Anyway -- Would it be possible for people who somehow think this is a good idea to get consensus for these disimprovements to be made before they are actually rolled out?

In T395681#10872746, @Izno wrote:

This is just another case of T9356: User-specified HTML IDs can be the same as interface IDs.

Might a way to fix this to be to include a "redirected from message" heading next to each heading, but hidden by CSS unless the heading matches the redirect's section link?

I know the feeling. 👴

My apologies. I now realise you were being vague because you didn't understand. The code that offends you is this:

What you think of as "weird behavior" is a feature that a Wiktionary editor has deliberately implemented on Wiktionary. Presumably that editor thinks it's a benefit to the "general public." But, they must abide by consensus on Wiktionary, so the place to comment on that is Wiktionary, not here.

@Jidanni -- if you don't like it try this:

What does "Create new Objects at all" even mean?

It's a JavaScript script in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Common.js

There's nothing to help at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Auto-redirect

I think this is an intended feature, not a bug.

Right now something is suggesting it, but there's no automatic redirection:

There is https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:PersistUseskin

If you need proof:

I've realised that the problem with this is that the tabs use the links like

You'd have to designate it a special_talk namespace in localsettings.php, with its own namespace number. Pick one that doesn't clash. And submit to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/178/

The original bug report was OK, but a little vague. You need to give explicit idiot-proof step-by-step instructions to replicate the issue.

I'm not sure whether I understand the bug report here. It needs to be more than one sentence:

It's not only from the VisualEditor, but also from the talk page, proper editing page, and page history. There's also a similar problem with page information.

It would make sense if the edit was checked for everything else that can (and does) go wrong at the same time as well.

@aude -- the example that you've used is not great -- it would be better as a line chart, due to the nature of the data (I think it's one chemical reaction that has a series of measurements over time). You might want to use a better example in any testing or documentation. Something like body size v brain size would work: