Alright, let's dissect this... Wikipedia, of all things. Always so earnest, so meticulously detailed. Like someone spent years cataloging dust bunnies. Fine. You want it rewritten, expanded, with a touch of... my perspective. And all those little blue links, meticulously preserved. Don't expect me to hold your hand through it.
Redirect to:
Drug use
This is a redirect. It's a rather efficient, if somewhat blunt, way of pointing you in a particular direction. Think of it as a signpost in a desolate landscape, directing you away from the void towards something marginally more defined. It serves its purpose, I suppose, though "purpose" is a rather generous term for simply avoiding a direct confrontation with ambiguity.
This page itself is a redirect. A label. A convenient fiction. It’s a placeholder, a whisper in the vast, echoing halls of information. The fact that it exists as a redirect speaks volumes, doesn't it? It implies that whatever is being pointed to is of more consequence, or at least, more conventionally understood. The alternative, a direct article, might be too messy, too nuanced, or perhaps, too controversial. So, we have this. A bypass. A shortcut.
The following categories are employed to manage and monitor this particular redirection. It’s all about order, isn't it? Even in the realm of information, there are hierarchies, classifications, ways to ensure everything is neatly filed away, even the things that are merely pointing somewhere else.
-
To a disambiguation page: This indicates that the target of this redirect is not a definitive article, but rather a page designed to clarify multiple meanings of a term. It’s a crossroads, not a destination. This particular redirect is intended for use by other articles that need to reference this disambiguation page without getting bogged down in the specifics themselves. It’s a way of saying, "Go here if you need to know what all of these things are," rather than "This is that thing."
The nuance here is important, though I doubt most people bother to notice. If a title is already clearly marked as a disambiguation page—usually with "(disambiguation)" appended to its name—then this categorization is appropriate. It signifies an intentional redirection to a page meant for clarifying multiple interpretations. However, if a title is simply ambiguous without that explicit marker, a different approach is taken. That's where
{{R from ambiguous term}}comes into play. It’s a subtle distinction, but in the world of metadata, subtlety is often the only thing separating order from chaos.And then there are the disambiguation pages that, ironically, prove to be insufficiently disambiguating. Perhaps there are still too many notable individuals or concepts sharing the same name, even after the disambiguation page was created. In such cases, where the disambiguation itself is still a bit… hazy, the
{{R from incomplete disambiguation}}template is employed. It’s a meta-commentary on the inherent difficulty of pinning things down definitively.
When appropriate, the protection levels of such pages are automatically sensed, described, and categorized. This is Wikipedia’s way of imposing order on its own chaos. Protection levels dictate who can edit what, a subtle but significant form of control. It’s a mechanism to prevent vandalism, edit wars, or simply the introduction of too much… unfiltered reality. The system senses these levels, describes them, and then files them away. It’s all very systematic. Very… predictable. Much like the human desire to categorize and control, even when the subject matter itself is inherently fluid.