Template talk:Soft redirect

Active discussions
WikiProject Redirect (Rated Template-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Redirect, a collaborative effort to improve the standard of redirects and their categorization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Note: This banner should be placed on the talk pages of project, template and category pages that exist and operate to maintain redirects.
This banner is not designed to be placed on the talk pages of most redirects and never on the talk pages of mainspace redirects. For more information see the template documentation.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.


{{editprotected}} Wikinews now has this template. Please update the sister projects box to reflect this. —Zachary talk 11:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

 Y Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 17:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


{{editprotected}} The image is hanging off the template. Could someone please fix this? --AAA! (AAAA) 04:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not on Firefox it isn't. Which browser/OS shows the problem? Could you recommend a way to fix it? --ais523 12:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that AAA! has Internet Explorer, since I saw something similar on my userpage while ago, with a PNG (3, in that case) mysteriously moving only while in Internet Explorer (on school computers). I believe that it's a problem with the way Internet Explorer handles certain div tag calls - converting this to a table might solve it, although I don't see any problem either in Safari or in Firefox. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 15:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I've asked User:AAA! to respond. Until then, there's no reason I see to have an active editprotected. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The image is overlapping the border. I can get you a screenshot, if you like.--AAA! (AAAA) 03:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is the screenshot, where you can see the image hanging. I think this can be cured with a <br clear="all"> tag. --AAA! (AAAA) 03:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been experimenting with various float-clearing tags in preview mode but haven't found a way to do it that works properly yet (set your browser to very large and very small font-sizes, to make sure it works at those sizes too). --ais523 07:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
My guess is that it has to do with min-height. I remember reading and running into issues with min-height and Internet Explorer before. Is there any reason this template can't be converted to a table? I think that would solve the problem. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, Here's the same box with a lot less code, and should look good on ALL browsers:

  Soft redirect
This page can be found at [[{{{1}}}]].
{| class="messagebox" style="width: auto; margin: auto auto auto 0;"
| [[Image:Crystal Clear action loopnone.png|50px]]
| '''[[Wikipedia:Soft redirect|Soft redirect]]''' <br/> This page can be found at <span id="SoftRedirect">[[{{{1}}}]].</span>

I can't believe people even dare to ask if we're using Internet Explorer... I mean WTF! Since when did Wikipedia become the "Anti-IE Posterchild"? Just fix the code... Oh, I already did. Just use the code above. --Edokter (Talk) 22:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed it. But "daring" to ask isn't so strange, since the code was fine before as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I know, it's the combination of the width and height that IE doesn't like. I shouldnt have lost my cool, but I was affraid it might turn into another browser kerfufle. --Edokter (Talk) 10:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Jargon? - Not user freindlyEdit

Hi, just stumbled upon this. Whilst regular editors might know what you mean my 'soft redirect', readers on the whole will not. Can I suggest that it needs spelled out that the person is being offered a link to another wiki? Perhaps "Sorry, there is no such article as ABC on Wikipedia. However, our sister project XYZ has related material. Click here to be redirected to it."--Sandy Donald 19:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia has no article {{BASEPAGENAME}}. However, one of our sister projects has related material.
This page can be found at [[{{{1}}}]].
I don't like it. What jargon? What if your that template on a user page, talk page, or project page (those pages are not articles)? Why does it use <div…></div> only?  Tcrow777  talk  01:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I'd hope "This page can be found at Foo" would be pretty clear, but this may be worth exploring. Any other ideas? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The words "soft redirect" are a link to Wikipedia:Soft redirects. That is enough to explain it to a curious reader. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to use soft redirects more within wikipedia. For situations where somethign almost deserves it's own article, but the bulk of it's content belongs on another page. For example, I think the different versions of the word Tyr deserves their own page, I was about to setup a soft redirect on Tyz to Tyr, but the Tyz pages would add a few lines about Tyz specifically. Is this appropriate? Mathiastck 22:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Every time I find a soft redirect I click the link to Wikipedia:Soft redirect instead of clicking the proper one. That link alone and bold in the top of the template makes me mistake. In my opinion only the actual link should be bold and maybe the text could be rewritten to mix that link with the text. --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 06:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor alterationEdit


Please replace the line

| [[Image:Crystal Clear action loopnone.png|50px]]


|width=70px| [[Image:Crystal Clear action loopnone.png|center|50px]]


-- Cat chi? 23:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually just changed the entire template because I always hated the old one. --MZMcBride 01:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I like it though could you not use span? Span can cause problems. -- Cat chi? 01:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I got the code from a redirect that MediaWiki spits out. I only added one span tag; would you like me to change it to a div? --MZMcBride 02:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


{{Editprotected}} Needs [[Category:Redirect templates]].— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  Done EdokterTalk 12:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki linkEdit

{{editprotected}} Dear administrators, please add the following interwiki link:


Thank you in advance. Regards, --Julian (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- JLaTondre 19:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Dear administrators, please add the following interwiki link:


Thank you in advance. Regards, Arno Lagrange  14:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. EdokterTalk 15:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit requestedEdit

{{editprotected}} Please use {{documentation}} 16@r (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 18:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Use SVG ImageEdit

This template should use Image:Redirect arrow without text.svg  rather than  Image:Redirectltr.png --Inkwina (talk · contribs) 15:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Uhm... why? The png version is the actual system icon used by the real redirect, and looks better IMHO. EdokterTalk 15:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

How the heck...Edit

... do you actually use this template? The documentation fails to answer this basic question! Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I ammended the documentation. EdokterTalk 22:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that's much better - thanks for your speedy response and fix. – ukexpat (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


Please add "de:Vorlage:Interwiki redirect". --WIKImaniac 13:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKImaniac (talkcontribs)

Not done. That probably belongs at {{Interwiki redirect}} which is a separate template. Though I'm not sure why we have the two separate templates. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese interwikiEdit

Administrators, please add the following Portuguese interwiki: [[pt:Predefinição:Softredirect]].

Francisco (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. You could have done so yourself, as the intewrwikis are on the /doc page. EdokterTalk 15:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

request: rename the linkEdit

{{editprotected}} Is there any reason to use simply [[{{{1}}}]] instead of [[{{{1}}}|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}]], such as in the meta-wiki version? I would like to change my user page soft-redirect name. Ganondolf (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this may cause unnecessary confusion - it is surely clearer to be able to see where the link is taking you? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


When you have two of the sample template next to each other the message "This page is a soft redirect." is displayed twice below the first redirect. Can somebody fix this, thanks. -- (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a block-level template, and was never intended to be displayed twice on one page. You can force the second template to the next line by inserting a <P> between them, or you can wrap each template in a block element yourself like this: <div>{{Soft redirect|test}}</div> EdokterTalk 14:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Paedia, 04 September 2010Edit

{{edit protected}}
May someone please change [[{{{1}}}]] to [[:{{{1}}}|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}]] to reflect Template:Soft redirect/testcases.
Cf. Ja:Template:Softredirect and Meta:Template:Interwiki redirect.
Cheers, Pædia 06:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems to make sense. Any comments from anyone else? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  Done. EdokterTalk 13:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit requestEdit

Can we make this just a tad more user-friendly by adding, in place of the full-stop, "to a page outside Wikipedia. To follow the redirect, click on the link above." Many users will not know (or want to know) what a "soft redirect" is, and is seems unhelpful to make them click a link just to find out that they should have clicked another one.--Kotniski (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Makes sense; that is more user friendly. Change made with a slight variation in the wording. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Question: Are soft redirects always to sites outside Wikipedia? I am sure I saw one recently (and I cannot remember where) that was a soft redirect to another page on En Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
They are supposed to be. If they are internal, they should just be a regular redirect. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I found it -- WP:DL. I don't think hard redirects work to Special pages, do they? – ukexpat (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
While you're correct that redirects to special pages don't automatically work, this template isn't needed for them. A regular redirect does the same thing. See Wikipedia:Newuser. The template is for use with redirects that meet Wikipedia:Soft redirect. Internal redirects should just be redirects. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) However, given the template documentation currently says it is for use with special pages as well. I've added that to the new text as well. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks, works for me. – ukexpat (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
And see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 8#Redirects to special pages. Looking at the edit history of WP:DL, you turned it into a soft! – ukexpat (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I reverted the change; I do not think adding more text is more userfriendly, especially if users dont want to read it. I'd rather have not any text at all, but that would be to minimalistic. The link provides all the information about soft redirects; adding part of that text to the redirect itself only confuses more, especially with terms like 'external to Wikipedia' or to a 'Wikipedia special page'. The focal point should be the redirect link itself; the extra text is only more distracting. EdokterTalk 01:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
So we should lose the jargon in that case, not the text that everyone can understand. People landing on such a page will certainly benefit from knowing what they're supposed to do next and that by doing so they'll be leaving the en.wikipedia site. Knowing that something like this is called a "soft redirect" is of no use to them at all.--Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The redirect link should be very big, but I discovered that the move to Vector has lost the big text, so that may cause the confusion. I'll fix the textsize. Other than that, a simple link to soft redirect suffices. EdokterTalk 13:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and we can use parser function logic to decide whether it's a special page or a page outside Wikipedia, can't we?--Kotniski (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No, not in MediaWiki: space. No, we cannot check the existence of external pages. EdokterTalk 13:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe that using the parsing functions it can check whether the target is a special page. If not, then it can assume the target is an external page. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
That's a big if. What if the external page does not exist? That happens quite a lot. And I don't #ifexist: works on special pages either, and I don't recommend using string functions in general. EdokterTalk 14:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
A technical reason is one thing, but whether the external page exists or not is irrelevant. It's still an external link. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking of using ifexist, just checking NAMESPACE. Anyway, I agree the link should be big, but I still don't think we've seen any reason for the explanatory text to be dropped - surely you can see that making the user click another jargonny link (and then try to get back to where he came from) - just to find out a piece of information that we're capable of giving simply and directly using one short sentence - is a clear piece of unhelpfulness? --Kotniski (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What about this, then - is there really any objection to the template's including a very brief explanation of what a soft redirect is, so the user isn't left completely perplexed (or made to click yet another link to try to find out)?--Kotniski (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I still object. The longer the explanation, the more confusing it gets. People who want to know can find out easily enough. Others will just want to get on and click the biggest link. It should stay as plain-vanilla as possible. Edokter (talk) — 13:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get that. There isn't any explanation at the moment - how can a few words of explanation be worse (more "confusing") than no explanation at all? What readers are currently presented with is certainly not plain vanilla - it looks like a mess of technical code. Can you not see this from the point of view of someone who isn't familiar with these objects? (Of course you know to click the biggest link and what the consequences of that will be, but to you it doesn't matter what text is underneath, because you won't be reading it anyway. Given that it's all the same to you, think of others. Why leave them uninformed when we can very easily inform them?)--Kotniski (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Add long comment to template?Edit

After I recently created a soft redirect, another editor quickly subst'ed in template {{long comment}} to keep the page from being listed on special:shortpages. Very smart, I thought. Then I thought, this must be an issue for nearly all soft redirects. So instead of doing this to every one, wouldn't it make sense if template {{soft redirect}} transcluded a long comment itself? Thoughts? Obvious reasons why I'm being dumb? » Swpbτ ¢ 03:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Transcluding does not work as that does not add the comment itself; it must be substituted. And it is not possible to make this template substitute another template during transclusion. Also, only pages in article space are placed in special:shortpages, and this template is never rarely used in article space. Edokter (talk) — 10:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Article Feedback BlacklistEdit

Can someone work out a way to make {{Soft redirect}} include Category:Article Feedback Blacklist on all mainspace pages it's transcluded on? So we won't get the useless Article Feedback tool on pages like "Gallery of coins" or "Georg Hertting" where it would be useless. -- œ 04:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

  Done. Edokter (talk) — 09:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Add a rationalEdit

Append the text ", linking to Wikipedia sister site or elsewhere." or suchlike. Saves having to look at Wikipedia:Soft redirect. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  Not done: Adding a specific rationale would prevent the use of the template for any other reason. It also seems to me that a user who doesn't already know what a soft redirect is would not be helped much by a short explanation rather than the detailed explanation at Wikipedia:Soft redirect. Anomie 04:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Merging Template:Interwiki redirect into this templateEdit

I propose merging {{Interwiki redirect}} into this template (with saving redirect for compatibility). This template is rare used and once was copied from Meta (which was useful). But he does not make sense at this wiki, in my opinion. --Kaganer (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have undone your {{merge to}} at {{Interwiki redirect}}. Please use the correct procedure at WP:TFD, where you will also get more feedback. Mark Hurd (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A lot less clearEdit

I disagree with this change. Sure it looks more like a hard redirect, but it's a lot less clear, especially to our readers. Besides, why does a soft redirect need to look just like a hard one anyway. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. A few questions in response to your comment:
  1. Do you think the current text that reads "This page is a soft redirect." is ambiguous, confusing, or unclear to readers?
  2. What disadvantages do you see to soft redirects having a similar appearance to non-soft redirects?
  3. Do you have an alternate proposal for how to stylize soft redirects?
I don't think most readers care about (or have any real knowledge of) the distinction between a soft redirect and a non-soft redirect. That said, I'm not opposed to improving the template, of course, provided we can better understand what its current deficiencies are. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
A clear note that a page is located at another title is allot clearer then a big arrow and a link. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Here's a better response
  1. A big arrow and a link and "This page is a soft redirect" in small print is a lot less clear then "Soft redirect: This page can be found at target".
  2. See 1
  3. The way it was before the change would be fine.
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's been the way it is for five years now (September 2007... my goodness). I'm not really opposed to a change, but I do think the current version looks better than the previous version. I'll still unclear why you think it's so important to differentiate between soft and non-soft redirects. I don't think readers really care about the distinction (other than the lack of an automatic redirect, which is irrelevant to this template). Maybe others will want to weigh in here. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The lack of an automatic redirect is the difference that makes "differentiating" necessary. The current format isn't very problematic for hard redirects because the reader almost never sees hard redirects. Readers see soft redirects, so soft redirects must be clear to the reader. Put simply, it's not that the reader cares about the distinction between hard and soft redirects per sy, it's that hard redirects don't need to be reader-friendly because they are invisible to the reader.
How's the reader supposed to know what the big arrow means? "This page can be found at [link]" on the other hand is much clearer then a big arrow, it tels the reader that he can find his page by clicking the link.
We don't need to restore this to exactly the way it was before. If there's something you like about the current format could keep it, so long as the result is reader-friendly (there are some things I like about the current format too). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Emmette Hernandez Coleman. The current template has an explicit line saying, "This page is a soft redirect." I'm not sure what you're proposing to make the template clearer. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
In small text, and even if the reader were to see the small text how's he supposed to know that "Soft redirect" means "the page you're looking for is at the big link"? Terms like "Soft redirect" are technical terms meant for editors; to a reader unfamiliar with the internal nuts and bolts of Wikipedia and/or the Internet it's just gibberish. What I'm proposing to in plain clear non-small-text English tell the reader that the page he's looking for is at the big link (instead of confusing him with a meritorious link and gibberish small-text). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Could you provide a particular example of soft redirect that readers/visitors might find confusing? I don't think most site readers/visitors ever encounter soft redirects. Soft redirects seem to be primarily directed at editors, though perhaps you have examples to counter this impression of mine.
Also, are there any examples of users finding this template confusing or are we simply concerned about the possibility of a user being confused? This version of the template's most prominent link, in terms of order of appearance and in terms of font weight, is to a page that the reader or visitor likely never wanted to visit (Wikipedia:Soft redirect). Meanwhile the current version of the template makes the target page the first link and the largest link. I think it's an improvement. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Casual readers should never encounter a soft redirect. If they do, they're venturing out of article space, which means they're curious and will figure things out. I think you underestimate readers, they will click the big blue link, don't worry about that. Edokter (talk) — 23:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Look at the "what links here" (of the template not the talk page) and set it to show only article space transclusions; this is encountered by casual readers. Most readers will probably figure out to that the page they want is at the big link, but my point is we shouldn't confuse them and force them to figure anything out in the first place, we should make it clear. MZMcBride, I agree with your prominent link criticism. I think I'd support a hybrid of the old and current version. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Section breakEdit

Edokter, MZMcBride, How about this? Any objections? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That is basically the old design, which I think is a lot less clear. Edokter (talk) — 10:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
How's it less clear? It's a hybrid of the old and current design. I made the most prominent link the one to the target, like the current design, and unlike the This version who's most prominent link is to WP:Soft redirect. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The box design sucks; it looks dated. Can you let it go? You have been arguing your case for 18 months now. There is no consensus to change it. I am more then a little tired of having to keep arguing the same ad adfinitum. It reminds me of situations where one editor keeps arguing, and then cite consensus "by no response" because the rest has grown tired of responding. I fear that this is headed the same way. Please don't take this personally; it's a trauma of mine. Edokter (talk) — 14:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The only reason I've been it's been 18 months is that there have been periods where MZMcBride and I have taken a really long time to respond to each-other (there was no particular rush to resolve this issue), so say I've been "arguing my case for 18 months now" is grossly misleading. Prior to you're last post, you've made a grand total of two posts, so you've hardly had to keep arguing the same ad adfinitum. In fact, prior to just now, pretty much all you've done is say that casual readers wouldn't encounter a soft redirect, which I've proven incorrect. You're two posts aside, it was only MZMcBride and I who were "arguing our cases", and we've made quite a few posts because we were having trouble understanding each-other's positions. Our posts worked, we're understanding etch-other's positions, and he at least partly convinced me of his. I agree with his prominent link concern. I proposed a comprise version that addresses my clarity concern, and his prominent link concern. You any your two posts aside, this discussion was entirely between me and MZMcBride, and has been nothing but friendly and civil. You don't have the right to complain that you've had to argue the same ad adfinitum, and if you're going to keep being uncivil, then if anyone here should just let it go, it's you.
As for the template itself, you haven't explained how my proposal is any less clear then the current version, and to say it it looks dated is a weak argument, borderline WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Well again then: There are only 20 (twenty) soft redirect originating from article space, all going to project space; with over 4 million articles, that equals next to nothing. Chances of casual readers encountering a soft redirect: zero. Where redirects are encountered, prominence must be given to the target link, not to any explanatory text; that only confuses readers more. The secondary link provided is sufficient in explaining its function. We should not want to overflow readers with explanatory text on every opportunity, it gives sensory overload and duplicates text which means more maintenance. The reader is simply not helped any more by providing more text. I truly believe that the current format is the clearest of all options.
Further more, the previous design with the big blue arrow in a box is severely outdated. Simpicity is the key factor here; no unnecessary boxes, lines or graphics. If you really want to use a different design, then there is also Template:Interwiki redirect. But it contains jargon without any explanatory link.
I may have gotten late to the conversation, but that does not make my objections less important. MZMcBride also questioned you as to why the current format is lacking, but you have not convinced either him or me of the need to change. Honestly, I think it is mildly condenscending to the readers to suggest that they don't know what to do when they encounter a soft redirect; this is the age of the internet, you really have to give them more credit then that. Edokter (talk) — 17:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I never meant to imply that you're objections were any less important; honestly it felt rather condescending to hear you say how you were arguing the same ad adfinitum when, with how MZMcBride and I were having trouble explaining our and understanding each-other's positions, it felt somewhat like I (and he) were doing that. The way I saw it, with those very long response times, it didn't matter that the discussion had taken quite a wile; with the aluael length of the discussion it could have just as easily occurred over a period of a few hours. It didn't even ouccer to me that anyone would object over that. Put the two together, and it felt like I was suddenly being attacked out of nowhere in the middle of a friendly combination; I'm not saying that's how you meant it, but that's how if felt to me. With that, I guess I lost my cool, and got more then a bit uncivil myself, and I'm sorry. I really hope I haven't antecedently said something stupid in this post which that make tings worse, my social skills are quite sub-par. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
If it makes any difference, prior to that system where you were notified when someone linked to your userpage, I always left MZMcBride a talkback when responding after a long pause, so it's not like I was trying to wait him out to create a fake consensus. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I apologize if you feel attacked. Like I said, the situation stirred some old memories that made me uncomfortable, and I handled that poorly. I can totally relate to sub-par social skills -- I have the exact same problem. Edokter (talk) — 00:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
*group hug* --MZMcBride (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Edokter. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove Category:Article Feedback BlacklistEdit

Hi. Please remove Category:Article Feedback Blacklist from this template. Following WP:RFC/AFT, the article feedback tool is opt-in per-article, so the blacklist category is no longer necessary. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Edokter (talk) — 10:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Template protectionEdit

Can this template be converted to use template protection instead of full protection? Thanks. mc10 (t/c) 03:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

  okay — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 July 2016Edit

Please add this TfD notice at the top of the page:

{{Tfm/dated|page=Interwiki redirect|otherpage=Soft redirect|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 16#Template:Interwiki redirect|help=off}}

nyuszika7h (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  02:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Choice of imageEdit

Can someone change the new blue image back to File:Redirect arrow without text.svg? There was not a consensus for the change for a highly used template. Music1201 talk 01:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was Izno's comment in the recent merge discussion that gave me the idea to look for a way to "soften" the redirect arrow in this template. I thought it would be uncontroversial, so do you have other misgivings about it above and beyond the lack of a discussion for the image file change?  Temporal Sunshine Paine  01:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  Done: I self-reverted to the previous image version – a return to status quo pending discussion.  Temporal Sunshine Paine  01:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I really wanted to say that we should be using something closer to 2016-worthy graphics. The redirect arrow as-is seems much more 1990s.... But I also agree with myself therein--the redirect "arrow" isn't intuitive whatsoever. --Izno (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
That's what I thought you meant, but we don't really have that much to work with that isn't already "known" by that growing number of editors who like to work with redirects, creating, deleting, categorizing, etc. What would you suggest as an improvement?  Temporal Sunshine Paine  08:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm less concerned with the people who are used to it and more concerned for those who aren't. But it also looks old. :D --Izno (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
As with just about anything, those who aren't used to it become so with time. As we grow, it is imperative that the foundations we lay are as timely as they can be, so I ask again, what in your mind would bring this subject into the 21st century?  Temporal Sunshine Paine  21:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If no one has any further objections, then the softer redirect arrow will be restored soon.  Temporal Sunshine Paine  10:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

As a footnote, I have removed the pale blue background from the redirect arrow image (I uploaded to Commons an image file that is similar to the previous image file).  Temporal Sunshine Paine  04:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


Revert to revision 732304849; That image is still used by real redirects.

NasssaNser 13:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ping Paine Ellsworth and Izno about the image. The extent of my own involvement was a vectorization of a png. Note that the blue arrow does signify a "soft redirect" somewhat already, used at Talk:MOS:MOS, Talk:Hatnote, etc.they're not soft, nvm — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 23:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand what the rationale is supposed to be. Why would we revert to a non-vectorized version that otherwise looks the same?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Previous image
Current image
Placed them for comparison. It's basically just the colour that has changed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't have an image preference, but the alt text should be shortened (diff) like the hidden "Redirect to" on real redirects. For icons like this, the icon's meaning is more useful than its visual description as alt text. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Please check it now, Matt Fitzpatrickdiff – and see if this is what you mean. Since the |link= parameter is used here, the alt text does not seem to appear when the mouse hovers over the image. It has to be caption text rather than alt text to appear on hover- over.
And, of course, I still favor the softer-bending arrow: File:Softredirarrow.svg.  Paine  u/c 00:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
In this case, the (tooltip caption) title attribute can probably be either present or absent. Both methods set a good (intentionally invisible) alt attribute, so I'm happy either way. I'd just note that real redirects don't have a title attribute. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay then... done.  Paine  u/c 20:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The new image is in a superior format. Scalable Vector Graphics are preferable to other file formats when it comes to these type of images. While I preferred the appearance of the old image, that's just a personal preference. In my opinion, we should push the "which looks better" discussion to a later date, conditional upon an SVG version closer the original being made.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
A [[File:]] display of either arrow will show up as a ".svg.png" because of security paranoia (T5593). Zoom in:   File:Redirect arrow without text.svg,   File:Softredirarrow.svg. If it's important that a true SVG show up, I can use a CSS hack to get the squarish black arrow SVG, but I don't think there's a way to get the blue arrow except as a ".svg.png". Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
(afterthought edit) Well, one way: patch MediaWiki to include the blue arrow SVG as an asset, which might be doable since it's public domain. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
(after-afterthought) Er, sorry, my brain is slow tonight. An admin could modify the site-wide CSS to get the blue arrow SVG in there. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
My thought, given the reversion by the user above, is to see about changing the image in common.css here and consider filing a phabricator task to "update" the redirect icon. They may end up with something completely different than ours--for example, the fact that a redirect icon "redirects" is a rather-subtle indicator that you're looking at a page which points somewhere else. I'm going to disable the TER now since someone has opposed the change based on a substantive question of consistency (while I might not agree with it, that seems better than having it sit there). --Izno (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding when this template was createdEdit

This question may be for those who know more about this history of Wikipedia than myself:

Was this template created (in 2005) before hardcoded redirects to either interwiki pages or pages in the "Special:" namespace automatically became soft redirects, or have hardcoded redirects to either interwiki pages or pages in the "Special:" namespace always been soft redirects by default?

Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Double soft redirectEdit

 Template:Double soft redirect has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Uanfala (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 18 October 2016Edit

A protected redirect, Template:Softredirect, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

  • from this:
#REDIRECT [[Template:Soft redirect]]
  • to this:
#REDIRECT [[Template:Soft redirect]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from move}}
{{R from modification}}
{{R from template shortcut}}

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!  Paine  u/c 16:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I LIKE this kind of "not done"! Thank you very much, Jo-Jo Eumerus!  Paine  u/c 00:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit requestEdit

@Jc86035: The code in this template intended to avoid problems with double colons in links (e.g. [[::de:Foo]]) is unnecessarily complicated.

Please replace:



{{#ifeq:{{First character|{{{1}}}}}|:|[[{{{1}}}]]|[[:{{{1}}}]]}}

I've already implemented this approach in pl:Szablon:Softredirect. Matma Rex talk 21:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: This would remove |2=. — JJMC89(T·C) 22:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The soft redirectsEdit

The soft redirects are needed in {{Streets in Montreal}} Peter Horn User talk 03:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Peter Horn User talk 03:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Return to "Soft redirect" page.