Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

What should be the venue for discussing Rcat templates?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What should be the venue for discussing rcat (WP:Redirect categorization) templates/categories?

This question is prompted by Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 20#Template:R from meme where this question was raised. I personally think it should be at RfD since the audience at RfD will likely be more experienced with redirect categories making them better at making decisions about them then the audiences at TfD or CfD. While this is quite different from RfDs regular content I still believe that they are the most suitable for handling these template with RfDers generally having experience using them. Both TfD and CfD have a reasonable claim since they are templates and they are used for categorizing pages. I will transclude this section at WT:RFD, WT:TFD and WT:CFD so all interested parties can participate. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Trialpears, Good discussion. In theory, I'd say TfD because of the namespace. However, in practice, since rcats are so widely used, I'm wondering if we shouldn't be discussing these in a more prominent place? CfD proposed by MJL seems reasonable, but CfD, too, sees even less participation than TfD in most cases. RfD is reasonable, though not necessarily dealing with redirects so the editors/admins there may be less familiar with the template nuances. What about MfD (like userboxes), or, possibly, at one of the Village Pumps? (Twinkle would need to be updated in any case.) Doug Mehus T·C 22:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll be honest and say that I would also prefer to have those conversations here. RFD regulars are the ones who have the most familiarity with them, but I have a hard time squaring my preference with the mandate of CFD to discuss all categories. The last place, imo, that should be the venue for RCATs would be TFD since they're just a unique type of categories and TFD regulars would be the less familiar with their usage than RFD regulars. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

MJL, Yeah, similar thoughts as well. RfD makes the most sense to me, too, but its regulars may be less familiar with the intricacies of the rcats and categorization. What about MfD? Doug Mehus T·C 22:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: No, definitely not MFD; they're mandate doesn't come close to RCATs. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

MJL, Okay, fair enough. No clear answer for me then. It's been RfD and CfD; neither of which are ideal (for different reasons). Doug Mehus T·C 22:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• CFD -- they're a type of category. The template is simply a vehicle for applying the category, similar to stub templates which are discussed at CfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• CfD - MJL, who maintains the Archer script, does seem to favour CfD because those editors/administrators are more familiar with the subtleties. RfD would notionally make sense as well, so I wouldn't be opposed to that, and it does generate (somewhat) higher participation than CfD. No real clear, runaway "winner" for which venue is best, but on balance, I concur with the sentiments expressed by MJL and Tavix to firm up my support, for the reasons expressed above. Doug Mehus T·C 23:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• TfD These are templates; I see no good reason to add yet another special case. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• TfD or CfD depending on what is discussed. If the issue is with the category itself, then nominate the category and hold the discussion at CfD. If the issue is with the template, then nominate it at TfD. --Gonnym (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

  Gonnym, There is established precedent, though, to discussing certain types of templates in other venues. For example, userbox templates, regardless if in userspace or template space, are discussed at MfD. In this case, as discussed above, there are wide-ranging implications with rcats, both in terms of how they're categorized, how they're used, and the impacts to scripts like Archer, Capricorn, Twinkle, etc. CfD does seem to have modestly higher participation than TfD, at least on some days, though it really varies. Crucially, though, the active CfD editors are more likely to be keenly aware to the intricacies of the rcats as the two are closely related. Doug Mehus T·C 14:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

  I see those as rare (and IMO bad) exceptions to the rule. I also disagree with your participation analysis. I had a category nomination relisted twice with 0 participation. I'm not changing my opinion on venue. --Gonnym (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have to go with CfD, because they're almost entirely about maintenance categorization. That the categories are usually placed via templates is simply incidental; many maint. cats. do not have templates, but they wouldn't suddenly become TfD "jurisdiction" if someone created templates for them. I could see TfD maybe being the right venue when there is no correspondence between a template and a cat., but this is uncommon. Thinking back, we used to have other cases like this, where things that were mostly categories but also with a template or other "feature" were discussed in other venues. E.g., Stub categories/templates used to have their own WP:SFD, but this has been closed, and CfD is now the venue. It would be strangely inconsistent to declare CfD not the venue for the parallel case of Rcats. Pppery's "No good reasons to add yet another special case" actually is a better rationale to use CfD than TfD. WP not being a bureaucracy (and per Gonnym, above), it should be fine to occasionally TfD an rcat template (if it doesn't implicate a corresponding category; e.g. there are various more-specific rcat template variants that still go to the same maint. cat. as the more general one, unless/until we decide to split the cat. to be more specific; and we might need to discuss a template in template terms only, without any effect on a category that did directly correspond). See also WP:RM being the conventual venue for template renames, yet TfD has sometimes been used for template-related rename discussions. Consensus can form anywhere, if there's sufficient clueful editorial input. A further complication is that many rcats are actually template redirects, not templates, yet they all relate to categorization in the end, even if not exactly corresponding categories. So, if there's to be a default, it should be CfD, because a category is always involved one way or another, and moving categories around or deleting them is a more complicated process than doing the same with templates and redirects. This isn't even really about Rcats in particular; any template that exists solely to apply a category is really a CfD matter, being an incidentally templatey means to a categorization end.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Need to think about this but whatever the outcome, it should be cross-advertised so people who don't follow all related discussions will see it. My gut sense prior to thinking about it is to prefer CfD if the change will affect categorization, or TfD if it will not. For example, if there was an effort to merge {{R from move}} and {{R from merge}} so they used parameters, but the net result would not affect categorization, then TfD is the place to discuss it. If there is an effort to split {{R from move}} so that some moved articles wind up in a new category, then CfD would be the place to discuss it. Again, I may need to give this more thought. Either way, cross-announce the discussion so people who follow only TfD or RfD discussions will be aware of it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't proofread the above comment very well. To correct and summarize: The original discussion should start wherever it makes sense to start it, CfD, TfD, or RfD. However, if there is any impact on the other two areas, there needs to be cross-advertising as appropriate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  Already done; this entire discussion is sectionally transcluded into both WT:CFD and WT:TFD. Also "advertised" at WP:VPPOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't proofread the above comment very well. To correct and summarize: The discussion of changes to a specific RCat template should start wherever it makes sense to start it, CfD, TfD, or RfD. However, if there is any impact on the other two areas, there needs to be cross-advertising as appropriate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• TfD or CfD on a case-by-case basis. Well, I learn something new every day. I assumed such templates were for the benefit of other editors looking at a redirect's history and status, and wasn't aware of the categorization purpose. From my naive perspective, these are page templates first with categorization as a side effect. But as editors above me argue, the venue really depends on the action contemplated. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Anarchy per WP:NOTBURO and WP:CREEP. Either TfD or CfD is an appropriate venue and regardless of where the deletion discussion occurs, as long as interested editors are properly notified "a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request." Leave where to nominate it up to the nominator based upon what they think is the most important factor to discuss. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • RfD is actually an interesting option. If we must choose a place to have these discussions, I would prefer that forum since the people familiar with rcats are most likely to see it there. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

    Wugapodes, I agree with you here. My first choice would probably be RfD, but secondarily, CfD since the template itself is just the vehicle, as Tavix and SMcCandlish explain, by which the redirect gets categorized. Without the maintenance categories, these rcat templates would serve no purpose. Doug Mehus T·C 23:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Beg to differ, Dmehus, rcats have two important functions: 1) to sort redirects to maintenance categories, and 2) to inform editors who come the the redirect page by explaining the reasoning behind the categorization. Reason "2" is why there are text messages on each rcat. The informative explanations and descriptions are especially helpful for editors who are inexperienced and are learning the details about redirect categorization. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• TfD if discussing a particular Rcat template, CfD if discussing the underlying category, and RfD if whichever type of page is being discussed is itself a redirect to another page. In all cases, a note should be left at WT:REDIRECT as changes to any of these types of pages shouldn't be made without input from editors with experience working in the overall redirection pseudo-namespace. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • All Rcat templates have a corresponding category (because that's the purpose of the Rcat template), so it isn't possible to separate the two. If one gets deleted, so does the other, and so on. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  What Tavix said...completely. The template is just the conduit by which the rcat categories are applied, since it involves adding text below the redirect destination. We could, in theory, categorize redirects without the template, but then how would we easily apply the category descriptions below the destination of each redirect? We'd still need a template from somewhere to do this efficiently; copying and pasting doesn't strike me as efficient. Doug Mehus T·C 17:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• ...TfD. Is anyone else in this discussion besides me aware of the existence of {{Catfd}} and {{Catfd2}}? See WP:TFDHOWTO for instructions in regards bundling related categories with TfD discussions. (Apparently, this method has been in place since 2006 or so.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, although they weren't on my mind when I !voted above. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• TfD, per the principle of least astonishment. I think it would be advisable to notify WikiProject Redirects, but I do not think these nominations belong at CfD (can decide what to do with a template-populated category but not whether the template itself should be kept, deleted, redirected, etc.) or RfD (unless the template is a redirect). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• I'd say here RfD if the aim is to fine-tune the scope of the templates, because the RfD crowd includes a majority of people who go around tagging the redirects, but TfD/CfD if the proposal is to delete certain templates and categories, by the principle of least astonishment. Deryck C. 00:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  "here" is ambiguous because this dicussion is transcluded on the talk pages of all relevant XfD. I assume you mean RfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  True, in theory, but when a section is transcluded as Trialpears has done (very handy, thank you! Now I know how to do that properly!), in practice, it becomes very difficult for an editor to reply on the talk page with the transclusion because they will see no other discussion. So, yeah, I assumed Deryck Chan meant RfD unequivocally. Doug Mehus T·C 23:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  Corrected. I didn't realise this was section-transcluded to other noticeboards. Deryck C. 22:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hate to say it, but generally amenable to most of the above. My instinct is TfD, just because it'll be the default assumption, but I do agree that the folks at CfD are most likely to care or have an opinion. I actually think RfD is the least-good option; they are related to redirects, but have little in common with them (to borrow a line from Mitch Hedberg, Rcats are to redirects as cooking is to farming). Steel1943 brings up the catfd templates, which I like and would seem to support TfD, but they wouldn't increase awareness unless someone stumbled on the category, would they? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• TfD. Late to this discussion and surprised that I had to hear about it by checking Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, rcats are templates, not categories nor redirects. They should be discussed at TfD, nowhere else. As always, the category would follow, i.e., if an rcat is deleted, then its maintenance category is also deleted. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 00:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh weird, I didn't know that WP:RCAT is for "templating redirects". I always thought it was for Categorizing redirects. My point is that we are categorizing redirects, so its the categories that matter. I find it shocking that someone with so much experience with RCATs would so wrongly declare that they are not categories when they clearly are. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh, friend Tavix! Rcats have been sooo misunderstood, as exemplified by this entire discussion. Rcats serve TWO main purposes, and only one of those is categorization. You're a pretty smart editor, and I would bet ten dollars to a doughnut that if you were to give it just a few moments of thought, you are probably one of the few editors who will then realize what the other main purpose is. Okay, I won't leave you in suspense. The other main purpose is to make visible text appear on the redirect page, text that provides information to whomever comes to the page, information about the categorization of the redirect among other things. Rcats are so much more than sorting tools. If they weren't so much more, then we would just still be hard-catting redirects using the [[]]s instead of the {{}}s. Spread the word, rcats are much more than just redirect sorters, they are sources of important information! especially to those editors who possess little or no experience in redirect categorization. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 06:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe it would be a good idea here to mention that I almost always refer to the templates as "rcats", which is actually an acronym of sorts for "redirect categories". That's just me. Back in the old days I called them "rcat templates"; however, with age and decrepitude I shortened it to just "rcats". So I'm guilty... sundowners is setting in. P.S. left by P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 07:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• CfD to be consistent with how stub templates are handled. Both are wrappers for a category. They definitely don't belong at RfD since they are only associated with redirects. Alternatively, have stub and rcat templates discussed at TfD like all other templates. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• TfD With stub tagging, the main part of the system is the categorisation, as it helps interested editors to find articles to expand. With redirect tagging, I've always thought the main thing are the templates themselves, which convey useful information to the person viewing the redirect. The categorisation, on the other hand, is incidental (save for few exceptions like Category:Printworthy redirects) and exists just because it's easy to add a line to the template causing the categorisation. Maybe someone like SMcCandlish or Tavix can enlighten me how categories like Category:Redirects from other capitalisations or Category:Redirects from ASCII-only titles are useful in the way ones like Category:India road stubs are. SD0001 (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Huh? Categories have different purposes so it's disingenuous to compare two completely separate categories that have different purposes and declare one more useful than the other. The categorization is what is actually being done, the templates simply explain what the category is. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't think it is an either–or situation (or, "actually" versus "simply"). The rcat templates serve two functions: they categorize redirects and they provide context/explanation for why the redirect exists in a way that is standardized and can be understood by someone who is only casually familiar with redirects. While I tend to agree that categorization is the more important of these, that does not nullify the other function. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Evaluating consensus

So, what's the verdict? It looks a lot like "no consensus", but is there something from this discussion that we can apply? According to my count, TfD received a plurality of support (5.67) (6.67) (7.83), followed by RfD (4.67) (5.33) and then CfD (3.67) (4.67) (4.83). If one takes the view that the discussion was specifically about where to discuss rcat templates, then TfD enjoys a narrow majority (8–6) (9–7) (10–8). Of course, whether the rcat template is separable from the rcat category was one of the points of disagreement. Some argued it is not and that the template's sole purpose is to categorize, while others (including me) think it is—e.g., a rcat category can be merged or renamed (at CfD) without impacting the existence, name, or display text of the rcat template.

Venue	Editor(s)	Argument(s)
CfD	JJMC89, SMcCandlish, Tavix	The template is purely a vehicle for applying the category.
RfD	Deryck Chan, Dmehus, MJL, Trialpears, Wugapodes	Editors at RfD are more likely to be familiar with redirects, though perhaps not with categorization and templates.
TfD	Amorymeltzer, Black Falcon, Paine Ellsworth, Pppery, SD0001, Steel1943	Templates should be discussed at TfD.
CfD or TfD	Gonnym, Ivanvector, Mark viking	CfD if the category is being discussed, and TfD if the template is being discussed.
CfD, RfD, or TfD	Davidwr	Discussion should be had at whichever venue makes the most sense, and should be cross-advertised (at WT:REDIRECT or the other venues).

I know this is an imperfect analysis and oversimplifies people's opinions (for example, I belong in the "CfD or TfD" group but responded "TfD" because the original question specifically asked about the rcat template), but I wanted to at least try to reach some sort of an outcome. Thoughts from others on how to move forward would be appreciated. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC) — Counts updated on 00:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC). — And again on 01:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC).

​(I participated in the above and a no consensus likely supports my slight preference so take this with a grain of salt but) I agree with no consensus, the discussion particulars makes that clear to me. There's a lot of gray to be considered, even if folks feel one way or another. I think a "no consensus, don't jump down anyone's throat if they do it somewhere other than TfD" would be reasonable. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Appears to be "no consensus" to me also. I !voted for TfD, because I've always thought that when necessary, it is the rcat templates that should be taken to task. Yet when Mac or someone else takes the maintenance category to CfD, I've never been bothered enough to jump down their throats. It's all the same in the end result, either the cat and rcat are kept, or they're deleted. Only problem has been when a deleter forgets one or the other. Happens sometimes, however somebody has always caught it and dealt with it effectively. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this the wrong venue for redirects where the outcome might be retargeting to the disambiguation page?

See the closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 9#Prasad and the follow-up discussion at User talk:Paul_012#Prasad. Uanfala closed the RfD as being the wrong venue, because a retarget outcome would require a follow-up page move of the current disambiguation page over the redirect, and such discussions should take place at RM. I think otherwise, that since the primary issue concerns what the target of a current redirect should be, it is best suited for RfD, and follow-up moves can be carried out uncontroversially if necessitated by the retargeting (since they don't involve articles). I'd appreciate further community input on this. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Listing a Locked redirect

I want to put Wayne Chiang up for discussion, but it's corrently locked for editing. What should I do? [[1]] --Prisencolin (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I've requested for the protection to be lifted, as it's clearly not needed anymore. – Uanfala (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:Poles are evil is a redirect mistakenly listed at MfD.

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Poles are evil. I'm not sure how to move it. Doug Weller talk 09:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Or as it's a WP redirect, does it belong at MfD? Doug Weller talk 09:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It belongs here but there's no point in procedurally closing it now. — J947 ^[cont] 19:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

RfD is the correct venue, but I went ahead and snow deleted it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad on that. I wasn't paying attention when I nominated the page for deletion using Twinkle, and the soft redirect must have thrown Twinkle off. Hog Farm (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries, we'll blame Twinkle for that... Amorymeltzer, would this be something you could look into? -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

So, technically it was a soft redirect, via {{Soft redirect}}, which means mediawiki's built-in "is this a redirect page" check doesn't work. This was a bug I fixed a few months ago, but Twinkle actually accounts for that and treats such pages as a redirect if it finds them, but only when actually submitting the form; it doesn't delay opening or loading the menu in order to query the page.

What almost certainly happened is Hog Farm opened the XfD menu from the history or edit page — somewhere where the template itself wasn't rendered visible — so Twinkle couldn't detect the template. That meant the XfD menu defaulted to MfD as the venue (since it couldn't see the template), and then HF didn't double-check the venue. If it had been changed to RfD, it should have worked fine, even if nominated from the edit or history page. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly what happened. I always nominate from the history page, since I check to make sure there isn't an merge in the history, and never thought thought to actually check if it was going to the right place. Hog Farm (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at the sheer scale of the participation in the MfD discussion (something I don't remember the last time seeing an instance of here at RfD), I'm wondering whether MfD might not actually be the better place to discuss project-space redirects. – Uanfala (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Project-space redirects can get that amount of attention at RfD too. The best examples are probably at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 25. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Relisting procedure

I always thought that RfD discussions in the past with only one or two !voters where everyone involved suggested deletion were closed as deleted, even with the low participation. However, the log of May 17 contains many discussions relisted in those circumstances: the discussions for Lefnui, Five Rivers of Lebennin, Lolbert, and Purple Wedge. Has policy changed on this? Hog Farm (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Hog Farm: No; see User talk:CrazyBoy826#See WP:RELIST. — J947 ^[cont] 01:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 May 2020

Please add

{{Rcatshell}}

and

{{R to project}}

to the redirect. Thanks. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 16:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC) --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 16:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done that syntax appears to be off, please put in an exact request below, in a "change x to y" format. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: better syntax: please change

{{R from shortcut}}

to

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from shortcut}}
{{R to project namespace}}
}}

Thanks, — J947 ^[cont] 19:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 May 2020

Please change

{{R from shortcut}}

to

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from shortcut}}
{{R to project namespace}}
}}

--Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 01:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

{{R without mention}} discussion

Hi fellow redirect folks. I'd appreciate any feedback at Template talk:R to article without mention#Refining/clarifying usage. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

RfD of the future

J947's comment in a recent discussion prompted me to think a bit about the overall pattern of what we do at RfD. What we have now is a boutique process: we discuss individual redirects, which we consider on their own individual merits, and this works great when we need to decide if X is unambiguous, if Y is a plausible synonym for its target, or if Z has no history worth preserving. Sometimes, however, the discussion of one redirect will centre on a characteristic that this redirect shares with thousands of other (potentially) existing redirects, and it may feel desultory to spend time deciding this one case, when countless others can be nominated in the future, each redirect to be debated on the same grounds every single time.
I feel like we're a new neighbourhood with good systems in place for deciding small matters, like what colour to paint this fence here (all that matters is that it fits with the choice made next door). But we don't have systems in place for deciding larger-scale questions, like the choice of a street numbering system (it's not enough that the street numbers of two adjacent houses make sense; street numbers are any good only of they're consistent from one end of the street to the other).
What we lack is a set of mechanisms for dealing with classes of redirects. We need tools for querying ("List all redirects where %20 stands for a space, leaving out any that have had their targets manually changed in the past"). We need tools for probing user experience – we always presume what readers want but we don't have a way to get any sort of data ("Let 5% of readers who follow any of those 2500 redirects in the next two weeks be presented with a survey question asking them if they've found what they were looking for"). We need tools for implementing class-level decisions: besides "keep" or "delete", we could have "replicate" ("Create this type of redirect for all eligible titles"). We need tools that will allow us to go beyond redirects ("Let the search engine treat the following strings as equivalent.."). We need....
Anyway, these are just my late-night daydreamings. What are your craziest RfD fantasies? – Uanfala (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Interesting thoughts. The "boutique" approach may be more feature than bug, since it allows for nuance. There are cases where RfD consensus amounts to "this specific redirect is inappropriate" and those that are more like "this type of redirect" is inappropriate. In plenty of cases, I've pointed to WP:NOTBURO and deleted "Bad redirect" after there's consensus to delete "Bad Redirect". I do wish we could make better use of redirect tagging, especially {{R avoided double redirect}}, to help bring in related redirects, to get some of the benefits of linked data.

I'd approach any sort of batch creation of redirects with caution, though. What's good for the goose is not always good for the gander, and there's big danger of clutter, if nothing else. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

RfD and restoring problematic articles

This is a follow-up to a recent RfD discussion. There's a scenario that happens from time to time: a redirect is nominated for deletion, during the discussion it's discovered that the redirect was an article at some point in the past, participants then point out that it's not RfD's job to evaluate content and so proceed to recommend restoring the article, at the end of the discussion the article is restored. So far, so good. But sometimes the restored article will be of such a low quality that, had it been created anew, it would have been picked up at the new page patrol and immediately sent for deletion or draftified. But because it was restored as a result of an RfD, it's marked as reviewed, so it bypasses the page patrol. I guess the assumption here is that if anyone has objected to the new article, it would be their job to send it to AfD. But this assumes that the editors concerned will notice the restored article and it relies on their initiative. I don't think these two should be taken for granted. And really, when it comes to problematic content, the burden of proof should be on those who advocate retention rather than those who argue for removal.

Maybe the two most recent examples are extreme (very short stubs with little or no sourcing, little time spent existing as an article, doubts previously expressed about viability of the topics, a small number of participants in each RfD), but something like that comes up every now and then, and I think we should do a better job of dealing with it. Because in our punctiliousness about correct discussion venues, we end up undermining fundamental content policies.

What is to be done? I've got one suggestion: if an RfD results in the restoration of an article, and there have been reasonable doubts expressed about the existence, encyclopedic viability, or notability of the topic, then the closer of the RfD discussion should proceed to procedurally start an AfD nomination. Would that work? Any alternative ideas? – Uanfala (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I think a pretty easy fix is to just have admins implementing such closes be careful to mark the page as unreviewed after restoring it. Most NACs shouldn't be an issue, as the article will not be marked as reviewed when they restore it. The only edge case is if an autopatroll editor without new page reviewer permissions makes an NAC. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I've got both a technical and a fundamental objection to that. The technical one: unless I'm mistaken, once a redirect is nominated for RfD, it's no longer counted as a redirect so it enters the NPP queue, and it will get marked as reviewed, typically long before the RfD is closed. If the closer is an admin or patroler, yes, they can mark it as "unreviewed", but any patroler who then picks it up will see the article was the result of a discussion and will probably assume there's consensus for it. More fundamentally, I really don't like the idea of RfDs getting closed with what is essentially The result of the discussion was restore garbage. If a major problem is pointed out, it needs to be addressed, I don't think we should be making a mess and then hoping someone else will come to mop it up. – Uanfala (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the technical analysis is correct: when the RfD is closed, first the tag is removed (essentially recreating the redirect), and only then does the closer manually restore the article. When I've closed a discussion as restoring the article and go to mark it as unreviewed, it shows up as if I reviewed it (i.e. my autopatrol), rather than whoever checked it off in the queue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. But that happens only when the XFDscript is used; if you close the discussion manually (rarely though it may happen nowadays) then it won't go through an intermediate stage of being a redirect again and will remain patrolled. – Uanfala (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

There are only two circumstances in which it is appropriate for RfD to delete article content:

• Where the content has been previously discussed at a competent forum (usually this means the article talk page or AfD) and a consensus reached that it should not be an article.
• Where the content would be speedily deleteable as an article

In all other circumstances it is wholly inappropriate for a discussion about a page that was redirected without discussion to be deleted. In some (although obviously not all) this has been used as an end-run around an AfD discussion in an attempt to remove content that would never get consensus for deletion as an article. Even when not done in bad faith, and even when separated by years it is important for the integrity of the encyclopaedia that we give article content a full hearing at a forum where those interested and experienced in discussing and evaluating article content will find it (e.g. through article alerts). Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• And another recent example: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 8#Fjollträsk. Here an article was created in the course of the RfD discussion, which was a botched translation of a Swedish Wikipedia article. So botched that the result would have probably qualified for G3, and yet the RfD discussion was speedy closed and the concerns about the article were brushed aside, both there and in one of the follow-up discussions. Again, that may be an extreme example, but we clearly need to do better. – Uanfala (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • While the follow-up might have been botched, the closure here was not. RfD is not the place to discuss article content - that is the job of AfD and it should have been nominated there. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, I was following this advice, which I deemed competent, in that case. Any and all efforts to prevent anything like that article happening again to circumvent a redirect deletion would be very constructive. I had a gut feeling there was something wrong with the user who, as I saw it, took advantage of a loophole to create nonsense. Again, I am sorry for any and all of the animosity involved. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Not RfD's job to evaluate content" does not, and should not, mean "RfD can't evaluate content". WP:NOTBURO is my lodestar here: if there's consensus for an action, we can follow that action. Deleting a former article is no more inherently problematic than RfD resulting in a page move. I don't think anyone would call such an outcome illegitimate because it wasn't through WP:RM.

Now, the usual caveats apply. If it's clear someone is forum shopping or attempting an end-run around some other process, of course we shouldn't allow that. If such a redirect is deleted, there may be some ground for reversing it if someone later points out there was significant page history and that wasn't addressed in the discussion. And to be very clear, no one should be converting an article to a redirect and immediately taking it to RfD.

But otherwise, as a closer, I'm always going to assume competence on the part of RfD participants. "Don't delete because there's page history and we should be at AfD" and "Delete, even though there's page history" are both perfectly legitimate arguments. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The very significant difference between a move and a delete is that the former can be done without (formal) discussion the latter cannot. Article prose that is not speedy deletable and/or has not been discussed in an appropriate location should never be deleted at RfD. This isn't about bureaucracy it's about making sure that relevant editors are aware that article content is being discussed and AfD's greater prominence plus article alerts and deletion sorting is always going to be vastly superior to RFD at enabling this. This protects against both intentional and unintentional bypassing of AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• I echo BDD here, which can be summarized as "use common sense". -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

New RFDO section on "no consensus / retarget" outcome

After making one of these closes, I was inspired to write the section Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes#"No consensus" retargets. I thought it would be helpful for potential closers to know this is a possibility, and it would be helpful to have a shortcut to link to instead of explaining it every time. Too bad WP:NCR is taken! --BDD (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

BDD, good addition IMO, thanks for adding it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:OPED re-targetted

(ping Asmodea Oaktree,  SMcCandlish) WP:OPED was re-targetted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 20#WP:OPED. While I don't have a problem with the outcome, there's currently ~600 uses of that shortcut. Can these all be updated to MOS:OPED so that the intended use is preserved? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I have started manually updating links. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I just did 50+ of them; most in are in Talk:PageName/GAx review pages, so the apparent 600+ instances are actually much fewer real ones (because GA reviews are transcluded into articles' talk pages, doubling the count of those instances in MW's "what links here"). I think I also identifed the GA reviewing template used to generate most of these, and updated it, so it should not generate any more of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Did another 50+. It's down to about 175, minus transclusion duplicates. I also notified the talk pages of GA, FA, and PR about using MOS:OPED now, since they're the source of most of the instances of WP:OPED.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hydronium Hydroxide and Asmodea Oaktree: Just finished the last of them. BTW, I notified Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, Wikipedia talk:Peer review, and Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, since these quasi-wikiprojects (especially GA, by a landslide) are the main sources of wikilinks to the OPED guideline. No one cared, except (perhaps predictably) FAC has erupted in remonstrances and grandstanding about it, as if kittens are being stabbed. I dunno what it is about that page that inspires such panic-style behavior so often. At least two of the regulars there want to re-RfD this. I don't really care about the outcome, but I will not be re-volunteering to do a bunch of shortcut changes in archives again. They all use MOS:OPED now, which does get to the correct place, and it is the main "advertised" shortcut for it, and is now used the various templates. Ergo nothing is broken. I'm just going to mention WP:BIKESHED, and move on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

RFD template on templates causes a 24,000-byte charge against WP:PEIS per invocation

Care must be taken when placing the RFD template on redirects in template space.

If the redirect is in use by a page that is within 24,000 bytes or so of the 2,000,000-or-so-byte WP:PEIS limit, it will push it over the limit.

If the template is used more than 8 times on a page, it will go over the limit.

See this edit of WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 29#Template:Hebrew for a specific example.

I'm not sure what the best solution is, other than to manually check Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded after the template is applied then again a few hours later when the "job log" has had a chance to process pages that use the redirected-template. Anyone have any ideas for a permanent fix? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 18:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Davidwr, is it possible to put the RFD template at the top of the talk page, and create a secondary template that redirects (pun unintended) to the talk page? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Module:RfD (which runs under the hood of {{rfd}}), checks if the redirect is being transcluded (so that it doesn't break a transclusion with the RfD notice). Is there any way this check could be done in a less expensive fashion? Otherwise, we could try to be mindful of the issue and just make sure to no-include RfD notices on any template redirects that look likely to be used many times in a single page. – Uanfala (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I'm not sure what the consequences of that would be. This requires either someone who knows more than me to look into it, or it requires me or someone else to study enough to give accurate information. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 00:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Uanfala's idea of attempting to noinclude it may have merit. As I have never touched Module:RfD, would it be possible to add the noinclude tags directly into the module without messing something up? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of soft redirects

I've started a discussion about whether the R speedy deletion criteria do and/or should apply to soft redirects. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Do and/or should the R criteria apply to soft redirects?. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Should there be information about doing a WP:BEFORE in the RfD instructions?

In many nominations recently the nominator of a redirect believes a redirect to be an implausible misspelling when a simple 10-second search would tell them that the redirect is not a misspelling but related to the target in some other way. This is the most common of many ways a very simple WP:BEFORE could've helped the nominator to not nominate a helpful redirect and not burden extra unneeded maintenance on RfD. So should we encourage nominators to do basic checks on the RfD page? — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 05:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible change(s) to the discussion header

At Template talk:Rfd2#Position of links there are currently two suggestions related to the links at the top of RfD discussions. One will alter their position, the other will add another link. Please comment there to keep discussion in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Addition to lead

Following a number of recent discussions in which this occurred, I've drafted a couple of sentences to the bottom of the lead to clarify that changing the redirect's target during the discussion is frowned upon. Any thoughts on this? — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Which were these discussions? From the archives I found Re-targeting a redirect during it's RFD which did not have a discussion at all. Also, are these encouraged when the Rfd is in progress?

• Converting the redirect to a standalone article
• Converting the redirect to a disambig
• Modifying the target article to add more details about the redirect
• Modifying the target article to remove details about the redirect

Jay (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, retargeting a redirect in the course of an RfD should be discouraged as in that case a "keep" close risks leaving the redirect pointing to the new target instead. It also has the potential to confuse participants in the discussion.
Converting a redirect to something else is usually OK, provided this is done as a draft below the redirect notice. Modifying the target article should also be acceptable (and it's actually quite good to see article content getting improved as a result of an otherwise gnomish activity), although if relevant content is removed then it's best practice to mention the fact in the RfD. – Uanfala (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Retarget procedure

Isn't there a procedure for retargeting a redirect? For example, shouldn't all the incoming links be updated so they point to where they intended to be pointed? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That sort of clean-up is typically needed only if the retargeting results in a change of topic. It's already mentioned at WP:EDRED in the general guidelines for redirects, and I guess it's understood that closers will be aware of it. However, it may be worth also explaining it at (the surprisingly short) Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Administrator instructions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

RFD procedure question

I found a redirect that has been recently changed and questioned the new target. So I opened a discussion. Another editor insists on undoing the original change because that was undiscussed. So now the RFD is technically wrong. I suppose it could be withdrawn and a new discussion opened on the "old" target. Is there a precedent for this? MB 15:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is a hard-and-fast rule, but I would default to restoring the original target, particularly if it was a long-standing redirect and the change was immediately controversial. This minimises disruption caused by existing incoming links that were expecting the original target. It's also the best implementation of WP:BRD - if a change is controversial, the safest option is to revert it and discuss - so, in the case of a redirect, restore the original target and run through the RFD. ~ mazca ^talk 20:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with mazca. Generally reverting and then discussing it (which doesn't have to be RfD) is going to be the best. However, there will be exceptions, for example when the new target is clearly better than the old one but there is disagreement over whether it is the best, or where there is no clearly good target (i.e. deletion is being proposed rather than retargetting but it isn't eligible for speedy deletion) when reverting isn't going to improve the encyclopaedia. In both examples the newer the redirect the more likely they are to apply. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The nomination at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_3#PG-13 is proposing a move of the dab page over the redirect. That should generally be done via WP:RM, and there's some text to this effect right at the top of WP:RFD. – Uanfala (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

And as for the main question: in principle, once an RfD has been started, it's usually not a good idea to change the redirect; this has the potential to lead to errors in the close (for example, a "keep" closure can end up keeping the wrong target). I don't believe there's any additional disruption to readers during the RfD – the {{rfd}} notice already breaks the redirect, as its point is for there to be such disruption. – Uanfala (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Pageviews for redirects going down

Just was doing some investigation about the quote mark RfDs and got an interesting conclusion that kind of confirmed my suspicions as to redirect pageviews going down for whatever reason. I just did a check, because I thought I saw something that I didn't. Data. If this is converted into pageviews per day (some redirects were created after the time period began), then we get this:

1. Merle: 0.342 ppd
2. Coleman: 0.296 ppd
3. Keats: 0.294 ppd
4. Hawkes: 0.289 ppd
5. Recanati: 0.270 ppd
6. Berner: 0.219 ppd ADJUSTED
7. Chickering: 0.209 ppd ADJUSTED
8. Gastro: 0.170 ppd ADJUSTED

Now I think what happened – rather than anything else – is that those last 3, the ones with adjusted pageviews, have less pageviews due to being created recently and pageviews numbers for redirects going down recently. I don't know why that happened, but it did.

So yeah, pageviews numbers for redirects went down. I'm assuming that the redirects would get close to equal pageviews over the same space of time, which I think is a fair assumption. So – has anyone else noticed this reduction in redirect pageviews? And can anyone explain it? Are pageviews decreasing across the board or is this something different? — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

pageviews in stats

How are pageviews that are mentioned in the stats, calculated for redirects? Is it a page view if any one of these happens?

• Searching for some text in the Wikipedia search bar and that leads to the redirect page.
• Clicking on a redirect link present in an article.
• Entering a redirect's name in the URL and that leads to the redirect page.
• Clicking on a redirect's URL in a webpage outside of Wikipedia.

WP:R#K5 says "The pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility." (This was added by User:David Gerard) What does outside utility mean here - does it mean what the pageviews tool does is calculate the number of times a page is accessed from outside of Wikipedia (the 4th point above)? Jay (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, it's in the name: any of those four would count as a pageview. It's ambiguous for me whether outside utility in this case means that 4th point or simply "well-used redirect". — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • yeah, I meant evidence that a given redirect is actually used by readers - David Gerard (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

    Ok, it is still not clear what outside means here, because it could imply pageviews tool is meant to assess page requests coming in from outside Wikipedia. Can we rewrite R#K5 as below? Also since stats.grok.se is commented out there, we can include its redirect site wikishark. Jay (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. One way to see evidence of usefulness is using the wikishark or pageviews tool against the redirect. These record the number of views a page gets.

yeah, obvious update - David Gerard (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Unused file redirects

Hello, RFD regulars,

I was looking at this list of unused file redirects and wondered if there was a deletion criteria that would allow for their deletion if they are serving no purpose. I think that they are the result of a file being moved to a new name and they have one to zero links to them from articles. There are hundreds. Is this a matter that should go to the Village Pump? Any thoughts on unused file redirects? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• This has been a recurring issue at RfD. WP:FILEREDIRECT is oft ignored. Personally, I think that redirects of the type are harmless and potentially harmful to delete (see SoWhy's comment). — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with J947 - as a general rule file redirects should not be deleted. Obviously there will be some exceptions, but they need to be discussed individually with the nomination explaining why that redirect specifically should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take your word for it that they serve some purpose. I thought the fact that there is a database report collecting and listing them meant that some action should be taken. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Question on multiple RFDs

There are several redirects that I'm looking to bring up here. Most of the multiple-redirect nominations here seem to have similar wording. The ones I'm considering are not similarly worded, but all of them share Metroid as their target. Would these be included under the same discussion or nominated separately? Some of them may be old enough redirects to be ineligible. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: In general it's best to group only redirects to which the same considerations apply and which you are nominating with the same ratioanle. Look at the history, page views and search for any possible alternative targets before nominating, if any have significant history, significant page views and/or plausible alternative targets then it's probably best to nominate them separately from the rest (except those you are proposing to retarget to the same location can be nominated together). Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Restoring redirects to recreated pages

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 83#Restoring redirects to recreated pages about the possibility of an automated and/or semi-automated process for restoring redirects to a deleted page when that page is undeleted and/or recreated. Please comment there to keep discussion in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Contesting a withdrawal

How do we undo a withdrawal? Simply revert the edit that did the withdrawal, or is this an admin decision? In WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 16#Prevalence of male genital mutilation, I had added a note after it was withdrawn by the nominator, saying that the withdrawal is not appropriate. It has been 24 hours. Jay ^(Talk) 08:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

In this case as you are arguing for something different to the withdrawn nomination, the least confusing thing to do is just to nominate it again. There is no prejudice against doing that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I am saying that the withdrawal was incorrect to do, and has to be undone. So should I do it or wait for an admin? Jay ^(Talk) 11:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It is cleaner if you just nominate it again, and more likely to succeed than arguing about procedure. (Thryduulf is an admin, and so am I). —Kusma (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This is about procedure. What should happen if a nom who wishes to retarget, decides to withdraw although there is a Delete vote? WP:WITHDRAWN clearly mentions it is inappropriate. Why should it be renominated when the discussion was still in progress and the withdrawal short-circuited it? What is the confusion Thryduulf is referring to? Jay ^(Talk) 12:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It was never nominated for deletion, but for retargeting. —Kusma (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

So, WP:WITHDRAWN took me directly to the Explanation table, and I didn't know it is a sub-section of "Deletion discussions needing action before their end date". So WP:WITHDRAWN is applicable for only deletion discussions, not for retargets. That is where my disconnect was. Thanks for the clarifications. Jay ^(Talk) 13:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I added one word "deletion" to WP:WITHDRAWN at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Early closure to aid those like me who reached there via the shortcut. Jay ^(Talk) 13:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not just deletion though, it's support for what is being proposal. Had your vote been to retarget then withdrawal would definitely have been inappropriate. Similarly if there was support for retargetting to somewhere other than where the nominator proposed then it would (probably) have been inappropriate to withdraw. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The closure was not an attempt to short-circuit a discussion - the proposal to retarget was withdrawn after receiving opposition and no support. You are free to make a different proposal if you think the redirect should be deleted. Reopening discussions always leads to some confusion, and there will be confusion about what is actually being proposed - retargetting (which has been clearly withdrawn) or something proposed by one of the commenters that nobody else has expressed any opinions about? It is likely that at least some further commenters will comment regarding the original proposal and express no opinion regarding deletion, increasing the likelihood of a no consensus closure. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whether the withdrawal was incorrect is arguable - nobody was supporting the nomination, including you, and a withdrawal is always without prejudice to a different proposal. You should not reopen the closed discussion at this point as it will quite likely lead to pointless arguments about procedure and is less likely to achieve a consensus for or against deletion than a new nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Removing a re-direct to create an article

Hi, we have been discussing on the talk page of Orthotics to remove the section on the field of Orthotist and create an article. Orthotist presently re-directs to the section in Orthotics#Orthotists. I tried to follow the instructions but I think I made a mistake and immediately reverted my attempt. Would anyone be able to help? Here are my edits (attempt to suggest the redirect removal and then my reveral of my edit as it did not look right). I explained the edit and proposed change in my edit summary. Link to my reverted edit adding in the template. Thank you so much! JenOttawa (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

If I could please have help removing the re-direct on Orthotist I can create the new article (working with community of editors on talk). Thanks again!JenOttawa (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just an update that I figured it out. Thanks very much! JenOttawa (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Reworking RfD template display

Hey all, I've proposed some changes to the RfD template to make the display less confusing to casual readers - please consider reviewing them and sharing your thoughts at Template talk:Redirect for discussion § Rework of the template to make display more friendly. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

BRFA for bot to patrol RfD'd redirects

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/'zinbot. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Ping Thryduulf in case you have any thoughts to add there? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there room for a CSD criterion for speedily-moved pages?

I'm aware that new CSD criteria must be proposed on WT:CSD, but I'm floating this here first to get a sense of what people think. We get a lot of RfDs along the lines of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 17 § List of Canis species an subspecies, that is to say redirects that were moved from a patently implausible title by their own creator, not long after creation, and have no backlinks and near-zero pageviews. The only time these aren't deleted is if there happens to be some other suitable target, and RfD is not actually needed for those rare cases; anyone can recreate a speedily-deleted redirect to point it to a better target. In all other circumstances, the redirects are deleted.

What I'm thinking of is a CSD along the following lines. (These could be condensed a fair bit in an actual CSD, but intentionally being verbose here.)

• The redirect's title is patenly implausible: Either it would qualify for R3 if created recently, or it contains remnants of a botched pagemove (e.g. a hypothetical Tamzin/SomeArticle that was drafted at User:Tamzin/SomeArticle and subsequently re-moved to SomeArticle.)
• The redirect is the result of a pagemove by the target article's creator and sole substantive contributor (i.e. someone who could have G7'd it), within the first 24 hours of that article's existence.
• The redirect is not linked from any reader-facing page (excludes database reports, mentions on talkpages, etc.).
• The redirect has near-zero pageviews. (Could be left subject to common-sense interpretation, much like "recently created" is in R3, or could be defined as something like "Less than ten pageviews in the previous year; or, if less than a year old, on average less than one pageview per month.")

Or, if that's too complicated for a CSD (although it wouldn't be more complicated than some existing ones like F8), we could discuss finally bringing PROD into redirectland. For all but the first subcriterion, there would also be the possibility of a bot to automatically untag pages that don't qualify, which would simplify things for reviewing admins.

What do people think? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

(Redacted) 85.67.32.244 (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Since I started this discussion, I'm uncomfortable removing the above comment, but could somebody else, please? The user in question has been blocked as a sock of banned user SimonTrew. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done firefly ( t · c ) 16:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Tamzin: Pages obviously created in error can be speedily deleted under criterion G6, and that includes redirects created when fixing such errors. The original creator moving the page shortly after creation is often evidence that the original title was a mistake, especially (but not exclusively) if original title is clearly inappropriate and/or there is an edit summary clearly noting a mistake had been made (e.g. "typo", "move to the correct title", etc). Redirects created when cleaning up page move vandalism can be speedily deleted under criterion G3. I think that covers at least most of what you are thinking about here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)