Wikipedia talk:Redirect

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

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)

Template to avoid reloading the page on a redirect to another section

WP:SELFREDIR encourages linking to redirects to sections on the current page, based on the normal logic of preferring links to redirects since they're forward-compatible if the redirect becomes an article. However, there's a noticeable downside that clicking on such a link causes the page to reload, which is bad UX and may even confuse the reader as to what page they've wound up on (since people would expect a link to elsewhere in the same page to not cause a reload).

I've created a template that will fix this. In this comment, transcluding {{Bypass redirect if to same page|Template:Bypass redirect if to same page/sandbox/demo redirect 2}} produces Template:Bypass redirect if to same page/sandbox/demo redirect 2, identical to if you had just [[wikilinked]] the title. But as you can see at Template:Bypass redirect if to same page/testcases, when used on that page (which the redirect points to a section of), the link becomes an internal section link, which does not cause a reload when clicked. If the redirect is ever turned into an article or retargeted somewhere, the transclusion will automatically switch to working like a regular wikilink.

Would anyone object to mentioning this template in the guideline? As far as I can see, the only downside of using it would be that there's no longer the "redirected from..." text when you click through, and that text makes it very slightly easier for people to turn a redirect into an article. However, since that text shows up at the top of the page, and section redirects usually point people below on the page, I think that's a very minor downside, compared to the upside of avoiding bad UX through unnecessary reloads. I'd also be fine creating a maintenance category for cases where the linked title is not a redirect, if people think that would be useful. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The only objection I have at the moment is that the template is broken on the legacy parser, which is still the default on desktop as of writing this. The "Non-section redirect here" testcases do not cause a page reload as the documentation says but instead send you to the main page. I fixed the sandbox and I checked the testcases with both legacy and Parsoid and couldn't find any regressions. Links still lead to the places they should without causing reloads. However, I'll leave fixing the actual template up to you in case you know of a better way to do it. Warudo (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Good catch! I tweaked the logic at a higher level to only do anything at all if the target has a "#" in it, and that seems to fix the issue fully. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Great! I think adding the template to the guideline should be fine now. There are still some questions. For one, if this template catches on, how we should go about updating RfD's closing instructions. When a redirect gets deleted, presumably this template should be changed to a section link. Perhaps XFDCloser would need to have support for this. There's also the issue that accessing a redirect like this does not count as a page view which might make people at RfD underestimate how much readers care about the topic. However, both of these are small issues that can be addressed in the future. Fixing the UX is more important to our readers and should be what we focus on first. Warudo (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

If RfD chooses to delete a redirect that has contentspace backlinks, that's either a WP:RETURNTORED situation (which would mean there's so little info in the target section it's not worth linking to, so retaining the redlink is probably preferable), a determination that Wikipedia is unlikely to ever have information on this topic (in which case all backlinks should be unlinked), a case of all backlinks being for the wrong subject (in which case they shouldn't be bypassed), or a case of RfD !voters messing up (in which case the template shouldn't obscure that error). So I don't think there'd be any need for a change to RfD closing instructions. A maintenance category of "Bypass redirect if to same page" using non-existent target could be useful, though, to catch these and other edge cases that might arise.

I've run the numbers, btw, on how many links this would affect: Quarry 106575 shows 87,788 links to redirects to sections of the same page. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, a maintenance category also works. Your analysis makes sense. Warudo (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise that a determination to delete a redirect means that an internal link to a section or anchor within an article should also be removed. But I'm not sure that there is a universal approach that should be taken with these, so I'm on the fence as to what the appropriate RFD closing instructions would be. Maybe it's OK to leave them alone. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of the redirected from... notice and often scroll to the top of the page to see it. On mobile, this pops up as a little box without having to scroll, which is a nice feature. Like many of the participants here, I'm often very interested in the redirect itself, sometimes more than the article content. This would represent a frustrating loss of functionality for me. Of course, redirectheads like us are in the minority and these links are meant to serve the much larger community of readers. On one hand, we shouldn't necessarily prioritize the preferences of a small group of editors like me over the wider readership. On the other hand, editors who devote a great deal of their time to evaluating the appropriateness of redirects, and links in articles broadly, do so in service of readers. I'm torn. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae: I could include an invisible link that editors could make visible. If you add

.bypass-redir-same-page-note {
	display: inline !important
}

to your common.css, and take a look at the testcases page, you can see how there are now little notes saying ^{[bypassing redirect Template:Bypass redirect if to same page/sandbox/demo redirect 2]}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, where exactly do I add this script? I have done similar before but never remember where exactly these are supposed to go or how to access them. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Special:MyPage/common.css, the same way I did here. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that worked for me. I still have some concerns. Most editors like me won't be aware of this change and will experience a 'silent' loss of functionality if we implement this across tens of thousands of pages. If they eventually discover the problem, they won't know about this fix. This also creates an extra step where instead of just clicking the redirect to view it I have to search for it or enter the URL, which will take me back to the redirect target, and then present me with the redirected from link. Again, I don't want to privilege my personal workflow over broader UX improvements but I do find this frustrating. The vast majority of redirects that I encounter and evaluate are not internal links to another section of the same article, so in reality this won't come up for me that often, and I suppose the invisible text will now highlight this usage of redirects for me in articles where I may not have noticed it otherwise. I remain uneasy about this although I acknowledge there may be some improvement for other readers and that the impact to me (and editors like me!) may be small. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Guideline about history under redirects

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Guideline about history under redirects. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Wondering something

Brickbat redirects to Criticism as a synonym or related word. Does that mean "brickbat" has to be defined in the article Criticism? There's currently a paragraph defining it, but Wikipedia is not a thesaurus, and doesn't routinely describe synonyms in every article. Canadachick (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

It's true that Wikipedia is not a thesaurus, nor a dictionary, but as an encyclopedia we often include synonyms and definitions of related words. The § Purpose of redirects includes alternative names and subtopics or closely related topics which are covered in an article. I find this redirect appropriate (although the sourcing could be stronger). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

My concern isn't about the redirect, it's about the paragraph in that article about "brickbat". From some previous discussions, it appears people think the term needs to be mentioned for a redirect to be allowed. But I don't think the existence of the redirect justifies this digression. Canadachick (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I see. There are two different issues here but they are interrelated. The appropriateness of the content should be discussed at Talk:Criticism. I don't see any prior discussion there about this issue. The mere existence of a redirect is not enough to compel inclusion of the related content. When I find a redirect that is not covered in an article, it may inspire me to add content in order to justify the redirect. But if other editors come along and decide the content does not belong there at all, then just saying "we have a redirect" is insufficient. I'm speaking in generalities here, not having looked into the particulars surrounding this redirect or the content. Best to start a discussion on the article talk page. (Side note: If the content gets removed then the redirect brickbatbrickbat should be taken to WP:RFD for consideration of deletion. But there should be consensus about the content first, which will inform any subsequent RFD discussion.) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit history retained to attribute copied content

I am planning to revise these mentions and link to the WP:Copying within Wikipedia guideline.

1. WP:Redirect#Purposes of redirects, one item
2. WP:Redirect/Deletion reasons#Reasons for not deleting, RKEEP 1

Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

What are your proposed revisions? Thryduulf (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I, too, would like to know. Does it have something to do with this: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Guideline about history under redirects ? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, specifically this thread with Rusalkii. For (1), I am thinking To retain edit history for attributing copied or merged content per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia plus the existing clause about licensing. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I made the change to (1). Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this change. I don't disagree with the wording of the new text, and I don't think the link to WP:PROMERGE was the best or only place to link to. Editors often raise concerns about retaining history under a redirect even when there has been no merger or copying. As @Rusalkii said:

The related question of the circumstances under which history under a redirect can be deleted at RfD (as opposed to requiring an AfD as for an article) is a subject of perennial and sometimes acrimonious debate at RfD. I'm not entirely sure what kind of guidance you're imagining here and whether it touches on this topic, but if does you'll at minimum need to engage with the existing arguments there.

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I restored "nontrivial edit history" as a separate item as a quick fix. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

For RKEEP 1, I added "copy" and a link to WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Portal:2 redirect

While running a query on cross-namespace redirects I stumbled on Portal:2. This is in principle a totally unobjectionable redirect to Portal 2, except it ends up in the Portal namespace. Do we have any policy/precedent on this sort of thing? Rusalkii (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's a particularly good redirect. Who's typing Portal 2 by adding a colon and removing a space? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

No objection to anyone RfDing it, but I'm curious about the general case as well. Rusalkii (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I've never seen a redirect from portal to mainspace, but I don't think it's per se objectionable. IMO the better question is why haven't we deprecated portal space yet? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

No, the thing I'm wondering about is what to do about titles like (to invent an example) an album called "Talk:Whatever", or a book about Wikipedia called "Wikipedia: Some subtitle". I'm sure something like that exists but I don't know what to search for to find it. Rusalkii (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

See WP:NC-COLON for examples. There is one real example given, which is Help: A Day in the Life. There is a redirect located at Help:A Day in the LifeHelp:A Day in the Life that targets the current title of Help!: A Day in the Life. The redirect in this example is tagged with {{R to main namespace}} and {{R restricted}} in addition to more standard redirect categories. I guess if Portal:2 should be kept as a redirect, it should be tagged as {{R to main namespace}} (not sure about {{R restricted}} since the correct title doesn't have a colon). Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! That's an interesting way to do it but I guess that makes sense. Rusalkii (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Good to know! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion. Canadachick (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Other interesting redirects into mainspace include:

• File://File:// and File:///File:/// → File URI scheme
• Help:A Day in the LifeHelp:A Day in the Life → Help!: A Day in the Life
• Help:Pronunciation of Classical namesHelp:Pronunciation of Classical names → Traditional English pronunciation of Latin

and 35 redirects from Portal: to mainspace listed here. Certes (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I was poking around this query and the assorted related ones on my Quarry page. There's some fun things in there, I've deleted quite a few leftovers from accidentally moved and nominated a few batches of various other flavors of weirdness at RfD, with probably more to come.

I'm planning on running a bot to tag XNRs automatically, hence the interest; initial discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Categorizing_redirects#h-Bot_to_automatically_categorize_cross-namespace_redirects. Rusalkii (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Counts of redirects to mainspace from other namespaces are: Talk: 296; User: 117,558; User talk: 303; Wikipedia: 2,668; Wikipedia talk: 28,471; File: 3; Template: 875; Help: 2; Portal: 35; Draft: 260,162; Module talk: 2. (The third File entry is File:URLFile:URL → File URI scheme). Certes (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Most user: → main redirects will be the result of published drafts and consensus has long been that unless they are from the base user page these are unproblematic. Wikipedia talk: → main will also be, in the main, published drafts from before draftspace existed and the spirit of WP:RDRAFT will apply to them. Template is higher than I'd expect, The first I found (template:Geologic time scale) is the result of a template that was used only on a single article and subsequently merged into it (I've nominated it for retargetting at RfD). The others may have a similar origin story but I've not looked. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The first seems like a good redirect, as that orthography is actually used. Canadachick (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, both File: redirects and the first Help: redirects are definitely useful. The second Help: gets a few views and does no harm, so can stay too. Certes (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)