![]() | 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 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What should be the venue for discussing rcat ( WP:Redirect categorization) templates/categories?
This question is prompted by Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 20#Template:R from meme where this question was raised. I personally think it should be at RfD since the audience at RfD will likely be more experienced with redirect categories making them better at making decisions about them then the audiences at TfD or CfD. While this is quite different from RfDs regular content I still believe that they are the most suitable for handling these template with RfDers generally having experience using them. Both TfD and CfD have a reasonable claim since they are templates and they are used for categorizing pages. I will transclude this section at WT:RFD, WT:TFD and WT:CFD so all interested parties can participate. ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 22:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
19:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)So, what's the verdict? It looks a lot like "no consensus", but is there something from this discussion that we can apply? According to my count, TfD received a plurality of support (5.67) (6.67) (7.83), followed by RfD (4.67) (5.33) and then CfD (3.67) (4.67) (4.83). If one takes the view that the discussion was specifically about where to discuss rcat templates, then TfD enjoys a narrow majority (8–6) (9–7) (10–8). Of course, whether the rcat template is separable from the rcat category was one of the points of disagreement. Some argued it is not and that the template's sole purpose is to categorize, while others (including me) think it is—e.g., a rcat category can be merged or renamed (at CfD) without impacting the existence, name, or display text of the rcat template.
Venue | Editor(s) | Argument(s) |
---|---|---|
CfD | JJMC89, SMcCandlish, Tavix | The template is purely a vehicle for applying the category. |
RfD | Deryck Chan, Dmehus, MJL, Trialpears, Wugapodes | Editors at RfD are more likely to be familiar with redirects, though perhaps not with categorization and templates. |
TfD | Amorymeltzer, Black Falcon, Paine Ellsworth, Pppery, SD0001, Steel1943 | Templates should be discussed at TfD. |
CfD or TfD | Gonnym, Ivanvector, Mark viking | CfD if the category is being discussed, and TfD if the template is being discussed. |
CfD, RfD, or TfD | Davidwr | Discussion should be had at whichever venue makes the most sense, and should be cross-advertised (at WT:REDIRECT or the other venues). |
I know this is an imperfect analysis and oversimplifies people's opinions (for example, I belong in the "CfD or TfD" group but responded "TfD" because the original question specifically asked about the rcat template), but I wanted to at least try to reach some sort of an outcome. Thoughts from others on how to move forward would be appreciated. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC) — Counts updated on 00:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC). — And again on 01:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC).
See the closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 9#Prasad and the follow-up discussion at User talk:Paul_012#Prasad. Uanfala closed the RfD as being the wrong venue, because a retarget outcome would require a follow-up page move of the current disambiguation page over the redirect, and such discussions should take place at RM. I think otherwise, that since the primary issue concerns what the target of a current redirect should be, it is best suited for RfD, and follow-up moves can be carried out uncontroversially if necessitated by the retargeting (since they don't involve articles). I'd appreciate further community input on this. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 20:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I want to put Wayne Chiang up for discussion, but it's corrently locked for editing. What should I do? [ [1]] -- Prisencolin ( talk) 08:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Poles are evil. I'm not sure how to move it. Doug Weller talk 09:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I always thought that RfD discussions in the past with only one or two !voters where everyone involved suggested deletion were closed as deleted, even with the low participation. However, the log of May 17 contains many discussions relisted in those circumstances: the discussions for Lefnui, Five Rivers of Lebennin, Lolbert, and Purple Wedge. Has policy changed on this? Hog Farm ( talk) 23:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Please add
{{Rcatshell}}
and
{{R to project}}
to the redirect. Thanks. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD balaji ( M•T•A• C) This message was left at 16:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC) --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD balaji ( M•T•A• C) This message was left at 16:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
{{R from shortcut}}
to{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from shortcut}}
{{R to project namespace}}
}}
Thanks, —
J947
[cont]
19:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:RFD has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
{{R from shortcut}}
to
{{Redirect category shell| {{R from shortcut}} {{R to project namespace}} }}
--Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD balaji ( M•T•A• C) This message was left at 01:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi fellow redirect folks. I'd appreciate any feedback at Template talk:R to article without mention#Refining/clarifying usage. -- BDD ( talk) 15:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
J947's comment in
a recent discussion prompted me to think a bit about the overall pattern of what we do at RfD. What we have now is a boutique process: we discuss individual redirects, which we consider on their own individual merits, and this works great when we need to decide if X is unambiguous, if Y is a plausible synonym for its target, or if Z has no history worth preserving. Sometimes, however, the discussion of one redirect will centre on a characteristic that this redirect shares with thousands of other (potentially) existing redirects, and it may feel desultory to spend time deciding this one case, when countless others can be nominated in the future, each redirect to be debated on the same grounds every single time.
I feel like we're a new neighbourhood with good systems in place for deciding small matters, like what colour to paint this fence here (all that matters is that it fits with the choice made next door). But we don't have systems in place for deciding larger-scale questions, like the choice of a street numbering system (it's not enough that the street numbers of two adjacent houses make sense; street numbers are any good only of they're consistent from one end of the street to the other).
What we lack is a set of mechanisms for dealing with classes of redirects. We need tools for querying ("List all redirects where %20 stands for a space, leaving out any that have had their targets manually changed in the past"). We need tools for probing user experience – we always presume what readers want but we don't have a way to get any sort of data ("Let 5% of readers who follow any of those 2500 redirects in the next two weeks be presented with a survey question asking them if they've found what they were looking for"). We need tools for implementing class-level decisions: besides "keep" or "delete", we could have "replicate" ("Create this type of redirect for all eligible titles"). We need tools that will allow us to go beyond redirects ("Let the search engine treat the following strings as equivalent.."). We need....
Anyway, these are just my late-night daydreamings. What are your craziest RfD fantasies? –
Uanfala (talk)
23:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
This is a follow-up to a recent RfD discussion. There's a scenario that happens from time to time: a redirect is nominated for deletion, during the discussion it's discovered that the redirect was an article at some point in the past, participants then point out that it's not RfD's job to evaluate content and so proceed to recommend restoring the article, at the end of the discussion the article is restored. So far, so good. But sometimes the restored article will be of such a low quality that, had it been created anew, it would have been picked up at the new page patrol and immediately sent for deletion or draftified. But because it was restored as a result of an RfD, it's marked as reviewed, so it bypasses the page patrol. I guess the assumption here is that if anyone has objected to the new article, it would be their job to send it to AfD. But this assumes that the editors concerned will notice the restored article and it relies on their initiative. I don't think these two should be taken for granted. And really, when it comes to problematic content, the burden of proof should be on those who advocate retention rather than those who argue for removal.
Maybe the two most recent examples are extreme (very short stubs with little or no sourcing, little time spent existing as an article, doubts previously expressed about viability of the topics, a small number of participants in each RfD), but something like that comes up every now and then, and I think we should do a better job of dealing with it. Because in our punctiliousness about correct discussion venues, we end up undermining fundamental content policies.
What is to be done? I've got one suggestion: if an RfD results in the restoration of an article, and there have been reasonable doubts expressed about the existence, encyclopedic viability, or notability of the topic, then the closer of the RfD discussion should proceed to procedurally start an AfD nomination. Would that work? Any alternative ideas? – Uanfala (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was restore garbage. If a major problem is pointed out, it needs to be addressed, I don't think we should be making a mess and then hoping someone else will come to mop it up. – Uanfala (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
There are only two circumstances in which it is appropriate for RfD to delete article content:
In all other circumstances it is wholly inappropriate for a discussion about a page that was redirected without discussion to be deleted. In some (although obviously not all) this has been used as an end-run around an AfD discussion in an attempt to remove content that would never get consensus for deletion as an article. Even when not done in bad faith, and even when separated by years it is important for the integrity of the encyclopaedia that we give article content a full hearing at a forum where those interested and experienced in discussing and evaluating article content will find it (e.g. through article alerts). Thryduulf ( talk) 09:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
After making one of these closes, I was inspired to write the section Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes#"No consensus" retargets. I thought it would be helpful for potential closers to know this is a possibility, and it would be helpful to have a shortcut to link to instead of explaining it every time. Too bad WP:NCR is taken! -- BDD ( talk) 19:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
(ping Asmodea Oaktree, SMcCandlish) WP:OPED was re-targetted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 20#WP:OPED. While I don't have a problem with the outcome, there's currently ~600 uses of that shortcut. Can these all be updated to MOS:OPED so that the intended use is preserved? ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 12:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Care must be taken when placing the RFD template on redirects in template space.
If the redirect is in use by a page that is within 24,000 bytes or so of the 2,000,000-or-so-byte WP:PEIS limit, it will push it over the limit.
If the template is used more than 8 times on a page, it will go over the limit.
See this edit of WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 29#Template:Hebrew for a specific example.
I'm not sure what the best solution is, other than to manually check Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded after the template is applied then again a few hours later when the "job log" has had a chance to process pages that use the redirected-template. Anyone have any ideas for a permanent fix? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 🎄 18:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
noinclude
it may have merit. As I have never touched
Module:RfD, would it be possible to add the noinclude
tags directly into the module without messing something up? —
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 )
00:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)I've started a discussion about whether the R speedy deletion criteria do and/or should apply to soft redirects. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Do and/or should the R criteria apply to soft redirects?. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
In many nominations recently the nominator of a redirect believes a redirect to be an implausible misspelling when a simple 10-second search would tell them that the redirect is not a misspelling but related to the target in some other way. This is the most common of many ways a very simple WP:BEFORE could've helped the nominator to not nominate a helpful redirect and not burden extra unneeded maintenance on RfD. So should we encourage nominators to do basic checks on the RfD page? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
At Template talk:Rfd2#Position of links there are currently two suggestions related to the links at the top of RfD discussions. One will alter their position, the other will add another link. Please comment there to keep discussion in one place. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Following a number of recent discussions in which this occurred, I've drafted a couple of sentences to the bottom of the lead to clarify that changing the redirect's target during the discussion is frowned upon. Any thoughts on this? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Isn't there a procedure for retargeting a redirect? For example, shouldn't all the incoming links be updated so they point to where they intended to be pointed? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 22:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I found a redirect that has been recently changed and questioned the new target. So I opened a discussion. Another editor insists on undoing the original change because that was undiscussed. So now the RFD is technically wrong. I suppose it could be withdrawn and a new discussion opened on the "old" target. Is there a precedent for this? MB 15:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Just was doing some investigation about the quote mark RfDs and got an interesting conclusion that kind of confirmed my suspicions as to redirect pageviews going down for whatever reason. I just did a check, because I thought I saw something that I didn't. Data. If this is converted into pageviews per day (some redirects were created after the time period began), then we get this:
Now I think what happened – rather than anything else – is that those last 3, the ones with adjusted pageviews, have less pageviews due to being created recently and pageviews numbers for redirects going down recently. I don't know why that happened, but it did.
So yeah, pageviews numbers for redirects went down. I'm assuming that the redirects would get close to equal pageviews over the same space of time, which I think is a fair assumption. So – has anyone else noticed this reduction in redirect pageviews? And can anyone explain it? Are pageviews decreasing across the board or is this something different? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
How are pageviews that are mentioned in the stats, calculated for redirects? Is it a page view if any one of these happens?
WP:R#K5 says "The pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility." (This was added by User:David Gerard) What does outside utility mean here - does it mean what the pageviews tool does is calculate the number of times a page is accessed from outside of Wikipedia (the 4th point above)? Jay ( talk) 00:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. One way to see evidence of usefulness is using the wikishark or pageviews tool against the redirect. These record the number of views a page gets.
Hello, RFD regulars,
I was looking at this list of unused file redirects and wondered if there was a deletion criteria that would allow for their deletion if they are serving no purpose. I think that they are the result of a file being moved to a new name and they have one to zero links to them from articles. There are hundreds. Is this a matter that should go to the Village Pump? Any thoughts on unused file redirects? Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
There are several redirects that I'm looking to bring up here. Most of the multiple-redirect nominations here seem to have similar wording. The ones I'm considering are not similarly worded, but all of them share Metroid as their target. Would these be included under the same discussion or nominated separately? Some of them may be old enough redirects to be ineligible. TornadoLGS ( talk) 16:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 83#Restoring redirects to recreated pages about the possibility of an automated and/or semi-automated process for restoring redirects to a deleted page when that page is undeleted and/or recreated. Please comment there to keep discussion in one place. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
How do we undo a withdrawal? Simply revert the edit that did the withdrawal, or is this an admin decision? In WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 16#Prevalence of male genital mutilation, I had added a note after it was withdrawn by the nominator, saying that the withdrawal is not appropriate. It has been 24 hours. Jay (Talk) 08:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, we have been discussing on the talk page of Orthotics to remove the section on the field of Orthotist and create an article. Orthotist presently re-directs to the section in Orthotics#Orthotists. I tried to follow the instructions but I think I made a mistake and immediately reverted my attempt. Would anyone be able to help? Here are my edits (attempt to suggest the redirect removal and then my reveral of my edit as it did not look right). I explained the edit and proposed change in my edit summary. Link to my reverted edit adding in the template. Thank you so much! JenOttawa ( talk) 18:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey all, I've proposed some changes to the RfD template to make the display less confusing to casual readers - please consider reviewing them and sharing your thoughts at Template talk:Redirect for discussion § Rework of the template to make display more friendly. Elli ( talk | contribs) 21:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/'zinbot.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 15:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk)
15:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware that new CSD criteria must be proposed on WT:CSD, but I'm floating this here first to get a sense of what people think. We get a lot of RfDs along the lines of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 17 § List of Canis species an subspecies, that is to say redirects that were moved from a patently implausible title by their own creator, not long after creation, and have no backlinks and near-zero pageviews. The only time these aren't deleted is if there happens to be some other suitable target, and RfD is not actually needed for those rare cases; anyone can recreate a speedily-deleted redirect to point it to a better target. In all other circumstances, the redirects are deleted.
What I'm thinking of is a CSD along the following lines. (These could be condensed a fair bit in an actual CSD, but intentionally being verbose here.)
Or, if that's too complicated for a CSD (although it wouldn't be more complicated than some existing ones like F8), we could discuss finally bringing PROD into redirectland. For all but the first subcriterion, there would also be the possibility of a bot to automatically untag pages that don't qualify, which would simplify things for reviewing admins.
What do people think? -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 21:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | 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 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What should be the venue for discussing rcat ( WP:Redirect categorization) templates/categories?
This question is prompted by Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 20#Template:R from meme where this question was raised. I personally think it should be at RfD since the audience at RfD will likely be more experienced with redirect categories making them better at making decisions about them then the audiences at TfD or CfD. While this is quite different from RfDs regular content I still believe that they are the most suitable for handling these template with RfDers generally having experience using them. Both TfD and CfD have a reasonable claim since they are templates and they are used for categorizing pages. I will transclude this section at WT:RFD, WT:TFD and WT:CFD so all interested parties can participate. ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 22:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
19:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)So, what's the verdict? It looks a lot like "no consensus", but is there something from this discussion that we can apply? According to my count, TfD received a plurality of support (5.67) (6.67) (7.83), followed by RfD (4.67) (5.33) and then CfD (3.67) (4.67) (4.83). If one takes the view that the discussion was specifically about where to discuss rcat templates, then TfD enjoys a narrow majority (8–6) (9–7) (10–8). Of course, whether the rcat template is separable from the rcat category was one of the points of disagreement. Some argued it is not and that the template's sole purpose is to categorize, while others (including me) think it is—e.g., a rcat category can be merged or renamed (at CfD) without impacting the existence, name, or display text of the rcat template.
Venue | Editor(s) | Argument(s) |
---|---|---|
CfD | JJMC89, SMcCandlish, Tavix | The template is purely a vehicle for applying the category. |
RfD | Deryck Chan, Dmehus, MJL, Trialpears, Wugapodes | Editors at RfD are more likely to be familiar with redirects, though perhaps not with categorization and templates. |
TfD | Amorymeltzer, Black Falcon, Paine Ellsworth, Pppery, SD0001, Steel1943 | Templates should be discussed at TfD. |
CfD or TfD | Gonnym, Ivanvector, Mark viking | CfD if the category is being discussed, and TfD if the template is being discussed. |
CfD, RfD, or TfD | Davidwr | Discussion should be had at whichever venue makes the most sense, and should be cross-advertised (at WT:REDIRECT or the other venues). |
I know this is an imperfect analysis and oversimplifies people's opinions (for example, I belong in the "CfD or TfD" group but responded "TfD" because the original question specifically asked about the rcat template), but I wanted to at least try to reach some sort of an outcome. Thoughts from others on how to move forward would be appreciated. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC) — Counts updated on 00:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC). — And again on 01:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC).
See the closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 9#Prasad and the follow-up discussion at User talk:Paul_012#Prasad. Uanfala closed the RfD as being the wrong venue, because a retarget outcome would require a follow-up page move of the current disambiguation page over the redirect, and such discussions should take place at RM. I think otherwise, that since the primary issue concerns what the target of a current redirect should be, it is best suited for RfD, and follow-up moves can be carried out uncontroversially if necessitated by the retargeting (since they don't involve articles). I'd appreciate further community input on this. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 20:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I want to put Wayne Chiang up for discussion, but it's corrently locked for editing. What should I do? [ [1]] -- Prisencolin ( talk) 08:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Poles are evil. I'm not sure how to move it. Doug Weller talk 09:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I always thought that RfD discussions in the past with only one or two !voters where everyone involved suggested deletion were closed as deleted, even with the low participation. However, the log of May 17 contains many discussions relisted in those circumstances: the discussions for Lefnui, Five Rivers of Lebennin, Lolbert, and Purple Wedge. Has policy changed on this? Hog Farm ( talk) 23:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Please add
{{Rcatshell}}
and
{{R to project}}
to the redirect. Thanks. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD balaji ( M•T•A• C) This message was left at 16:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC) --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD balaji ( M•T•A• C) This message was left at 16:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
{{R from shortcut}}
to{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from shortcut}}
{{R to project namespace}}
}}
Thanks, —
J947
[cont]
19:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:RFD has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
{{R from shortcut}}
to
{{Redirect category shell| {{R from shortcut}} {{R to project namespace}} }}
--Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD balaji ( M•T•A• C) This message was left at 01:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi fellow redirect folks. I'd appreciate any feedback at Template talk:R to article without mention#Refining/clarifying usage. -- BDD ( talk) 15:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
J947's comment in
a recent discussion prompted me to think a bit about the overall pattern of what we do at RfD. What we have now is a boutique process: we discuss individual redirects, which we consider on their own individual merits, and this works great when we need to decide if X is unambiguous, if Y is a plausible synonym for its target, or if Z has no history worth preserving. Sometimes, however, the discussion of one redirect will centre on a characteristic that this redirect shares with thousands of other (potentially) existing redirects, and it may feel desultory to spend time deciding this one case, when countless others can be nominated in the future, each redirect to be debated on the same grounds every single time.
I feel like we're a new neighbourhood with good systems in place for deciding small matters, like what colour to paint this fence here (all that matters is that it fits with the choice made next door). But we don't have systems in place for deciding larger-scale questions, like the choice of a street numbering system (it's not enough that the street numbers of two adjacent houses make sense; street numbers are any good only of they're consistent from one end of the street to the other).
What we lack is a set of mechanisms for dealing with classes of redirects. We need tools for querying ("List all redirects where %20 stands for a space, leaving out any that have had their targets manually changed in the past"). We need tools for probing user experience – we always presume what readers want but we don't have a way to get any sort of data ("Let 5% of readers who follow any of those 2500 redirects in the next two weeks be presented with a survey question asking them if they've found what they were looking for"). We need tools for implementing class-level decisions: besides "keep" or "delete", we could have "replicate" ("Create this type of redirect for all eligible titles"). We need tools that will allow us to go beyond redirects ("Let the search engine treat the following strings as equivalent.."). We need....
Anyway, these are just my late-night daydreamings. What are your craziest RfD fantasies? –
Uanfala (talk)
23:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
This is a follow-up to a recent RfD discussion. There's a scenario that happens from time to time: a redirect is nominated for deletion, during the discussion it's discovered that the redirect was an article at some point in the past, participants then point out that it's not RfD's job to evaluate content and so proceed to recommend restoring the article, at the end of the discussion the article is restored. So far, so good. But sometimes the restored article will be of such a low quality that, had it been created anew, it would have been picked up at the new page patrol and immediately sent for deletion or draftified. But because it was restored as a result of an RfD, it's marked as reviewed, so it bypasses the page patrol. I guess the assumption here is that if anyone has objected to the new article, it would be their job to send it to AfD. But this assumes that the editors concerned will notice the restored article and it relies on their initiative. I don't think these two should be taken for granted. And really, when it comes to problematic content, the burden of proof should be on those who advocate retention rather than those who argue for removal.
Maybe the two most recent examples are extreme (very short stubs with little or no sourcing, little time spent existing as an article, doubts previously expressed about viability of the topics, a small number of participants in each RfD), but something like that comes up every now and then, and I think we should do a better job of dealing with it. Because in our punctiliousness about correct discussion venues, we end up undermining fundamental content policies.
What is to be done? I've got one suggestion: if an RfD results in the restoration of an article, and there have been reasonable doubts expressed about the existence, encyclopedic viability, or notability of the topic, then the closer of the RfD discussion should proceed to procedurally start an AfD nomination. Would that work? Any alternative ideas? – Uanfala (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was restore garbage. If a major problem is pointed out, it needs to be addressed, I don't think we should be making a mess and then hoping someone else will come to mop it up. – Uanfala (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
There are only two circumstances in which it is appropriate for RfD to delete article content:
In all other circumstances it is wholly inappropriate for a discussion about a page that was redirected without discussion to be deleted. In some (although obviously not all) this has been used as an end-run around an AfD discussion in an attempt to remove content that would never get consensus for deletion as an article. Even when not done in bad faith, and even when separated by years it is important for the integrity of the encyclopaedia that we give article content a full hearing at a forum where those interested and experienced in discussing and evaluating article content will find it (e.g. through article alerts). Thryduulf ( talk) 09:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
After making one of these closes, I was inspired to write the section Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes#"No consensus" retargets. I thought it would be helpful for potential closers to know this is a possibility, and it would be helpful to have a shortcut to link to instead of explaining it every time. Too bad WP:NCR is taken! -- BDD ( talk) 19:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
(ping Asmodea Oaktree, SMcCandlish) WP:OPED was re-targetted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 20#WP:OPED. While I don't have a problem with the outcome, there's currently ~600 uses of that shortcut. Can these all be updated to MOS:OPED so that the intended use is preserved? ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 12:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Care must be taken when placing the RFD template on redirects in template space.
If the redirect is in use by a page that is within 24,000 bytes or so of the 2,000,000-or-so-byte WP:PEIS limit, it will push it over the limit.
If the template is used more than 8 times on a page, it will go over the limit.
See this edit of WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 29#Template:Hebrew for a specific example.
I'm not sure what the best solution is, other than to manually check Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded after the template is applied then again a few hours later when the "job log" has had a chance to process pages that use the redirected-template. Anyone have any ideas for a permanent fix? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 🎄 18:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
noinclude
it may have merit. As I have never touched
Module:RfD, would it be possible to add the noinclude
tags directly into the module without messing something up? —
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 )
00:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)I've started a discussion about whether the R speedy deletion criteria do and/or should apply to soft redirects. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Do and/or should the R criteria apply to soft redirects?. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
In many nominations recently the nominator of a redirect believes a redirect to be an implausible misspelling when a simple 10-second search would tell them that the redirect is not a misspelling but related to the target in some other way. This is the most common of many ways a very simple WP:BEFORE could've helped the nominator to not nominate a helpful redirect and not burden extra unneeded maintenance on RfD. So should we encourage nominators to do basic checks on the RfD page? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
At Template talk:Rfd2#Position of links there are currently two suggestions related to the links at the top of RfD discussions. One will alter their position, the other will add another link. Please comment there to keep discussion in one place. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Following a number of recent discussions in which this occurred, I've drafted a couple of sentences to the bottom of the lead to clarify that changing the redirect's target during the discussion is frowned upon. Any thoughts on this? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Isn't there a procedure for retargeting a redirect? For example, shouldn't all the incoming links be updated so they point to where they intended to be pointed? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 22:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I found a redirect that has been recently changed and questioned the new target. So I opened a discussion. Another editor insists on undoing the original change because that was undiscussed. So now the RFD is technically wrong. I suppose it could be withdrawn and a new discussion opened on the "old" target. Is there a precedent for this? MB 15:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Just was doing some investigation about the quote mark RfDs and got an interesting conclusion that kind of confirmed my suspicions as to redirect pageviews going down for whatever reason. I just did a check, because I thought I saw something that I didn't. Data. If this is converted into pageviews per day (some redirects were created after the time period began), then we get this:
Now I think what happened – rather than anything else – is that those last 3, the ones with adjusted pageviews, have less pageviews due to being created recently and pageviews numbers for redirects going down recently. I don't know why that happened, but it did.
So yeah, pageviews numbers for redirects went down. I'm assuming that the redirects would get close to equal pageviews over the same space of time, which I think is a fair assumption. So – has anyone else noticed this reduction in redirect pageviews? And can anyone explain it? Are pageviews decreasing across the board or is this something different? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
How are pageviews that are mentioned in the stats, calculated for redirects? Is it a page view if any one of these happens?
WP:R#K5 says "The pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility." (This was added by User:David Gerard) What does outside utility mean here - does it mean what the pageviews tool does is calculate the number of times a page is accessed from outside of Wikipedia (the 4th point above)? Jay ( talk) 00:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. One way to see evidence of usefulness is using the wikishark or pageviews tool against the redirect. These record the number of views a page gets.
Hello, RFD regulars,
I was looking at this list of unused file redirects and wondered if there was a deletion criteria that would allow for their deletion if they are serving no purpose. I think that they are the result of a file being moved to a new name and they have one to zero links to them from articles. There are hundreds. Is this a matter that should go to the Village Pump? Any thoughts on unused file redirects? Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
There are several redirects that I'm looking to bring up here. Most of the multiple-redirect nominations here seem to have similar wording. The ones I'm considering are not similarly worded, but all of them share Metroid as their target. Would these be included under the same discussion or nominated separately? Some of them may be old enough redirects to be ineligible. TornadoLGS ( talk) 16:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 83#Restoring redirects to recreated pages about the possibility of an automated and/or semi-automated process for restoring redirects to a deleted page when that page is undeleted and/or recreated. Please comment there to keep discussion in one place. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
How do we undo a withdrawal? Simply revert the edit that did the withdrawal, or is this an admin decision? In WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 16#Prevalence of male genital mutilation, I had added a note after it was withdrawn by the nominator, saying that the withdrawal is not appropriate. It has been 24 hours. Jay (Talk) 08:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, we have been discussing on the talk page of Orthotics to remove the section on the field of Orthotist and create an article. Orthotist presently re-directs to the section in Orthotics#Orthotists. I tried to follow the instructions but I think I made a mistake and immediately reverted my attempt. Would anyone be able to help? Here are my edits (attempt to suggest the redirect removal and then my reveral of my edit as it did not look right). I explained the edit and proposed change in my edit summary. Link to my reverted edit adding in the template. Thank you so much! JenOttawa ( talk) 18:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey all, I've proposed some changes to the RfD template to make the display less confusing to casual readers - please consider reviewing them and sharing your thoughts at Template talk:Redirect for discussion § Rework of the template to make display more friendly. Elli ( talk | contribs) 21:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/'zinbot.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 15:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk)
15:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware that new CSD criteria must be proposed on WT:CSD, but I'm floating this here first to get a sense of what people think. We get a lot of RfDs along the lines of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 17 § List of Canis species an subspecies, that is to say redirects that were moved from a patently implausible title by their own creator, not long after creation, and have no backlinks and near-zero pageviews. The only time these aren't deleted is if there happens to be some other suitable target, and RfD is not actually needed for those rare cases; anyone can recreate a speedily-deleted redirect to point it to a better target. In all other circumstances, the redirects are deleted.
What I'm thinking of is a CSD along the following lines. (These could be condensed a fair bit in an actual CSD, but intentionally being verbose here.)
Or, if that's too complicated for a CSD (although it wouldn't be more complicated than some existing ones like F8), we could discuss finally bringing PROD into redirectland. For all but the first subcriterion, there would also be the possibility of a bot to automatically untag pages that don't qualify, which would simplify things for reviewing admins.
What do people think? -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 21:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)