Template talk:Category redirect
 | This template was considered for deletion on 24 December 2023. The result of the discussion was "modify". |
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 | Template:Category redirect is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Edit request 19 January 2024
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please sync with the sandbox (see also Template:Category redirect/testcases) to implement Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 24#Template:R from category navigation. Thanks! HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 05:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like an error has been made, because no rcat template that uses the {{Redirect template}} meta template can be used on soft redirects, and category redirects are always soft redirects. Moreover, the documentation states to wrap with the {{Rcat shell}} template, which also specifically states it's not to be used on soft redirects. Wassup??? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 07:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- This needs input from the creator of the "rcat template", editor Tom.Reding. Rcat templates serve two purposes, 1) supply information to editors about the type of categorization, and 2) categorize the redirect. While {{R from category navigation}} supplies information, it does not categorize the category redirect. So it is not an "rcat template" (redirect category template), it is an "r-info-only template". I don't understand the way the redirect categorization system appears to be being used incorrectly in this case? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 08:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth: thanks, I wasn't aware of that soft-redirect nuance with {{Redirect template}}. I was using {{Redirect category shell}} for page-layout/prettification purposes, to make the cat #Rs look like this, and not like this. {{R from category navigation}} has ~1800 transclusions which use {{Redirect category shell}}, and they have been in place for years without any issues that I'm aware of, so maybe {{Redirect template}}'s "
If used on soft redirects, such as category redirects, there may be unexpected results, because this template may prove to be unstable if used on a soft redirect.
" either doesn't apply here, or it can be relaxed in this case? If not, @HouseBlaster: would removing {{Redirect category shell}} from those transclusions be an ok alternative? - Courtesy ping to Fayenatic London. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 09:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth: thanks, I wasn't aware of that soft-redirect nuance with {{Redirect template}}. I was using {{Redirect category shell}} for page-layout/prettification purposes, to make the cat #Rs look like this, and not like this. {{R from category navigation}} has ~1800 transclusions which use {{Redirect category shell}}, and they have been in place for years without any issues that I'm aware of, so maybe {{Redirect template}}'s "
- At a glance it appears that the reason the {{R from category navigation}} template is stable on the category redirect is because it does not actually categorize the redirect. What I've seen in the past, especially with category redirects is that if an rcat that actually categorizes the redirect is used, then the category redirect is added to the rcat's category as a subcategory rather than as a regular entry, which is an unexpected and undesired result. One concern then would be if an editor in the future were to add a tracking category to R from category navigation using the
|main category=parameter, which would result in the subcategory problem I described above. Perhaps if that parameter were removed from R from category navigation, and it is made clear in the template's documentation that such a tracking category should not be created and used with that template, this problem would not arise. - As for the {{Rcat shell}} template, I added that warning about not using it on soft redirects long ago before there were any specially made rcat templates that were created and designed to be used only on soft redirects (that did not use the Redirect template meta template). So since the Rcat shell uses the {{Mbox}} meta rather than the Redirect template meta, I really don't see any problem with it's usage on soft category redirects. I can remove that warning from its documentation to accomodate its usage in this new, innovative application.
- And this edit request has been
completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Parameter removed [1]. Per BEANS, I decided not to add a note to the documentation, but if you think that's still necessary, then feel free to add it. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 10:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- At a glance it appears that the reason the {{R from category navigation}} template is stable on the category redirect is because it does not actually categorize the redirect. What I've seen in the past, especially with category redirects is that if an rcat that actually categorizes the redirect is used, then the category redirect is added to the rcat's category as a subcategory rather than as a regular entry, which is an unexpected and undesired result. One concern then would be if an editor in the future were to add a tracking category to R from category navigation using the
- You know, Tom, I was just in the process of removing the note from the Rcat shell doc page, when I remembered why the Rcat shell can't be used on soft redirects. While it does not use the Redirect template, it does use four protection rcat templates, such as {{R template protected}}, and those protection templates use the Redirect template meta. What this means is that if the Rcat shell is used on a protected category redirect, whether its full protection right down to semi-protection, the subcategory problem will arise in the protection categories. Sorry, I was wrong and have to undo this edit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth: the goal of the TfD & edit request are to move {{R from category navigation}} out of {{Redirect category shell}}. Are you saying that {{Category redirect}} ends up calling {{Redirect category shell}} anyway? My apologies for having trouble following which templates call what. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- You know, Tom, I was just in the process of removing the note from the Rcat shell doc page, when I remembered why the Rcat shell can't be used on soft redirects. While it does not use the Redirect template, it does use four protection rcat templates, such as {{R template protected}}, and those protection templates use the Redirect template meta. What this means is that if the Rcat shell is used on a protected category redirect, whether its full protection right down to semi-protection, the subcategory problem will arise in the protection categories. Sorry, I was wrong and have to undo this edit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- So the rcat shell is to be removed? That makes sense now. Thank you for being patient with me, Tom! and once again this edit has been completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- So the rcat shell is to be removed? That makes sense now. Thank you for being patient with me, Tom! and once again this edit has been
- Thank you both! I have now added to the documentation on the three templates.
- I'm still confused by some of the above. I don't understand the objection to category redirects being sub-cats of Rcat categories; this is normal in other tracking categories about category space, at e.g. Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories and Category:Category series navigation cleanup. – Fayenatic London 11:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- To editor Fayenatic london: looks like at least one of those categories was designed as a container for only subcategories. Rcat categories are not so designed. Regardless of namespace, when any redirect page is tagged by an rcat template, the page should appear as an entry in the rcat template's category, not as a subcategory. That has always been regarded as one of the possible "instabilities" when any template that uses the Redirect template meta template is used to tag a soft redirect, per the warning in that template's documentation. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- To editor Paine Ellsworth: thanks; I meant rather to indicate its non-empty subcats such as Category:Category series navigation isolated, which tracks category pages using a template with a certain outcome, and happens to display them as sub-categories.
- The justification for keeping a category redirect for a variant spelling (esp. organi[s/z]ation) or hyphen-to-dash is so similar to that for article space that I still don't grasp the ban on documenting their raison d'etre with {{R from alternative spelling}} or {{R to diacritic}}. – Fayenatic London 17:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hopefully the mist will clear. I'm sure you grasp what happens; heck, if you're like me, you may have already tested it and found that it actually does happen. Thing is, if any normal rcat template is used on a soft category redirect, and that redirect becomes a subcategory in that rcat template's category, while other similar redirects are entries in that category, it would be misleading to editors, make them scratch their heads and wonder why. After all, a subcategory is like a child category, and that rcat category is decidedly not that category redirect's "parent" category. It would essentially be a case of bastardizing the category tree organizing system, wouldn't it? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Aaah, looking at Category:Redirects from alternative names I see that it has actual functional sub-cats; so if category-space redirects were tagged with that template, nobody would want them to appear mixed in with those. But that could easily be fixed by having a special holding category for them, "Category redirects from alternative names". – Fayenatic London 23:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Could be done, yes. A new rcat template, something like {{R category redirect from alternative name}} could be constructed without the Redirect template meta and its instabilities, which could populate Category:Category redirects from alternative names. Then those redirects would be entries rather than subcategories. Other sortings of category redirects could follow as needed. Lotsa work involved. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, but is the meta template so unstable that it couldn't handle a little variation in {{R from alternative name}}, so that the latter when used in cat space generates
Category:Category redirects from… rather thanCategory:Redirects from… ? – Fayenatic London 14:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)- Here's raising your "Hmm" with a starkly surprised "Hmmmmm"; yes, I'm astonished that you still don't seem to "get it". Of course! I can do just about anything with templates except make my lunch and do the dishes. I can also drive a Corvette Stingray at 200 mph through a 15 mph school zone, which simply put means that just because one CAN do something, it doesn't necessarily mean that one should do it. No matter how we shake it, the meta template's instability would cause all those cat redirs to become subcats rather than entries in that proposed special holding cat, and that cat would not be a true parent cat for any of those bastard children subkittens. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Now I'm lost. I don't understand how the hypothetical {{R category redirect from alternative name}} could populate Category:Category redirects from alternative names with category redirects that "would be entries rather than subcategories." Won't they always appear as subcategories, as they do in the cleanup tracking categories above? I thought the substance of the objection was that we don't want to mingle redirected category pages with functional subcats in e.g. Redirects from alternative names. – Fayenatic London 22:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry if I lost you there, editor Fayenatic london; didn't mean to. Seems the reason might be because I was a bit lost myself. Did more tests and found that the reason a category redirect, when tagged by any template that sorts to another category, becomes a subcategory rather than just an entry, is due to the nature of the category namespace itself. I tested by using an Ambox meta rather than the Redirect template meta (as you may know, the Ambox template is not considered "unstable" in any namespace), and the category redirect still became a subcategory of the sorting category rather than just an entry. Apologies for being misleading; I should have done the tests before I mouthed off. So if one really wants to track category redirects, one will have to settle for seeing them as subcategories rather than as entries, with a warning that such sortings are inconsistent with the "normal" category tree organization system. I still must recommend that the Redirect template should not be used as a meta in any template that tags soft redirects. The Ambox meta is a much wiser way to go. An example of its usage will be found in the code of the {{Soft redirect with Wikidata item}} rcat template. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you – so we agree about where the pages appear if categorised. Now, about using {{Redirect template}}: both Tom.Reding's {{R from category navigation}} and my derivative {{R from template-generated category}} have been using it as their meta template for 5 and 3 years respectively. Have any problems arisen from that usage until now?
- I acknowledge that now we do have a documentation error: the default text from that meta template refers to {{Redirect category shell}}, but after your recent work those two now use {{Category redirect}} as their shell. Do we need to rewrite those two using a different meta just to avoid the out-of-date default documentation? – Fayenatic London 17:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Also, unless we are going to categorise the redirects, do we need to amend the "shell" wording which you copied into {{Category redirect}}? Instead of "The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect", should it be something like "The following templates explain the purpose of this redirect"? – Fayenatic London 22:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, I have since looked at the history of {{Redirect template}} including the "horrible hack" that's been in the module for 10 years, so respect to you for your work and vigilance on these matters. – Fayenatic London 10:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- So sorry, it didn't sound like you were responding to me, but to one of the others. I'm probably not the best person to ask about monitoring category redirects (or any other soft redirects) for instabilities. I've done very little work on soft redirects. The vast majority of redirects on WP are not soft redirects, they are what some call "hard" redirects, and that is where I've concentrated my work. I've no opinion on the meta's module or any need for /doc edits; however, I will say that in all my time on WP I've never come across the instabilities the meta template creators wrote into the documentation. That does not mean those instabilities don't exist, it just means that the only thing I've seen is the weird sorting as subcategories rather than as entries, and I mistakenly thought that was part of the instabilities problem, and as it turns out it is just a quirky trait of the category namespace. I wish I could be more help, but it would seem that my knowledge is limited. Thank you for your kind words, though! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I tried using {{Soft redirect with Wikidata item}} inside {{Category redirect}} at Category:19th century in New Mexico, and it does not look great in that shell – RSVP. – Fayenatic London 10:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Is that better? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. – Fayenatic London 11:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Is that better? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, HouseBlaster has now incorporated the function of {{Soft redirect with Wikidata item}} into {{category redirect}} – thank you for that, and to Jonesey95 for removing unnecessary subsequent usage. – Fayenatic London 14:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I tried using {{Soft redirect with Wikidata item}} inside {{Category redirect}} at Category:19th century in New Mexico, and it does not look great in that shell – RSVP. – Fayenatic London 10:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- So sorry, it didn't sound like you were responding to me, but to one of the others. I'm probably not the best person to ask about monitoring category redirects (or any other soft redirects) for instabilities. I've done very little work on soft redirects. The vast majority of redirects on WP are not soft redirects, they are what some call "hard" redirects, and that is where I've concentrated my work. I've no opinion on the meta's module or any need for /doc edits; however, I will say that in all my time on WP I've never come across the instabilities the meta template creators wrote into the documentation. That does not mean those instabilities don't exist, it just means that the only thing I've seen is the weird sorting as subcategories rather than as entries, and I mistakenly thought that was part of the instabilities problem, and as it turns out it is just a quirky trait of the category namespace. I wish I could be more help, but it would seem that my knowledge is limited. Thank you for your kind words, though! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry if I lost you there, editor Fayenatic london; didn't mean to. Seems the reason might be because I was a bit lost myself. Did more tests and found that the reason a category redirect, when tagged by any template that sorts to another category, becomes a subcategory rather than just an entry, is due to the nature of the category namespace itself. I tested by using an Ambox meta rather than the Redirect template meta (as you may know, the Ambox template is not considered "unstable" in any namespace), and the category redirect still became a subcategory of the sorting category rather than just an entry. Apologies for being misleading; I should have done the tests before I mouthed off. So if one really wants to track category redirects, one will have to settle for seeing them as subcategories rather than as entries, with a warning that such sortings are inconsistent with the "normal" category tree organization system. I still must recommend that the Redirect template should not be used as a meta in any template that tags soft redirects. The Ambox meta is a much wiser way to go. An example of its usage will be found in the code of the {{Soft redirect with Wikidata item}} rcat template. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Now I'm lost. I don't understand how the hypothetical {{R category redirect from alternative name}} could populate Category:Category redirects from alternative names with category redirects that "would be entries rather than subcategories." Won't they always appear as subcategories, as they do in the cleanup tracking categories above? I thought the substance of the objection was that we don't want to mingle redirected category pages with functional subcats in e.g. Redirects from alternative names. – Fayenatic London 22:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Here's raising your "Hmm" with a starkly surprised "Hmmmmm"; yes, I'm astonished that you still don't seem to "get it". Of course! I can do just about anything with templates except make my lunch and do the dishes. I can also drive a Corvette Stingray at 200 mph through a 15 mph school zone, which simply put means that just because one CAN do something, it doesn't necessarily mean that one should do it. No matter how we shake it, the meta template's instability would cause all those cat redirs to become subcats rather than entries in that proposed special holding cat, and that cat would not be a true parent cat for any of those bastard children subkittens. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, but is the meta template so unstable that it couldn't handle a little variation in {{R from alternative name}}, so that the latter when used in cat space generates
- Could be done, yes. A new rcat template, something like {{R category redirect from alternative name}} could be constructed without the Redirect template meta and its instabilities, which could populate Category:Category redirects from alternative names. Then those redirects would be entries rather than subcategories. Other sortings of category redirects could follow as needed. Lotsa work involved. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Aaah, looking at Category:Redirects from alternative names I see that it has actual functional sub-cats; so if category-space redirects were tagged with that template, nobody would want them to appear mixed in with those. But that could easily be fixed by having a special holding category for them, "Category redirects from alternative names". – Fayenatic London 23:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hopefully the mist will clear. I'm sure you grasp what happens; heck, if you're like me, you may have already tested it and found that it actually does happen. Thing is, if any normal rcat template is used on a soft category redirect, and that redirect becomes a subcategory in that rcat template's category, while other similar redirects are entries in that category, it would be misleading to editors, make them scratch their heads and wonder why. After all, a subcategory is like a child category, and that rcat category is decidedly not that category redirect's "parent" category. It would essentially be a case of bastardizing the category tree organizing system, wouldn't it? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- To editor Fayenatic london: looks like at least one of those categories was designed as a container for only subcategories. Rcat categories are not so designed. Regardless of namespace, when any redirect page is tagged by an rcat template, the page should appear as an entry in the rcat template's category, not as a subcategory. That has always been regarded as one of the possible "instabilities" when any template that uses the Redirect template meta template is used to tag a soft redirect, per the warning in that template's documentation. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Does this category need creating? It is populated by this template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- (1) why such a short title? Surely we could come up with a longer, more convoluted and pedantic title! (2) if any double-redirected categories exist, they should be corrected promptly by RussBot, so this category should almost never be needed. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Looks quite succinct to me :) Which word could you take out? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Since you asked ...
[[:Category:. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Wikipedia softDouble-redirected categorieswhich are double redirects]]- My thought process with adding the double-redirect checking to this template was that it mimics Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories, which is also fixed by RussBot. I seem to have forgotten to actually create the template;
Self-trout for that. I think creating Category:Double-redirected categories and updating the template's call is a good way forward. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- While we're at it, looking at Wikipedia category cleanup, we should probably also rename:
Wikipedia categories needing cleanup → Categories needing cleanup- I see that dated subcats are maintained by AnomieBOT, so probably not worth the upstream & downstream bother
- Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories → Non-empty soft redirected categories
- to match Non-empty disambiguation categories
- ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Double-redirected categories is now blue and Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories is now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 15#Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- While we're at it, looking at Wikipedia category cleanup, we should probably also rename:
- My thought process with adding the double-redirect checking to this template was that it mimics Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories, which is also fixed by RussBot. I seem to have forgotten to actually create the template;
- Since you asked ...
- Looks quite succinct to me :) Which word could you take out? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- I found some in that category last night and fixed them manually, beating the bots because of ambiguity. R'n'B were you aware that RussBot has competition on this task from JJMC89 bot? see [2] – Fayenatic London 09:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- It’s not a competition! :-) —R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Template causing self-link
[edit]The current version of this template usually causes a category page to link to itself. I preferred the previous situation when it did not do this, as extra effort is now required to review backlinks after category moves, e.g. Special:WhatLinksHere/:Category:Polish_LGBT_actors.
In contrast to the above example, Special:WhatLinksHere/:Category:Polish_LGBT_politicians and Special:WhatLinksHere/:Category:Violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_Kingdom do NOT include a self-link, and I have no idea why. These occasional omissions result in a risk that an editor scanning backlinks will overlook one that needs updating, if there happens to be one category page in the list and it's NOT the category being checked. – Fayenatic London 15:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_11#LGBT_nominations_which_were_opposed_at_CFDS has a long list of "LGBT" categories that were renamed and redirected to "LGBTQ". Checking "what links here", the vast majority do link to themselves.
- In this talk page's history I noted a few more exceptions that did not, which had no distinguishing features.
- Then I tried doing null edits on the ones that DID self-link, and the self-link then disappears!
- @JJMC89: would it be possible, please, after your bot creates a redirect at the old category page, for it to perform a null edit in order to purge the self-link caused by the initial save of this template? That would simplify the review process. – Fayenatic London 13:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Null edits shouldn't change anything at the time the redirect is created since it is already doing actual edits (e.g., Special:Diff/1247381908). — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Basic parser functions now resolvable
[edit]@HouseBlaster: fyi I saw Proposed deletion as of today in Wikipedia soft redirected categories which are not resolved correctly, so I made {{Resolve category redirect}} able to resolve {{#time:j F Y}}, etc. Now {{Category redirect}} just needs to recognize it as a successful follow. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Resolved on its own apparently... ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Tom.Reding!! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Magic word to remove from Special:UnconnectedPages
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add __EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to the code. According to wikidata:Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion criteria, these categories should not be added to Wikidata, so there is no point in tracking them there. Solidest (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Solidest: Done. If an enwiki category redirect is being used as a real category on another Wikimedia project, should the enwiki category redirect be removed from the Wikidata item? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. If enwiki is the only sitelink, then yes — Qitem should either be merged with the target of the redirect (if the concepts are identical enough), or nominated for deletion (if merging isn't feasible). If the sitelink-redirect is not the only one, then technically and according to the policy, it should also be removed. But in practice, this is not enforced. Personally, I don't think they cause any harm — instead, they're often useful. I'm considering starting a discussion to allow them to be used as sitelinks in category items, while still keeping them ineligible for standalone notability as the only sitelink. But for that, it's probably necessary to first request a magic word for redirects on Phabricator, so that bots and gadgets on Wikidata can more easily recognize them. Solidest (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)