Below is a list of basic checks that new page patrollers should perform on each page patrol involving redirects.
- Does the redirect qualify for any CSDs? Consider using WP:TWINKLE to assist.
- R2 - Inappropriate cross-namespace redirects
- R3 - Recently created implausible typos
- R4 - File namespace redirects with names that match Wikimedia Commons pages
- G1 - Patent nonsense
- G3 - Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes
- G4 - Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion
- G5 - Creations by blocked or banned users
- G6 - Technical deletions
- G8 - Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page
- G10 - Pages that disaparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose
- G11 - Unambiguous advertising or promotion
- Does the redirect violate WP:R#DELETE? If so, you may need to nominate it via the WP:RFD process. Consider using WP:TWINKLE to assist. For redirects concerning subjects you are unfamiliar with, at a minimum conduct an internal Wikipedia search and an internet search for the term to look for possible explanations or sources of confusion.
- The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.
- The redirect might cause confusion.
- The redirect is offensive or abusive (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.)
- The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
- The redirect makes no sense. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
- It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace.
- If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name
- If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. (Speedy deletion criterion G6 may apply.)
- If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
- Does the redirect need a redirect template? Consider using WP:TWINKLE or WP:CAPRICORN to assist. Here are some of the most used
- {{R from move}}
- {{R from modification}}
- {{R to diacritic}}
- {{R from title without diacritics}}
- {{R from other capitalisation}}
- {{R to section}}
- {{R to disambiguation page}}
- {{R from alternative name}}
- {{R from sort name}}
- {{R from alternative scientific name}}
- {{R from alternative spelling}}
- {{R to scientific name}}
- etc.
If you find an unpatrolled redirect that is at RFD, or you send a redirect to RFD, mark it as reviewed.
Is somebody creating a lot of redirects, and you are finding zero problems with them? Consider posting an application for them at the redirect autopatrol list. They need around 100 redirects to qualify. Use xtools (and select "only include redirects") to check number of redirects created.
If a redirect or blanked page is converted to an article, it will be marked as unreviewed and placed in the new pages feed. This is to avoid people hijacking reviewed redirects to create unreviewed articles.
I'd say that on a typical day of patrolling the back end of the queue, I'll go through 150-300 [redirects], send 5-10 to RfD, tag around 5 with G5 or R3, and either retarget or convert-to-dab 5 more. Attack redirects are less frequent, I'll come across a handful of attack redirects per week. --Rosguill