Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Mass nominations

Perhaps this is answered somewhere, but is there an easy way to do mass nominations? I want to nominate all the names of deputies that redirect to Gabonese Democratic Party (listed in the second section here) as they ought to be redlinks per WP:POLITICIAN, but I can't think of a way to do it that wouldn't require me to individually tag each article (which even using Twinkle would take forever, and I don't know if Twinkle can do tagging without creating an accompanying discussion) and add the relevant code to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • @Arms & Hearts: unfortunately not. {{rfd2}} has been revised a bit to help out, {{rfd2m}} was merged into it, to make multi listing easier, but Twinkle etc. are still woefully ignorant and I agree it is a pain in the arse to do the multilisting. What I do is let Twinkle do the first, then do the others manually, but in the alternative do the whole lot with twinkle then make an anchor or edit the notification header on the R so it goes to the right section. Anyway, the notification is to a section header and not to the persistent link, but that's another problem... so once it disappears from the current discussions, the link will be invalid (I think: @Thryduulf: you tend to know more about this kind of thing) so I tend to link directly to the /Log/ pages that are persistent rather than trying to hit a moving target.
Others who tend to list a lot of mass nominations (such as the editor who frequently lists a lot of Mojibake, unfortunately hasn't listed any on the current list Q.E.D. so I forget the nick but usually well-considered Rs for delete, I would ping to include here if I could remember the nick) may have other strategies better than mine.
Fun, isn't it! Si Trew (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
For mass nominations, the easiest way is to produce a list of all the ones you want to nominate, tag the first two or three manually and ask an AWB user to tag the rest for you. Then start the nomination, noting that not all are tagged and link to your request for AWB assistance. In the nomination you do need to list all of them (if there is a lot put them in a collapsed section) - find and replace in a text editor can help with this, just copy and paste the code. Make sure you are explicit about what the extent of the set is (e.g. "all the names of deputies that redirect to Gabonese Democratic Party" is good). Does that make sense? Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The method I use to do multiple nominations is ... I put text in my first nomination via Twinkle, nominate the rest with Twinkle immediately (to ensure that no one else nominated anything during this time), then remove the headers from all nominations except for the top one. Afterwards, the multi-nomination appears as it should. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Add "search for" to the listing header to {{rfd2}}

Can we add a "Search" link for {{rfd2}} which invokes Special:Search with the name of the redirect? That would make it easier to search for where the term is used on WP. One can't use many of the easy-access search tools because they just jump through the redirect to its current target.

I suppose I should put this suggestion at WT:rfd2 but I think it is more visible here. Si Trew (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Si Trew, I'd recommend placing this on Template talk:Rfd2 and utilizing the {{Edit template-protected}} template at the top of your request. It seems rather simple to do (in the terms that I understand how templates work, for the most part (I'd do this myself, but the amount of time I have to be able to think how to do it is limited at the moment)), and I think it is a good idea. Steel1943 (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • @Steel1943: Acutally, I had a look at this last night and the change needs to be made in {{page-multi}} template. I was going to put the request there, to add a new link code to do this (in tracking through to here there was somewhere a specific comment about adding something to support Rfd2, but I can't find it now). However I did not put in the request because I couldn't get Wikipedia to form the correct Special:Search link that would need to be added. Do you know how that would look? You need essentially something that would produce "Search" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=Search&search=male+diplodocus Search) for "male diplodocus"; but I couldn't get {{fullurl}} etc to do that properly. I'd like to go with a properly-formed example of what I'd expect. Then of course we'd add that link code to the instantiation in Rfd2. Agree? Si Trew (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Steel1943: I need to go out now, but I'll draft up a Lua change later (page-multi is also protected). Si Trew (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Steel1943: I've put a module with the changes at Module:PageLinks2. I couldn't do much more because a bot marked it as COPYVIO from, er, a Wikipedia mirror (I created it originally at Module Draft:PageLinks, a redirect from move I've CSD as G7 author requests deletion), expecting a new namespace to be sniffed, but the clever bot I imagine looks after that kind of subterfuge) and I am having trouble testing it with that in the way. But it's a simple addition, as in the Lua doc in the code, to add, so I have added 's' as the link into it to give Special Search + encoded URL. Obviously we'd need to change Rfd2 to add this, once that change is accepted, but it's mene mene I guess. Ovid said, add little to little and you have a big pile.
It should work but I have difficulty to test it when Rfd2 -> pagemulti -> pagelinks all of which are protected with no sandbox, so I can't test it without injecting it. I think time is now to list it at the appropriate place and hope someone wakes up. What's the best place? The talk page of PageLinks? Si Trew (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I put a message on User:John Vandenberg's talk page User talk:John Vandenberg who created the module. I will try my best to tie things together but this is a start @John Vandenberg: wake up!!! (and sorry but I wrote "burg" instead of "berg", sorry about that.) Si Trew (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I am happy to tackle this, but I would like to see your draft Module:PageLinks2, but I cant find it. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This has to be easier

Surely there is some way we can ease the task of listing on RfD? It is far to easy to get this wrong, requires too many steps, and is needlessly complicated. Is there no way to automate this? Why isn't there a field you paste the redirect title into and another with the reason and you're done? No, an external tool is not a solution, I'm not going to download some equally abusive system to fix a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I already suggested you once, if you install Twinkle, it will offer you the chances. (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Trivia: Reset the clock

Following on from Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 6#Trivia: Longest ever stretch of no nominations we racked up only 150 days of consecutive nominations, as nobody found anything worth discussing yesterday (25 March 2015). The record stands at 555 days, to beat that we need consecutive nominations until at least Sunday 2 October 2016. Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm I had to correct User:Thryduulf last time on this one. Now what I am doing, is not worrying so much on the timeline, which I imagine is correct, but that "Reset the clock" is not idiomatic English. "Put the clock back"? "Restart the Clock"? Anyway it was a boring day for me with nothing coming in. Si Trew (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"Not mentioned at target"

"Not mentioned at target'" (or "no info at target", etc) is an argument that comes up a lot at RfD (e.g. User:Lenticel's comment for User:Tavix' nomination of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_1. I am not at all pointing fingers here, but I believe the consensus is that we delete redirects where there is no info at the target: if it's been removed or never created in the first place.

But we don't have any specific guideline about this. I tend to argue WP:RFD#D2 confusion instead, since it is at least a WP:SURPRISE to put in a specific term (and another editor has a habit of saying "no reason has been given" even when reasons have been given, which is why I got in the habit of explicitly stating the reason). But I think this has so much consensus now, that we could do with either adding a criterion to WP:RFD#DELETE (not my favoured option), or adding to WP:RFD#D2 explictly "The target does not mention this", or something like that (I'm not sure what I would do for the exact wording: "mention" I am not sure of, for starters: "describe"?). What do others think? Si Trew (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I always interpret "not mentioned at target" as WP:RFD#D2 because, by that definition, it's confusing. I don't think we need to add it to any existing criteria, or create a D11, because it might be seen as WP:CREEP (and would need a lot of exceptions, such as misspellings and whatnot). However, if someone challenges a "not mentioned at target" argument, that's when you can connect the dots to WP:RFD#D2 and explain why a redirect of that type is confusing. Tavix | Talk  18:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's merely a reiteration of WP:RFD#D2 and should not be made as a rule on its own. I'm also thinking that this is the Redirect version of WP:REDLINK. --Lenticel (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think WP:RFD#D10 is closer to WP:REDLINK: but anyway, I tend to quite policy/guidelines outside of the WP:RFD#DELETE (or WP:RFD#KEEP) guidelines, such as WP:TITLE, since from a reader's point of view, they don't even know, when searching, that it's a redirect (well not on the usual quick search dropdowns etc) so I think we should still abide by those: and after all, redirects are both in main article space, and in what someone else (I forget whom) described as "reader-facing space" (talk pages, templates and so on are in editor-facing space, but categories are in reader-facing space). I certainly don't want to WP:CREEP here, but on the other hand I was wondering if we were using WP:RFD#D2 as a Get Out of Jail Free card and should make our intentions more explicit. But if you think it's fine as it stands, then stet. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Help with wrong redirect

Could anybody please help me with how to deal with a plain wrong redirect? See Talk:Chief_architect. --MartinThoma (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Emoji redirect discussion

Hello! I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 18#Ideas toward a guideline on emoji page titles on how to deal with certain unclear emoji redirect pages, such as some of the ones that have come up here in the last few weeks. If you would like to comment on what to do with these sorts of redirects generally (and not on the individual redirects themselves) then please head over there and share your thoughts. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap

Should we upgrade Redirects are cheap from "essay" status to "guideline" status? It is used as one of the "guiding principles of RfD" after all. Deryck C. 12:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. --BDD (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"Note"s in lede

Do we really need the three "Note:"s in the lede at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header? I don't mean do we need the notes – patently we need those – but I don't see why we need to prefix them with Note:". That's just clutter; delete 'em. Si Trew (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe replace 'em with bullet points. Si Trew (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and do it. Si Trew (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 5, 2015"

No it's not. It's a list of redirects that have been proposed on August 5, 2015 for deletion or other action. Or, a list of redirect that on August 5, 2015 have been proposed for deletion or other action.

It is not the deletion, but the proposal, that happens on August 5, 2015. Can we change the boilerplate here? If so, where does it live? Si Trew (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Come to think of it, they have not (or should not) have been proposed for deletion. That is what WP:PROD is for, er, PROposed Deletion. "This is a list of problematic redirects for (date)" would be perfectly neutral and "problematic" is used in the hi-falutin' at the top. Si Trew (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

NOTFAQ and NOTHOWTO

An RfC has been opened to see if WP:NOTFAQ and WP:NOTHOWTO should or should not apply to redirects. For the discussion, see WT:NOT#RfC: Should we add a footnote to WP:NOTHOWTO/WP:NOTFAQ stating that it does not apply to redirects? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Can "anyone can overwrite any redirect with an article at any time"?

I saw this statement made in a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Redirect_problem.21 by user:Ivanvector. I am wondering if this also applies in cases where the redirect was the result of an wp:AFD as in Linda Pinizzotto. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Essentially yes, although any article replacing the redirect must satisfy the usual notability thresholds. I think @Arnoutf: reply to you a the VP idea lab was spot on. older ≠ wiser 23:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I meant that there is nothing to technically prevent turning a redirect into an article. Of course consensus should always be respected: don't turn redirects into articles if there's already been a discussion concluding that we shouldn't have that article, that's not cool. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ivanvector I am not sure how to interpret what you are saying. Are you saying that articles discussed at wp:AfD with a result of Fedirect should be treated the same as articles with a result of Delete, or put differently, redirects which are a result of an AfD should be treated differently than other redirects? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
When an AFD results in a merge, the redirect may carry history that must be preserved for attribution at the merged article ans so normally should not be deleted unless the target is deleted, or so edited that all trace of the merged content is removed. But that does not prevent a new article being written on top of the redir so long as the history is not deleted first. Ivanvector is of course correct that th9is should not be done against consensus, but consensus can change. DES (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Bkonrad has it right. An article can replace a redirect, both technically and by policy (WP:RTOA). The article must of course satisfy the usual policies and guidelines, especially WP:NOTABILITY. A redirect being the result of an AfD doesn't necessarily prohibit making an article: for example, if the AfD was several years ago, the subject may not have been notable then but may be notable now. Common sense applies. Stanning (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

stats link

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Procedural close as successfully implemented, and tested (without any foreknowledge, and I mean that in the best way: I didn't have any involvement in the changes at the stats targets, so I think it is valid for me to close this. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The stats link has it seems been changed from displaying the previous month's figures to the last 60 days' worth of figures. This is misleading as, starting the day after the nomination, the last 60 days figures include the hits generated by its listing on RfD and so are not a useful guide to anything. I would simply revert this, as I've been unable to find any discussion about the change, but I'm also unable to find where the change was made. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I didn' notice that to be honest. You're right, I just picked at random stats.grok.se/en/latest60/Jarrod%20Maidens from near the top of our queue and it is sixty days not thirty, and in the past it has always been for me thirty, excluding the current day, but perhaps that is just a time zone thing (I am European Central Daylight Time, UTC+2). I hadn't really noticed cos usually I check back for 90 days when I quote the stats in R's saying "below bot noise level" or "about one a day", and I assume (seems so) people trust that I am not fiddling the figures when I do so. Is it a big deal? Si Trew (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Have you also noticed that RfD no longer has an admin backlog? It has always had an admin backlog! Si Trew (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Does WP:NOT apply to redirects?

(Copy-paste move from WT:NOT#RfC: Should we add a footnote to WP:NOTHOWTO/WP:NOTFAQ stating that it does not apply to redirects? with this edit)

  • @Godsy: (by the way thankyou for your contributions at RfD, I appreciate them even when I disagree with you as they are always well-argued and relevant). Would seem to me no consensus, although I happen to be on the "Winning" side in that redirects are not excluded. The silent majority – that is, our readership – should barely notice they have got to the article where they want to be via a redirect, if the redirect is intelligently targeted. If they get to a DAB, it may be a slight surprise, but they will quickly realise why and often will not realise it is via a redirect. I agree in principle to the wording change but I am not sure at the moment it is so clear-cut that we have consensus to do so, perhaps just WP:BOLDly do it? There are inconsistencies in MoS in that redirects are by consensus not considered articles, but exist in article namespace (mainspace) and sometimes that is the crux: I pointed this out for something else a year or two ago, I think at WT:RFD but can't find it now. Bravo, by the way, for continuing the discussion after the closure, seems the most sensible way to me when there is a postscript, of course not to modify the closed discussion, but nothing says one cannot add comments afterwards, and seems often the most convenient way to tie up a continuing discussion so that the future can refer back to it. Si Trew (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think we're misusing this discussion. The RfC started with the assumption that NOTFAQ does not apply to redirect titles, when in reality there are varying interpretations and we haven't bothered to test consensus on this. Would anyone be opposed to starting a new discussion, with a goal of clarifying the community's interpretation of the policy? I suggest asking a question very similar to "Does Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not apply to page titles such as redirects, or only to the content of articles?" Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the kind words Si Trew. I enjoy interacting with you at RfD as well, and your rationales are well thought out. I thought about boldly changing the wording, but I thought it might cause disagreement or be reverted, though it really almost internally conflicts with the title (the title is What Wikipedia is Not not What the Wikipedia Article Namespace is Not). Unfortunately, the RfC was as Ivanvector described it, and opposing didn't necessarily mean supporting its application to redirects. Of course, I hold the opinion it already applies to redirects. Perhaps a second discussion would be appropriate. Some of the content of this policy already indisputably applies to Wikipedia outside of the article namespace (e.g. WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Quie happy to move this over to WT:RFD with User:Godsy's and User:Ivanvector's consent. Si Trew (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I make a section to sep this from the above closed discussion: I refer now to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_24#Watching paint dry where some other points are made about WP:NOTDIC by User:Thryduulf and User:Tavix, both regulars at RfD; I had collapsed that section intending to move it but unfortunately it is intertwined with the discussion of the particular redirect, so doing so would be harmful (I undid my collapse). Si Trew (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I actually had meant to propose that we discuss whether the scope of the policy as a whole applies to page titles, and thus would have preferred this be listed at WP:VPP or somewhere more prominent. However, the intent is solved by having a discussion as to whether or not NOTFAQ (and its ilk) apply to redirect titles, and Thryduulf has already started that discussion, so let's just continue from here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm very confused here. Are we discussion whether NOT:FAQ applies to redirect titles? Whether the entirety of WP:NOT applies to redirect titles? Or simply whether to have either of these discussions? Assuming it's the first, the answer is very simple in that they don't. NOT:FAQ explicitly talks only about article content, and is directly contradictory to the point of redirects. Redirects exist in part to help readers find encyclopaedic content without the requirement to know our article titling policies, guidelines or consensuses regarding specific titles. We would delete the redirects "frequently asked questions about Concorde" or "European Union FAQ" because we don't have any content that matches what people using them are looking for and so the redirects would be misleading. However someone looking for "When was Concorde built" or "Which countries are in the EU?" will find the answers to their question at Concorde and European Union or Member state of the European Union respectively, and so we should redirect them to the encyclopaedic content we have about those subjects. Remember that people of all ages and educational level read Wikipedia and search results are unpredictable, e.g. for "Which countries are in the EU?" the search engine suggests I mean white countries, and then lists
Thryduulf's search results for "Which countries are in the EU?"
  • so deleting redirects like this can directly harm Wikipedia by making it more difficult for our readers to find content. Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Those search results seemed strange to me (mine don't usually include pages in other namespaces) so to check, I logged out and did the same search. I get:
Those results are somewhat less disappointing than Thryduulf's, but some are still odd. I need to think about this a bit more but at the moment I have a bus to catch, so I'll be back later. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Quite briefly: The combination explosion that would result from phrasing titles, section titles, or pieces of information from an article that might be searched for into a "How", "What", "Where", "Which", etc. form (or multiple of the forms) would be insane. To encourage the readership to search in un-encyclopedic manners lacks benefit, because everything they may want to find won't have a redirect in that form. "Countries in the EU" or "Countries in the European Union" would be a good redirect, there isn't a need for structuring them as a sentence or question. Wikipedia has a search engine, and if there is a problem it lies in it, not in the lack of improper redirects.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
We don't need, and shouldn't have, redirects from every possible question. However we should keep the ones that people have found it worthwhile to create because they are clearly useful. There is no suggestion about teaching people how to search or not search in a particular way - our job is simply to respond to how people actually do search and do our best to match those search terms with the encyclopaedic content they are looking for - editors are here to server readers, not the other way around. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand your point Thryduulf, and perhaps in some cases question question/sentence redirects are useful, and I agree we should cater to users. However, my point is simply this: (continuing to use the same example) "Countries in the EU" should be preferred to "Which countries are in the EU?", and searching for the latter should generally return the former as the first search result. "How many countries are in the EU?", "What countries are in the EU?", "What are the countries in the EU?" (versions without the "?" as well) should also get the reader "Countries in the EU" as the first search result. I don't think this hinders the readership. The encyclopedia may not be paper, but the type of redirects being discussed are inferior most of the time to other options, making them redundant and unnecessary. That's why the spirit of WP:NOTFAQ and WP:NOTHOWTO should be reaffirmed as valid rationales at RfD.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem with that argument is that redundancy is a good thing, and being "unnecessary" is not normally a reason to delete a redirect. The existence of one redirect does not mean that a similar one cannot or should not exist - we keep redirects from other spellings and punctuations for example. If we had finite space, or the existence of a subjectively "inferior" redirect meant that we could not have something else then you might have an argument, but Wikipedia really isn't paper and we can have both useful redirects rather than having to choose which is more useful. Search results will always be inferior to a direct link to an article (they are not predictable, require interpretation, more clicks, more data transfer and they are (I believe) significantly more disruptive and more difficult for users of some assistance technologies than they are to a "normal" user. Fundamentally, it all boils down to deleting these sorts of redirects means that we are making it harder for someone to find what they are looking for without getting any benefits from it at all - "spiteful" is often used to describe that sort of behaviour in other contexts. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Though you didn't explicitly state deleting redirects based on what is being discussed above was "spiteful", and I'm not trying to take what you said out of context, I don't think using WP:NOT as a deletion rationale etc. is spiteful; there are legitimate reasons behind using it in this manner. Having some order to redirects that resembles that of article titles and WP:NOT is actually beneficial for the readership and here is why: Every subject the reader might be looking for won't have a redirect phrased in a "sentence structure" manner, so leading them to believe searching in this way should will work is harmful. They'd be more likely to find the information they are looking for searching in more concise ways, because of how the search engine works.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Not every subject will have a redirect phrased as a sentence or question, no, but that's not relevant. There is a very big difference between something not yet existing and something being deleted. Not every question or sentence redirect needs to be kept, but none should be deleted simply for not being an article title. Our job is to educate people, not force people to learn our idiosyncratic and inconsistent article titling guidelines before being able to find the material we are looking for. If we have content that people are looking for but are unable to find then we have failed them, deliberately making it harder for them to find what they are looking for by deleting redirects others have made to help them is what harms Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The important parts of the policy we're discussing are under the heading "encyclopedic content", within a section titled Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal; I think it's pretty clear this policy is meant to refer to article content and not to meta-data like page titles and redirects, so I don't think there's anything in this policy which explicitly forbids a redirect such as How does time travel work? or Why did my car suddenly get so loud? if there's a target where the information sought can be found. It does not say "Wikipedia is not a question-and-answer site", and if it did, we would not have Wikipedia:Reference desk. I'm in agreement with Thryduulf (and WP:RFD#K5 - someone finds it useful) that it's up to us to facilitate users finding the information that they're looking for in whatever way they attempt to find it, if we can, so having these "question" redirects serves a useful purpose.
I also think that we do need to be careful: there's lots of questions that are vague, ambiguous, or that we don't have content to answer, and some that we shouldn't answer (e.g. medical and legal questions, financial advice, etc.) but absent some reason to delete, we shouldn't delete "question" redirects just because they are questions. There are lots of other reasons that many that are created will be deleted, but questions aren't harming the encyclopedia, if done properly.
To that end, we should probably add something to WP:RFDOUTCOMES about questions. I don't have time to draft something right now but I might later. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't WP:OWN RFDO, of course, but as a close observer of RfD in general, I think how we deal with these sorts of redirects is still kind of idiosyncratic. RFDO works best, IMO, when it says "When this kind of redirect comes up, we usually do this." I don't think we can really make that sort of pronouncement here. Ideally, that page should remain descriptive, not prescriptive, of outcomes. --BDD (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
(Finds two cents.) The problem I have with "Somebody finds it useful" is that somebody, one person, will always find it useful. That doesn't entitle me to create List of things that Simon Trew gives a damn about any more than How to ride a bicycle, I do think WP:TITLE and specifically WP:NOUN is very "strong" in saying how we name pages and I do think it applies to all pages, not just articles.
The difficulty is indeed a combinatorial explosion of redirects if one is not careful, and that does not in my opinion help readers, when they are presented (confronted) with seventeen different links all of which happen to go to the same thing. (I think the search engine weeds out duplicate targets but am not sure about that, it just seems so to me.) So, adding or allowing multiple redirects can actually hinder a search in that WP's search engine, and external ones, will list all the redirects and that clutters the search results for things that are about other articles. I am not sure if I make myself clear there, but to take a rather navel-gazing example, as soon as I moved Bijou (jewellery) from draft into main yesterday, and did a gsearch I am not sure why, lo and behold bijou (jewellery) was top of my search results, I must be God or more likely I guess cos Google thought it the most relevant to me, having been reloading that page for a few hours (translating it), but actually what I was looking for was "Anything other than bijou jewellery", even though I was quite aware from the outset that Bijou is a DAB.
In short, it is the clutter that makes me a deletionist with these. By all means have redirects that help people where they want to go, but we do have to guess where they want to go, and having 17 redirects to the same thing helps neither readers nor ourselves. Si Trew (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Si Trew; this is what I said in a RfD the other day regarding the same thing, I'll repost it here: I think WP:NOUN has applications at RfD. WP:ACRONYMTITLE for example (which the guideline describes and links to for further info): A title like AJAR (African journal) should be avoided if at all possible. If the acronym and the full name are both in common use, both pages should exist, with one redirecting to the other (or as a disambiguation page). I've used that as a rationale for deletion at RfD before, and I interpret its principles to apply to the redirect namespace (meaning that titles like "AJAR (African journal)" shouldn't generally exist even as a redirect). Naming conventions shouldn't be abandoned within this extension (i.e. the redirect namespace) of, if not part of, the article namespace.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:recap

{{recap}} is nominated for deletion. This is an ancillary deletion template for processing long deletion discussions -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirect with typo

After reading the instructions, it is not clear to me whether I will get bitten for requesting the delete of a redirect that is unused and clearly a typo, in this case Christ Harper-Mercer. His name was Christopher or Chris, never Christ. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, there are two things to consider when nominating a typo. First, how recent is it? Recent redirects are typically easier to delete (cf. WP:R3). Second, how many typos are involved? A single extra, missing, or incorrect character typically is considered innocuous. Multiple typos are usually deleted (cf. WP:RTYPO). So your example meets the first criterion but not the second. I'd say it's worth a discussion, if you still feel that way. --BDD (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
@BDD: Thanks for the reply. I was about to gracefully accept defeat per RTYPO, then I noticed that it's part of an essay. I don't feel that's enough to justify keeping trash lying around, especially considering that editors will continue to see it and continue to want to get rid of it, until the end of time or the end of en-Wikipedia, whichever comes first. If the goal of RTYPO is to save time, I think it's self-defeating. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll just add, as the author of that essay, that RFDO is meant as descriptive rather than prescriptive: "this is how these discussions usually go", not "this is how these discussions should go". --BDD (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but there's no need for descriptive unless precedent is given weight, thereby making it at least somewhat prescriptive in practice (or having the same effect). ―Mandruss ☎ 21:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

What would you want from an RfD unconference?

I'm hosting a session, "Let's discuss Redirects for Discussion", at the unconference portion of WikiConference USA tomorrow. I'm intending to give a quick introduction to RfD, including WP:RFD#DELETE, WP:RFD#KEEP, and WP:RFDO. The idea is also to get people commenting on discussions, so anyone who's watching, it's probably not meatpuppetry if a group of people all show up and comment at once. Also, what are some things you think I should cover or emphasize in the session? Pinging some of the "regulars": Champion, CoffeeWithMarkets, Godsy, Ivanvector, Lenticel, Neelix, Oiyarbepsy, Rubbish computer, SimonTrew, SMcCandlish, Steel1943, Tavix, Thryduulf, WilyD. And of course, if you're at WikiConference USA, please do stop by and say hello. --BDD (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Summarizing the reasons for keeping and deleting in as few words as possible would be helpful. --Rubbish computer 19:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd like it to be emphasised that redirects are for the reader. In many cases they exist to help people reading Wikipedia to find what they are looking for - and it doesn't matter how good the article is if nobody can find it. Just because it doesn't match how you would look for something, doesn't mean it isn't how someone else would look for it.
Unless you can fund my travel from London and accommodation I'm not going to be at the conference unfortunately, but say hello to people for me. Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
If Wikimania or whatever ever comes to Australia, I would be happy to discuss it, but I think it has been in every continent except here, for many years now. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 21:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Your session sounds great, BDD! My plans to attend WikiConference USA this year fell through at the last minute, so, unfortunately, I won't be able to attend. I like Rubbish computer's suggestion. You might also consider discussing alternatives to keeping and deleting, such as disambiguating, retargeting, and soft redirecting. Neelix (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Sound like fun, BDD! I hope to be able to make it to one of those conferences someday. Anyways, I cannot put a whole lot of thought into this due to my current lack of free time, but I'd say that the WP:RFDO essay would be good material to present. Steel1943 (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd echo what everyone else said, this sounds like a great event. One additional thing to think about presenting would be WP:POFR. If there's a way to stream this, I'll be sure to check it out. -- Tavix (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would have attended but was across town at the time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, as it turns out, it didn't happen! It was booked in the same room as a Q&A with Arbcom members, which in turn didn't happen because the Arbcom members were tending to other business. Instead, there was discussion about Arbcom and related issues. So my session really was an unconference, in an unbirthday sense. Maybe next time some sort of conference comes around, I'll put together something with less than 24 hours notice. For now, I'm afraid no new RfD recruiting. --BDD (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Sounds interesting. hoping to attend a conference in the future. --Lenticel (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm honoured that you included me in this thread; unfortunately (well, not for me) it's Thanksgiving in Canada and I've just returned from being in the woods for a few days. Too bad your session didn't happen, it does sound like it would have been very interesting and informative. For the future, I'll echo what Thryduulf said, that we often lose sight that redirects (and the whole project) are for readers, not for editors, and especially WP:RFD#K5 that we can't always anticipate how readers browse the encyclopedia, and just because a redirect doesn't seem useful to editors doesn't mean that it doesn't help someone find what they're looking for. Cheers! Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm honoured too. Unfortunately I have been very busy jobhunting and not been on WP much. Sorry you hadn't a chance to talk, I am sure you would have done a grand job. I agree with what Ivanvector said, or rather add a caveat that we must anticipate how readers browse the encylopaedia (since the stats don't tell us how someone arrived where they did), and we have no way to measure whether we got it right or wrong, except when someone who is an editor not a reader bothers to bring it up at RfD. This applies as much to all the editors who have nothing to do with RfD but create Rs as part of their normal article creation and editing, and it is right we encourage them to create Rs in some circumstances (pipe in others). Si Trew (talk)

Well, I guess we can just have the unconference here on the talk page. :-) I agree that "redirects are for the reader" should be a point to emphasize. This frequently seems to get lost at RfD. I see this happen most often in one of two ways (occasionally both at the same time):

  1. Arguments against a redirect's existence may be propounded based on policies that apply to actual article titles (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV, etc.), not redirects. We don't want to delete redirects that are non-neutral, to pick NPOV policy for example. It's important that even something derogatory or misleading but attested in reliable sources should end up at an article (that explains that it's non-neutral and why, either as the focus of an article on the term, or as part of terminological coverage in a broader article).
  2. It also happens too often that people want a redirect to go to the broadest possible interpretation of the term in question instead of the most likely that readers will expect. It would not make sense to our readers (except some minority of the most self-consciously obtuse botanists) to move Rose to Rosa (genus) and then redirect Rose to family Rosaceae or worse yet to order Rosales, yet I see this kind of logic being applied far too often here: "Some sources have used this term in this very broad way, so we must, too", even when those some sources are obviously in the minority and do not reflect typical usage, but an archaic, dialectal, jargonistic, or theoretical one. The underlying reasoning behind WP:COMMONNAME – to help the reader find what they're most probably looking for – does apply to redirects' targeting, even if the letter of that policy does not apply to their naming.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

About the reverts on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header

@SimonTrew: and I have been reverting/partially reverting each other on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header (which uses this page as its talk page), so it's time we took this to talk.

The situation in question is if you want to delete a redirect to a template, and the template is still in use. Suppose our template, Template:ExampleGoodName says example {{{1}}}, and we have a redirect, Template:ExampleBadName that says #REDIRECT [[Template:ExampleGoodName]]. We want to delete the redirect (thus taking it to RfD), but the template's in use.

If we put a normal {{rfd}} on the template in question, it'll now read {{rfd}}#REDIRECT [[Template:ExampleGoodName]]. This will cause any page that includes the template to contain the literal text "#REDIRECT Template:ExampleGoodName" on the page (or perhaps "1. REDIRECT Template:ExampleGoodName" if the # happens to end up at the start of a line), rather than the template content that people were expecting. Additionaly, the {{rfd}} notice itself will be transcluded onto the page, meaning that the page will have a scary box on it saying that it's a redirect that was nominated for deletion. This obviously isn't very good for the encyclopedia; it'll have random markup interspersed into the page rather than a useful template with an RfD notice. The RfD process would thus break pages for about a week, which would be problematic (especially if the template doesn't end up being deleted).

The fix to this is to change the redirect in question (Template:ExampleBadName in this example) to use {{rfd-t}} and a copy of the template (i.e. make it a copy rather than a redirect), i.e. {{rfd-t}}example {{{1}}} in this case. This gives a nice small message on pages that include it explaining the situation (because those pages would potentially be broken if the redirect were deleted; {{tfd}} serves the same process for templates that aren't redirects), and means that the template itself continues working. Thus, I described the process on the page as "change the page's content to {{rfd-t}} and a copy of that template's wikitext (so that existing transclusions of the template continue working but show the RfD notice)".

SimonTrew has reverted this wording to "change the page's content to {{rfd-t}} and redirect it temporarily to a copy of that template. Doing so ensures that the template continues to work when transcluded, while it is under discussion.". I corrected this wording because it doesn't make sense; it wouldn't make sense to copy a template to serve as a redirect target when the original target exists, and if the page's content is "{{rfd-t}}", it isn't a redirect. (And if you put {{rfd-t}} above the #REDIRECT, you'd get the same problem as plain {{rfd}}; and if you put {{rfd-t}} below the #REDIRECT, the redirect notice wouldn't show anywhere other than if you visited the redirect itself using redirect=no, and thus basically nobody but RfD regulars would see the nominations, meaning that users of the template name in question wouldn't be notified, unfairly biasing the dicussion towards a delete outcome.)

SimonTrew, can you explain your change? I intend to revert back if I don't get an explanation relatively soon. --ais523 20:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ais523: no problem with you reverting, that is the usual WP:BRD. You probably should revert while we discuss it.
I'll try to spell it out better here:
The wording as it stood implied, to me, that one had to make a temporary copy of the template and redirect to that while it was under discussion. I don't believe that is actually the case because the R header templates have <include> and <noinclude> sections so that they should work properly when transcluded. If they don't, the solution is to fix the templates, not to fix the instructions at RfD. An editor transcluding a redirect to a template that is under discussion, I think we agree, should not end up with some jumble of text in the middle of their article. A reader even less should get such a WP:SURPRISE.
So I think our sticking point really is the wording not the sentiment, yes? Now, I don't see there is a need for {{rfd-t}} at all since it is perfectly covered by the usual templates which work for every other namespace. In short, I think both the template and the advice can be deleted. That's my starting point. Can you explain to me why we need a special template for redirects in template namespace (I realise this may sound confusing as we have a template for redirects to templates, but I am pretty sure you know what I mean there...)
Thanks for bringing it up, it certainly needs sorting it somehow. Si Trew (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
PS incidentally I made quite a few changes to RFD header to tighten the wording and make it more concise, not intending to change the meaning. To my surprise they all have gone without a murmer from the regs at RfD. This is the first one where my change has been squawked at. No problem with that, all to the good, but genuinely I am not sure what it is trying to say and I think we need to reword it better, if we need it at all. Si Trew (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is basically that you want the RfD notice to show to people who use the redirect. In most namespaces, users of a redirect find it via following a link to the name of the redirect, or via entering the name of the redirect in the search box. The {{rfd}} tag works just fine in those cases; a user who reaches the redirect page via clicking on a link to it or via entering the name of the page will get taken to the redirect page itself (because {{rfd}} breaks its behaviour as a redirect), and will then be able to see the tag.

However, in the case of a template redirect, there's another way to use the redirect: transcluding its name. (Technically you could do this with any sort of page, but in practice it only happens with templates.) If the redirect page stays with redirect-like markup (#REDIRECT and all that), then there are only two options: either the page is (technically) a redirect, in which case transcluding it will be identical to transcluding the target page (the important thing here being that the RfD notice won't show to the users of the redirect); or the page isn't technically a redirect, in which case the transclusion will fail to serve its purpose as a transclusion (you'll get literal redirect markup on the target page).

Thus the only option, to RfD a template redirect name that's in use as a template, is to copy the markup from the target page onto the redirect page. (We're not making a copy anywhere else; we're putting the copy on the redirect page itself, i.e. copying the template as an alternative to redirecting to it, in order to have somewhere to put the {{rfd-t}} notice.) This is the easiest way to keep the template working with parameters and the like. (The alternative would be to convert the template redirect name to a wrapper, but doing that requires figuring out all the parameters that might potentially be used, which is considerably more complex for no benefit.)

I should also mention that the includeonly/noinclude in {{rfd}} have nothing to do with making {{rfd}} work correctly on template redirects. Their purpose is to prevent the page Template:rfd itself appearing in Category:Redirects for discussion. {{rfd}} doesn't work correctly on templates, and never has done.

The problem here seems to be that although the instructions that you need to carry out (change the #REDIRECT [[Template:]] markup into a copy of the template redirected to, so that there is somewhere to put the {{rfd-t}} tag without interfering with articles using the template) are reasonably simple to carry out, explaining them concisely is somewhat more difficult. Ideally, something that as many people as possible will interpret correctly first time; my language is clearly suboptimal for that purpose, because it's already been misinterpreted once (and your changes basically look like an attempt to make the misinterpretation clearer, which inadvertently makes things worse). Do you have suggestions? --ais523 06:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ais523: (probably don't need to ping you cos I guess you are watching this page anyway.) How about that we put the rather longwinded (not your fault) instructions you gave into the template documentation at Template:Rfd-t/doc and then at Rfd Header we can just say something like "For redirects to templates, there is a special procedure. Use {{rfd-t}}" and leave it at that? Since they're not just in editor space but kinda soopa-doopa-editor space, editors who know about templates and how to construct them, then a pointer like that would seem enough rather than clutter the RfD header with all that. It still seems rather long-winded to me and I wish there were an easier way, but it is what it is. Si Trew (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
That's a pretty good idea, actually (and means that we can give a clear explanation without worrying about cluttering the template). I'll go do it. --ais523 06:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally what happens to redirects in module namespace? Not that we've ever had one... I think {{convert}} is now a Lua module, for example, and redirects to that, I am not sure if they were tagged how that would work, might have a punt to see what happens if I try to tag one of the Rs to it. I am not sure you're right the intention of the <noinclude> etc: you're right it prevents inadvertent categorisation, but also in some circumstances — and I am not sure if this is intentional or not — it means that the redirect behaves just as a click-through without the RfD banner being displayed, so that to get to the R page one has explicitly to go to the R page not the target. I thought that was the intention but maybe not; so I think there is somne confusion on how these should be applied even in article space. I guess that different tools apply the {{rfd}} template a little differently? Si Trew (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The click-through behaviour is nothing to do with noinclude or even anything in {{rfd}}. It's to do with whether the #REDIRECT is the first thing on the page (click-through) or not the first thing on the page (no click-through). You could put anything you like after that line (even ridiculous things, like a copy of the Main Page), and you'd still get the click-through behaviour.
As for modules, there are some namespaces where redirects outright don't work at all (such as TimedText:), and some where they work for the search box and direct links but not for the normal purpose of the namespace (such as MediaWiki: and Category:). I normally speedy such attempts at redirects as WP:CSD#G8 if/when I notice them (on the basis that they don't work, and thus are broken). Although I don't know for certain, I feel it's highly likely that modules obey one or the other of these patterns. (Also, modules are meant to be used in articles via a template-space wrapper, and a redirect would simply be made to the wrapper rather than the module itself.) --ais523 07:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes that's all true (about the click-through) and I was aware of that, what I am not sure is the intent of having the noinclude/include tags on it. Being old-fashioned I tend always to write #REDIRECT: [[Whatever]] but the hash (pound sign if you are American) is not necessary I think these days, but yes, as long as it is the first line then with our without the hash or colon it will go.
From what you say, I don't think, then, we need to worry about modules and other namespaces too much. (I didn't know WP:TimedText existed). We'll deal with them if they ever end up at RfD. You're quite right, I think, to take them WP:G8. Si Trew (talk) 07:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ais523: I've copy-edited the documentation a bit, but I think we can consider this  Done now. Thanks for doing it. Si Trew (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects caused by page moves

Are we allowed to nominate for deletion/discussion redirects caused as a result of a page being moved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.78.246 (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. -- Tavix (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • If there's no significant history, and you did the move, you can speedily go WP:G7 at WP:CSD. My requests that way (e.g. moving things out of Draft: namespace) are usually honoured, but if they're not I then list at WP:RFD, which is the right place. Si Trew (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Printworhty and Unprintworthy

Category:Printworthy redirects and Category:Unprintworthy redirects have been nominated for deletion. As RfD sometimes tags redirects a unprintworthy, this may affect deletion discussions.

I would assume that {{printworthy redirect}} and {{unprintworthy redirect}} are also affected

-- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Neither of those categories are listed at CfD, which is empty for today as of this writing. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean that they're going to be nominated? Neither the category nor template pages have been tagged. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion was closed early, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_24 -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Mass deletion

I don't know what to say about Special:Contributions/TX6785 but there are hundreds of redirects that have been created. I realize that redirects are cheap but this is over-the-top. Can they be mass-deleted? Liz Read! Talk! 19:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: These contributions seem extremely similar to Bossanoven. Look through his contributions and compare the two. It seems like Bossanoven was obsessed with Nazi Germany, Sports, and creating junk redirects, and we have the same situation here. (The oldest contributions were made using HotCat? That'd be weird for a true newbie...) Disclaimer: This conclusion was from a quick, two minute glance and I have no time at the moment to investigate further due to real life obligations, but if you have time, it'd be something to look into. -- Tavix (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
So far, in this discussion three other editors who were creating a massive number of redirects (like, over 50) to one article have been identified. I can not see any benefit to the editor unless they want an artificially high number of pages created. I've done little work with redirects, there are statements about overlinking, is there policy about excessive redirects? I don't think we are encountering socking, I just think some editors are a little addicted to creating new pages on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
In the case of Jugdev (see these redirects), it lead to a 2 week block for disruptive editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I've commented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A window cleaner me. It seems like a fairly straightforward case and (in this case) TX's contributions should be mass deleted per WP:G5. -- Tavix (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, mass-delete them all. Banned users are not welcome to contribute; if the redirects are useful then some other user will create them. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Redirects_for_discussion/Archive_7&oldid=1137434340"