Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:52, 28 October 2011

Misplaced Pages Help Project‑class

This page is within the scope of the Misplaced Pages Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages'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.Misplaced Pages HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Misplaced Pages Help ProjectHelp Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Archives

January 2003 – November 2005 January – December 2006 January – December 2007 January – December 2008 January – December 2009 January – December 2010 January – December 2011

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Edit request from 98.148.231.244, 18 August 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please redirect http://en.wikipedia.org/Burlington_Public_Schools to http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Burlington_Public_School,_Burlington_Oklahoma 98.148.231.244 (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's wait until the page is created first. — Bility (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't normally redirect from mainspace --> projectspace. See WP:Cross-namespace redirects. -- œ 18:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem with redirections to sections/anchors

If I create a page named redirection_page and add something like

#REDIRECT ]

or

#REDIRECT ]

this works fine for as long as I have JavaScript enabled. However, it will only take me to the start of the target_page article, not the section/anchor within, if JavaScript is disabled and I link to ] in another article or type the name of the redirection_page in the search box. The resulting link displayed in the browser's link bar while viewing

http://en.wikipedia.org/target_page

is

http://en.wikipedia.org/redirection_page

If I then follow the "Redirected from redirection_page" link at the top of the article, I will be shown the redirection link like target_page#anchor on the redirection_page. Clicked, this link will correctly bring me to the desired anchor/section within the article.

It looks as if the hashed argument would get stripped off at some stage if not using JavaScript. I tried to URL encode the hash-mark using

#REDIRECT ]

or HTML encode it as follows:

#REDIRECT ]

But this does not change anything.

Since the help pages read as if this should not be any problem at all, is this a known behaviour or limitation, perhaps only under certain other conditions? I'm using Firefox 6.0, and JavaScript is typically disabled for security reasons. Before I test more configurations, I would like to know if I can expect this to work at all. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggested changes to {{R from alternative language}}

I have proposed some additions to make it possible to specify the alternative language, in a standardized and more convenient way than currently in place. Details are on the talk page. 155.33.149.25 (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Another reason for re-directs not mentioned in the article

I don't see the following on Misplaced Pages:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects:

A redirect from a page about a company that was bought out by another company to the parent company. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=QNX_Software_Systems&action=history .

Is there any way to locate information that was available on Misplaced Pages before the company disappeared? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In the case that you mentioned, QNX Software Systems, there is no history there. I think the redirect is incorrect. It should go to QNX. But your general point is true. I'd say it is covered by the bullet: Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. There are lots of reasons a sub-topic title might redirect to a section of another article. older ≠ wiser 17:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I wonder how such a re-direct can be undone (so those who are interested can view the original content), if in fact it is "incorrect"? Ottawahitech (talk)

There are number of ways to display and edit the redirect page. Commonly by clicking on the link in the "(Redirected from ...)" notice at the top of the page. Once there, the redirect page can be edited just like any other page. See Help:Redirect for more information. older ≠ wiser 18:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Enforcement

Should this page be enforced on articles? An editor is insisting that he be allowed to create redirects in Second Amendment to the United States Constitution based on what is said in this page. I believe he is treating this page as a policy when it is only a guideline. A guideline means a strong recommendation and so is not binding. I believe redirects should not usually be created, unless there is a strong justification for doing so. In this case, the editor at issue believes that editors have difficulty editing with direct links in place as opposed to with the redirects. I think this is baseless. If this editor is right, then redirects should be created whenever they would be shorter than direct links. Rather than getting into an edit war, I would like to know what other editors have to say on this issue. SMP0328. (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In a word, yes WP:NOTBROKEN applies to articles. older ≠ wiser 00:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

So should editors go around to article and create redirects? SMP0328. (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Have you read WP:NOTBROKEN? What it says is that you should go around trying to fix redirects that aren't broken. Redirects exist for many reasons and are a convenience for readers and editors alike. There is very little benefit to editing an article for the sole purpose of fixing redirects. older ≠ wiser 00:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to agree with me. Articles should not be edited simply to fix, create, eliminate redirects. However, that is what happened in this case. SMP0328. (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I had only looked at the one link you provided, which seemed to imply that TJRC was simply undoing an edit where you had changed the redirects to direct links. I can see now from the edit history that it is a little more complicated. While I would not have edited as TJRC has, I can sort of understand the point. Piped links, especially where the direct link is very long, can make it a little more difficult to read the raw wikitext while editing. Since the other editor has expressed a strong opinion on the matter and the redirects don't actually hurt anything for readers and might have some benefit for editors, I suggest that you just leave the redirects be. older ≠ wiser 01:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clearer with my linking and thank you for seeing my point. However, wouldn't your advice to me apply at least as much to TJRC? SMP0328. (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, like I said, I would not have edited the way he/she did. older ≠ wiser 01:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

An argument against redirects for at least some common misspellings

I just went around and corrected a bunch of misspellings: "Tuscon, Arizona" is often written when "Tucson, Arizona" is meant. Because Tuscon, Arizona is a redirect, many authors do not notice their own error - but they would if the link turned up as a red link. There are reasons to redirect from misspellings to correct spellings, of course, but there is this downside.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Project-Class Help pages
• NA-importance Help pages
• Misplaced Pages Help Project pages