Talk:Redirect

		This article was nominated for deletion on July 14, 2015. The result of the discussion was Kept.

Gah. I was trying to make an infinite loop. I wonder if there's a way to do this...-Phantasmagoric 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There is not, and you are ill-advised to even try. MediaWiki is smrter than that. ^_^ —The Right Honourable Major Sir Hinoa KUN UmP UotM Bur MDA NS CM (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was made to look like an infinite loop before, but some admins with no sense of humor deleted it... GSPbeetle ^{complains Vandalisms} 09:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify something, i did not mean they dont understand unamerica's humo(u)r, i mean inside jokes here... GSPbeetle ^{complains Vandalisms} 13:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ummm can someone change the size of all the text... I got lazy and didn't work out how RingerINC 10:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you make things redirect... please excuse my ignorance Brumblebee 13:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Type #REDIRECT:[[The page you want to redirect to]]—Braydie at 13:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was looking for. 84.171.109.57 00:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should redirect the article to this thing Capercorn 00:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Need protection?

Uh oh, I see some edit warring over the obvious. What do we do now? Pentium5dot1 06:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignore this comment. Whatever I was talking about is no longer a problem. Pentium5dot1 01:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect roller coaster

We should create one. I have a prototype at User:Qzekrom/redirect1. If you ever get bored, just keep clickin'! -- Cute Zekrom! _{Use Fusion Bolt NOW!! • It's super effective!03:11 10 Mar '12}

Pee Review

Here is the review that ChiefjusticeDS has made about the article. Anton (talk) 05:38, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Humour:	4	Hello, I've not done a review for you before so before I get going I'll establish some details that will help you digest the feedback found below. First of all don't be disheartened by any low scores, the review process here is not intended as a rubber stamp for articles on their way to the front page but rather as a means for improvement. Secondly you are welcome to disagree; if I tell you that something isn't working you should take it as my opinion, I must confess to being utterly baffled by Family Guy, but there are others who find it hilarious, the same principle applies here. Finally, I'm on your side with this, I would be overjoyed if this article were gracing the front page of the wiki next week, I'm happy to work with you to achieve that if it is your aim. The humour in your article isn't bad, you have a reasonable idea of what you want to do with it and it has the beginnings of excellence in places. The problem here lies with your execution, I leave the article with the impression that there is a lot of humour here that I missed and, unfortunately, people rarely read back if this is the impression they have on finishing the article. The main section where this seems to be a problem for you is the section on Web redirects, you start speaking about wikipedia and the endless redirects that the wiki has but then you verge off into discussing how the UN has attempted to close wikipedia down because of this. For me the part about the UN not only comes out of nowhere but seems an utterly unnecessary addition. The joke that wikipedia is mostly that redirects and would benefit from further development and you can use this space to do it. You have to remember that humour in this style is best when it has a basis in fact, it is better to say "Darth Vader is a Sith Lord with a penchant for filicide and shiny black ambiguously homosexual boots" rather than "Darth Vader was a highway patrol man working in southern California who used to moonlight at a gentleman's club to pay for the Death Star". The first one is better, in my opinion at least, because it uses the reality as a basis instead of simply making something up. Try to remember the reasons people will be reading your article; for a humorous look at a very common wiki function, always bear this in mind. My suggestion would be that you have a go a re-writing this section with the emphasis back on wikipedia and the internet itself. The second thing that struck me was that in places the jokes are very sparse, such as at the start of the Web redirects, and in others, like the speech redirects section, there are so many that the impact of each is minimised and the section is quite difficult to read. This is a very easy trap to fall into when you are writing and you have a lot that you want to say in parts and don't have much to say in others. I will not talk at length about rectifying this, all I would suggest is that you look at rewriting these sections, decide what jokes you want to make and where, and ensure that it makes sense when you read it back. My final point for now is that this article does seem to be a bit of a one trick show and repeatedly states in different sections that a redirect is simply that, it directs you somewhere else. I would suggest that you try to explore this idea a bit more, you have an image that makes a joke about what happens when people are redirected and then later you have another image detailing the consequences of redirecting incorrectly, you can make a great deal more of this and I would encourage you to do this. For instance you could say something like "A young innocent child could visit Wikipedia and search for the Roman numeral LXIX and instead be directed to the admittedly much more interesting Cunnilingus article resulting in an appallingly informative school report". That is something I have come up with in a couple of seconds, devote some real thought into something you can do with this. There is definite potential for the humour in this article, but it needs to be tidied up and developed effectively to realise this.
Concept:	5	The concept for the article is simple and is something I've seen attempted in a lot of different forms during my time on the wiki. The style you have chosen is good and the encyclopaedic tone fits nicely. The use of the multiple redirects at the top of the page is a nice touch. I've already mentioned a lot of points to do with the concept and don't intend to repeat this. My only suggestion is that if you are struggling to make the article work consider thinking about a different way to make the article work, similar to the style of Tropical cyclone. I'm not suggesting that you have the entire page disappear, but it is something to consider to compliment what you have already done.
Prose and formatting:	7	Your prose is generally fine I will, as always, recommend that you proofread this carefully to make sure that there are no lingering errors in the spelling and grammar. From my initial reading I could not see that many, but make sure you proofread carefully after any major revisions. In terms of formatting you should look to ensure that there is some space between all your images so it does not look as though they are all stacked on top of each other, follow the example of some of our featured articles to get an idea of what I mean.
Images:	5	The images are something of a disappointment to me, not because they are poor quality or badly chosen, but because you only link one back to the text. Images should always compliment the text of your article, capping a joke you have already made or linking back to what you are talking about, they should rarely if ever, simply stand alone. Look to make use of the captions to link a bit more closely to the article. Consider an article like Dragon Warrior there are no captions, yet the images are as much a part of the narrative as the prose, don't look to directly replicate the execution, but look at the end result, consider how it is done and you will have this sorted.
Miscellaneous:	6	My overall grade of the article.
Final Score:	27	This is a promising start and I would urge you to continue to work at it. As I said at the start, do not be disheartened by criticism, you have the makings of brilliance here and all it will take is some more work to achieve that. I would suggest that you start by reading through the article and identifying what you feel are its weakest apects, then look to see what you can change about those bits. Read our featured articles, see how others have written articles on similar topics and apply this to your own work. If you have any questions or comments about this review then by all means let me know on my talk page. Good luck making any changes.
Reviewer:	--ChiefjusticeXBox 19:20, June 11, 2013 (UTC)