Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Redirects from (disambiguation) to non-disambiguation pages

There are lists at User:RussBot/Non-disambiguation redirects/001 though to User:RussBot/Non-disambiguation redirects/032 of redirects with "(disambiguation)" in the title which target pages that are not disambiguation pages.

It was suggested at Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 7 that some of these pages could be speedily deleted (per WP:CDS. Below I make some suggestions to clarify what should, shouldn't and what needs more thought.

Firstly, before speedy deletion, a human should check to see there isn't an alternative to deletion, including:
 * Whether the target is an untagged disambiguation page or set index article.
 * If there is a better target for each page (perhaps a dab page at a similar title)
 * Whether the redirect or target previously was a dab page. If so check to see if there is any related discussion on talk or at XfD - if the dab was removed/changed and/or the redirect was created by consensus at such a discussion, then a G6 speedy deletion will likely not be appropriate.

As general cases (in my opinion):
 * Redirects to Set index articles should normally be kept, for example 12-pounder gun (disambiguation) → 12-pounder gun. Note, , , and similar are specific types of set index artcle
 * Redirects from " (disambiguation)" to the article about the number should be kept (unless there is a need for a disambiguation page to be created), for example 14 (disambiguation) → 14 (number).
 * Where is itself a redirect should be investigated to see if a disambiguation page could reasonably be created, and taken to RfD if this or another better target isn't obvious (e.g. 513 (disambiguation)). These should not be speedily deleted. I say this because numbers have a habit of having more uses than is initially apparent.
 * Redirects to list articles should be kept if the topic/title of the list is reasonably close to the title of the redirect, e.g. A3 road (disambiguation) → List of A3 roads. Only where there is clearly no relation should the redirect be speedily deleted, borderline cases should go to RfD.
 * Redirects to articles that contain a list of things that might be relevant to the redirect term, even if not technically a dab page or set index article, e.g. Ancient Olympics → Ancient Olympics in various places, should not be speedily deleted.
 * Where the target contains hatnotes to articles that would be included on a dab page at the redirect title if one existed should not be speedily deleted. If I am searching for a topic that I suspect will not be the primary usage but do not know what disambiguator will be used will search for " (disambiguation)". Getting pointed at hatnotes is equally as useful to me as landing on a dab page.

If any page is nominated for speedy deletion, remember to remove any hatnotes pointing to it.

These are based on the first three pages of results. If possible, filtering out set index articles from the targets will make the rest of the list easier to analyse. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It yeilds about 3,500 pages after 20 minutes. Some more information could be added (like last editor, timestamp, has hatnote).  — Dispenser 01:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that determining relevancy of hatnotes will have to be done by a human - I can't think of a way it can be automated. Putting them on a separate list might help though.
 * Note that some (disambiguation) titles redirect to, which is normally an article about a year. In most cases year articles will not be good targets for a (disambiguation) redirect, number articles " (number)" where they are not redirects are more likely to be. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)