Wikipedia talk:Defective redirects

what's up with this list? instead of going to the trouble of listing something as easy to fix as mis-directed redirects, why not just fix them? -- Anon

Because there are hundreds of them, so it is a big job. (If the job is really that easy, you are free to do it yourself Mr Anon.)

It's also a job that really needs doing by people rather than an automated script, to double check that the redirect to the new page is logical and as intended. Enchanter

Note that the list only includes 'defective redirects' that are linked from elsewhere in Wikipedia, i.e. it ignores 'orphan defective redirects', of which there are thousands. These are not linked within Wikipedia, and if they are linked from outside they will not link directly to an article, so don't look particularly good. We could consider deleting all of these - I think that could be done quickly and easily by someone with developer access. Enchanter

How did you generate this list? Are there more non-orphan defective redirects or have we fixed all of them now? --mav

I generated this list with a couple of queries to the database (one to get redirects-to-redirects, one to get orphans) and a bit of manipulation to find the non-orphan redirects-to-redirects. It will have picked up all of them when the query was run, so that's all for now!

I plan on redoing the same thing every two or three months or so - that way it should be quite a small manageable job each time.

Between us all we managed to fix the 450 or so pages in less than 2 days. I never thought it would be so quick - it shows the power of Wikipedia cooperation!

In case anyone still has time on their hands, there is a much bigger job waiting - fixing all the links to disambiguation pages at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. In all, there are about 7000 links like that that need to be fixed (not all on the page), so that should keep us busy for some time yet...

Enchanter

So how did you make those queries? Is it somewhere explained how to make this kind of queries? When I try to make a query, I just see "SELECT ... FROM ... WHERE ..." and have no idea what to make of that.

You need to enter a query in SQL, which is a sort of computer language used for getting information from databases. If you are not an expert, it is probably best not to attempt to try making SQL queries, as it is possible to make very time consuming queries that slow down the site for everyone. Enchanter

Also, there are some categories of defective redirects that are not caught here, in particular redirects to non-existing pages. Could you find those?

Yes, could be worth a try, although the Most Wanted page is already there to show nonexistent pages with links to them. Enchanter

Of course that leaves still quite some category of defective redirects that cannot be found - pages that redirect to another page than the most appropriate one, pages that redirect to disambiguation pages... But then, similar problems exist with non-redirect pages too. I have every now and again met two pages that discussed the same or almost the same subject. That's also very hard to find out. Andre Engels

For pages that redirect or link to disambiguation pages, go to any of the pages listed at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links and click 'what links here'. As for redirects to pages that are not the correct one, and duplicate pages, we will just have to use human beings to find them! Enchanter

• It is fine for transvestism to redirect to transvestite, provided that nothing links to transvestism

"Please don't try to fix these by hand."

What is this list for, then, if not to provide a guide to people who want to fix defective redirects? —Paul A 02:09, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think it's because it could be done with a bot, so would be a waste of time. But if you like fixing them, then I see no harm in that. It can quite a relaxing to do. :) Angela. 22:15, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Presumably the reason for the list being there at all is so that someone with a bot can use it. Angela.

Oh, I fixed one without knowing it was here. Martin 15:55, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, as no one has a bot for fixing them yet, that's probably not a bad thing. Angela. 23:45, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Note that due to current link table bugs, even after fixing a double re-direct, the link tables are sometimes not updated correctly and the link tables still think there is a double re-direct when there isn't. For example Squad Assault Weapon was changed a few days ago to go directly to Squad automatic weapon. However, if you view the What links here, it still shows Squad Assault Weapon going to Squad assault weapon, which is not correct. Thus, this explains why Squad Assault Weapon re-appeared in the defective redirects list after the recent update even though it has been previously fixed. RedWolf 06:49, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)