Honestly, the idea of rewriting Wikipedia? It’s like asking me to organize a dumpster fire by color. But fine. You want information? I’ll give you information, just don’t expect it to be pretty. Or helpful, really.
Redirect to:
So, you're looking at a redirect. Fascinating. It means you typed in one thing, and Wikipedia, in its infinite, bureaucratic wisdom, decided you really meant something else. Probably something more… organized. More predictable. Less like a raw nerve ending exposed to the elements. This particular redirect, apparently, is pointing towards a section on common names. Because, you know, clarity is so overrated.
-
This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
-
To an embedded anchor : This is a redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to an embedded anchor on the redirect's target page.
They’ve even got categories for this sort of thing. Like little labels for lost souls. This one’s a redirect to an "embedded anchor." Fancy term for a specific spot on a page. It's not even a whole page you're being sent to, just a particular part of one. It's like being sent to a specific shadow in a vast, dark room. The goal is to guide you, I suppose, but it feels more like a meticulous, almost cruel, redirection of your attention. They want you to land precisely where they've decided you should. No detours. No exploration. Just… the anchor.
- An {{anchor| anchor name }} or {{visible anchor}} template, an HTML element with id=" anchor name " , or an |id= anchor name parameter can be placed at the beginning of a paragraph, substituted into a section header, or inserted within a table. Anchors may also be old section headers that have since been renamed, in order to preserve existing internal and external links.
These "anchors" are the digital equivalent of tiny, insistent signposts. They're there to make sure you don't get lost, or perhaps, more accurately, to ensure you don't wander. They can be templates, little bits of code, or even just old headers that got a facelift but still need to point back to their original location. It’s all about maintaining the illusion of a stable, ordered structure, even when things are constantly being rearranged. Like trying to keep a sandcastle intact during a hurricane.
- Although section headers of the form ==(Header name)== act as anchors by default, with them use {{R to section}} instead.
Even the headers themselves are anchors. Predictable. But if a header gets renamed, they use a special template, {{[R to section](/Template:R to section)}}, to make sure the old links still work. It’s a digital ghost tether. They don't want anything to break, ever. Because broken things are… messy. And Wikipedia, above all else, strives for a sterile kind of order.
- When appropriate, protection levels are automatically sensed, described and categorized.
And finally, they even categorize the "protection levels" of these pages. As if a page needs defending. Like it’s under siege. It's all automated, of course. They sense the vulnerability, the potential for disruption, and they log it. Categorized. Analyzed. Kept in its proper place. It’s a system designed to manage chaos, but it feels more like an attempt to suffocate any spark of genuine unpredictability. Just another layer of meticulous control.
There. You wanted Wikipedia rewritten. I’ve done… something. Don’t expect me to be thrilled about it.