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 almost never on the talk pages of mainspace redirects. For more information see the template documentation.RedirectWikipedia:WikiProject RedirectTemplate:WikiProject Redirectredirect pages
This is the talk page for WikiProject Redirect. Please feel free to create a sub-page in order to branch out from this page if you wish to create a new proposal. If you do so, please leave a comment here so that other editors know of its existence!
I have just discovered that Ethene redirects to ethylene
Ethene should not redirect to ethylene. It should be the other way round. Ethene is the accepted IUPAC standard term. Its use should not be undermined by Wikipedia. That just adds to the confusion in nomenclature by students and other naive users, like journalists.
The justification paragraph for this redirect says
"In chemistry: 2-methyl-1,3-butadiene -> Isoprene"
But isoprene is an accepted IUPAC synonym, so this is a false argument.
Unless there is a good reason (and this isn't) for preferring an obsolete term, Wikipedia needs reflect current standards of terminology. By all means have a page on the history of the term "ethylene" for the luddites, but the main entry should reflect current technical standards as they change and achieve widespread acceptance. Cvhorie (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cvhorie This isn't really the place for this discussion. The rules on choosing names for Chemistry articles are at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry). If the name of the article you're looking at doesn't comply with those rules, then please see WP:Requested Moves for how to suggest a move to the right title. If it does comply but you don't think the rules are sensible, you can discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (chemistry). Thanks and Happy Editing. PamD 09:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I see that in June 2007 the article was moved from Ethene to Ethylene but was moved back with the comment "Moved back; move was against naming guidelines and without consensus". PamD 09:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Melodeon (accordian) was created almost 20 years ago and the word "accordion" is misspelled. Is there a reason to correct it, and if so, how would one go about correcting it? Matuko (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matuko: You could nominate the redirect for deletion at WP:RFD. With that said, I don't see any harm in the redirect existing. I think that's a pretty common misspelling of accordion and, as such, could be considered a useful redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was more curious about whether there were other remedies than deletion. Question answered. Matuko (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this came to RfD I'd recommend keeping it as a very plausible misspelling. It's not caused any harm in the nearly 20 years it has existed, so the likelihood of it causing any in the future is infinitesimal so we'd gain nothing by deleting it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I'm not sure what a "plausible misspelling" is, but I'm fine with it. I'd only noticed because I've adopted the typo "accordian". I also play the accordion, so it grates a bit to see it memorialized, but I shall move along. Matuko (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should this be a subcategory of Category:Redirects from alternative names? I was going to add it myself (my thought process being that a personal name would be an alternative name for a person best known under a different name), but then I thought I'd ask for a second opinion beforehand. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 01:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct categorization for redirects to/from yyyy-mm-dd (ISO 8601) dates[edit]
I just created Solar eclipse of 2024-04-28 (I directly opened that page and was surprised it didn't exist), but am not sure how to best categorize it. The name is a mechanical transformation of the target's title, Solar eclipse of April 28, 2024, and yyyy-mm-dd (ISO 8601) dates are acceptable per MOS:DATE, but the closest redirect category template I can find for that purpose is ((R to alternative spelling)) (with a manual ((R unprintworthy))), which feels overly generic.
It's close to ((R from technical name)), but I don't know if an ISO 8601 date is "technical" (and the rest of the title is unchanged), and that's printworthy by default.
It's close to ((R from numerals)), but that's for mathematical symbols, and I don't feel confident in calling a date a mathematical object, even though the ISO standard formatting is close to standard mathematical formatting.
It's close to ((R from abbreviation)), but I don't feel comfortable calling the ISO standard formatting of a date an "abbreviation", even if it happens to be shorter here.
This might work under ((R from sort name)), but the sort name of this article doesn't use the ISO 8601 format, even though I'd say putting the year first sorts better.
It's close to ((R from more specific name)), but this date formatting isn't strictly more specific here.
Just as a minor note, I've deleted your redirect as invalid, as the eclipse is at Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024 and thus your date makes no sense. Feel free to recreate at Solar eclipse of 2024-04-08. Primefac (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; no idea how I didn't catch that. bb010g (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like there isn't a true standard for rcat documentation pages, and I'd imagine the creation of new doc pages relies on copy and pasting from existing subpages. I suggest the creation of a template that allows these to be easily created. This could help standardize things like parameter usage and printworthy information (something I can't believe isn't standardized yet.
I'd be happy to create a mockup if this sounds interesting! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason the rcat templates shouldn't all use the same /doc? I feel like the majority of them will have identical or similar usage. Creative use of #if and #switch statements along with magic words should allow us to cover 90% of cases without excessive bloat. Primefac (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly! A centralized template would suit well, especially as the far majority of rcats don't even have parameters. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
((Rcat doc)) seems to have been created for this purpose. As the template is currently unused, I'm going to rework it to make it more functional. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(as the creator of that template) Eejit43, that's exactly what I made it for, after I got tired of making new documentation for each new rcat. I'd appreciate any improvements you make to it. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I see your template was built around the template being substituted, but I think it would be better to simply allow transclusion of the template. Any objections to that? ~ Eejit43 (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Redirects from alternative spellings – Should this be a subcategory of Category:Redirects from modifications? On the one hand, redirects in this category are modifying the spelling of a word; but on the other hand, an alternative spelling may not be a small enough modification for/may not be within the scope of that category (stated on the cat-page as being for redirects from alternative layouts, word order, punctuation and the like).
Let me know if there are any queries. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 12:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of numering your queries for easy reference. My answers would be:
No, since a misspelling is an error and unprintworthy, while an alternative spelling is valid (attested in RS, albeit sometimes obsolete ones or whatever), and usually printworthy (when not, this can be individually tagged with ((R unprintworthy)), but that doesn't apply to the entire alternative-spellings category). The disambitguation situation isn't actually analogous, since how WP disambiguates is an arbitrary internal decision, while whether something is standard in English or erroneous is a matter of external convention as determined by reliable-source usage (especially reliable sources about English usage, but in various specialized contexts with might be use within topical publications).
No, because not all alternative spellings are modifications of another spelling; they often develop side-by-side in different national, regional, or social dialects. "Modification" is this sense is generally an alteration that a reader might make to a search term that is a matter of style or grammar, such as variation in capitalization, hyphenation, presence/absence of diacritics, use of ligatures, etc., as well as grammatical variants like adjectival forms and so on, in their own subcat.
Yes, since they are modifications a reader might make to the term that we're actually using for the title, such as converting it into an adjective or gerund. However, Category:Redirects from plurals and Category:Redirects to plurals need to be moved from the parent cat Category:Redirects from modifications to the subcat Category:Redirects from English words. It would also be sensible to rename the confusing latter to Category:Redirects from English parts of speech, or even drop "English" from that as contextually redundant, since we don't do things like create redirects for, all the Latin declensions or tenses of a Latin term that has been assimilated into English uage in a particular form.
Redirect from street sign? what should i tag it Okmrman (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okmrman, I’d be inclined to say that ((R from related words)) might be a tag to use here. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 11:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WADR, editor Okmrman has already tagged this redirect correctly as an initialism, which stands for London's combined "Low Emission Zone" and "Ultra Low Emission Zone". Almost like a French phrase, it made me do a double take! This is one of those special "almost (not quite) an acronym" type initialisms. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 14:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not all that clear from the talk page banners which conversations belong here and which belong at WT:Redirect. Is it that that page is only for discussions about possible changes to the guideline? This should be sorted out and the talk page banners adjusted accordingly to provide clear instruction. The talk pages could even be merged to centralize if needed. Sdkbtalk 21:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure - my impression was that WT:R was for discussions about the guideline, whereas this WikiProject talk page could be used for discussions about redirects in general/other aspects of redirects that don't directly involve the guideline. There probably is a bit of overlap, but I'm not sure right now that merging the talk pages would be best. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 23:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are redirects to soft redirects allowed? Example: Special:Diff/1222266997. Sometimes, Wiktionary prefers one term over the other, in this case it means "Exhibiting monosexism". This one can be justifiable, but in the case of awomen, Wiktionary defines it as "Alternative form of awoman". So I believe awomen should redirect to awoman. --MikutoHtalk! 05:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To editor MikutoH: just a little question: we see at the previous edit in that Special:Diff you mentioned that you moved "monosexist" to "monosexism" and cited WP:NOUN. It seems that you don't consider "monosexist" to be a noun, but it is, isn't it? Why the page move, then? P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 05:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some nouns are preferred over the others, that's why we have heterosexism and not heterosexist (or monosexuality and not monosexual). But that could also be a case of Wikipedia:COMMON NAME. --MikutoHtalk! 05:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this in WP policy that some nouns are preferred over other nouns? I don't see that at WP:NOUNS. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 05:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me comment what I perceived: WP:NOUN is often used as a reason for accepting uncontroversial request moves, see here.
But why would you ask me it if you're already a page mover? You know more than me. Or maybe you're testing me. --MikutoHtalk! 05:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We read below very sound explanations from revered and respected editors that you are correct. Sincerely, I was not testing you; however, if I had been testing you, then I believe you passed. I'm sorry that I off-tracked your initial question. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 18:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes sense to prefer the basic "ism" noun and redirect from the "ist" noun which is about a person who adheres to the "ism", as in Buddhist redirecting to Buddhism.
It ought to be possible to have the two soft redirects, with a ((R avoiding double redirect)) to make sure that if an article is created at some point the trailing redirect is redirected. I added it but it didn't work because a soft redirect isn't technically a redirect: there should be some equivalent template for cases where multiple terms, which would redirect to the same article if there was one, are currently redirecting to a Wiktionary item. PamD 07:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would just add a note on the talk page of both soft redirects. I would guess that this situation isn't all that common such that another template and tracking category are needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]