Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Question

Just to be sure, if someone wants to replace an article with a redirect, should that be done here or on Afd? Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

See WP:BLAR and WP:BRD. If you think the redirection will be uncontroversial then you can just do it, but if someone reverts or objects then it should be discussed, and if a wider discussion then AfD is always the better venue as RfD will not delete article content. If you think the redirection will be controversial, or are not sure if it will be, then discuss it first. Changing an article to a redirect then nominating the redirect for deletion is never appropriate, and doing so as to deliberately avoid an AfD is gaming the system. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand and agree with you. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding repeated relisting of an RfD

Hello! So I started an RfD for MediaTek Camera Application, and it's been relisted twice, however both relistings have resulted in no discussion beyond the proposal. I've been told that a good-faith RFD that proposes deletion is able to result in the deletion of the redirect if there's no discussion. So would it be appropriate for me to close the RfD and tag the redirect for deletion? If not what should I do because we can't just keep relisting it until there's some discussion. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and closed it, I agree with you that it should not have been relisted, especially not twice. @Qwerfjkl and Jay:, note that per WP:RGUIDE, If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete. This is because redirects cannot be prodded, so a no discussion redirect can be taken as if there is no objections (and the comparison to PROD is why I closed it as WP:SOFTDELETE). Blaze, you cannot close your own nomination as anything other than withdraw due to conflict of interests, and you cannot close a nomination as "delete" because you are not an administrator (see WP:BADNAC for more details). -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright thanks for letting me know! ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tavix: I am aware of the rule. I relisted it because it was not a 100% delete nomination. It was a Delete or Retarget, and I would interpret it as a nomination that was looking for discussion, and not just deletion. However I have no objection to how you interpret it. Jay (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jay: Thanks for explaining, and yes I can see it that way now. Hindsight is 20/20 when the nominator is now complaining that it should have been deleted by now, but it's true the nomination wasn't quite that clear. I wasn't sure if you were aware of that rule as I couldn't recall you closing anything in that fashion—but to be fair you have just started closing not too long ago and in that time I have only been active in spurts. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

[off-topic] @Tavix: Some of my soft deletes are Burgermeister Beer, 1883 Magazine, Orthodox Archdiocese of Classis, Tryst With Destiny (film). Jay (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Jay, I'm a bit puzzled by this relist. There was a straightforward deletion nomination, and the only editor to comment expressed agreement with deleting. If you believe there are any reasons not to, then it might be better to mention them. That way, you stand a chance of changing the mind of the two of us who've already participated, or otherwise allowing another editor to come and close the discussion (incl. with "no census" or "keep"), so that we can all move on from this case. – Uanfala (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Uanfala: I did not see it a straightforward deletion nomination; I saw it only as a redirect for discussion. Jay (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

This means you didn't think I was arguing for deletion? – Uanfala (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't want to assume deletion. Jay (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

But why else would I be arguing that the redirect was implausible? XfD nominations aren't required to – and normally don't – include explicit !votes as it's usually obvious from the nomination's rationale. – Uanfala (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I do make assumptions when there are no explicit or bolded votes, in comments or opinions of the discussion. I may make assumptions from the nomination statement when I'm participating in the discussion, but for a close, I do not want to make assumptions off the nomination if there hasn't been enough participation. Jay (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Jay, if someone starts an RfD arguing that the redirect represents an implausible typo, then there's no way they want something other than deletion. Even in cases where it's not as obvious as here, it's generally understood that unless stated otherwise, the action that the nominator recommends is deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 03:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I have deleted the redirect. Jay (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Removing hatnotes when a redirect is nominated for RfD

“ Remove hatnote: not necessary at this unambiguous title (WP:NAMB), term does not redirect here ”

Per [1], a hatnote for an ambiguous incoming redirect was removed, as it was nominated for RfD, and thus no longer a redirect.

• But the content of the nominated formerly hard redirect only points to the target article, so is functionally a soft-redirect. This seems to be a poor process decision, as this would dead end at the target without further navigation information. Should hatnotes be removed when redirects are nominated for discussion?
• And as this is occurring, all closing administrators should take care to reimplement deleted hatnotes if the redirects are kept as they were.

-- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Generally, hatnotes should not be removed while a page is at RfD. If you do spot it happening, then please note it in the relevant discussion. I've restored the specific hatnote you link to. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You're linking to an edit by Shhhnotsoloud, who removed a hatnote from an article that the redirect stopped pointing to before it got nominated at RfD – that hatnote will need to be restored only if the RfD closes as retarget. But otherwise, yeah: it's usually the better process to wait for the outcome of an RfD before implementing any edits that presuppose a particular outcome of the discussion.

And yes, closers should make sure that navigation is still possible from the immediate vicinity of the redirect (hatnotes, incoming links, etc.), not just look for deleted hatnotes. But I don't think many people do that, and you can't really blame them for the omission as this isn't really mentioned at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Administrator instructions. Maybe time to write something up? – Uanfala (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the hatnote again, which was the pre-RfD state. Jay (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The hatnote was removed on the 19th [2], the redirect was nominated on the 16th [3], a hatnote concerning the redirect was already in the article before the RfD started [4]. How is this hatnote being removed before the RfD was started? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

As Uanfala said, the redirect stopped pointing to Ronald Isley (on 16th) before it got nominated at RfD. Jay (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding a note re BLAR

Subjectively it feels like we're getting more nominations recently where the consensus response is "revert to an article and send to/without prejudice to AfD per WP:BLAR". Should we add a note about this to the bulleted list at the top of the main RfD page? Perhaps something like "If there is a dispute about whether a page should be an article or a redirect do not list the redirect here, but nominate the article version at AfD" (but please not verbatim, we can do much better than that). Of course not everybody will read it, and it wont account for every case (e.g. where the redirection was boldly done many years ago) but it might help some people get to the correct venue first. Thryduulf (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

That will be correct to say, but I'm not sure it's needed: I don't think I've ever seen people using RfD to solve disputes over whether an article should be redirected or not. The recent cases were examples of non-controversial BLARs, followed at some point by the redirect getting nominated for deletion as a redirect, and participants at RfD being uncomfortable with sanctioning the deletion of the article content in its history. – Uanfala (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser § RFC: Priorities for XFDcloser development in 2022

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser § RFC: Priorities for XFDcloser development in 2022. Evad37 [talk] 00:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Redirects to non-notable people without an article or inclusion in a list article

A list article has been renamed and inclusion criteria enforced to include only notable people. That means there are a lot of redirects for the people whose names have been removed. This is the type of case where IAR should be invoked, but instead, I have been instructed to list each redirect here.

I found the links at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/List_of_Jeopardy!_contestants and tagged them, but have been blocked with the explanation that redirects "do not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria". In the process, my DB-g6 nominations got changed so all the following non-notable people are now redirected to the new article only for notable people at List of notable Jeopardy! contestants. (That makes this list unusable for our purposes.)

• Jonathan Fisher (Jeopardy! contestant)
• MacKenzie Jones
• Jennifer Quail
• Ryan Holznagel
• Pam Mueller
• Emma Boettcher
• Jason Zuffranieri
• Buzzy Cohen
• Austin Rogers (Jeopardy! contestant)
• Cindy Stowell
• Tom Cubbage
• Eric Newhouse
• Bob Verini
• Jerry Frankel (Jeopardy!)
• Burns Cameron

How do we get rid of the redirects for all those people? Is an admin willing to apply IAR and just do it? Please ping me. -- Valjean (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging User:Explicit. -- Valjean (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to try a different deletion template, with amended explanation, and hope common sense prevails:

• ({{Db-g8| See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Redirects_for_discussion#Redirects_to_non-notable_people_without_an_article_or_inclusion_in_a_list_article HERE] Currently redirects to target THAT DOES NOT MENTION SUBJECT.}})
• Edit summary: Hoping common sense prevails this time. Note explanation in template and see linked talk page. When a person is not notable and is not mentioned in an article, they should not have a redirect to that article.

Valjean (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: I'm all for using some common sense in CSD when called for, but here it feels like you're trying to invent a new speedy deletion criterion. I've challenged the one you re-tagged. As Explicit said, the correct venue for this is RfD. And I'll add that some of these redirects, like Emma Boettcher, are mentioned at the target. I'm glad to see that list getting cleaned up a bit, though. When I'd read it in the past I'd had the thought that it was a bit too broad in what it includes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Tamzin. I seem to have inadvertently entered into a twilight zone where I have never been before. I didn't realize that I'm "trying to invent a new speedy deletion criterion", but this does expose a need for one because redirects should not point to ineligible targets. We need a special deletion code for that situation.

We do use redirects to point to people who are the main subject of a section in existing articles, but I've never seen one point to a mere passing mention in an article, much less a list article. I'm really not certain where the line goes. I hope you can enlighten me.

You're right that Emma Boettcher is indeed mentioned twice, but she is not a subject of the list. That's the type of mention/inclusion I'm referring to. All these people are mentioned in RS, but apparently not notable enough for the creation of an article here, at least no one has done it yet. The mentions in RS do make their mention in existing articles legitimate, but that isn't normally enough for inclusion in a list article.

I'm in doubt about what to do, as I'm getting some very collegial and civil push-back at Talk:List_of_notable_Jeopardy!_contestants#Entries_which_do_not_have_an_article, as well as your very pleasant way of dealing with this situation. That's nice for a change! So often people get nasty in these situations. Feel free to share your thoughts there. In fact, maybe a regular formal discussion should be held at a noticeboard. Which one would be good? -- Valjean (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: So, if you want to propose a new CSD, WT:CSD would be the place for that (read the header there first), but I doubt it would be enacted. The reason is that a CSD-tagged page is only reviewed by the one admin (if that), while an RfD allows at least a week for any interested editors to comment, and in many cases those editors might find some reason not to delete even under these circumstances. For instance, perhaps the original removal of the person from the list was erroneous. As you note, you're already getting good-faith pushback here, and that's on a fairly high-visibility list. I've seen cases where something was brought to RfD for deletion as "not mentioned in target", and someone dug into the target's history and found out that the redirected term had been removed from the article without good cause several years earlier. Other times, perhaps there's a non-obvious connection. Perhaps, on a list of food dishes, some unmentioned term is actually the name for one of those dishes in a language local to the relevant area. Perhaps, on a list of video games, an unmentioned term was the briefly-used working title of a game. In both of those cases, RfD may or may not decide the redirect worth keeping even without mention.

So, in terms of what the best next step is, I would say that it's to take any of these to RfD if you'd like. It's not like there's an urgent need for these to be gone, à la G3/G10/G11/G12. If you do it, I would suggest one bundled nomination of everyone who's not mentioned at all, one bundled nomination of everyone who's only mentioned in passing. But it also might be better to let things run their course on the article's talk first, lest you're reverted there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no special burden about this, and can see that it's not worth the effort for something that may only have relevance once in a blue moon. No harm is done by leaving the redirects in place. I guess it was just my sense of "everything should be tidy" that is a bit violated, but not really. I'm pretty lazy and relaxed about such things. Thanks so much for sharing your views so kindly. I've seen you around, and my impression is positive. (Yes that's a compliment. ) -- Valjean (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

2021 PEI Liberal Party leadership election

Would somebody with the know how, please nominate 2021 Prince Edward Island Liberal Party leadership election for deletion? The party postponed its election until after 2021 & I don't know how to properly nominate it on the RFD page. The instructions are too confusing, to me. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I can guide you with the instructions and you can have your first nomination. But having a look at the redirect, I doubt if there will be support for deletion. Jay (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Medallion and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 11#Medaillon

PoundTales has recently edited Medallion with the RfD banner, stating "This redirect is now also part of the Medaillon discussion." in the edit summary. I don't want to mess anything up (therefore I'm posting here instead of doing it myself), but there should probably be a bulleted item similar to "Medallion → Medal (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget ]" added there. (I'm also not entirely sure if it's even possible to add another redirect to a bundle like that mid-discussion.) eviolite (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I have bundled Medallion to the discussion. Yes, it is possible to add it mid-discussion. Jay (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Rfd2 now flags untagged redirects

Often when people do bulk nominations, they fail to tag some or all of the redirects they nominate. This is only discernible by directly visiting the page or by discerning the slight shift in link color from a noredirect link to a regular one—something my eyesight usually isn't good enough to do. Then, when this is noticed and the pages are belatedly tagged, the 7-day timer has to start over. To avoid this, I've made the following change to Template:Rfd2. When a nominated redirect has not been tagged, it will look like this (note the tooltip on the icon):

• foo → bar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

As this is a bold change to a TPE-protected template, if anyone objects to this, please let me know and I will self-revert; but I hope others find it helpful. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: The template can only tell whether the nominated redirect is still, technically speaking, a redirect. If it is, it must not have been tagged. However, if someone failed to tag the redirect properly but did in some other way turn it into a non-redirect, the template will not flag it. Thus, the lack of this symbol should not be taken as confirmation of a valid tag. In particular, it will not detect a tag that points to the wrong day (although 'zinbot keeps track of such pages if it encounters them while patrolling). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Quasi-governmental, quasi-governmental agency

Should quasi-governmental and quasi-governmental agency redirect to state-owned enterprise? Maybe an article should be created as they aren't really synonyms IMO. Nubian Cloud (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Page stats link for long titles

The pageviews link was not generated correctly, and this fix had to be made because the page title was 228 characters long. The tool independently works for the long title as can be seen here. Perhaps this is something to do with how the pageviews link is generated during the nomination? Jay (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Noting belatedly that I had actually already fixed this a couple hours before the above post. It was a quirk of how interwiki linking works and how the toolforge: link system is set up. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

BLARs at RfD

The question of whether WP:BLARs should be deleted at RfD has come up again at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Erin Sheehan. The question leads to more questions (I'm not listing the CSD criteria and page's status quo arguments); do we have consensus to some of these?

1. Is RfD meant for discussion of the redirect page's subject title only, or should it make decisions on the redirect page's older content (verifiability, notability, neutrality, etc. that resulted in the BLAR)?
2. If participants of the discussion have provided opinions on the page's subject but not on the previous content, or if there is a consensus to delete based on the title only, should the closer delete?
3. What constitutes an objection to a BLAR that is relevant to a nomination at RfD? If any are not relevant, can we add that to the RfD process, and procedurally close such nominations? (I realize that when a BLAR is overturned, it is no longer a redirect, and should not be listed at RfD.)

   a) Nominator wants the page restored for improvement.

   b) Nominator wants the page deleted for re-creation.

   c) Nominator wants the page deleted as an implausible redirect (either as an immediate challenge to a BLAR, or the BLAR was so old it made sense at the time but not now).

   d) Nominator wants the page re-targeted.

   e) Nominator wants the page disambiguated.

   f) Page was tagged for deletion as a PROD or CSD, and then BLARed. Nominator wants the page deleted.

4. A common outcome is Restore and AfD (and the objection to that is WP:BURO), and this helps the AfD discussion rule out redirect as a close outcome. Occasionally there have been Restore and PROD (this has seen opposition) and Restore and tag with appropriate CSD. Should these also be encouraged so we don't push everything to AfD?

If there have been previous discussions, please point me to them, so I can summarize. Are some of these questions dependent on the bigger question of whether RfD should delete any redirects that had content, such as those created following an AfD for example? Jay (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• This has been blown out of proportions so let me boil it down. A redirect should only be restored to an article if:

1) there is an editor who in good faith wants there to be an article on the subject. (This takes care of the "disagreement" clause of BLAR.)

2) it is plausible that the subject may be notable, in which case AfD can and should handle that question. (Don't restore articles if we know they will be deleted there, but if it is plausible the article would be kept, then by all means...)

3) the status quo is not a redirect. (This covers editors BLAR'ing an article and immediately nominating it for RfD. Such nominations should be rejected.)

This should cover all the bases and I believe it to be consistent with common outcomes. I think you're getting too far into the weeds with some of these options, which can be considered on a case by case basis as they come up—context is king. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I think this warrants more discussion, as it would be nice to have more guidance on how to handle these situations rather than have the outcome depend on the philosophies of who happens to participate in each RfD discussion and whether or not anyone notices or cares about the non-trivial page history. I think there is more to consider than what Tavix describes. I laid out my concerns in detail at Thryduulf's talk page but I'll just raise a few points here:

• 1) The bottom line is that there are redirects resulting from BLARs deleted at RfD due to there being consensus it is a bad redirect (e.g. due to a lack of mention at their targets) without any of the participants or the deleting admin noticing the article content in the page history, thus deleting the redirect means unknowingly deleting an article, which is improper. This outcome is similar to an expired PROD in that essentially a single user's (the BLARing editor's) opinion has initiated the deletion of an article, except the here the deleting admin may believe they are simply deleting a redirect according to consensus and not notice the page history. Thus, in my view any redirect with past article content deleted at Rfd must be considered equivalent to an expired PROD and be a soft deletion, refundable upon request. Perhaps reaching consensus to make this explicit is the way to resolve all of these issues, essentially saying BLAR + RfD = PROD. Is that the way forward?
• 2) If the BLAR was an inappropriate WP:ATD in the first place (no good redirect target), then I think the goal of users who vote restore and send to AfD in such situations is to return to the proper status quo and send to the venue where the best course of action can be determined (Afd), which could either be delete, merge, or even keep and improve. This is why restore and PROD just doesn't seem to make much sense (see a current example)...especially since if it's just going to be soft deleted, perhaps that can just be done at RfD per my first comment. The extra week with the PROD tag doesn't add much procedurally given that anyone could have reverted the BLAR in the time prior to it reaching RfD.
• 3) Restore and tag with CSD doesn't make sense; if the page qualifies for speedy deletion, it can be speedy deleted as soon as someone at RfD points that out, no need for the extra step (i.e. discussing and reaching consensus that deletion does not require discussion is silly). But, can we delete at RfD if the BLARed article would have qualified for speedy deletion at the time of the BLAR but no longer does (nor would if restored)? I think yes.
• 4) Any redirects resulting from a merge where the merged content was removed and brought to Rfd because the redirect no longer makes sense should ideally be kept (or retargeted) for attribution, since the merged content hasn't been deleted and is still in the page history of the target. If the redirect is truly problematic, then restore (reverting the merge) without prejudice to Afd. Not sure if this would still cause problems for attribution though, as conceivably the merged content could still be restored in the original target, or copied elsewhere, as it would remain in the original targets history unless the history were split off/removed.
• 5) Pages that were PRODed, dePRODed, and then BLARed should be restored and sent to Afd. The BLAR is akin to an inappropriate second PROD, and Afd is the proper venue if after a dePROD there is still disagreement about whether the article should persist.
• 6) But, strict adherence to the "Restore and Afd" dogma would result in temporary restoration of articles that should not be in main space just so they can inevitably be deleted. WP:SNOWBALL can and should be invoked in these cases to save ourselves from ourselves, and anyone is free to object to its invocation at Rfd if they see any uncertainty in the outcome. This would address Tavix's WP:NOTBURO point of view, particularly point #2- if it is at all plausible the article might be kept or merged at Afd, it should be sent there, but if the content is a bunch of useless poorly written uncited junk, let it die at Rfd (but be refundable). Mdewman6 (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, I mostly am addressing Jay's case c above. The other cases are more straightforward I think:

• a) Restore article (revert the BLAR) and speedy close the Rfd; reverting a BLAR does not require discussion (unless the BLAR was the result of formal discussion, like AfD, in which case Rfd can decide what to do with the redirect since AfD has already decided against keeping the article).
• b) Instead of deletion/recreation, user can simply create a new article over the redirect, or request one at AfC. Speedy close Rfd.
• d) Appropriate RfD discussion. Considering retargeting of a redirect resulting from a BLAR is well within the purview of RfD.
• e) Appropriate RfD discussion. RfD can determine whether the BLARed page title should be disambiguated or not; if a dab page is needed at the redirect title, it can simply replace the redirect. An exception might be if moving an existing page to the redirect title would be the outcome, in which case a requested move discussion may be more appropriate.
• f) More tricky; speedy delete if it qualifies and close RfD. If PRODed then BLARed, ideally restore and send to AfD if there is consensus against the redirect, or perhaps soft delete at RfD per my above comments. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's good that this is being discussed and I agree with most of the points made above. Just a few notes:

2) I can see the argument that a BLAR with a subsequent RfD (where there's some discussion of the article content and agreement that it doesn't belong here) is sort of procedurally equivalent to a PROD. However, in principle, BLAR + RfD does not make a PROD. Bold redirecting can be noticed only by editors watching the page (if there are any); if the redirect talk (or its target) are tagged for relevant wikiprojects, then those projects will get notified about the RfD in their article alerts – RfDs however are a niche area and they don't tend to attract many people with interests in content. A PROD, on the other hand, is an article deletion process and it attracts people who work on such questions. It also ends up in the tracking categories, which will attract attention even if the pages aren't tagged for any wikiprojects. Overall, a PROD gets more scrutiny of the right type than a BLAR + RfD. Though as with any other PROD, the process should be used only for uncontroversial deletions: if someone has expressed the belief that the topic may be notable, then AfD is the only way to go.

4) For the deletion of pages with history, one commonly recognised solution for repairing attribution is to make an edit to the merge target, listing in the edit summary all the contributors to the content to be deleted. That's unhelpful for all sorts of reasons, and should be done only as a last resort. There's almost always a better alternative. If there's consensus that the redirect is unhelpful, its title can be vacated, with the history moved to a new, appropriate, redirect to the merge target. It's never difficult to come up with such a new redirect title.

For cases like d) and e) (redirect with history where the proposal is for retargeting or dabifying), I think we should try to avoid situations where meaningful article history ends up under a dab page or a redirect for a completely different topic. A solution like at 4) above should usually work here. – Uanfala (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

All good points. I agree there are aspects of PROD that make it different from BLAR + RfD. All the more reason why sending to AfD is often an appropriate outcome, even if procedurally heavy. To me, suppress-moving redirects usually doesn't make sense, but I agree it could be a solution for attribution reasons, and agree it is clearly better than dummy edits. Of course this results in having page history under a different name as you are concerned about in your last point, but usually the dab page or new redirect target should at least be somewhat related to the old article history.

In general, I think trying to be better about pointing out redirects with history at Rfd, restoring and sending them to AfD when there is no good redirect target, invoking WP:SNOWBALL when Afd would be pointless, and treating the R with history deletions that do occur at RfD as refundable soft deletions is a good strategy for now. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

XFDCloser is broken

I was alerted to this by Liz that closes are incomplete. It updates the RfD page but doesn't act on the redirect page. I checked my previous closes and see that Philosophy and myth, Simon Hatt and Raj Kumar (processor) have not been deleted despite the delete close. The last close that worked for me was WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Brageirac (vila) of 19th March. I am trying to see when the problem started. Jay (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I have manually closed the above. The problem may have started appearing after 17:27, 20 March 2022‎ UTC, I see that some of Liz's incomplete closes have been completed by Explicit, but others have not. Also, Explicit's WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 14#January 18, 2008 (film) delete close is not yet done. Jay (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I guess I have to thank Explicit for that. I was hoping this issue would be cleared up by now after multiple messages at the XFDCloser talk page and email to the developer but it's still a problem...there seems to only be one person who can fix this and he is absent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

And his IAdmin rights were removed last week because of inactivity. XFDCloser used to work like a charm. We need it back! Jay (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed ...I believe. (I cannot fully confirm since I am not an admin, and this cannot "test" delete a page.) XFDcloser should now work on any nominations initiated after the time stamp of this comment; any nominations initiated prior to this comment's time stamp will not be able to be closed properly by XFDcloser. Please see Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser#XFDC not removing RFD tag from redirect when closing discussions or tagging talk page with old RFD for further details. Steel1943 (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

What's left is for us to track down any missed redirects. I've tried this petscan – it lists pages which contain the boilerplace rfd message but aren't linked from the main RfD log. I've finished the closures of about ten redirects; four remain: these are deletes, and I've messaged the respective closers. Maybe we should keep an eye on this until all nominations from March and April have been closed? However, I'm not sure if this query will catch everything: I suspect it's restricted to redirects in the mainspace. Anyone versed in Petscan willing to have a look? – Uanfala (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it can be as simple as keeping a close eye on Category:Redirects for discussion from March 2022 and Category:Redirects for discussion from April 2022 until those categories are cleared out. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Rules are confusing & FRUSTRATING

I've tried 10 times in my preview to nominate redirects 2021 Prince Edward Island Liberal Party leadership election & 2021 New Democratic Party of Prince Edward Island leadership election, for deletion. The instructions are difficult to understand & implement. So, not gonna bother with making the nominations. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I'm happy to advise here, but could you explain what sort of error you're encountering? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to nominat the two aforementioned redirects. I don't understand the instructions on how to do it. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: If there's a specific part of the instructions that you find confusing, I'm happy to clarify (and can update the templated instructions if necessary). Or, if you can tell me the nomination rationale(s) you'd like to give, I can nominate them for you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

It's alright. My nominations have already been properly done. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Who was that lady

The above Redirect goes to a minor target, one of the episodes of a U.S. television show, instead of to what should be a major article based on the joke "Who was that lady I saw you with last night? That was no lady; that was my wife." The earliest mention I saw of this joke was in 1936 at Newspapers.com. Whatever; in my humble opinion it is simply not a good Redirect. Thus the Redirect should be deleted. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it has just been retargeted, but it is still a bad Redirect. Best to delete it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: You can take it to RfD if you want, but in general the precedent has been that if Redirect X would best point to Target A, but Target A doesn't exist and Redirect X is also a plausible redirect to Target B, it stands as a redirect to Target B until Target A is written. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Heh heh. I looked at that RfD page and was so confused by it that I brought ny concerns here, where I am going to leave them. If you think the reader is best served by the current redirect, I don't agree but it's not worth any more time, until I write an article about the joke itself. Best wishes, your friend, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delete if this is all there is to the question. If it's deleted, searches from the lowercase version (or capitalized only in the first letter) will go automatically to any capitalization it finds, so there's really no need for a redirect. (Internal links would show up red, but that's probably good, as the editor might then notice the incorrect capitalization.) --Trovatore (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Process question

If I don't want a redirect deleted or renamed, but restored to a main article, what is the process? I don't see that option at WP:RFD#HOWTO or maybe I'm just confused. APK whisper in my ear 06:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@APK: Three potential answers:

1. If the redirection of the article was someone's bold decision, then per WP:BRD and WP:BLAR, all you have to do is revert them. Explaining via edit summary why you object to the redirection is considered good form. At that point, it's up to the other user to take it to AfD if they disagree.
2. If the redirection was the result of an AfD, and you think facts have significantly changed since that AfD (say, an unreleased album was redirected to the article on a musician, but now the album has come out), you can boldly restore and improve the article, because consensus can change
3. If it was the result of an AfD but the facts haven't changed and you just think the AfD's outcome was wrong, you should take the redirect to WP:DRV.

Hope that helps. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it's the first one. I reverted but that was also reverted back to a redirect. APK whisper in my ear 07:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@APK: I would suggest discussing with the user. But ultimately the burden is on them to show that there should not be an article. If they continue to revert then that becomes a user conduct issue. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. APK whisper in my ear 07:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Dark Triad needs to redirect to Dark triad

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Triad should be redirected to show the existing page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad

Please help fix this as there are a bunch of broken links on the net whereas the title of the specific condition and as such Dark Triad.

The redirect will correct without breaking anyone else's links. 174.4.58.16 (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Y I have created the Dark Triad redirect. In enwiki there was only one article Schadenfreude linking to it though. Jay (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Emoji redirects?

I just saw a new redirect involving an emoji and it seems to match the target page, but I'm not sure. Should I start an RfD or is there precedent for this that I'm not aware of? Clovermoss (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Emoji redirects do get discussed at RfD. See an ongoing one WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 12#😕 for example. Jay (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jay: Interesting. I just wanted to make sure that emojis being redirects were an allowable thing. 🕺 is a dance emoji, so I don't think the redirect itself is otherwise problematic. Thanks for the response! Clovermoss (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Query about excessive redirects

Hey! I recently discovered a pattern across ~24 (potentially less) redirects (related to the template and user namespace) that serve little function due to how wikipedia works on the technical side, and also all have no existing uses, and would be extremely unlikely to ever have a use. Is this a valid reason for deletion, and is there any advice for making mass nomination of redirects reasonably simple to do? Aidan9382 _(talk) 08:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

An example? Its hard to say if there is a reason without the page to see. ​ Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

We Did It!

There are now only eight open log pages, each of which has at least one open nomination that has yet to hit 168 hours. In other words, zero pages that are all past-close. This is the first time I can recall ever seeing this. Thank you to all the other RfD admins, non-admin closers, and participants! (I'd ping some of y'all but then I'd inevitably miss someone and feel bad.) To celebrate, I have created the redirect We Did It!, which will forever be listed in my contribs right after closing the last straggler. :D -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Changing a re-direct's target

Is this the correct page to request a change in a redirect's target? GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. However if you are sure what the new target should be, and expect no opposition to the change, you may do it right away, without listing it here. Jay 06:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It involves 14 redirects, which are inter-related. So, I'm gonna side on caution & bring them here for a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Color redirects

It seems as a result of shades of colors getting moved around with out the redirects being moved, we have had a lot of submissions at RfD to figure out what to do with these, as it's generally not really obvious. It almost seems like the best solution to this would be to revert back some versions of the colors in so the redirects are pointing back to the right places and we would not need to look for where they've been moved to, but that risks having duplicate information. Does anyone else have an idea as to a way to solve this? RfD isn't a bad way to solve it, I was just wondering if others had other ideas. TartarTorte 12:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Before I saw this discussion, I added back Avocado and Asparagus, among others, from the page history of Chartreuse (color) to Shades of chartreuse, and updated the corresponding RfDs. It did not include Army Green. If there are more, let me know. Jay 💬 13:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

What is the consensus on redirects with little mention at the target

...such as Nicolas Cantu, or where the subject is only included in the cast list etc., or as a passing mention in the target. I see a lot of these at WP:AFCRC (e.g. Ayesha Toor) and I've created a fair few myself (like the example above). This was also discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 20#Technoblade (and others), which I was largely involved in as creator of the redirects concerned. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

It depends. If there is a more comprehensive mention elsewhere then almost always retargetting there is going to be best, but {{R to list entry}} is a thing and that's fine in many cases. Things to consider are what the scope for more encyclopaedia information is, what the search term is, what the surrounding context of the mention is, whether it's ambiguous, etc. Redirects to cast lists are usually deleted where the person concerned has roughly equal roles in multiple productions, but if the mention is the only one or clearly the most prominent then they are often kept. Passing mentions depend on how useful the passing mention is, e.g. if the redirect is the name of a product and target is about the type of product and mentions that product as an example then this is often going to be kept as a useful redirect (assuming the product is not notable); but a mention that doesn't help the reader unfamiliar with the search term anything about it then it will usually be deleted. There are too many variables to give a single answer. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, For example, I've created all of the following redirects: QuackityHQ, LaurenzSide, Danooct1, JelloApocalypse, GradeAUnderA, Black Gryph0n, Mongraal, Ph1LzA. Would you say these should be deleted? (Personally, I think most of them should, based on your comment above, with JelloApocalypse, DAnooct1, and possibly Black Gryph0n being the exceptions.) — Qwerfjkltalk 15:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects § Soft redirects to sister projects

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects § Soft redirects to sister projects. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of multiple redirects.

From discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities, it has been decided to put up all redirects where the capitalization of the later letters is lowercase. For example, Alpha phi omega redirects to Alpha Phi Omega. We have a list at User:Naraht/Greek letter titles lower, but I'm not quite sure the best way to put them into the RFD process. Note, in many cases the miscapitalization redirects to correctly capitalized, but in some cases the miscapitalization redirects to the same thing as the correctly capitalized. We consider the capitalization errors unlikely. Naraht (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Naraht, I can mass tag them?
I suggest you use a tool like it Twinkle (or manually) nominate the first one for deletion at RfD, give a rationale, etc., and then ping me, and I can tag then semi-automatically. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl, you can.

• If the only thing that is wrong with them is that the capitalisation is non-canonical then it is unlikely that there will be a consensus for deletion, {{R from incorrect capitalisation}} redirects are generally kept. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed, but there is a limit there. If someone had created nortH carolinA as a redirect, I think it would get removed.Naraht (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, nortH carolinA would get deleted, but north carolina would almost certainly be kept if nominated as all lower case is (in most cases) one of the most plausible miscapitalisations. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  The question would be North carolina and Prince edward island, both of those exist. I'm not sure they should for fraternities/sororities though.Naraht (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Naraht, north carolina is North carolina. — Qwerfjkltalk 06:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  If you nominate them for deletion you'll need to explain why you think fraternities/sorties are different to most other topics. Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

SS Rochester

The RfD for SS Rochester was closed by Asmodea Oaktree by retargeting to a page that does not exist. Liz reverted the retarget and removed the RfD tags, but did not re-open the RfD. What happens now? Jay 💬 08:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

RfD has been re-opened at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 24#SS Rochester, moving my comment there. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I failed to see that the target was draftified after the close, and found this out only at the re-opened RfD. I support the draftification though, the target (created by the closer, thus making him involved) was just not ready. Jay 💬 15:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Leading spaces before header

I inserted

{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=IBM 370|target=IBM System/370|text=The redirect should be changed to a DAB page, with a primary of [[IBM 370 printer]]. The common abbreviation for System/370 is S/370, not IBM 370, and readers are not highly likely to be searching on IBM 370 unless they are looking for the printer. Users looking for the printer will be surprised by a page for unrelated, much later, products.}} ~~~~

for a new entry and the created text in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_November_28&diff=1124349060&oldid=1124335397 had leading spaces before the section header. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting! Are you sure that there were 0 spaces before the "{{subst"? Jay 💬 18:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Redirects with disambiguators missing ")"

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.

---

Did we forget to close this one? Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Redirects with disambiguators missing ")" Consensus looks clear. Likely need an admin since deleting is involved. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I see that you had already listed it at WP:Closure requests on 17th Nov. Jay 💬 18:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

True. Are there any issues with that? Looks like the RFD is still open. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2022 (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.

XFDcloser is broken

Since yesterday (or is it today) I'm unable to type anything into the Result Summary or Rationale fields of the XFDcloser. It appears that some keyboard shortcuts may have been implemented, and what I type is being interpreted as shortcuts, for example 'D' is changing my result choice to Delete. I am managing by typing into Notepad, copying and pasting into the fields. I am using Firefox. Jay 💬 16:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

That also happened the last time I tried to use the "multiple results" option at the bottom of the closer, but solved it by adding each result individually and then adding the rest. No idea why this happens, and honestly thought it was fixed by now. I usually use Chrome or Safari. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it looks to be a Firefox problem. Did not happen on Chrome. However, today I'm not getting the Multiple results options to work at all. The Next button is not getting enabled. Jay 💬 12:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Subscribing to individual RFDs

Want the ability to hit the [subscribe] button to individual RFDs? Then this community wishlist wish might be of interest. The [subscribe] button is a feature of DiscussionTools that lets you receive a notification when someone replies to a section, which lets you take busy pages off of your watchlist since you can just wait for notifications. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Not disruptive and I stopped

See all nominations at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Other films are no longer upcoming. 176.88.82.7 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Listing old pages instead of transcluding them?

I'm finding that the size of the page is making it slower and harder to close discussions instead of making it easier...for the very old pages (maybe 10+ days old) could we just link to them instead of transcluding them? Legoktm (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Involved close

WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 17#Manipuri: The Bishnupriyas and Meiteis of Manipur was closed by Wbm1058 who was a major participant as well. Rather than revert and close again, can an admin endorse it and probably add a line to the close statement to make it a valid close. That is, assuming it the Delete close is not controversial. Jay 💬 04:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel like we've waited long enough for Manipuri, creator of this title, to show up and vote or explain their rationale. Though they weren't notified on User talk:Manipuri, I did ping quite some time ago, mid-discussion. Noting also the point made in the section above "that the size of the page is making it slower and harder to close discussions" (though I didn't have any trouble doing it using XFDcloser... wbm1058 (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Noting also that my "involvement" is not due to editing content in the topic area nor following the activities of Jimmy Wales, but rather because this turned up on one of my patrols. I didn't really make a "keep" or "delete" vote, either. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

What do do with the RfD tag if the redirect it turned into an article during an RfD

Hello. Next Thai general election was RfD'd, but during the RfD has been turned into an article. The tag was just reinstated (along with the redirect), which looks a bit weird. Are there any rules about this sort of situation? Cheers, Number 57 18:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Usually the creation of an article makes the RfD discussion moot, in which case it's appropriate to procedurally close the RfD and remove tags. In this case, the new stub is basically a less-informative version of Elections in Thailand and there isn't really a plausible basis for the creation of a separate article, so I agree with the decision to just revert the article creation and carry on with discussion. If editors keep recreating the article anyway, it would probably be appropriate to remove the article from the RfD discussion and send it to AfD separately. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. The creation wasn't reverted though – the article is still there, just with the tag and redirect code at the top. Number 57 18:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh I misread the page. Well, I'm going to go ahead and do that and provide both links to Elections in Thailand and describe the intended process going forward. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Mass nomination

How do I slow the pace of nominations when I am unable to keep pace? Fram has a new clever game and this isn't what RfD is for. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Many of the nominated (and speedy deleted) redirects were created by you after we already had things like Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 21#Pat Robertson is a global businessman, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 9#1/6 rioters climb stairways with ropes and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 9#1/6 rioters climb stairways with makeshift ladders (and note the ongoing Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 10#1/6 rioters climb stairways with ropes and makeshift ladders). In general, an RfD needs less time than an AfD, you don't need to search for sources and so on in most cases, you just need to make a good case why a redirect is really useful (not some "but AI" handwaving) and not some random phrase or error (like Illegally retaliation against Bassem Youssef). What's e.g. the benefit that when I put "Community Cyberinfrastructure for Advanced Microbial Ecology Research and Analysis" into the search box, I get the article and your five redirects? Who or what is helped by that? E.g. in Google search, I get the same results when I use one of your lengthy redirects or make up one of my own, say "Community Cyberinfrastructure for Advanced Microbial Ecology Research and Analysis history". In what circumstances is anyone actually helped by the existence of these 5 redirects for that article? Fram (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisted discussions moved

I wanted to go to the RfD of Constitutional democracy from its notification at Talk:Representative democracy. It took me to the July 25th page, and the relist link took me to August 1 where the RfD was missing. I checked the history and found CycloneYoris had moved some RfDs with comment Moved RfDs to correct log, since they were relisted after 00Z., but it did not say where the RfDs were moved to. From the user contributions I saw that they were moved to the August 2 page, and I made the date correction for the Constitutional democracy RfD at the July 25 page. @CycloneYoris: can you fix the backlinks for the other moved discussions as well? Jay 💬 13:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jay:  Done. I do apologize for not fixing these before, but I somehow assumed that they were already linked to the August 2 page. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:RFD?" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:RFD? has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 21 § Wikipedia:RFD? until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 17:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Involved relisting to clear old log days

Why is the convention to do this at RfD (but at no other deletion venue)? It seems counterprodutive to me, as it forces unclosed discussions to go through the wringer extra times and stay unclosed longer, and at the same time hides the backlog from people looking at {{XFD backlog}} or elsewhere. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree, it is counterproductive, especially the 4th relists of Moment (time), Wayne Carter, and Redirects to Mud (disambiguation). They should be brought up at WP:Closure requests instead (which I see you have done today). Jay 💬 06:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Also agree. Different problem but there are lots of unnecessary, primarily non-admin 2nd and 3rd relists happening too. J947 † ^edits 23:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

If you see unnecessary or counterproductive relists, call the editor out for it. For example, I did so a couple weeks ago here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my relists, you can tell me directly. If this is about somebody else, tell them directly. There's a lot you can achieve by going to somebody's user talk page. casualdejekyll 22:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

(to both of you) It's more of a general gripe; I have messaged editors who I feel are doing improper closes before but the competency among the current group is definitely loads better. Before my time but I think before 2018 or so multi-relisted RfDs were uncommon despite much lower participation. The amount of editor energy expended on individual redirects here has vastly increased (and there are a lot more nominations too), and I can't help thinking we've got the balance wrong. J947 † ^edits 00:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, except for the insinuation that it's "convention". Rather, it appears Duckmather was a bit too overeager with some relists. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pppery and Tavix: Thank you for the comments. I will try to ask around on WP:Closure requests to handle old RfDs rather than just relisting everything. Duckmather (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but I think relisting RfDs generally does more harm than good. For example, it removes RfDs I am interested in from the page I am watching. —Kusma (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Template:R from deadname — is RfD the right/best venue?

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7 § Template:R from deadname

Just opening a meta-discussion here, as (despite having opened the RfD myself) I’m becoming increasingly concerned that RfD may not be the best - or the right - venue for discussion about this. I opened the discussion at RfD initially as the page was a redirect to an rcat; but now it seems to be slowly turning into a bit more of a complex beast: with potential redirect, category, template, & BLP issues referred to so far.

Because of this, I’m no longer convinced that RfD — especially with its seven-day limits on discussions (excluding relists) — is the best or the right venue for a discussion that seems starting to lean towards the creation of a potentially controversial rcat template. I’m also concerned that (for example) if a consensus was reached here at RfD for a new rcat, that may then be challenged as an improper venue; and that other editors may have made comments if they were aware of the discussion, but as it was specifically listed at RfD, they weren’t.

I’m very new to this level of editing, so I’d be very appreciative if some more experienced editors could provide some advice!

Best, A smart kitten (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Not the first time I've seen a BLP issue at RFD, and certainly won't be the last. I've nominated a set of redirects (unused married names) which largely were deleted on BLP grounds.

As for the creation of a new template/category, that discussion would usually take place on Template talk:R from birth name, or some more general page (not a category page, as the category only exists because of the template). However, moving a discussion in progress that's this large can start to get a bit messy. As long as people who would want to chip into the discussion are notified, it shouldn't really matter where the discussion takes place, and it shouldn't get overturned on improper venue grounds. I'm a bit inexperienced here myself, but I would just notify all relevant pages to the discussion and keep it at RFD. Would like to hear other editors' thoughts, though. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Skarmory. Since the discussion is already at RfD, let's keep it at RfD. If people complain afterwards, ah well. If the discussion gets out of hand, we can always have an RFD RFC. As Skarmory said, so long as the groups have been notified, it should be fine. Also, I'm a bit inexperienced here myself, but I would just notify all relevant pages to the discussion and keep it at RFD. Would like to hear other editors' thoughts, though. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Skarmory and Edward-Woodrow: Are there any talk pages that haven’t been notified yet that either of you think maybe should be? WP:WPTEMP immediately comes to mind to me, I’ll notify them now.

In terms of getting comments from BLP-experienced editors, do you think I’d leave a discussion notification at WP:BLPN? And/or WT:WPBIO? Or somewhere else? The former seemed like the most obvious place based on the title alone, but the page header suggests it deals with article issues rather than providing discussion links. (Could IAR I guess, but I’d rather be more sure that it’s the most appropriate place before leaving a discussion link tbh!)

All the best. ^{— user:}A smart kitten_meow 18:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

WT:MOS:BIO is a hotbed for discussions like these, and would probably have the most knowledgeable editors on deadname-related concerns, since it's the talk page of the page which WP:DEADNAME is part of. I'm not familiar with either of the other boards, but a look at them would indicate they're fine places to notify. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, RfD is the best venue, since it is the venue for discussion of deletion or retargeting of redirects. Attention to this particular RfD has been drawn from WT:MOSBIO, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion re "drafting below the redirect"

I have opened a discussion about the practice of drafting proposals below the redirect notice on redirects under discussion. You are invited to provide your feedback to the discussion here. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)