Wikipedia talk:Redirect

Hi, can Royal Patronage (redirect) be moved to Royal patronage. It shouldn't be upper-cased because it's not a noun, but the l/c page is a strange disambiguation page (listing some things only indirectly connected to patronage, where the redirect goes to). If you know what I mean. It's a bit convoluted. Thanks? —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

To address the move question, editor Fortuna, imperatrix, Royal PatronageRoyal Patronage is just a redirect. It does not need to be moved; however, it did need to be retargeted to the dab page and correctly categorized. That much is done. The dab page does need some work, and since I'm sort of on a break, I'll have to leave that to you or to someone else to improve. Thank you very much for your help! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 15:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I meant, I think that "Royal Patronage" should probably be "Royal patronage", as not being a proper noun. But I don't think it needs to be RfC'd—I didn't even know the page was there until today! —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: I really don't think this would be an RfC matter, see WP:RFCNOT. Perhaps you mean RfD? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Seconded. Fortuna imperatrix mundi, I'd add, you can certainly take it to RfD if you want, but it's hard for me to understand why you think it's worth the trouble. --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC) Oh, actually, maybe you don't think it's worth the trouble. I seem to be having problems with reading comprehension today.... --Trovatore (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful to have each section have a link that is an example of the link type. Not a kitsune (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, I misunderstood the article Not a kitsune (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

This edit introduced a small but controversial change in this guideline without discussion or consensus. The editor introduced this change in several MOS pages and guidelines on the same day. Discussion of this change is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Consensus for the current recommendation to always subst the anchor template within a section header-- Srleffler (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

See also User talk:Redrose64#Time sink. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Redirect backlog: interesting ideas, could benefit from people experienced in dealing with redirects. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The section Wikipedia:Redirect#Module redirects will possibly be irrelevant going forward. There's, at least from Category:Redirects to template namespace only three modules that redirect to template namespace, and two of those are testcases (Module:Sister project links/testcasesModule:Sister project links/testcases, and Module:Contentious topics/talk notice/testcasesModule:Contentious topics/talk notice/testcases. The last redirect is Module:Kivu conflict detailed map, which is mentioned in the documentation; however, its target is nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 January 1#Template:Kivu conflict detailed map. If this is deleted, then the module redirect would also be deleted via WP:G8. Should this be removed from the documentation if Template:Kivu conflict detailed map is deleted? Casablanca 🪨^(T) 20:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

The whole section should not be removed because we still need to document how to redirect a module to another module. For example, Module:Footballbox redirects to Module:Football box but it is not obvious how one makes such a redirect. The part about redirecting a module to something that is not a module could be removed however. Warudo (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I replaced the example with a generic example. It's easy enough to understand, since it's just a normal redirect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

According to the guidelines at WP:FILMACCOLADES "Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability."

I've been trimming the "accolades" sections in a few film articles to meet this guideline. What's making it more difficult than it should be is the numerous redirects of film awards to the "List of film awards" article. If the awards were not linked (or redlinked), it would be easier to spot the ones without their own Wiki page. Instead I've had to laboriously click on each link to determine if there's an actual article or if it's a link to the list of awards.

For example, here is the Zootopia 2 accolades section before trimming. There are numerous awards listed, such as North Texas Film Critics Association. Iowa Film Critics Association and Puerto Rico Critics Association which redirect to the list of awards.

I think this falls under WP:RDELETE item 10 as a reason for deletion: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject". In this case, the target article contains literally no information on the subject.

Would it be reasonable to delete these useless redirects, and if so, how do I go about it? It's not something I've attempted before. Barry Wom (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not in the instructions. It's hundreds of words down the page in another section entirely, as your link points out. Why not put it where it belongs at the point in the page users will consult? Trumpetrep (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Because those are instructions for "How to make a redirect", not instructions on what to do if somebody objects to you blanking-and-redirecting an existing article. You are allowed to blank and redirect an article without discussion. If someone objects, you start an AfD. See also WP:BRD. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, there is not a requirement for a discussion before blanking and redirecting a page? Trumpetrep (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

No, but you should use your judgment, and if something is likely to be controversial, you should probably bring it to AfD first. This seems like one of those cases where you should have anticipated an objection. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

One last question: Are you saying the best course of action now is to nominate these articles for deletion instead of discussing their redirection?

I appreciate your help with the red tape. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not telling you what the best course of action is. I'm saying that if you want to obtain consensus to have the pages redirected, you should go to AfD. RfD is for discussing existing redirects, not articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your help. It's confusing to go to Articles for Deletion in order to redirect articles, but I'll follow your instructions. Thanks again. Trumpetrep (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I can see where you're getting confused. You're thinking of what you did as "creating redirects", so you looked up the instructions for how to create a redirect. The problem is that what you are actually doing is deleting articles and replacing them with redirects. We follow the same process for that as for any other case where we are deleting an existing article. Sometimes, the case for redirecting will be clear-cut enough that you can just do it and no one will object. In most cases, though, a discussion is needed to establish that there is a consensus for the change.--Srleffler (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I just had another editor harangue me that "redirects" were not deletions, even when the page content does not exist anymore. As always, Wikipedia's talmudic policies can be read any number of ways. Regardless, your explanation makes the most sense so far. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I was surprised to find that one of the most common NOTBROKEN scenarios isn't described here-that it is counterproductive to update links when a article at a disambiguated title (e.g. Foo (bar)) is moved to its base name as the primary topic (or only topic) (e.g. Foo). Links to such a page are almost always piped to show only "Foo" and it is counterproductive to update the links to avoid the redirect because if the primary topic is ever changed in the future (i.e. it's ever moved back to a disambiguated title) then all of those links would need to be disambiguated again. The only exception, as I was just reminded, is for links in navigational templates, mostly so the link is bolded on the subject page rather than having a self-redirect.

Should something about this topic be added to the NOTBROKEN section? 01:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC) Mdewman6 (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Have you found any past discussion about these links? I suspect it is missing because will likely be difficult to get a consensus one way or the other on this. We're not a particularly agreeable bunch when it comes to edge cases on relatively unimportant questions. ~Kvng (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm a strong proponent of WP:NOTBROKEN, but I would probably edit links from [[Foo (bar)|Foo]] to [[Foo]] after a page move on a primary topic page. It's not about "avoiding" the redirect, but rather about making a link to the most appropriate target. --Srleffler (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Iran–Israel conflict has too many redirects. Recently, the former title of Talk:Twelve-Day War got retargeted there. There's also a lot of incoming links to the mainspace as well, and since it's not tagged as a disambiguation, it's not urgently fixed and marked with bots pointing out. My question is: should there be a hatnote at a page talk? Abesca (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. A page having a large number of redirects is not something that is, in itself, problematic in any way. What is an issue is redirects that take people to an unexpected or incorrect target. If a page is the primary topic for a search term, but there are other less common uses that people could be looking for, then there should be a hatnote to those other uses (or to a dab/set index listing those other uses). If the current target is not the primary topic for term that redirects there, the redirect should be retargetted to the primary topic or to a dab page (or set index) if there isn't a primary topic. This can be done boldly if it would be uncontroversial, otherwise nominate them for discussion at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)