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
@Paine Ellsworth Oops, sorry. Should have looked into the history/asked the question before making the edit request. I assumed it was some sort of historical/leftover unnecessary statement in the docs - I was obviously wrong. Self-troutA smart kitten (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. You are not alone in questioning the need for longstanding procedures on WP. Your questions and actions can actually lead to improvements. I'm going to take a long look at the printworthiness rcat templates to see if they can be more clear about their usefulness to the project. So thank you for your interest and your help to make Wikipedia grow and progress!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there09:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Description of suggested change:
The last bullet point about links to this page should have appended: "For redirects to this page, see {{R avoided double redirect}}."
Frankly, the infobox is annoyingly verbose already, but I think the addition is important precisely because it's an unusual special case that many editors may not be familiar with.
As an optional second edit, the order of the points is perhaps not ideal. I'd list the points that apply to all such redirects first, and details peculiar to the template namespace later. Suggested order:
When the target page becomes too large...
If the topic of the redirect is not susceptible to expansion...
Since the last two points both apply to redirects in a particular namespace, it'd be nice to make their phrasing more obviously parallel, but I'm out of ideas at the moment.
Diff:
−
** Since a new page may be created, links to this redirect ''should '''not''''' be replaced with a direct link to the target page.
+
** Since a new page may be created, links to this redirect ''should '''not''''' be replaced with a direct link to the target page. For ''redirects'' to this page, see {{tl|R avoided double redirect}}.
@Elli: I noticed you used a different wording that I suggested. The sandbox reads "For making redirects to this page...", where the word "making" is an addition. I presume it's a deliberate addition on your part, so I'm not going to just revert it without discussion, but I'm definitely curious: why add that word? I think it's clear enough without it (the linked template's documentation explains the details) and brevity is a virtue. Also, the wording seems awkward. If you want the word "make", just say "To make redirects to this page...", which both reads better and is shorter.
My mental image is an editor who isn't so much trying to create a WP:Double redirect (that's easy), but rather trying to fix the fact that it doesn't work. In the grand Wikipedia tradition, There's A Template For That™; people just need to know what it's called. Thus, the simple "For". 97.102.205.224 (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like "To make redirects..." as well. Shy away from "-ing" endings, because "to make" is much stronger than "for making". Powerful words usually get better results. Think "to make redirects" is also better than "for redirects" in terms of clarity. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there23:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
