This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
As I hope will be apparent after reading it over, this page was intended to address the lack of documentation about RfD standards. None of this is meant to be a final word, but I hope it's found helpful. Not that you need my permission, but I do encourage you to tweak and expand it. In particular, not all of the examples given are very strong—they're just ones I could readily find, without relying too heavily on cases that I remember because I was personally involved. I tried to avoid jargon and excessive abbreviations, although casual readers aren't going to end up at RfD anyway.
What this won't do is address the fact that, except for Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons, we don't have anything at guideline-level that speaks to redirect deletion. Even RfD mainstays like WP:CHEAP and WP:FORRED are "only essays" ( WP:REDLINK is a guideline, though). Maybe that's a good thing. I'm sure many editors are wary of WP:CREEP, though I suspect some want more guidance on these questions.
Pinging the following RfD regulars:
RfD Avengers, Assemble!
|
---|
Please don't feel bad if I left you out!
|
My one plea here is to try very hard to make sure this page accurately describes RfD practice, even when you don't agree with it. We all have our POV, and some of mine has probably leaked onto this page already, though I've tried to keep it in check. I hope we can all agree that edit warring here would be very silly. Now, have at it! -- BDD ( talk) 22:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
"If the redirect has a title that suggest an article, whether it is kept often depends on if the target is intended for readers or editors. Portals are intended for readers, for example, so article titles redirect to portals are often kept. An article title redirecting to a template or Wikipedia page is usually deleted."
If you think that sucks or is just plain wrong, feel free to edit or delete. Ego White Tray ( talk) 04:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Redirects to Main Page from other languages are commonly not deleted; cf. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 1#Паӂина принчипалэ. Such redirects are seldom nominated, though, so perhaps this outcome is not common enough for this page. Gorobay ( talk) 13:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Moved as noted below Ego White Tray ( talk) 06:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if this is worth adding, or if I'll ever get around to adding it (since writing a whole section is a bit difficult using the desktop version on a mobile device, which is what I do), but given the discussions regarding redirects with wiki markup that get deleted, as well as the fact that the creation of new titles with consecutive apostrophes is now blocked by the title blacklist, it may be worth adding here. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Start of draft
Page titles which contain wiki markup are harmful to the encyclopedia, because the presence of markup changes page formatting in unexpected and unpredictable ways, and can break templates. These redirects are commonly left behind when pages erroneously containing markup are moved to proper titles. These redirects are almost always deleted, with the exception of pages where the markup is actually part of the title, and there is no other way to display the title.
End of draft.
This is a draft proposal to add a common outcomes section on redirects from emoji, based on a discussion at the idea lab. Please comment below the draft. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 21:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Redirects may be created from emoji characters, however due to technological differences the symbols may not render the same or at all for users on different platforms. Nevertheless, such redirects are often kept if the symbol has a clear and definite meaning matching an existing topic on Wikipedia, including to disambiguation pages. For symbols which are unclear, where the meaning is difficult to determine, where there is no agreement on a logical target or none exists, the outcome is usually deletion.
End of draft.
Above, I've drafted a section on the common outcomes of emoji redirects, which I believe follows consensus. One big problem I see with this is that the oldest of these discussions is still less than a month old, but emoji redirects are a somewhat recent phenomenon so maybe this is one of those "it is what it is" situations. Comments welcome. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 21:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Two discussions-in-progress that may change this are:
and
Both are AFDs, but they are relevant as each has two equally-plausible redirect targets. Both of these could easily have become RFDs if someone BOLDLY redirected the page then someone else nominated the redirect for discussion.
In the case of the school, the nominator (me) favored redirection but wasn't sure which target to use. If the page is NOT deleted, then "X or Y" may have to be rewritten to say that "sometimes 'just pick one' is the way to go."
For the Vaughan article, I suggested picking one of this sons as the target and putting a hatnote at the top saying "Jimmie Lee Vaughan redirects here, more information may be found at [page for the other son]". If that outcome is accepted, then "X or Y" may have to be rewritten to say "sometimes, 'just pick one and put a hatnote at the top pointing to the other one' may be the way to go."
I will put a notice on both AFD pages pointing to this discussion. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
One thing that I think was overlooked with RFDO is capitalization differences. I've noticed that it seems like if there is a redirect with ALL CAPS, that redirect is normally deleted unless there's a reason for that capitalization. With that in mind, I drafted a new section. Feel free to edit it or leave your thoughts below. -- Tavix ( talk) 00:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
begin draft
One of the purposes of a redirect covers "likely alternative capitalizations." While Wikipedia's search function is generally case-insensitive, these redirects aid linking from other articles and external sites. If there is connection between the subject and the alternative capitalization, it is usually kept. However, if the capitalization difference is implausible, unnatural, or novel, it may be considered unhelpful and be deleted.
The major exception is with CamelCase. If the redirect was created back when UseModWiki required CamelCase, it is considered a {{ R from old history}} and kept.
end draft
Simply put, I just realized that applying WP:XY to deleting human-name titled redirects contradicts WP:BLP1E/ WP:BIO1E, specifically that human names should redirect to the event which they are best known if there is not enough information for them to be a standalone article. Any thoughts on this? Pinging some RFD regulars. ( BDD— Tavix— Ivanvector— SimonTrew) Steel1943 ( talk) 16:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Beginning of draft
Redirects with errors that have no specific affinity to the title at hand are not generally retained. This is especially true when it comes to errors in the act of disambiguating, for example disambiguated titles with extra, missing, or misplaced spaces and brackets such as ( disambiguation), ( disambiguation ), disambiguation) ((disambiguation), )disambiguation), and X(disambiguation), even more obscure errors like the wrong type of brackets or a mix such as [disambiguation], {disambiguation}, and [disambiguation), and capitalization and spelling errors such as (Disambiguation), (DISAMBIGUATION), and (dsambiguation) (the capitalization and spelling errors portion only applies if (x) is an error variation of "disambiguation").
Ending of draft
Above, I've drafted a section on the common outcomes of disambiguation redirects, which I believe follows a current trend in consensus (recent discussions Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 12#HAZ (disambiguation)) and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 19#Jupiter(planet)). It is already covered at WP:RDAB (a redirect to an anchor both of which I created very recently), but I think this is a better place for it. The examples section still needs fleshed out.— Godsy ( TALK CONT) 05:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I think WP:XY needs examples of overly generic terms with no notable topics. Several of these have turned up recently. LaundryPizza03 ( talk) 20:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Probably building up towards a set of precedents, so let's start collecting examples:
BUT: {{ R from file metadata link}}
-- Deryck C. 15:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The section which
WP:XY points, in its current state, is confusing. The reason being is that the section stated that "Redirects that could equally point to multiple targets are usually deleted
", but then the examples it provides are all examples that include the word "and" in a way that joins at least two distinct topics/words. This is misleading since I have recently seen examples where
WP:XY has been cited as a reason for deletion when the nominated redirect only contains one word, and the claim is that the redirect could target multiple targets. With this being said, I propose that one of three resolutions occur ... and I honestly do not care which one, as long as the current state of this section does not remain:
Redirects that could equally point to multiple targets are usually deleted" to something like "
Redirects that contain multiple distinct subjects are usually deleted"
...? (This discussion was started earlier than the date this RfC was opened. Please see the next line for the original time stamp.) Steel1943 ( talk) 19:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
It may be possible, however, for such redirects to point to a location in which both topics are discussed.", it is unclear what the "
both" is meant to refer to in the aforementioned discussions since the redirects nominated are not traditional "SUBJECT conjunction SUBJECT"-style redirects as referenced in the current wording or the current examples listed at WP:XY. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Redirects that could equally point to multiple targets should be made into disambiguation pages" 107.77.173.1 ( talk) 15:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be a broad consensus that sending readers to non-English content is not a helpful practice. I've been keeping a running menagerie of such discussions: Mohamed Chabani|, Saint Michel Boulevard, Bonne Nuit les Petits, Kumagai Morikazu, Éditions Fides, Daehan, François Mathet, אוצר הספרים היהודי השיתופי, and Vitorino Silva. Thoughts regarding a section here on the topic? — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 05:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:RFDC and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 25#Wikipedia:RFDC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 ( talk) 23:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
...Seems there's a very common opinion (that I share) that imperative sentences/statements make bad redirects, and it seems most, if not all, of the recent nominations to get such redirects deleted are going to result in "delete" (if they haven't already been closed). With this being said ... is it time to add a section regarding such redirects? Steel1943 ( talk) 20:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
As I hope will be apparent after reading it over, this page was intended to address the lack of documentation about RfD standards. None of this is meant to be a final word, but I hope it's found helpful. Not that you need my permission, but I do encourage you to tweak and expand it. In particular, not all of the examples given are very strong—they're just ones I could readily find, without relying too heavily on cases that I remember because I was personally involved. I tried to avoid jargon and excessive abbreviations, although casual readers aren't going to end up at RfD anyway.
What this won't do is address the fact that, except for Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons, we don't have anything at guideline-level that speaks to redirect deletion. Even RfD mainstays like WP:CHEAP and WP:FORRED are "only essays" ( WP:REDLINK is a guideline, though). Maybe that's a good thing. I'm sure many editors are wary of WP:CREEP, though I suspect some want more guidance on these questions.
Pinging the following RfD regulars:
RfD Avengers, Assemble!
|
---|
Please don't feel bad if I left you out!
|
My one plea here is to try very hard to make sure this page accurately describes RfD practice, even when you don't agree with it. We all have our POV, and some of mine has probably leaked onto this page already, though I've tried to keep it in check. I hope we can all agree that edit warring here would be very silly. Now, have at it! -- BDD ( talk) 22:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
"If the redirect has a title that suggest an article, whether it is kept often depends on if the target is intended for readers or editors. Portals are intended for readers, for example, so article titles redirect to portals are often kept. An article title redirecting to a template or Wikipedia page is usually deleted."
If you think that sucks or is just plain wrong, feel free to edit or delete. Ego White Tray ( talk) 04:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Redirects to Main Page from other languages are commonly not deleted; cf. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 1#Паӂина принчипалэ. Such redirects are seldom nominated, though, so perhaps this outcome is not common enough for this page. Gorobay ( talk) 13:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Moved as noted below Ego White Tray ( talk) 06:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if this is worth adding, or if I'll ever get around to adding it (since writing a whole section is a bit difficult using the desktop version on a mobile device, which is what I do), but given the discussions regarding redirects with wiki markup that get deleted, as well as the fact that the creation of new titles with consecutive apostrophes is now blocked by the title blacklist, it may be worth adding here. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Start of draft
Page titles which contain wiki markup are harmful to the encyclopedia, because the presence of markup changes page formatting in unexpected and unpredictable ways, and can break templates. These redirects are commonly left behind when pages erroneously containing markup are moved to proper titles. These redirects are almost always deleted, with the exception of pages where the markup is actually part of the title, and there is no other way to display the title.
End of draft.
This is a draft proposal to add a common outcomes section on redirects from emoji, based on a discussion at the idea lab. Please comment below the draft. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 21:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Redirects may be created from emoji characters, however due to technological differences the symbols may not render the same or at all for users on different platforms. Nevertheless, such redirects are often kept if the symbol has a clear and definite meaning matching an existing topic on Wikipedia, including to disambiguation pages. For symbols which are unclear, where the meaning is difficult to determine, where there is no agreement on a logical target or none exists, the outcome is usually deletion.
End of draft.
Above, I've drafted a section on the common outcomes of emoji redirects, which I believe follows consensus. One big problem I see with this is that the oldest of these discussions is still less than a month old, but emoji redirects are a somewhat recent phenomenon so maybe this is one of those "it is what it is" situations. Comments welcome. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 21:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Two discussions-in-progress that may change this are:
and
Both are AFDs, but they are relevant as each has two equally-plausible redirect targets. Both of these could easily have become RFDs if someone BOLDLY redirected the page then someone else nominated the redirect for discussion.
In the case of the school, the nominator (me) favored redirection but wasn't sure which target to use. If the page is NOT deleted, then "X or Y" may have to be rewritten to say that "sometimes 'just pick one' is the way to go."
For the Vaughan article, I suggested picking one of this sons as the target and putting a hatnote at the top saying "Jimmie Lee Vaughan redirects here, more information may be found at [page for the other son]". If that outcome is accepted, then "X or Y" may have to be rewritten to say "sometimes, 'just pick one and put a hatnote at the top pointing to the other one' may be the way to go."
I will put a notice on both AFD pages pointing to this discussion. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
One thing that I think was overlooked with RFDO is capitalization differences. I've noticed that it seems like if there is a redirect with ALL CAPS, that redirect is normally deleted unless there's a reason for that capitalization. With that in mind, I drafted a new section. Feel free to edit it or leave your thoughts below. -- Tavix ( talk) 00:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
begin draft
One of the purposes of a redirect covers "likely alternative capitalizations." While Wikipedia's search function is generally case-insensitive, these redirects aid linking from other articles and external sites. If there is connection between the subject and the alternative capitalization, it is usually kept. However, if the capitalization difference is implausible, unnatural, or novel, it may be considered unhelpful and be deleted.
The major exception is with CamelCase. If the redirect was created back when UseModWiki required CamelCase, it is considered a {{ R from old history}} and kept.
end draft
Simply put, I just realized that applying WP:XY to deleting human-name titled redirects contradicts WP:BLP1E/ WP:BIO1E, specifically that human names should redirect to the event which they are best known if there is not enough information for them to be a standalone article. Any thoughts on this? Pinging some RFD regulars. ( BDD— Tavix— Ivanvector— SimonTrew) Steel1943 ( talk) 16:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Beginning of draft
Redirects with errors that have no specific affinity to the title at hand are not generally retained. This is especially true when it comes to errors in the act of disambiguating, for example disambiguated titles with extra, missing, or misplaced spaces and brackets such as ( disambiguation), ( disambiguation ), disambiguation) ((disambiguation), )disambiguation), and X(disambiguation), even more obscure errors like the wrong type of brackets or a mix such as [disambiguation], {disambiguation}, and [disambiguation), and capitalization and spelling errors such as (Disambiguation), (DISAMBIGUATION), and (dsambiguation) (the capitalization and spelling errors portion only applies if (x) is an error variation of "disambiguation").
Ending of draft
Above, I've drafted a section on the common outcomes of disambiguation redirects, which I believe follows a current trend in consensus (recent discussions Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 12#HAZ (disambiguation)) and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 19#Jupiter(planet)). It is already covered at WP:RDAB (a redirect to an anchor both of which I created very recently), but I think this is a better place for it. The examples section still needs fleshed out.— Godsy ( TALK CONT) 05:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I think WP:XY needs examples of overly generic terms with no notable topics. Several of these have turned up recently. LaundryPizza03 ( talk) 20:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Probably building up towards a set of precedents, so let's start collecting examples:
BUT: {{ R from file metadata link}}
-- Deryck C. 15:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The section which
WP:XY points, in its current state, is confusing. The reason being is that the section stated that "Redirects that could equally point to multiple targets are usually deleted
", but then the examples it provides are all examples that include the word "and" in a way that joins at least two distinct topics/words. This is misleading since I have recently seen examples where
WP:XY has been cited as a reason for deletion when the nominated redirect only contains one word, and the claim is that the redirect could target multiple targets. With this being said, I propose that one of three resolutions occur ... and I honestly do not care which one, as long as the current state of this section does not remain:
Redirects that could equally point to multiple targets are usually deleted" to something like "
Redirects that contain multiple distinct subjects are usually deleted"
...? (This discussion was started earlier than the date this RfC was opened. Please see the next line for the original time stamp.) Steel1943 ( talk) 19:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
It may be possible, however, for such redirects to point to a location in which both topics are discussed.", it is unclear what the "
both" is meant to refer to in the aforementioned discussions since the redirects nominated are not traditional "SUBJECT conjunction SUBJECT"-style redirects as referenced in the current wording or the current examples listed at WP:XY. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Redirects that could equally point to multiple targets should be made into disambiguation pages" 107.77.173.1 ( talk) 15:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be a broad consensus that sending readers to non-English content is not a helpful practice. I've been keeping a running menagerie of such discussions: Mohamed Chabani|, Saint Michel Boulevard, Bonne Nuit les Petits, Kumagai Morikazu, Éditions Fides, Daehan, François Mathet, אוצר הספרים היהודי השיתופי, and Vitorino Silva. Thoughts regarding a section here on the topic? — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 05:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:RFDC and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 25#Wikipedia:RFDC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 ( talk) 23:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
...Seems there's a very common opinion (that I share) that imperative sentences/statements make bad redirects, and it seems most, if not all, of the recent nominations to get such redirects deleted are going to result in "delete" (if they haven't already been closed). With this being said ... is it time to add a section regarding such redirects? Steel1943 ( talk) 20:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)