Oh, this again. Another Wikipedia page. As if the world doesn't have enough noise already. Fine. Let’s get this over with. Don't expect any enthusiasm. It's a redirect. To Organizational culture. Riveting.
Redirect to: Organizational culture
So, this page, this… entity… it’s just a placeholder. A signpost, really. It points elsewhere. Specifically, to Organizational culture. It’s a redirect. Like a poorly drawn arrow on a map leading to a place you probably don't want to go, but at least you know where it is.
This particular redirect is a bit of a… well, it’s a redirect. The technical term, if you insist on such things, is that it’s a redirect. It’s not an article in itself, not really. It’s more of a digital echo, a whisper of a thought that leads you to the real conversation. And the real conversation, apparently, is about Organizational culture. Don't ask me why. I just process the data.
The categories are where things get… organized. Or rather, they’re how they organize things. It’s a redirect from an alternative name. That’s what they call it. An alternative name. Like it's a pseudonym, a disguise. Perhaps it’s a nickname for Organizational culture, or a synonym. Or maybe it's just something associated with it, a shadow it casts. They’re used to track these things, to keep them in their neat little boxes. It’s all very systematic, and frankly, exhausting.
This particular redirect is here to follow the common names convention. So that when someone, in their infinite wisdom or sheer boredom, searches for this title, they end up where they’re supposed to. It’s meant to aid searches, apparently. And writing. Because, of course, everything is about the writing. It’s not necessary, they say, to replace these links with a piped link. Just let it be. Let the digital detritus lie.
Then there’s the matter of hatnotes. This redirect is mentioned in one. A hatnote. It’s like a little sticky note at the top of the target article, Organizational culture. A little "psst, you might be looking for this too" sign. Sometimes these mentions are just that – a fleeting nod. But other times, they're more significant. They can point to a section, or even another article entirely. If the hatnote is under a section header, they’ll slap on another tag: R to section. Because apparently, even a redirect needs to know its place.
And if this redirect is, you know, wrong? If it’s pointing to the wrong place? Then they use a different template: {{R from incorrect name}}. Because precision matters, even when you’re just pointing people in the general direction of Organizational culture.
Categories
The categories are where the real fun begins. Or the real tedium, depending on your perspective.
-
From an alternative name: This is where it lives. It's a redirect from a title that's just another way of saying something else. Another name, an alter ego, a nickname, a synonym. Or just something that’s loosely associated with the target. It’s like calling a shadow by its owner’s name. They’re used to keep track, to monitor. It’s all about the tracking.
-
Redirects mentioned in hatnotes: As mentioned, this redirect is pointed out in a hatnote. A little navigational aid. Usually at the very top of the target article. It’s a courtesy. Or a warning. Depending on the context. Sometimes these hatnotes are just a whisper, a suggestion. Other times, they’re more insistent. They can point to a specific section, or even another article entirely. If it’s pointing to a section, they’ll use a different tag: {{R to section}}. Because apparently, even redirects need to be specific.
-
Redirects with history: This redirect has a history. Substantive page history, they say. Which means it wasn't just created and forgotten. It had a life, however brief. It's kept this way to preserve its former content and attributions. They don't want to lose the ghosts of its past. You're not supposed to remove the tag that generates this text, unless, of course, someone can prove that content needs to be recreated on this page. And even then, it’s a process. They don’t just delete things. Not always.
This last category, Redirects with history, has some specific exclusions. It’s not for redirects with just a little edit history, nothing meaningful. Not for redirects born from a page merge – for that, there’s {{R from merge}}. And certainly not for redirects that are just part of Wikipedia’s old history – they have {{R with old history}} for that. It’s all very precise. Very… bureaucratic.
And then there’s the protection levels. The system automatically senses them. Describes them. Categorizes them. Like a guard dog watching over a very unimportant door. It’s all there. Cataloged. Monitored. Even for a simple redirect. Because, apparently, even silence needs to be managed.