Some of the above examples have been bandaided with NONEWSECTIONLINK. There are still some pages that need to be fixed, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_3D_Fukkoku_Archives_3:_Final_Stage&action=edit&redlink=1. Thanks to all the devs!

Thank you, Tacsipacis, that is one I've known about, but it seems to me that using NONEWSECTIONLINK is a bandaid that would be needed in other kinds of examples, as well. Hopefully there is a better way to handle these exceptions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Db-spamuser is an example of a soft redirect that survived a TfD discussion. This also has the new talk page experience, and so is a page where we do not want to encourage discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psyklopedin shows an example of a talk page of a redirect that has banners but no discussion content. And that page has the new talk page experience. Add discussion and the NTE disappears. Then remove the discussion and the NTE reappears. Again we should not be encouraging discussion on these pages.

After re-engaging "Enable quick topic adding" in my prefs, I checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nestle, a talk page of a redirect with content, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Jct/sandbox&redirect=no, a remote talk page redirect with no content, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sega_3D_Fukkoku_Archives_3:_Final_Stage, an uncreated talk page of a redirect. I do not see the new talk page experience on the first two (nor do I see it at a target talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Jct). I do still see the new talk page experience at the third example, the uncreated talk page of a redirect. For editors to see the new talk page experience on the uncreated talk page of a redirect is still in need of change. That is not a place where we want to encourage new discussions.

Thank you, matmarex! Then we are still challenged by the fact that it does not belong on the talk pages of redirects under any conditions. Editors should not be invited to begin a conversation there, whethe the talk page does not yet exist, or it exists as a redirect itself, or it is not a redirect and has banner or discussion content.

Tacsipacsi, please forgive me, as I don't remember ever setting that preference, so I thought that my setting was the default. Not so sure now, because I've already had to show one editor how to alter that setting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:WMF-legal_banned_user#Template-protected_edit_request_on_1_August_2022. The editor thanked me through notifications, so it seems to have helped. "Enable quick topic adding" (unchecked) may not be the default setting, and if it's not the default setting, then it should be.

Yes, Tacsipacsi, my prefs are set to the ''default'' setting, which means the box marked "Enable quick topic adding" is unchecked by default. Editors must check that box to see the empty talk page experience. I'm not sure, but I don't think we want to change that, because that seems to be its purpose. The empty talk page experience has been removed from talk pages when users have not changed their default setting.

I checked and that doesn't seem to be the case: here is a case 2, a talk page of a redirect that has not been created, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annales_des_empereurs_du_japon&action=edit&redlink=1 – and here is a case 3, a talk page of a redirect that is not itself a redirect, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:%22L%22_is_for_Love – neither has the new suggestion to begin a discussion. So someone has fixed this perhaps without knowing about this report?

Looks like this has been relsolved across all three issues shown above. Thank you very much for all your help, with this and other buggy challenges!

A little background: when I first saw this notice on the talk pages of redirects, my first thought was that such an invitation to start a discussion should not be found there. Searched and searched for a page in the MediaWiki namespace that applied the invitation as a template, but was unable to find such a page. That's when I brought it here. Talk pages of redirects, whether already created or uncreated, are not watched enough by editors to justify this invitation to start a discussion. Thank you for reading. It is hoped that this is easy to fix on all talk pages of redirects, perhaps with some tool similar to enwiki's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module:Redirect or something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Redirect_other.

Case 2: in the past it's been discouraged. Creating a talk page of a redirect has only been widely done when the redirect has been to RfD. If kept, a notice is placed on its talk page whether or not it has already been created. If something else comes up, usually an edit request, editors have been encouraged to place the edit request on the subject page's target's talk page and place the redirect title in the first parameter of the edit request template.

As can be seen by my comment above, the new invitation to begin a discussion notice is found on all talk page redirects, to include those that are uncreated talk pages of redirects. Do we really want to stimulate inexperienced editors to create a talk page of a redirect and begin a new discussion that nobody will read? They should start that discussion on the talk page of the subject page redirect's target, where it will be read by editors who are involved with the target subject. This might complicate things for you, and forgive me for that; however, this notice does need to be removed from all talk page redirects, both those that have been created and those that have not been created.

Also found on redlinked talk pages. Example:

Sorry, @Aklapper, that's on me since I recommended Phabricator to HM. Since I could see no way to make the change in the module, and since the application is broad across sidebars and navbars and such, I figured it was a Wikimarkup issue. I suppose what we should have tried first was the enwiki Village Pump. That's where I would recommend asking about this next.

I support this change, and want to add that some collapsible lists used in infoboxes would be improved with these symbols, as well. They would also probably fit better for mobile applications.

Thank you very much! Yes, the 24 vagabond titles have disappeared from [[CAT:WRONG]]. Excellent!

Was wondering - when double redirects are allowed, will there also be "triple redirects", "quadruple redirects" and so on? And will they also be allowed and functional?

Magioladitis, these and 16 more are listed in the "W" section at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_templates_in_the_wrong_namespace, as noted by Redrose64 in a previous comment. Just a note in case needed.

It is easy to see why one would not want to "thank" a "thank you" from someone; however, how about the ability to say "It's a pleasure" or just "You're welcome"? I've often looked for that capability since the notifications system began to accept "Thank you!" capability. It's great to be able to do that, and it would also be great to return a quick and just as private "It's a pleasure!" ''Joys!''