This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
The following issue came up recently in a dispute over a proposed redirect deletion.
As always, "Redirected from X" will appear at the top of the page. Please assume for the sake of argument that the editor is unable add an explanation to the article because they have access to any sources or they don't have time; the only options are to delete or not delete the redirect. Assume also that any proposed deletion is announced in the appropriate place and no other editors respond, so the original editor must make a judgement call.
My intention is to discuss principles that should apply generally in these sorts of scenarios, but for reference the case the prompted this dispute was X=" Hadamard-Gutzwiller model" and Y=" Hadamard's dynamical system".
(If this is not the correct place to discuss abstract principles that ought to be applied when deciding whether to delete a redirect, could someone tell me where that is? The only other plausible page I found was Wikipedia_talk:Redirects_for_discussion/Common_outcomes but that seemed less appropriate.) Jess_Riedel ( talk) 19:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
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.
Several discussions from the 17th September remain unclosed and have not been relisted. JZ CL 12:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Please help with discussion on Talk:Popsicle (brand)#Requested move 10 August 2018. When evidence exists for a generic trademark, what threshold should we as editors use to definitively determine whether to direct the trademark name to the trademark page or its generic equivalent page? Examples of both have been presented in comments and I see no guidance within WP:Trademark or Category:Redirects from brand names. Leaving the decision to an editor/survey on whether or not Wikipedia should respect a book citation over easily verified live trademark ownership seems tenuous. Lexlex ( talk) 11:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Tavix and Steel1943: Thanks for pointing out there is {{ Db-redircom}}. I speedy deleted one but not the other two because the first one is an exact shadow (so completely uncontroversial WP:G6). But the latter two actually have local redirects pointing to a different file than their Commons equivalents, which means they're also WP:G6 (because these are broken redirects anyway) but there may be other clean-up to do. Deryck C. 15:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Is there a limit for how long after a redirect is nominated, for voting? Puzzledvegetable ( talk) 20:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Any easy way to get a list of all redirects from the Wikipedia namespace to the Article namespace? Just speedied (as recently created) 4 where editors erroneously moved an article from Draft to the Wikipedia space, and then corrected by a second move from Wikipedia to the Mainspace, leaving a redirect. But those speedies were only after a manual search that got up to "Am". A systemic list would be better of course, with any non-recently created to be brought here rather than speedied. Thanks in advance. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 19:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace. JJMC89 created that list; in case you want an updated version, they might be the person to ask. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Posting here that I had to manually transclude 2019 January 27. May need to keep a lookout to see if DumbBOT is having issues again. (This isn't the first time something like this has happened.) Steel1943 ( talk) 10:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Editors who participate in RfD may be interested in participating in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Category:Canadian Research Publication academic journals. This WP:CFD nomination involves several incoming "article"-namespace redirects to the categories that will be eligible for WP:G8 speedy deletion if the categories are deleted. (Pinging UnitedStatesian, the nominator, to make them aware of this note.) Steel1943 ( talk) 21:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Due to a recent RFD about the title of our WP:RS guideline, it has come to my attention that we have no system of notification in place for RFD discussions. We have such a requirement for RM discussions... but not for RFD discussions. Is this an oversight, or something intentional? Should there be notification? Blueboar ( talk) 17:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
It's almost never the best use of time to discuss redirects to targets that are currently at an XfD. If the target is deleted the redirect can be speedily deleted under criterion G8 and any consensus at RfD becomes irrelevant or moot depending which is closed first. With any other outcome for the target the original rationale may or may not still be relevant so it's much better to wait until outcome of the XfD before nominating the redirect.
We should probably include something like this (but worded better) in the RfD guidance to (a) directly help people who read it before nominating and (b) have somewhere to point people to when we get nominations like Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 23#Template:Liga 2 Group 1 table rather than having to write a probably less-well phrased explanation out each time. Thryduulf ( talk) 02:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
There's a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Notifying redirect targets that Twinkle should put a notice on the talk page of the target article of a redirect up for discussion at RfD. Best to keep the discussion in one place, so do join in the discussion there if interested. Pam D 23:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
PamD has pointed out that there are no instructions for withdrawing an RfD nomination. With that in mind, I propose to add a short subsection of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Closing notes. My initial suggestion is below but improvements, comments and copyedits are more than welcome - in particular this is possibly too detailed.
If you want to withdraw the nomination for any reason, for example if you change your mind and there are no other editors advocating deletion, there are two options.
Thryduulf ( talk) 12:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:RGUIDE says Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
This text has been around since at least 2005, and perhaps it made more sense then. But what does it actually mean now?
WP:R is a vast and sprawling guideline detailing the purpose, scope and nature of redirects. Contravention of it is more likely to be a reason for deletion, rather than a reason for a speedy keep. Surely there is something more clear that can be said here.
Triptothecottage (
talk) 11:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in participating in this discussion about what types of non-administrative closures are permissible. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
When RfDing a redirect with WP:Twinkle you should now see a new checkbox. If checked (default), Twinkle will leave a notice on the talk page of a redirect's target upon RfD nomination. See discussion above. Also, the preview button now works for RfD! Other recent changes here; please let me know if there are any issues! ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 15:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The above redirect is up for deletion, but I can't seem to find the actual discussion anywhere. It's clearly a typo (the disambig isn't closed), however, I found it odd there was no link to the discussion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 08:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Upon researching to create Humera (disambiguation), the redirect Humera Alwani came to my attention. If there is no reason for such a redirect, you can nominate this for discussion.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to reopen the discussion of the Redirect for Speak Welsh which I created sometime earlier this month. I only became aware of the proposal after it was deleted (somehow I didn't see the notification) so I couldn't participate in the discussion. I have some points which weren't considered. Where is the right place to do this? -- DadaNeem ( talk) 02:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I have created many redirects from Kunrei-shiki spellings, some of which may appear unusual to an English speaker. In the past I did not include this detail in the edit summaries/internal comments/talk pages in the redirects. I am concerned that years down the line a person unfamiliar with this may file a redirect for discussion and get the redirects deleted because other Wikipedians don't know about the fact it is a legitimate redirect spelling. I think RFD filers and participants should be familiar with the romanizations of say Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. when a redirect in that subject area is discussed.
Thanks, WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at this? I'm reluctant to close it myself as I'm "involved" but clearly it's not conducive to have parallel discussions at at WP:Rfd and WP:RM. PC78 ( talk) 13:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Indiana State Road 64, Tennessee State Route 132 & others are linked to coal truck and a redirect to mineral wagon appears to be an error. But coal trucks is linked to Withdrawn British Rail stock, User:Wavelength/Articles userfied/List of environmental topics/C & William Galloway (mining engineer) and redirects to mineral wagon. This is a terminology conflict of sorts. I did not figure out how to post this on the project page. Vive the difference between American English and British English. Peter Horn User talk 13:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about the speedy deletion of this sort of redirect (e.g. Aisa Bint Ahmad (Q30904322) → Aisa Bint Ahmad) at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirects with database (e.g. Wikidata) identifiers. Please comment there to keep discussion together. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
hi, i just found some new redirect pages that there is no articles link to that page. for examples: Yu Lang Lin, Lin Youlang targeting to Lin Yu-lang page. but after i checked, there is no articles in wikipedia that linked to Yu Lang Lin or Lin Youlang (see: Yu Lang Lin , Lin Youlang ). anyone know which criteria should i tag in the redirect page for deletion? thank you -- Stvbastian ( talk) 03:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
If a redirect in the Wikipedia namespace has lots of incoming links (I stopped at 1500), is it possible to retarget it to a more appropriate target? If not, I won't submit that for discussion. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 8#Wikipedia:RFD/2018 November 18, would it be good practice to routinely create redirects of the forms Wikipedia:RFD/2018 November 18 and/or Wikipedia:RFD/2018Nov18 as pseudo-shortcuts to daily log pages for XfDs? As of this writing, these two are the only ones in existence, and the consensus at the linked RfD is shifting in favor of keep. As several users suggest that there could be value in using these redirects as shorthand in edit summaries or perhaps even as shortcuts (to avoid typing long titles), I'm bringing this here for a broader survey. Should there be consensus in favor of mass creation, a new bot task could be requested for its implementation.
@ BrownHairedGirl, Utopes, and Thryduulf: pinging the participants of the linked RfD.
I'm at weak support right now; the idea and its rationale look reasonable, but I'm not sure how necessary it is. ComplexRational ( talk) 21:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Books/Mathematics, which was redirected to Book:Mathematics ten years ago, was deleted on 3 November 2019 by JJMC89 following this discussion (opened by Black Falcon). The page was not actually nominated in that discussion, nor apparently in any other deletion discussion, based on what currently links to that title. This is worrisome. Are deletions becoming so routine that they can't even wait for the affected pages to actually be nominated? Note that Portal:Mathematics was still linking to there (through one of its "component" subpages) at the time of deletion, which is how I learned about it. Although the idea of breaking links was considered in the discussion, apparently it wasn't taken seriously enough for anyone to actually check each page (sufficiently carefully, anyway) for that possibility. To all relevant parties involved (including UnitedStatesian, who argued all similar redirects should be deleted without further discussion), I say: please be more careful when deleting pages (even lowly redirects), and do not delete an entire "class" of pages without linking to and checking all of them to see how deletion might affect "reader-facing content". I know that's annoying to do for hundreds of pages, but if something is worth doing, it should be worth doing right. - dcljr ( talk) 10:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Looks like DumbBOT is down. (RFD subpages not being created or transcluded.) Tizio, any status on this? Steel1943 ( talk) 21:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink#Food_additives_codes_redirect_to_chemical_compounds_instead_of_E_number_article where I make a suggestion to mass-change a class of redirects. It has attracted no discussion so far, so I believe the logical next step would be to mass-nominate the redirects in question. My question is twofold:
E1?[0-9]{3}[a-j]?
and which are redirects, ask for a bot-task to tag them, and put up a bundled nomination. But I do not know how to search for that list.Tigraan Click here to contact me 13:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
In a recent RFD folks argued that #KEEP clause 7 is obsolete and incompatible with #DELETE clause 10: Please delete the keep clause for clarity. – 84.46.52.210 ( talk) 04:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove keep clause 7 as obsolete, it is not always compatible with delete clause 10, and while it is in theory still true, in practice deleting a redirect makes it more obvious on other Wikipedias that enwiki does not yet have a corresponding article. "Obsolete" as in "since ILLs are managed on WikiData and not more a hopeless mess tackled by bots". – 84.46.53.221 ( talk) 21:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
sofixit}}
better.
–
84.46.53.221 (
talk) 21:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Currently, WP:RFD#HARMFUL reads:
The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:
- a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
- if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.
Additionally, there could exist (for example) links to the URL " /info/en/?search=Attorneygate" anywhere on the Internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) " WhatLinksHere for Attorneygate"—since those links might come from somewhere outside Wikipedia.
Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.
Now, the second bullet point and the paragraph that immediately follows it are all really about the same thing (breaking incoming links), so I think it's reasonable to merge them. Additionally, I think it goes to a greater than necessary length explaining external incoming links. And the presence of really
in the last sentence seems to imply – using the common everyday meanings of the words – that we should only delete really harmful redirects, but keep redirects that are just a little bit harmful, which I take to be obviously bad advice. I'm proposing the following version:
The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:
- a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
- if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (if such links come from older revisions of Wikipedia articles or from the internet outside Wikipedia, they will not show up in "What links here").
Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of very recent ones.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
veryfor the same reasons you removed really. Perhaps it may be a good idea to pipe
break incoming linkswith WP:EXTERNALROT (or is there a better location?) in case someone does want more detail on that. -- Tavix ( talk) 15:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Incorporating the above suggestions, and with a little tweak to the wording, the section could look something like that:
The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:
- a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
- if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").
Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.
I'm not sure of the best place to refer to
WP:EXTERNALROT, I've provisionally linked it from the text from elsewhere on the internet
as it's the most specific: WP:EXTERNALROT doesn't seem to talk of the other types of incoming links, though of course, linking earlier in the text as Tavix suggests would in some ways be more natural. I'm going to update the project page with this provisional new version (obviously, feel free to edit). –
Uanfala (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:RFD#KEEP says that we don't delete "Links that have existed for a significant length of time".
My question: Is there an agreed-upon understanding of what "a significant length of time" means?
Concern for breaking internal and external links was added by User:Angela in August 2004. It was updated once or twice soon after (e.g., to include the old subpages – most editors won't remember when AliceExpert was the "correct" title for an article about Alice Expert, and that AliceExpert/talk was what Wikipedia used instead of Talk:Alice Expert, because the idea of namespaces hadn't been invented yet), and it reached its current version in this edit by User:Thryduulf.
Given that the first edits to the English Wikipedia were made about 3.5 years before the creation of the rule, I don't think it's unreasonable to guess that this was meant to discourage deletion (though not changing the target of) of "unnecessary" redirects that something in the range of months to a couple of years old. Do we have anything like a modern understanding of what "a significant length of time" means to us? If we have an estimate, then it'd be a kindness to all concerned if we actually wrote it down, instead of making editors guess whether "a significant length of time" is usually taken to mean approximately a week, a month, a year, or a decade. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Equinox#RfC on season-specific redirects. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 17:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser#Deleting redirects that are at RFD. Evad37 [ talk 00:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
See also "Nominating lots of related redirects" asked above and never answered.
Category:English words is currently occupied largely by redirects whose sole purpose seems to be to force non-word things into that category. Each of the following articles simply redirects to the article on the thing; e.g. Aardvark (word) is a redirect to Aardvark, and so on.
I'd propose all of these redirects for deletion, if there were some way to do it speedily. Alternatively, if someone with the proper permissions could just WP:BOLD all of these away, that would be cool. -- Quuxplusone ( talk) 21:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
|multi=
to "yes" for all except the first one), and then tag the individual redirects; 3) use AWB to automate the previous step. However, I don't think a mass nomination is a good idea in this case, it will likely result in a
WP:TRAINWRECK: some of these redirects were formerly articles (so there might be issues with preserving history and attribution), some are redirects from moves (potentially needed to preserve incoming links), so could have been created for ease of linking. Probably some are not needed, so deletion may be in the interest of the encyclopedia, but if your sole concern is the redirects' membership of
Category:English words, you can simply take them out of it. –
Uanfala (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)There is currently a discussion occurring at Template talk:RFDNote#Phrasing regarding the wording used for {{ RFDNote}}, the template used primarily on redirect creators' talk pages to inform them the redirect they created is nominated at WP:RFD. Participants in RfD are invited and may be interested to participate in this discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed new CSD criterion: R5, for redirects with malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers which may be of interest to editors who follow this page. Narky Blert ( talk) 19:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
The following issue came up recently in a dispute over a proposed redirect deletion.
As always, "Redirected from X" will appear at the top of the page. Please assume for the sake of argument that the editor is unable add an explanation to the article because they have access to any sources or they don't have time; the only options are to delete or not delete the redirect. Assume also that any proposed deletion is announced in the appropriate place and no other editors respond, so the original editor must make a judgement call.
My intention is to discuss principles that should apply generally in these sorts of scenarios, but for reference the case the prompted this dispute was X=" Hadamard-Gutzwiller model" and Y=" Hadamard's dynamical system".
(If this is not the correct place to discuss abstract principles that ought to be applied when deciding whether to delete a redirect, could someone tell me where that is? The only other plausible page I found was Wikipedia_talk:Redirects_for_discussion/Common_outcomes but that seemed less appropriate.) Jess_Riedel ( talk) 19:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
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.
Several discussions from the 17th September remain unclosed and have not been relisted. JZ CL 12:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Please help with discussion on Talk:Popsicle (brand)#Requested move 10 August 2018. When evidence exists for a generic trademark, what threshold should we as editors use to definitively determine whether to direct the trademark name to the trademark page or its generic equivalent page? Examples of both have been presented in comments and I see no guidance within WP:Trademark or Category:Redirects from brand names. Leaving the decision to an editor/survey on whether or not Wikipedia should respect a book citation over easily verified live trademark ownership seems tenuous. Lexlex ( talk) 11:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Tavix and Steel1943: Thanks for pointing out there is {{ Db-redircom}}. I speedy deleted one but not the other two because the first one is an exact shadow (so completely uncontroversial WP:G6). But the latter two actually have local redirects pointing to a different file than their Commons equivalents, which means they're also WP:G6 (because these are broken redirects anyway) but there may be other clean-up to do. Deryck C. 15:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Is there a limit for how long after a redirect is nominated, for voting? Puzzledvegetable ( talk) 20:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Any easy way to get a list of all redirects from the Wikipedia namespace to the Article namespace? Just speedied (as recently created) 4 where editors erroneously moved an article from Draft to the Wikipedia space, and then corrected by a second move from Wikipedia to the Mainspace, leaving a redirect. But those speedies were only after a manual search that got up to "Am". A systemic list would be better of course, with any non-recently created to be brought here rather than speedied. Thanks in advance. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 19:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace. JJMC89 created that list; in case you want an updated version, they might be the person to ask. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Posting here that I had to manually transclude 2019 January 27. May need to keep a lookout to see if DumbBOT is having issues again. (This isn't the first time something like this has happened.) Steel1943 ( talk) 10:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Editors who participate in RfD may be interested in participating in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Category:Canadian Research Publication academic journals. This WP:CFD nomination involves several incoming "article"-namespace redirects to the categories that will be eligible for WP:G8 speedy deletion if the categories are deleted. (Pinging UnitedStatesian, the nominator, to make them aware of this note.) Steel1943 ( talk) 21:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Due to a recent RFD about the title of our WP:RS guideline, it has come to my attention that we have no system of notification in place for RFD discussions. We have such a requirement for RM discussions... but not for RFD discussions. Is this an oversight, or something intentional? Should there be notification? Blueboar ( talk) 17:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
It's almost never the best use of time to discuss redirects to targets that are currently at an XfD. If the target is deleted the redirect can be speedily deleted under criterion G8 and any consensus at RfD becomes irrelevant or moot depending which is closed first. With any other outcome for the target the original rationale may or may not still be relevant so it's much better to wait until outcome of the XfD before nominating the redirect.
We should probably include something like this (but worded better) in the RfD guidance to (a) directly help people who read it before nominating and (b) have somewhere to point people to when we get nominations like Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 23#Template:Liga 2 Group 1 table rather than having to write a probably less-well phrased explanation out each time. Thryduulf ( talk) 02:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
There's a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Notifying redirect targets that Twinkle should put a notice on the talk page of the target article of a redirect up for discussion at RfD. Best to keep the discussion in one place, so do join in the discussion there if interested. Pam D 23:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
PamD has pointed out that there are no instructions for withdrawing an RfD nomination. With that in mind, I propose to add a short subsection of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Closing notes. My initial suggestion is below but improvements, comments and copyedits are more than welcome - in particular this is possibly too detailed.
If you want to withdraw the nomination for any reason, for example if you change your mind and there are no other editors advocating deletion, there are two options.
Thryduulf ( talk) 12:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:RGUIDE says Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
This text has been around since at least 2005, and perhaps it made more sense then. But what does it actually mean now?
WP:R is a vast and sprawling guideline detailing the purpose, scope and nature of redirects. Contravention of it is more likely to be a reason for deletion, rather than a reason for a speedy keep. Surely there is something more clear that can be said here.
Triptothecottage (
talk) 11:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in participating in this discussion about what types of non-administrative closures are permissible. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
When RfDing a redirect with WP:Twinkle you should now see a new checkbox. If checked (default), Twinkle will leave a notice on the talk page of a redirect's target upon RfD nomination. See discussion above. Also, the preview button now works for RfD! Other recent changes here; please let me know if there are any issues! ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 15:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The above redirect is up for deletion, but I can't seem to find the actual discussion anywhere. It's clearly a typo (the disambig isn't closed), however, I found it odd there was no link to the discussion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 08:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Upon researching to create Humera (disambiguation), the redirect Humera Alwani came to my attention. If there is no reason for such a redirect, you can nominate this for discussion.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to reopen the discussion of the Redirect for Speak Welsh which I created sometime earlier this month. I only became aware of the proposal after it was deleted (somehow I didn't see the notification) so I couldn't participate in the discussion. I have some points which weren't considered. Where is the right place to do this? -- DadaNeem ( talk) 02:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I have created many redirects from Kunrei-shiki spellings, some of which may appear unusual to an English speaker. In the past I did not include this detail in the edit summaries/internal comments/talk pages in the redirects. I am concerned that years down the line a person unfamiliar with this may file a redirect for discussion and get the redirects deleted because other Wikipedians don't know about the fact it is a legitimate redirect spelling. I think RFD filers and participants should be familiar with the romanizations of say Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. when a redirect in that subject area is discussed.
Thanks, WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at this? I'm reluctant to close it myself as I'm "involved" but clearly it's not conducive to have parallel discussions at at WP:Rfd and WP:RM. PC78 ( talk) 13:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Indiana State Road 64, Tennessee State Route 132 & others are linked to coal truck and a redirect to mineral wagon appears to be an error. But coal trucks is linked to Withdrawn British Rail stock, User:Wavelength/Articles userfied/List of environmental topics/C & William Galloway (mining engineer) and redirects to mineral wagon. This is a terminology conflict of sorts. I did not figure out how to post this on the project page. Vive the difference between American English and British English. Peter Horn User talk 13:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about the speedy deletion of this sort of redirect (e.g. Aisa Bint Ahmad (Q30904322) → Aisa Bint Ahmad) at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirects with database (e.g. Wikidata) identifiers. Please comment there to keep discussion together. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
hi, i just found some new redirect pages that there is no articles link to that page. for examples: Yu Lang Lin, Lin Youlang targeting to Lin Yu-lang page. but after i checked, there is no articles in wikipedia that linked to Yu Lang Lin or Lin Youlang (see: Yu Lang Lin , Lin Youlang ). anyone know which criteria should i tag in the redirect page for deletion? thank you -- Stvbastian ( talk) 03:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
If a redirect in the Wikipedia namespace has lots of incoming links (I stopped at 1500), is it possible to retarget it to a more appropriate target? If not, I won't submit that for discussion. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 8#Wikipedia:RFD/2018 November 18, would it be good practice to routinely create redirects of the forms Wikipedia:RFD/2018 November 18 and/or Wikipedia:RFD/2018Nov18 as pseudo-shortcuts to daily log pages for XfDs? As of this writing, these two are the only ones in existence, and the consensus at the linked RfD is shifting in favor of keep. As several users suggest that there could be value in using these redirects as shorthand in edit summaries or perhaps even as shortcuts (to avoid typing long titles), I'm bringing this here for a broader survey. Should there be consensus in favor of mass creation, a new bot task could be requested for its implementation.
@ BrownHairedGirl, Utopes, and Thryduulf: pinging the participants of the linked RfD.
I'm at weak support right now; the idea and its rationale look reasonable, but I'm not sure how necessary it is. ComplexRational ( talk) 21:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Books/Mathematics, which was redirected to Book:Mathematics ten years ago, was deleted on 3 November 2019 by JJMC89 following this discussion (opened by Black Falcon). The page was not actually nominated in that discussion, nor apparently in any other deletion discussion, based on what currently links to that title. This is worrisome. Are deletions becoming so routine that they can't even wait for the affected pages to actually be nominated? Note that Portal:Mathematics was still linking to there (through one of its "component" subpages) at the time of deletion, which is how I learned about it. Although the idea of breaking links was considered in the discussion, apparently it wasn't taken seriously enough for anyone to actually check each page (sufficiently carefully, anyway) for that possibility. To all relevant parties involved (including UnitedStatesian, who argued all similar redirects should be deleted without further discussion), I say: please be more careful when deleting pages (even lowly redirects), and do not delete an entire "class" of pages without linking to and checking all of them to see how deletion might affect "reader-facing content". I know that's annoying to do for hundreds of pages, but if something is worth doing, it should be worth doing right. - dcljr ( talk) 10:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Looks like DumbBOT is down. (RFD subpages not being created or transcluded.) Tizio, any status on this? Steel1943 ( talk) 21:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink#Food_additives_codes_redirect_to_chemical_compounds_instead_of_E_number_article where I make a suggestion to mass-change a class of redirects. It has attracted no discussion so far, so I believe the logical next step would be to mass-nominate the redirects in question. My question is twofold:
E1?[0-9]{3}[a-j]?
and which are redirects, ask for a bot-task to tag them, and put up a bundled nomination. But I do not know how to search for that list.Tigraan Click here to contact me 13:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
In a recent RFD folks argued that #KEEP clause 7 is obsolete and incompatible with #DELETE clause 10: Please delete the keep clause for clarity. – 84.46.52.210 ( talk) 04:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove keep clause 7 as obsolete, it is not always compatible with delete clause 10, and while it is in theory still true, in practice deleting a redirect makes it more obvious on other Wikipedias that enwiki does not yet have a corresponding article. "Obsolete" as in "since ILLs are managed on WikiData and not more a hopeless mess tackled by bots". – 84.46.53.221 ( talk) 21:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
sofixit}}
better.
–
84.46.53.221 (
talk) 21:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Currently, WP:RFD#HARMFUL reads:
The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:
- a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
- if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.
Additionally, there could exist (for example) links to the URL " /info/en/?search=Attorneygate" anywhere on the Internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) " WhatLinksHere for Attorneygate"—since those links might come from somewhere outside Wikipedia.
Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.
Now, the second bullet point and the paragraph that immediately follows it are all really about the same thing (breaking incoming links), so I think it's reasonable to merge them. Additionally, I think it goes to a greater than necessary length explaining external incoming links. And the presence of really
in the last sentence seems to imply – using the common everyday meanings of the words – that we should only delete really harmful redirects, but keep redirects that are just a little bit harmful, which I take to be obviously bad advice. I'm proposing the following version:
The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:
- a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
- if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (if such links come from older revisions of Wikipedia articles or from the internet outside Wikipedia, they will not show up in "What links here").
Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of very recent ones.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
veryfor the same reasons you removed really. Perhaps it may be a good idea to pipe
break incoming linkswith WP:EXTERNALROT (or is there a better location?) in case someone does want more detail on that. -- Tavix ( talk) 15:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Incorporating the above suggestions, and with a little tweak to the wording, the section could look something like that:
The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:
- a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
- if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").
Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.
I'm not sure of the best place to refer to
WP:EXTERNALROT, I've provisionally linked it from the text from elsewhere on the internet
as it's the most specific: WP:EXTERNALROT doesn't seem to talk of the other types of incoming links, though of course, linking earlier in the text as Tavix suggests would in some ways be more natural. I'm going to update the project page with this provisional new version (obviously, feel free to edit). –
Uanfala (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:RFD#KEEP says that we don't delete "Links that have existed for a significant length of time".
My question: Is there an agreed-upon understanding of what "a significant length of time" means?
Concern for breaking internal and external links was added by User:Angela in August 2004. It was updated once or twice soon after (e.g., to include the old subpages – most editors won't remember when AliceExpert was the "correct" title for an article about Alice Expert, and that AliceExpert/talk was what Wikipedia used instead of Talk:Alice Expert, because the idea of namespaces hadn't been invented yet), and it reached its current version in this edit by User:Thryduulf.
Given that the first edits to the English Wikipedia were made about 3.5 years before the creation of the rule, I don't think it's unreasonable to guess that this was meant to discourage deletion (though not changing the target of) of "unnecessary" redirects that something in the range of months to a couple of years old. Do we have anything like a modern understanding of what "a significant length of time" means to us? If we have an estimate, then it'd be a kindness to all concerned if we actually wrote it down, instead of making editors guess whether "a significant length of time" is usually taken to mean approximately a week, a month, a year, or a decade. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Equinox#RfC on season-specific redirects. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 17:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser#Deleting redirects that are at RFD. Evad37 [ talk 00:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
See also "Nominating lots of related redirects" asked above and never answered.
Category:English words is currently occupied largely by redirects whose sole purpose seems to be to force non-word things into that category. Each of the following articles simply redirects to the article on the thing; e.g. Aardvark (word) is a redirect to Aardvark, and so on.
I'd propose all of these redirects for deletion, if there were some way to do it speedily. Alternatively, if someone with the proper permissions could just WP:BOLD all of these away, that would be cool. -- Quuxplusone ( talk) 21:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
|multi=
to "yes" for all except the first one), and then tag the individual redirects; 3) use AWB to automate the previous step. However, I don't think a mass nomination is a good idea in this case, it will likely result in a
WP:TRAINWRECK: some of these redirects were formerly articles (so there might be issues with preserving history and attribution), some are redirects from moves (potentially needed to preserve incoming links), so could have been created for ease of linking. Probably some are not needed, so deletion may be in the interest of the encyclopedia, but if your sole concern is the redirects' membership of
Category:English words, you can simply take them out of it. –
Uanfala (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)There is currently a discussion occurring at Template talk:RFDNote#Phrasing regarding the wording used for {{ RFDNote}}, the template used primarily on redirect creators' talk pages to inform them the redirect they created is nominated at WP:RFD. Participants in RfD are invited and may be interested to participate in this discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed new CSD criterion: R5, for redirects with malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers which may be of interest to editors who follow this page. Narky Blert ( talk) 19:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)