Wikivoyage talk:How to redirect a page

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

How to create a redirect for a page that does not yet exist[edit]

How do you create a redirect for a page that does not yet exist? I would like to set up some redirects from German names to the accepted English names of towns, and from common misspellings (without umlauts) to the correctly named pages (e.g. Köln --> Cologne; Bodensee --> Lake Constance; München --> Munich etc.). (WT-en) Brendio 17:20, 16 Jan 2006 (EST)

To clarify, I realise that one way is to create link from another page, and then create the page from there, and then delete that link afterwards, but is there an easier/simpler way to achieve this? (WT-en) Brendio 17:21, 16 Jan 2006 (EST)

Nope. The only way to make new pages is to make links to them. You can do it on, say, your user page, or a user sub page (User:(WT-en) Brendio/Redirects, say), or on the Project:Graffiti wall. --(WT-en) Evan 17:45, 16 Jan 2006 (EST)
Thanks for the quick reply.(WT-en) Brendio 17:56, 16 Jan 2006 (EST)
Yes. I make new pages (and or Redirects) this way (But note that Evan is more knowledgeable about Wikivoyage than I; my way below may be flawed in same way. --(WT-en) Rogerhc 6 March 2006):
  1. Type into your browser's location bar the URL to the page you want to create, for example: and go to it (You get to a pages that says there is no content on this page yet)
  2. Click the Edit tab on that page and put whatever you like in the page, #REDIRECT[[Pastatown]] for example if you want it to be a redirect, and click Save.

Undo a redirect[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Right now Whidbey Island redirects to North Sound, but there is no reason that Whidbey Island shouldn't have its own article. How does one go about undoing a redirect? --Lumpytrout (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

After follow the redirect, there is a message that says "redirected from xxxx". Just click on the xxxx and then edit the page, remove the redirect, and start an article there. Texugo (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thanks, so simple yet so frustrating. --Lumpytrout (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirects for spelling mistakes?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I noticed that a redirect for Negeria to 'Nigeria' was created, but as far as I can tell this is not an accepted alternative name for Nigeria.

Wikivoyage:How_to_redirect_a_page does not seem to specify misspellings as a reason for redirecting. I understand that very obvious misspellings are sometimes used on WV as redirects.

My question is what/where is the guidance for creating a redirect with a potential wrong spelling? If Negeria is acceptable, would Niigerea also be acceptable? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that looked strange to me, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Not least because the first five letters are the German version of "the n-word"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Time for a Vfd, or should we just speedily delete it without further review? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Deletion was my thought. I hesitated because I couldn't think where the policy around this / previous consensus would be located. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll do a Vfd. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Started. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
There are very good reasons why redirects for misspellings are widely used throughout the Wikimedia projects. First, while the search engine has greatly improved, it still does not always get you to where you want to go if you accidentally change a single letter in a word. Second, redirects are extremely tiny in terms of space, and using them is of no technical or financial concern in practice - especially for small projects like WV. Any action taken on an established redirect (deleting, discussing etc.) costs far more space and time than just leaving it be (which doesn't mean discussing it is in any way problematic, just that it's not useful when anyone is doing so because they are thinking about space). Third, determining the likeliness of a spelling mistake is not straightforward. The English language versions of the projects are used by huge numbers of non-native speakers. The spelling mistakes they make are often connected to their own native language and on their accents when they speak English. I do establish misspelling redirects here too, quite regularly.
Let me give an example. Gorinchem is a city in the Netherlands. That name is often pronounced as Gorkum, especially in the own region, which is now a more or less accepted unofficial but common alternative. That should get a redirect. Even those, however, who do not say Gorkum, will say Gorichem - without the "N". My uneducated guess would be that at least 5% of Dutch people would misspell it - but it could be 4 times as many too. It's simply a spelling mistake based on local pronunciation - but as an English speaker just looking at the article, leaving a letter out may seem as unlikely as typing one double. If you put Gorichem in our search engine however, you get nothing. I would therefore urge reluctance to speedy deleting redirects, and googling to determine likeliness of the mistake. It can also help to have a look at the statistics of the (often already existing) redirect on the English Wikipedia. Looking at the stats for "Negeria" there, it seems that page gets about 35 hits per month.. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Redirects are cheap If we have a lot of them which serve some conceivable function, then there's no harm in keeping them around. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe "Negeria" is a very common mistake made by speakers of language X? Maybe a high-traffic twitter account did a typo when linking to Wikivoyage, and the redirect is the only way to get that traffic? Redirects are very cheap, deleting them is mostly a waste of time and can actually be counter-productive. Cheers! Syced (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for real places with no content[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I'd like to get some of your thoughts about another redirect question. We have the established policy that "we don't delete real places", which means that skeletons with (almost) no content often get redirected to the "nearest town with an article". For tiny towns that are real, but probably don't warrant an article of their own and have a neighbouring town with an article; that's fine. In practice however, it sometimes also means we redirect skeletons on mid-sized towns that could be developed into articles, to towns not all that close and (more importantly), to articles that have no actual information on the redirected destination. I wonder if we should re-evaluate that practice. I wonder, if it's not a disservice to our users when we send them to an article with no information about the destination they searched for. I also wonder, if it might discourage actually creating that article, as such redirects are a bit confusing to new editors. What do you think? JuliasTravels (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Nearby towns If I were traveling to one town and got a redirect to a different town that I wasn't traveling to, that would probably not help me but if I were redirected to a larger subdivision that includes the town where I am traveling, then I think that would be useful. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
If there is an article for an actual city/town without content, leaving it alone is probably the best option, especially if you don't know the town/area (although a lot of people who claim to know areas can still be biased in saying that a place has "nothing" in it). I definitely don't want to fall into the pitfalls that many Wikipedia redirects have, which are as you say; linked to unrelated articles with no information about the redirect topic. It's annoying and frustrating to the user (in our case the traveler). I think in general, leaving outlines and stubs is often the best solution. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I made the point elsewhere that if a traveler sees an empty article for Town X then they will assume WV has nothing to say about the destination and reflects poorly on Wikivoyage as a whole. If we redirect to the nearest town or region above, then at least we can present some relevant content that they could use on their travel to that destination. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Paper guides often mention some place and then only use a few lines to describe it. We are of course not paper, but there are legitimately places about which we could say something but not enough for a whole article... I always thought that's what the "go next" section was for... Of course the value judgment which type of place belongs in which category is a hard one, especially as we are a wiki and not one company with a deadline by which the printing press has to be fed... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with JuliasTravels on this. I hear what Andrewssi2 says that empty articles look like WV has nothing to say, and maybe it does reflect poorly (OTOH, it’s a wiki so I’m not expecting a complete guide to everything — it’s the nature of a wiki). I’m just not sure how redirecting a destination really helps in most cases — my experience (like JuliasTravels) is the redirected destination usually doesn’t have content on the original destination either. So, redirect or skeleton, it becomes obvious WV has nothing to say on the topic. Our bigger problem is lack of content, and I think we’re more likely to get additional content by leaving empty (or nearly empty) guides alone. It seems more intuitive that content relating to City X goes in an article for City X as opposed to City Y, the closest place with an article. If it’s obvious the destination is a speck in the wall that won’t support an article, a redirect to the “nearest town with an article” seems reasonable. But if there’s any doubt, I think we should let the article be.
@ Hobbitschuster - I find the Nearby section handy in those situations — see the description in the city article template. -Shaundd (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I think I agree with this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
My core concern is around quality and manageability. It does seem that there is a pattern for anonymous users to create a skeleton destination and then either take a modicum of information from Wikipedia to fill it (without attribution) or abandon it completely. Given that there are hundreds of thousands of potential destinations in the world, would a bulk creation of skeleton articles be acceptable to this community?
If that is the direction that Wikivoyage by consensus wants to go then I won't try and hold it back. I would just ask that at the very least the 'Can you sleep there?' test remains. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh sure - I'm not necessarily suggesting we should keep completely empty skeletons - just that redirecting is not always a good idea. The discussion that arose on the vfd page is that we should somehow tag new empty skeletons, in order to allow creators (and other interested users) some time to work on them before they get redirected. If we want to discourage creation of such articles but do not want to merge, we can also agree to delete them. It's easy enough for any user to spend 10 minutes to add some info, which would mean the article would just stay. Again, this would not apply to destinations that don't meet our article criteria to start with. If we do redirect, we should make sure that there is some mention of the redirected article. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Andrewssi2: Bulk creation of skeleton articles is not acceptable. I believe that's the one case in which we do actually delete real places, specifically to discourage bulk creation. At least with individual creation, we know someone, somewhere thought a place was worthy of an article. Powers (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I actually believe it is better to redirect to the superior-level region than a "nearby town". A nearby town is a different location, if I want to go to Dusseldorf, a guide to Cologne won't be of much help. If there is any information on the location worth keeping but not enough to warrant an article, I'd move it to said superior region, perhaps leave a redlink for somebody to come round and develop it into a guide.
I am not in favour of leaving skeletons just in case somebody edits them, because often such edits are nominal, and still leave the skeleton in skeletal state. Either there is enough information and passion about the destination for at least an outline guide, or it is simply an inhabited place, however large, of little touristic interest, of which there are many. I would rather have a nicely-rounded guide to a region which, following examples of print guides, briefly describe some minor locations in the regional article, than a laundry list of near-empty shells that is only more difficult and frustrating to navigate. What we face is also often a whole hierarchy of content-less articles created in the misguided conviction that somehow it is helping the traveller to mention every destination and create more regional levels. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

(indent) That is anti-wiki, PrinceGloria. There are many articles about places with tons of great attractions that are still redlinks in our guides (or without mention/links at all), so using how long an article has been sitting without editing as an indicator of whether or not it should exist is dangerous. It seems you're suggesting we should only accept articles that are at usable or higher and redirect everything else, but that's not the Wiki way and that would make WV quite an awful guide. I understand what you're saying about mass creation of contentless articles, but those should be deleted as Powers stated. Redirecting real places should be avoided whenever possible, because the redirects are essentially a way to ensure that a destination will never get an article or content added about it, and that's not something we should take lightly. I know a lot of people who swear that certain destinations have "nothing to do" and I've managed to find enough there for at least a good daytrip, and many of our editors have not even been to the country in which the location they're judging is located, let alone visiting the city personally. The shortcomings of our guides are the fault of ourselves more than the destinations. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I completely accept that with a certain 'one horse town' some people will find nothing to do and some will in fact find lots of interesting things. With the example of Japan I would suggest that not every village with a place to sleep need be created, but could redirect to a rural district (gun) instead. That Rural district would contain a good deal of interesting information relating to a collection of villages and I believe that would serve the traveler better. If a village had enough for a standalone article then it could change from a redirect to a full article. (I do something similar in South Korea where an article on a rural County makes more sense than 5 fairly empty articles for 5 settlements) Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I think we all agree but have different destinations in mind based on our experience and editing patterns. I also agree with Andrew, after crossing a certain threshold of relevance using a sort of destination-region might make more sense than awarding every administratively or nominally separate location with often a single POI an article just out of reverence. I would rather have a region rife for breaking up into individual articles as it bursts with content eventually than a multilevel empty skeleton which is hard to navigate for the traveller - which is the way print guides deal with it as well. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
That is assuming that people will add all of those towns' details and sites into the region article, but editors don't seem to do that in practice. Actually, doing that can feel as if one is going against policy, since we do generally tag content that is city-specific to be moved out of regional articles. While I agree that navigation is difficult with too many useless links (especially if an equally useless hierarchy article has been created to contain them), but it's equally frustrating for the traveler to be redirected. For the purposes of being comprehensive, I actually think merging from a town article to a larger article is better than creating a redirect first and expecting people to actually put all of the same type of information there. It especially makes the region article awkward to have listings for just one town while having actual links to destinations that we feel can support articles. Perhaps this is the real problem; we have guidelines for this but the results are not as clear or even as welcomed in practice as they are stated. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
There are ways to edit "listing-type" entries into regional articles without running into awkwardness, and in general what I was thinking about were regions rife with one-liner articles created in the misguided belief that this is actually helping the traveller, which can now be absorbed back into the region, as per Andrew's concept above. I've actually done this for a few regions and I think it worked well. PrinceGloria (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I’m not sure what’s being discussed here. If it’s the creation of rural area type of articles that cover a number of small communities and it sits at the bottom of our hierarchy (which is what I think Andrewssi2 and ChubbyWimbus are saying), I think that’s a often a good idea. If we’re talking about taking an existing region and allowing listings in the See, Do, Eat, etc. sections for places we consider too small for an article, my initial reaction is I don’t like it. I have a few concerns but my main one is I think it’s confusing and could lead to more work. I think causal readers and contributors will struggle to understand why some regions have listings and some don’t. I think they will also struggle to understand why, in a region that has listings, listings for some cities are at the region level and other listings are pushed down. Where I’m going is I think the inclusion of listings in a region could result in the region article holding listings from all destinations within the region (even those that already have their own article) and thus more maintenance work. Depending on what other content is in the See, Do, Eat sections, I think it could also give the impression the primary attractions of the region are those small community listings, which is probably not the case. As I said at the start, I'm not sure what exactly is being proposed so I could be misunderstanding this all. PrinceGloria, if you have examples of where you’ve done this, it would be interesting to see them. -Shaundd (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anything is being proposed as such, just an approach that can be taken to create a workable hierarchy structure for places where it makes sense. In East Asia it is common for authorities to create a 'town' which is actually a collection of small settlements, so that villages A, B and C would identify themselves as being part of a rural district that is often translated and described as a town, even though it contains a great deal of rural area between each village. This works well for Wikivoyage when each village wouldn't make a substantial article by itself.
At the other end of the scale, China actually declares very large areas of countryside containing a few towns as a 'city'. So that aspect doesn't work for Wikivoyage so much.
In my current Australia articles it is a different case again. A small settlement can be over 100km from the nearest other settlement. In this case redirecting to a 'district' also doesn't work. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, this discussion went into several directions. My original question was regarding new skeleton articles about places that would deserve an article. Let's forget about the (allegedly) "speck in the wall" articles, as that's a different discussion, and focus on skeleton articles for towns that are interesting enough to have an article (in the future).
A recent example is Newport_(Shropshire). This was created as an empty skeleton, and therefore put on the vfd list. Technically, our current policy states that we do not delete real places, but we also do not like empty skeletons. If I had not expanded the article, it would have been redirected. I was trying to say that this seems like a bad idea. I understand Andrewssi's concerns about Wikivoyage obviously lacking then, but I still believe redirecting does not help the traveller - and therefore becomes even less usable. My suggestion would be that in these cases we either:
  1. Expand a bit so the article can stay
  2. Leave the skeleton
  3. Delete
An alternative option (but completely outside our usual ways) would be some kind of template/message that would say:
Unfortunately, we have no article for Newport (Shropshire) yet

Perhaps you are interested in these related articles:

  • Nearby city
  • Other nearby city
  • Region
Do you know Newport (Shropshire)? Please plunge forward and [[click here to create an article for this destination]].
But I know that would be something completely different :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
"we also do not like empty skeletons": If I may, where did you get this idea? We have an entire article status category for "empty skeletons", also known as outlines. Powers (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I echo LtPowers' feelings. We have never been anti-outline. I don't know why Newport (Shropshire) was nominated for vfd but it shouldn't have been. "An outline was created without content" is not a valid vfd OR redirect reason. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'd agree. In practice, however, redirects have been regularly created for places that could have their own article - and for years already. It seems to me that they are used too easily, and my impression is that this happens because some of us dislike creating or leaving skeletons for these places. I might be wrong about the motivation, though. Look at a place like Aliabad (which on WP is a disambiguation page with dozens of villages, or Azamgarh (population >110.000), or Acarigua (>200.000). Quite a few redirects are created as new articles, for places with arguably plenty of tourist interest (recently, e.g. Cluses, Oberstdorf, which are winter sports destinations with plenty of places to eat and sleep). So it's not just about vfd nominations, but about redirects for potential articles in general. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I, for one, hate skeletons in that I hate "placeholders" being created for real places, but with no content. Either leave it, or provide some useful content - at least a proper outline please. I actually do use WV for my travel planning and find it infurating to have to go through a number of articles to see what's interesting in the region I travel to and find that there is no info in them. I mostly travel within Europe, and we've got it well covered for the most part, so I look for articles to know which places on the map are really worth visiting. Browsing through articles created just because a municipality exists, with no info on whether it has anything worth vistiing or not, is nothing but a waste of (traveller's) time.
As for being "antiwiki" in that it does not encourage content creation, I explained someplace else that we have a different content-creation pattern than originally assumed - we have a relatively small group of ardent editors, who tend to focus on a place or region and put a lot of content in within relatively short bursts. Very few articles were majorly created by accruing one-liners from a wide group of users - most owe large parts to individual users, and only some major ones see edits from truly diverse groups. In other words, the existence or not of a "stub" will not stop or deter a WV editor from creating a proper guide when they feel like it, but otherwise, the existence of a stub rarely translates into random content being added as time goes by. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree in large parts with what User:PrinceGloria said regarding empty skeletons. Though (some) travel topics seem to have bucked the trend of only a few editors contributing to them... Another problem is that travel content ages infinitely worse than many other things a wiki can be written about. The way sugarcane is made into sugar may not change much over time, but the places you can go for to get a good rum in Estelí certainly do. Hence a hypothetical travel guide that accrued (most of) its content incrementally will (at least partially) be outdated at any given time. In the worst case to the point of unusability. We might of course in some pie in the sky future have a large enough editor base to rely on articles like Metz being updated by just as many people and just as regularly as USA currently is, but given the apparent trend of wikis to somehow become less used and edited and the fact that our google search penalty seems to still not be going anywhere more than a couple of years into the fork, I guess we have to find something that works with a userbase the size of ours and is able to convert some random passersby who were maybe referred here by a friend into casual or even frequent contributors... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain you guys are underestimating how many people come in just to add a favorite event or restaurant to an article. If we have the outline already in place, it makes it much more likely that a person will do that. If the name of his or her city just redirects someplace else, he or she isn't likely to go to the trouble of figuring out how to change it into an article. Powers (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd support everything PrinceGloria said. I understand that we are trying to be open and inclusive to all new editors, and that is something we obviously should continue to do, whether they just add a hotel listing or spend significant time trying to create a Guide level article. On the other hand we are creating a travel guide, with the aim of creating quality content and that actually helps real people doing real travel and with it "the traveler comes first". Great that new people are contributing, but that doesn't override our core mission.
What I would like to see is a compromise approach that allows us to keep a handle on structure and quality content, whilst still valuing the contributions of new users. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
PrinceGloria, you said above "Either leave it, or provide some useful content - at least a proper outline please" -- I'm curious, what is a "proper outline"? -Shaundd (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

<indent reset>User:LtPowers, I don't think I do. I have hundreds of pages in my watchlist, and I truly do try to watch every change made. Quite a lot of this hundred are actually very minor destination articles. Very rarely does anybody add anything to those that is just a one-liner on a restaurant. Most of the one-liners I see go to large destinations. Moreover, when there are edits about obscure destinations, they often actually do go to regional articles or articles on neighbouring destinations and I am sometimes able to make some useful content or even a new guide out of it, I believe I was even prompted to create a whole city guide once by that (don't ask me to recall what city that was now tho...)
User:Shaundd - Wikivoyage:City guide status says "some of the sections (...) may have content", and I tend to read it as "more than one should have some content" or "it is OK for some sections to NOT have content" (e.g. no "drink" options or no info on getting around). What I am speaking of here are clear stubs like "XXX is a hamlet in YYY" and, in best cases, a one-liner in a section (not necessarily a listing even, it often is stuff like "XXX is popular for skiing", "There are mountains nearby" or "Bus 123 stops there" and that's it). PrinceGloria (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm no fan of near-empty outlines either, but your interpretation is just that; it's not a representation of policy or practice. The full paragraph you quoted reads: Has at least the normal introductory paragraph (this can be as short as a single sentence describing where it is located) and a template outline laid out for the article. That seems pretty clear to me. An article with basic information on the most prominent attractions, how to get there and where to eat and sleep is not a "proper outline": it's already usable. I do share your doubt about the edits; I'm not convinced outlines necessarily stimulate edits either. Getting back to the core of the discussion though, there's just no basis in policy to redirect a city like Acarigua (just as an example) to a region. Those who dislike the empty outline that it was should expand the article, *or* gain consensus to delete it back to a red link. The discussion about redirects is not about choosing between editors and travellers either. A red link seems to benefit both more than a redirect to a region would. If the region at least mentions the destination (as a red link), it will automatically pop up in the search results. Deleting it is also not in line with current policy and practice, but I do think one could make a case for it. As for creating new articles as redirects for places that should one day get an article; we just shouldn't do that, imho. It would be better to create a red link with a short description in the parent region. That way it's clear we don't have an article for travellers but the region shows up in the search in case the want to read that, and it's easier for (new) editors to create the article. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Wait a second... I thought there was a policy to "always redirect real places" - does that mean that you want to change that policy or de facto policy? Also, I just recently found redlinks to stuff like Elbtal or Upper Swabia which are just awkward potential (extra)regional subdivisions that we really can't use for anything, can we? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
No, the policy is not that we always redirect real places: the policy is that we do not delete them. For real places where we don't want an article (like tiny hamlets or non-useful extra-hierarchical regions) we should redirect; that's no point of discussion. Non-useful red links should just go away. My concern is that a growing group of editors seems to feel that almost-empty outlines are a bad thing, and as a result have started redirecting places which normally would just get an outline. The only thing I want, is that we do not redirect potentially good articles. That is no change of policy, I think; only a change of some editors' practice. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry I understood you as if you wanted to delete (some of) those tiny hamlets instead of redirecting them. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I will respectfully disagree and say this does in fact appear to be a choice between 'editors and travellers'. I'm always going to argue for presenting the traveller with the most relevant information for their journey first, and the right for anyone to create empty destination articles should always be beneath that.
There is however a lot of latitude how we can achieve that. It will be country based with some tiny destinations (hamlets) being redirected to a district if it makes sense based on how the traveler will experience that country, and in fact no different from redirecting a city district destination to a city if that creates a better experience.
I'm OK to not automatically have redirects for potential (albeit unrealized) destinations if we are still allowed to make the guide as good as it can be, which would include deletion if the empty article is just not helping any traveler. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

(indent) On the subject of the existence of an article garnering edits, I can attest that I myself am more likely to contribute to a created article than to make a new one. Yes, I've made new articles and it's not difficult, but nevertheless I'm much more likely to edit than to create, and I don't think I'm an anomaly. There are many redlink destinations that I know quite well but I've yet to create the articles. Single editors still sometimes flutter in and out of articles that over time do become good, but it took a long time to reach that point. Those edits should not be dismissed simply because the same person made them. I agree that one person typically carries the article, but I disagree that they're usually completed quickly without much time passing. I think people are looking at the final product without looking at how much time it actually took to get there. If a user creates one outline article, it's very unfriendly for us to "start the timer" and tell them if they don't make it a usable article in X days, we'll delete it. The complaints that we don't have a lot of editors cannot be addressed by pushing out new editors by telling them we only accept perfection. That's only going to make us more insular. Do we have any examples of what pages we are talking about being annoying? How many outlines are there in these places? The traveler sometimes has to deal with less-than-stellar articles. That doesn't mean we're not putting the traveler first. If we could see examples of regions with too many of these links it might help. Because right now, we have one article (Newport_(Shropshire)) that was nominated for deletion in spite of being a valid article. It makes the proposal look petty at best and dangerous to growth and development of all articles at worst, but if there are places that somebody has in mind, let's link them and see 1) If a lot of people feel there are too many empty spaces and therefore it's problematic and 2) If it's deemed to be a real issue, how to deal with it. Otherwise, I think we have to accept that WV is a constant work-in-progress which means that there are always going to be some disappointing articles. Redirecting every article that isn't a good read, doesn't have much content, or that we didn't find useful on our trip is against policy and more than a slippery slope. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't want my position to be misrepresented in the manner that appears directly above. No one is proposing 'quality standards' to justify an article's existence. I'm suggesting that if an article has really no useful information (and I mean really nothing, just an outline of sections and something like 'Town X is famous for cats') then deletion after a period of time should be an uncontroversial option. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
So, the proposal is to delete Seki, Iwami and articles like them on the grounds that there is nothing other than an intro? But articles that have almost equally useless info, like Maibara, Nobeoka, Nasushiobara, Zentsuji, Ureshino, Oyano and Ninohe would be safe because there are words in other sections? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a third option here. We could have skeleton-articles, but leave a note on the region page that it's a skeleton article. That way: Readers don't go to the article expecting an actual article with actual content. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, actually. Some might oppose the risk of making our region guides look like works-in-progress due to "outline" tags on its cities. Powers (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Redirects for non-travel related content[edit]

I deleted a few redirects today for general Disney character terms that were pointing at Disney.

The policy page doesn't actually state what should or should not be a redirect. Was I correct in removing Mickey Mouse to redirect to Disney?

Potentially a redirect such as this may improve our SEO. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

In this particular case the user who added them is almost certainly the same user who keeps showing up to create pages and categories about cartoons, so speedy deletion was definitely the right move. In general if someone creates one or two questionable redirects I don't think there is any harm, but in cases where someone is creating a bunch, or if that's their main contribution, then I think getting rid of them should be fine. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Redirects act differently in mainspace vs projectspace[edit]

Following a redirect normally leaves a notice at the top of the target page that the user was redirected. (E.g., if you follow the NYC redirect, you go to New York City, but it includes a "(Redirected from NYC)" notice.) The link in the redirect notice allows you to access the actual redirect page.

However, following a redirect to a page in other namespaces (including Wikivoyage: and User:, possibly others) leaves no redirect message at the top. (E.g., the WV:phone redirect, or User:(WT-en) LtPowers.) This leaves no easy way to access the redirect page (without massaging the URL to include "&redirect=no").

Is this intentional? Or is it a bug?

-- Powers (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

How to remove a redirect?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I'd like to clean up Valencia (region), which is a bit of a mess. Currently Castellón (province) and Valencia (province) both redirect to Costa del Azahar, but this is incorrect as Costa del Azahar should be a bottom-level of Castellón (province) only (and not of Valencia (province)). Alicante (province) currently redirects to Costa Blanca; this is also incorrect as the Costa Blanca should be a bottom-level region of Alicante (province). I can't figure out how to remove the redirects, and would appreciate any suggestions. –StellarD (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

After you get redirected, right up the top of the page above the banner and breadcrumbs you'll see: "(Redirected from ...)". If you click on the the link, it'll take you to the original redirect page which you can edit to remove the redirect :) James Atalk 11:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Redirects from destination's language name to English name[edit]

Are redirects from destination's language name to English name allowed or not? I wanted to create a few such redirects for cases where traveller is likely to be given the destination name in local language, but I found out that such redirect has been deleted in the past (Lednicko-valtický areál). I failed to find an answer to this question, maybe it should be added into this article? Heisy Bordel (talk, contributions) 13:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

A redirect like MontréalMontreal is valid. See Wikivoyage:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Foreign words. K7L (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
What was that redirect to? I wonder why it was deleted. Redirects from local names in Roman letters are fine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
It was redirect from Lednicko-Valtický areál to Lednice-Valtice (the latter has been moved to Lednice-Valtice Cultural Landscape since). Heisy Bordel (talk, contributions) 14:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd love to hear a justification for the deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)