style guide. It's embarrassing to have in our encyclopedia. It should be fixed even if it's in the form J.F.K. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 05:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Summoned by bot) Yes for true error, no for style choice, per above. BilledMammal (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also Yes for true error, No for style choice, erring on the side of No where the two are hard to distinguish. Certes (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got any examples? So far nobody has pointed to quite the kind of thing this RFC is asking about. You should be able to find plenty of actual examples through Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An example: the redirect Buzzfeed, a miscapitalization of BuzzFeed, is used with piping like "Buzzfeed Video YouTube channel" at Without A Recipe. Is that an example of a "true error" that should be fixed? Or of a style choice that should be left? Whichever it is, is there an example of the other that can be contrasted with it? Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Example 2; In this edit that I just did, the piping through miscapitalized redirect just crapped up the source as well as the mouseover appearance. Is this kind of fix OK in light of NOTBROKEN, or not? I presume the failure to cap the initialism is a "true error" in the sense that BilledMammal and Certes mention. All agree? What if the same kind of unnecessarily messy source construct was used with a miscapitalization that's merely a style choice? Would this kind of edit then not be OK? Which would apply to the Nato example above? Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1 looks like it could be a style thing as although the capitalised version is the official version, some places do not repeat this capitalisation (ex. [3]). As for no. 2; the only place I see the no caps redirect is in the URL link when I mouse-over (I otherwise correctly get the lead of the article, beginning India pale ale (IPA) is ...); the fact you get the lead of the article and not the section when you mouse-over is something common to all section redirects (try Bristol#History) even if they're correctly capitalised. In this case fixing this would not be a priority as it has no impact on the reader nor on the displayed page: it would be purely cosmetic and shouldn't be changed unless it's really a spelling mistake (for example, if it was something like Duble IPA) [unlike a spelling mistake, a mere capitalisation change does not make the correct page harder to find for editors] RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And no matter what, this distinction between "correct" and "incorrect" capitalisations should not be based on database reports or redirect categorisation templates (these are so often very wrong: 11th Michigan Volunteer Infantry Regiment (Reorganized) is an obvious case of a style choice, for example, to take what was the first entry on the miscapitalisation report). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the name of the regiment always has capped Reorganized in sources, then the lowercase is probably an error (we cap proper names). One can't tell from the "miscapitalization" label how much consensus is behind that decision, so I check such things before working on them, with changing to "other capitalization" being one of the options in working to clear the miscapitalization list. Dicklyon (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at sources, I have to agree, the lowercase reorganized is not an error. I fixed the double redirect through it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think we should either leave this matter to the discretion of the individual editor or encourage correcting such links. Fixing a minor capitalization difference that is hidden with a pipe may not be necessary, but if a particular editor wants to correct them, they can go ahead and do it. One valid reason for changing them is if an editor is searching for miscapitalizations of a particular term using "What links here?", and some of the cases they encounter are hidden with pipes. If they change those, they won't need to accidentally come across the same ones again later. They may prefer for "What links here" to produce zero results, so they know that any they find later are ones that need to be checked. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion regarding R from miscapitalisation would be to go ahead and put things like American Robin, Nasa and PVRIS into that category, because that will help assist us to find and remove instances when people come along and put things into random places on Wikipedia that don't follow the Wikipedia MoS. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof: Those are not {{R from miscapitalisation}}. Simply not following Wikipedia's MoS doesn't mean any other form of capitalisation scheme is wrong. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: On Wikipedia, things that violate the MoS are incorrect. In that sense they are miscapitalization, and tagging them as such will help us track down where they are used and fix those errors. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that NOTBROKEN is mostly about avoiding unnecessary pipes. If the choice is between [[redirect1 | link text]] and [[redirect2 | link text]], where redirect1 and redirect2 point to the same target, I frankly commence to not care very much. I would prefer to avoid diluting the simple let's-avoid-pipes message of NOTBROKEN by wandering off on tangents like this. --Trovatore (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, having looked at this closer, I think some people are giving NOTBROKEN a really weird construction that I don't think is intended at all. Let's take a look at the opening bit:
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. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]].

Now, how this would restrain anyone from replacing [[ Nato | NATO ]] by just simply [[NATO]], I don't see at all. The latter is clearly preferable, as it's both the actual name of the article, and it's not a piped link. This change does not fit into any of the categories that the above quoted text suggests should be avoided. --Trovatore (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now, how this would restrain anyone from replacing [[ Nato | NATO ]] by just simply [[NATO]], I don't see at all. It's a cosmetic edit - there is no visible change to the page, so there has to be a reason to do it, if "Nato" is an accepted capitalisation, as Uanfala says. ― Qwerfjkl talk 06:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is a reason to do it. The reason is that it replaces a pipe by something that's not a pipe. Other things being equal, non-pipes are better than pipes, because they preserve the expected connection between the text displayed on the page and the target of the link.

As for Nato being an accepted capitalization, that's an argument to a different case. If you want to argue that to say that the link Nato should not be changed to NATO, then that's a pertinent argument. It's not a pertinent argument against changing [[Nato|NATO]] to [[NATO]], precisely because, as you say, the displayed appearance is the same in both cases. --Trovatore (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we read NOTBROKEN as having an exemption for replacing a pipe by something that's not a pipe? Should it? I've found plenty of links like [[Ceasar|Caesar]] and left them alone, even when I was editing the page for other reasons. (Much of Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings is now such cases, as most visible errors have been fixed.) Should I be fixing them despite NOTBROKEN? Does the answer also apply to [[Julius Ceasar|Caesar]], even though fixing it wouldn't remove the pipe? Certes (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need an exemption, because it doesn't say not to replace pipes. It says not to replace redirects by pipes. I do indeed think you should fix the (first) example you gave; it cleans up the code and has no downside except possibly watchlist churn. --Trovatore (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't notice you had mentioned two examples. Yes, I would probably fix the second one as well (though even better might be to change the text to read Julius Caesar; at first reference it's good to be specific). --Trovatore (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Part of WP:NOTBROKEN (in fact, its main point) is that unnecessary pipes are discouraged, so "edit to remove an unnecessary pipe" is already sufficient justification. --Aquillion (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking I would say it discourages using a pipe solely to bypass a miscapitalized redirect, because the purpose of WP:NOTBROKEN is to avoid unnecessary pipes due to the way it makes source text harder to read for little gain. That said I don't think any change is necessary. The rationales already make this clear - nothing in it can reasonably be construed to encourage pipes in this case, while it fairly clearly supports edits intended to remove unnecessary pipes. --Aquillion (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links in hatnotes to WP:DOFIXIT?[edit]

At Robert E. Lee Monument (Richmond, Virginia), the hatnote {{Redirect}} says "For the statue in the Virginia Museum of History and Culture, see Statue of Robert E. Lee (ex–U.S. Capitol)". That article is now at Statue of Robert E. Lee (Valentine). Would I be justified in "fixing" that link, although redirects in hatnotes aren't currently listed as one of the exceptions to WP:DONOTFIXIT? This seems like a similar case to "links on disambiguation pages" at WP:DOFIXIT. I'm being cautious because I've just been alerted to the existence of WP:DONOTFIXIT after failing to follow it. Ham II (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd fix it. That edit would clearly be beneficial: it changes the displayed text to reveal the sculptor's name, helping readers decide whether the linked article is the one they were seeking. The only time I'd leave a redirect is if its title matches what the reader was seeking more closely than the article title or leads to a section which might become an article, e.g. the hatnote for Agent 355. Certes (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes: Thanks; I've made the change. Now I see that Wikipedia:Hatnote has, as part of the first "basic rule of hatnotes", "Linking to redirects is typically not preferred, although of course exceptions can occur". All the more reason to mention hatnotes at WP:DOFIXIT, I think; perhaps with something a simple as "Links in hatnotes" as one of the bullet points. Ham II (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting user page to user talk page?[edit]

Hi all, is there any ruling regarding a user redirecting their own page to their Talk page? I don't see anything inherently wrong with it, but it also seems a little bit anomalous. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's largely accepted by the community, given the wide latitude we give to user pages. Personally, I really dislike it since it's misleading. For those that choose not to have a user page, I appreciate seeing the red link in their signature. -- BDD (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really dislike it too. If you want a content-free bluelink, keep it blank. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know that there's no restrictions against it...though from the sound of it...should there be? Is that a discussion someone with more experience with redirects than I have wants to start, or more trouble than it's worth? DonIago (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a crime. What is discouraged, however, is the reverse: a user talk page redirected to the user page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it not a crime, it is explicit suggestion at Wikipedia:User pages#Terminology and page locations. older ≠ wiser 20:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]