Wikipedia talk:Redirect

See also: Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/redirects, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect, and Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/Redirect

Module redirects

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)

Redirects to List of film awards

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)

Update instructions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I followed the instructions to create a redirect that are listed on this page. User:Chorchapu reverted those redirects because he felt there should be a discussion first. This page does not indicate a discussion is required to create a redirect. Can the instructions be updated to help users? Trumpetrep (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Missing example of WP:NOTBROKEN involving primary topics and redirects from unnecessary disambiguation?

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)

Late here, but I agree with the editors above. I would not explicitly discourage or encourage fixing these unless this becomes a source of recurring conflict that we need to address. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd say if someone 'flattens' such a link during casual editing, that's not a big deal. If they start doing it en masse, littering page histories and watchlists for no real benefit, that sounds like disruption to prove some sort of a point. If there's plausible ambiguity, flattening links is going to effectively prejudice a subsequent move discussion, as the effort required to disambiguate links is a reasonable matter of concern. --Joy (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Incoming links to a talk page

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)

Hatnotes do not go on talk pages. Article talk pages are for discussing issues about the specific article. Sometimes the talk page of a redirect has its own substantive history that should remain relatively visible, for example discussions that led to a decision to merge or blank and redirect. If that is the case and the talk page was recently converted to a redirect, you can restore the last version of the talk page and add {{Talk page of redirect}} to the top. I would say this is not necessary most of the time. Like Thryduulf, I'm not clear on what the problem is with the number of redirects to talk, assuming those all come from Talk: space. A large number of redirects to an article may be worth taking a look at, especially when there have been a lot of page moves, primary topic changes, and reorganization of content. Incoming links to the article and its redirects may need to be changed on a case by case basis if there has been a change in primary topic or content has been moved around. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Source/visual code

Could we make it so that #REDIRECT Pagename works in visual as well as source code, like how the [[ works for linking in both? Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Wikipedian12512(alt): This is off-topic for this page, and also outside our control. See WP:BUGS - you need to file an enhancement request at phab:. When doing so, select "VisualEditor" in the Tags box. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Upcoming Middle-earth RPG

Hi all--User:Umais Bin Sajjad just created this and a few other redirects, and I don't see the point of them. I'm no expert so I'm posting here for guidance. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention so I can clarify. My intention was to help readers find the recently announced Warhorse Studios game project, since the game does not yet have an official title and reliable sources are describing it in different ways, such as a Middle-earth RPG, a Lord of the Rings RPG, and an upcoming Warhorse project. I redirected them to Warhorse Studios#Future projects until official title announcement.

I agree that overly broad or ambiguous redirects should be avoided. If others think some of these are too vague, especially titles like Upcoming Warhorse Studios RPG, I am fine with trimming them and keeping only the most plausible search terms that clearly refer to the announced Middle-earth game.

Umais🗣 16:34, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Drmies usually WP:RFD (Redirects for discussion) is the place to determine whether redirects are appropriate. That said, I think it's OK to post elsewhere or ask the redirect creator directly if you're just unsure whether something is appropriate and want more discussion before making a formal nomination. There is guidance at WP:UFILM for upcoming film redirects and this has been extended to other forms of media, including video games and albums. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

actually, yeah, why is this here, and not in rfd or his talk page? consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 17:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

user:consarn, it's not hard. Why would I propose something for deletion when I don't know if it qualifies for deletion? And why give the creator a hard time going through a deletion process when I don't know if that's the right thing to do? And why not post on the actual talk page for redirects, when I'm not sure if the creator of the redirects really knows all the ins and outs? (User:Umais Bin Sajjad, no disrespect intended--we're good.) I wanted a wider audience. User:Myceteae, I don't know if "upcoming film..." points at the concept or at the actual text of the redirects, but in this case it's so literal. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

the d in "rfd" stands for "discussion". that is, it can be used to discuss actions other than deletion, like retargeting or refining

as for asking the creator of something, your best bet would still be their talk page, even if you're not sure they'll know the ins and outs, because talk page stalkers i mean watchers are a thing

i guess i'd say only the draftspace redirects are unnecessary, so they could potentially get scrongbongled in rfd

...really, it's afd and mfd that are misnomers, as redirection is a plausible outcome in both consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 17:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I read UFILM as applying to the concept. For films (especially), it suggests preferred wording but redirects get created using every imaginable variation. In practice, at RfD, we follow a similar approach to assessing the utility and appropriateness of variations like Upcoming Foo film, Untitled Foo sequel, Unreleased Foo video game, etc. It doesn't necessarily have to contain a keyword like untitled, upcoming, unreleased, etc. Suppose there is a redirect Foo sequel or 2027 Foo album. If it is currently untitled/rumored/in development/etc. or has received an official title in the time since it was created, the spirit and general guidance at UFILM is commonly invoked when discussing what to do with redirects that have already been created. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, right? :) Drmies (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

ideally, that should mean nothing in rfd... consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 15:48, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

That's what they say, lol! Worth noting that there is a fair amount of disagreement about UFILM among RfD regulars. At a minimum, editors should take care when creating these. Mass creating 15 different redirects is likely to be more of a maintenance burden than it is helpful. Multiple UFILM redirects should often be tagged as {{Avoided double redirect}} to facilitate ongoing maintenance and review. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Multiple redirects of any sort to the same target should be tagged as {{avoided double redirect}}s where possible for that reason. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography § Discrepancy between MOS:BOLDREDIRECT and MOS:NICKCRUFT (and other problems)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography § Discrepancy between MOS:BOLDREDIRECT and MOS:NICKCRUFT (and other problems). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)