Template talk:Redirect category

Default categorisation

There's a proposal to stop this template from automatically placing the category it's used on in Category:All redirect categories. The discussion is at Category talk:All redirect categories#Too many subcategories. Uanfala (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Instructions

@Paine Ellsworth: This template currently displays instructions to place, for example,

{{Rcat shell|{{R from fictional character|Star Wars}}}}

on a redirect, whereas simply

{{R from fictional character|Star Wars}}

would suffice in that case (Category:Star Wars character redirects to lists).

Please can this be simplified? – Fayenatic London 12:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

To editor Fayenatic london: yes, as the documentations for all the rcats show, any rcat can be used in the {{Redirect category shell}} or by itself without the shell. It's up to editors which way they want to categorize redirects. As the shell's documentation shows, there are definite advantages to using it for one or more rcats, and that is why templates like this recommend to use the shell. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  09:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks... but it is rather hard to understand. After multiple links to various templates, even "For more information, follow the template link" is cryptic. Can we change it along the lines of Special:Diff/904619235, i.e. to display the simple alternative usage, and link to a specific template for more info? – Fayenatic London 10:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't see why not. I just clarified (hopefully) some of the text, to include the "follow the template link" dimness. Also, consider that the change you want to make is already part of each and every redirect category (rcat) template's documentation, so I'm not sure how much good it does to include it on a category page that is seldom visited. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  10:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

"Template:Rcat" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:Rcat has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 9 § Template:Rcat until a consensus is reached. Warudo (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Plural s - inside or outside the link?

See these edits. In two of them, 2600 etc (talk · contribs) favours the link format

[[Wikipedia:redirect|redirects]]

whereas in the other two, Gonnym (talk · contribs) favours the link format

[[Wikipedia:redirect|redirect]]s

In the most recent of the four, Gonnym wrote do i need to keep on reverting? The answer to that is: No, you discuss. I don't see any discussion either here, or at the talk pages of the two users concerned, so I'm starting one.

I observe that the number of characters is identical, as are the served HTML and the rendered page. What are the positive aspects of each format? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually per WP:BRD, it's not on me to start a discussion, it's on the person being reverted. Gonnym (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

That is not a positive aspect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

That's your opinion. If it was the community one, BRD would have been different. Gonnym (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

So basically, you have nothing positive to say about putting the terminal "s" outside the square brackets. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the WP:ONUS's point first. Gonnym (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, "Alternatively, start a discussion yourself on the article talk page about the issue. People feel more cooperative if you let them know that you're willing to listen to their case for the change. Otherwise, a revert can seem brusque." The onus is on both of you.--v/r - TP 23:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@W.andrea, 2600 etc, Gonnym, and Redrose64:

0) "W.andrea" edited some emphasis (not reviewing that here), but made a mistake changing markup to [[Wikipedia:redirect|redirect]]s. That is NOT preferred. It is disoptimal.

As a newbie, I briefly thought that "]]s" was preferable but, upon reflection, I realized no, that's too many unnecessary breaks within one word; it's less readable. Better to pipe a singular to a plural than to break up the pluralized word.

Obviously the only way to do a non-piped plural is two [[cat]]s. (Almost no one will argue for the longer alternative of building it without using the after-the-]] "trick" and instead piping the singular to its simple plural like this two [[cat|cats]], despite its subtle perfection.)

With a piped link, the best way is two [[cat|felines]], NOT two [[cat|feline]]s. (WP should never have supported the latter, just to discourage it. It should make letters after the "]]" part of the link, but ONLY IF the link is not a piped link.)

1) "2600 etc" jumped in and changed only that part back to [[Wikipedia:redirect|redirects]] (sadly with no edit comment). That is THE preferred, correct way to write that wikilink. It is nice to have markup in templates be "exemplary". BUT with no other "meaningful", "substantial" or "visible" changes to make there, it would have been better to leave something that trivial deficiency alone. It's hard to write an edit comment that explains or justifies such a near-null edit. Undoing calls for something like an apology in the edit comment.

2) "Gonnym" jumped in and sadly changed it again to the worse form, [[Wikipedia:redirect|redirect]]s, again (with no other work, using the Undo button), with the edit comment was correct (which is no excuse for using Undo and making another near-null edit). Besides worsening the markup, that change was not worth doing, and definitely not as the only change.

3) "2600 etc" again changed it again to the good way, at least with a comment this time: It would just be like typing [[WP:Soft redirect|Soft ]]redirects. (Interestingly, that works (today):

@2600 etc: You ably mocked

[[WP:Soft redirect|Soft redirect]]s → Soft redirects ...

with your excellent

[[WP:Soft redirect|Soft ]]redirects → Soft redirects ... .

Inspired by this, I must suggest:

[[WP:soft_redirect|Soft redir]]ects → Soft redirects ...

and the "roomier" yet smaller, yet cryptic

[[ WP:SRD | Soft ]]redirects → Soft redirects ... .

As a final tribute, I offer:

[[_ :_ _en _: _wart _Hog _ _| Wa]]rthogs → Warthogs ... .

4) "Gonnym" again changed it to the bad way, with the edit comment do i need to keep on reverting?. That just digs it deeper, continuing an "edit war" of "pointless" ("invisible") edits, over something so unimportant.
-A876 (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2026 (UTC)