Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 4

Cross-namespace redirects
I know this has been discussed extensively previously, however, there seem to be a lot of "Wikipedia..." redirects in the (Main) namespace that probably should be looked at. Anybody have any thoughts about these (listed here)? --MZMcBride 19:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. I didn't know there were so many. There are some redirects which are legitimate, so I suggest userfying the list to identify where exactly do they lead to. Some of them direct to the Wikipedia article, while others are clearly cross-namespaces. For most CNRs, judgment must be exercised on their actual usefulness. I'll start the process here, and we can work on it from there. - Mtmelendez (Talk 03:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Virtual Server" redirects to "Microsoft Virtual Server"
Redirect should be changed to redirect to "Virtual Machine" or perhaps another area, but not to a specific vendor product.Kwandar 22:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have made Virtual Server and Virtual server lead to a disambiguation page to allow the reader to select the intended destination. -- Bovineone 22:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to Template:Rfd
Currently, a discussion is taking place at Template talk:Rfd on the proper wording on the template. As you know, the RFD project was renamed from Deletion to Discussion, since the project's objective is to determine the use of such templates, not necessarily to delete them. Outcomes of such discussions can include retargeting or conversion into articles or disambiguation pages. Although RFD is mainly for deleting redirects, it is not its exclusive purpose.

I made a suggestion to change the template to look something like this:

This was not an attempt to produce a definitive version of a new template, but rather to foster discussion on possible changes and outcomes to the template. Please add your comments, suggestions or reservations below. Thanks. - Mtmelendez (Talk 12:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's another suggestion: The use and purpose of this redirect is currently being discussed by the Wikipedia community. The outcome of this discussion may result in its deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. - Mtmelendez (Talk 12:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia-Redirects list
I've compiled a full list of article pages which contain the word "Wikipedia". Some of them are cross-namespace redirects, while others are useful redirects to related pages. Everyone is invited to review the list, in order to determine whether some merit an RFD discussion for deletion or retargeting. The list can be found at User:Mtmelendez/Wikipedia CNRs. - Mtmelendez (Talk 10:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Shortcuts to RFD guidelines
I'm seeing a lot of users referring to the RfD guidelines presented in the section When should we delete a redirect?, similar to the WP:CSD criteria shortcuts. I'm being bold by adding the same features as the CSD shortcuts, so that users unfamiliar with the RfD guidelines can simply link to them. The format follows the assumption that there are 6 delete guidelines (D1, D2, D3...) and 6 keep guidelines (K1, K2, K3...). For example, to refer to the redirect guideline of deleting because the redirect might cause confusion (#2 on the delete list), you can simply type WP:RFD (in the Redirects for discussion page) or WP:RDR (in the Wikipedia policy on redirects). Hope everybody finds it useful. - Mtmelendez (Talk 18:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Listing Redirects for Deletion
OK, bit confused, the section "How to list a redirect for deletion" specifies to use [ THIS LINK], but the link takes you to the log, which I blundered into and created. It seems that everyone else does it differently, am I missing something. In any case, in retrospect, it's probably not a very good candidate. --BMT 20:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * After reaching the log page, enter  ~ , inserting the required fields and save the page. This discussion is different from AfD's which places discussions on sub-pages, and not directly to the daily log. - Mtmelendez (Talk 21:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) That's correct. RFD nominations are on a page per date under Redirects_for_discussion/Log. There had not yet been a nomination for 21 September so when you clicked the link, it edited Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 September 21 & pre-populated it with Rfd_starter (which fills in the current date). If there had already been previous nominations, you would have edited the existing page. If that doesn't make sense, let me know. -- JLaTondre 21:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, yeah that makes sense, just seemed a bit odd. Thanks --BMT 08:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

New navigational templates for logs
I've written up some new templates for the logs. These templates include Template:Rfd starter (preloaded when creating a new log), Template:Rfd starter2 (used to hide code to prevent confusion), and Template:Rfd log header (the new header). There are two nice things about this system - first, the header is not substituted, so the design can be easily changed; second, parserfunctions are only used when the log is initially created. --- RockMFR 19:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note you can manually adjust the template parameters when there is a day that no log page is made (for example, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 September 22). --- RockMFR 19:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

One more thing - if the date header is not added when the page is initially created, it can be easily added by using, as long as it is still the current day. I'm going to try to change the implementation to allow this to work no matter what the day is. --- RockMFR 21:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Caps
I am just wondering whether a redirect i just created by accident is eligible for speedy deletion. I created by accidently knocking caps lock when moving a page.

Rye Meads NATURE RESERVE ---> Rye Meads nature reserve

secondly, should i set up miszabot? Simply south 16:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and speedied it. As for auto-archiving - this page really doesn't need it, as it is rarely edited. It probably needs a manual archive though. --- RockMFR 03:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (I've archived everything from February 2006 - August 2007. Over 100kb. Do you think this should be split further?) And thanks. Simply south 13:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Today's entries
Why aren't they listed on the page? --Dweller 14:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Listed now. --Tikiwont 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

They're listed when someone gets round to listing them :-). I guess we could have a Bot add the next day's discussions once that page is created, but I'm not sure its worth a Bot just for this one infrequent task... WjBscribe 15:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt the bot would get bored, lol. --Dweller 15:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, today's list is not yet merged into this page. This is unfortunate since the rfd template links here and not to the dated page. Inevitably this will leave several users into giving up on voicing their opinions. __meco 12:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty Baby (Vanessa Carlton song)

 * If this redirect was kept, then what do we do about this? Anthony Rupert 22:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed the merge suggestion to merge with Be Not Nobody, the album, just as the Pretty Baby (Vanessa Carlton song) points to. Generally, many songs on Wikipedia are redirected and merged with the album they were released on. Some, however, are kept as stand alone articles. This should be discussed and decided at each article's talk page. Has this resolved the issue? - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Listing a redirect for creation
I have tried to create a redirect from Little Big Mum to Little Big Mom. I have typed the British spelling inadvertenly a few times but an admin has deleted it and protected it calling it "ludicrous". Well, this is what redirects are for. Even though Britons know that The Simpsons is an American programme, they still might type the British spelling just by reflex as I have done several times. I have also encountered this with "Bart Has Two Mommies/Bart Has Two Mummies and Heather Has Two Mommies/Has Two Mummies. Reginmund 17:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have temporarily restored the first one because it was not a valid speedy-deletion. However, it should be procedurally nominated to RfD for discussion by the community.  Rossami (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

BET's Sunday Best
The redirect just go to the wrong Articial and need to be delected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwilliams37 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article isn't a redirect. The term Sunday Best is already occupied by a company. I'll create hatnotes to differentiate. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 17:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia article titles
Is it normal for Uncyclopedia article titles to be redirects? A case in point is Socialist Republic of Scouseland, the name of the Uncyclopedia article on Liverpool, which it redirects to. I was all set to nominate it at RFD, but before I found the Uncyclopedia article. Given the it is a rather perjorative title, it does seem inappropriate for a Wikipedia redirect. --RFBailey (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The pages themselves are vandalism and should be shot on site. If you look in history, you'll see two parody versions (one in deleted history).  Redirects are sometimes put at a common Uncyclopedia title as a way to try to preempt the vandalism.  The theory goes that by redirecting to the legitimate article (and either watchlisting or protecting it), we lessen the incentive to create a vandal article that may go unnoticed.  Personally, I don't think that's a particularly successful tactic and think the pages should be protected in a deleted status instead.  Go ahead and nominate it.  Let's see what others think.  Rossami (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've now nominated it. --RFBailey 19:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

ESC related redirects need attention
While looking for the disambiguation page for ESC, I got sent to 3rd coast ESC. Noticing right away that this was the result of a poorly executed pagemove, I moved it back. Now there's a redirect at 3rd coast ESC, which has redirects to it. I'm assuming it used to be a redlink, which means that European Steady Cycle probably shouldn't redirect to 3rd coast ESC in the first place. Anyways, I'm pretty rusty handling this stuff, and I'm not about to get up to speed to fix this properly anyways—I'm not coming out of retirement for this one, as it were. So I bring it to the attention of RfD regulars; if someone wishes to tackle this redirect cleanup task, go ahead.  Big Nate 37 (T) 17:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're talking about fixing double redirects. I only found the one you mentioned, and fixed it. If there are any more, please let me know. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 18:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

redirects to Myrmica
Myrmica is a genus of ants. The page lists all the species, which are mostly redirects to the genus page (not all, the first two for instance have minimal material). They were all created as substubs of the sort "X is a species of Myrmica," and then redirected; for a typical history see here. This creates a page that largely links to itself, and pages for biological taxa do not generally redirect elsewhere (to make it clear which need articles, and named species are generally considered notable, since the naming implies sources exist), and include redlinks for nonexistent subarticles. I thus propose that these redirects be deleted, but it's a big pain to tag them all individually. Apparently AWB won't work for pages that redirect. Does anyone have any ideas how to list them here easily? Rigadoun (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely irrelevant redirect keeps getting put back
Clint Catalyst, a page awaiting creation, keeps getting slapped with a redirect to Jeffree Star, whose article doesn't even mention his name. Clint has done far more credible projects than the brief work he did with Jeffree, and this does not seem right at all. The redirect cannot possibly help anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.193.37.13 (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That page shows two edits by you so far. The first was to blank the page.  Blanking the page is considered vandalism.  Don't do that again.  Your second attempt is hardly better since it give so little context that it will be almost impossible for anyone else to help expand the page.  If you have proper encyclopedic content, add it.  If not, a redirect is better than that single, ambiguous sentence.  Rossami (talk)
 * A much better version of the page is in the works, I can assure you. That redirect was no more helpful than would be redirecting apples to oranges. I put that pitiful sentence up to keep it from happening again while I compile some substantial content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.28.192 (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed pseudo-namespace "EIW"
If interested, please see Bot requests regarding setting up a bunch of redirects using a new pseudo-namespace, "EIW". These will be shortcuts that will link to topics in the Editor's index to Wikipedia. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on American date
Oops, I thought that it was March 1 (since it is in Australia) so I put it on the March 1 page. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 21:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia time & dates are actually UTC. Don't worry about, a lot of us have made that mistake before. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Old RfDs not closed
Just to inform whatever admins check here, the February 26 RfDs have not yet been closed. It's been well over a week.  Enigma  msg! 06:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ They have all been closed now. Brian Jason Drake 09:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

New area
I know an area this page should cover. If an area is controversial on where it should redirect, a discussion area should be set up as well as appropriate templates etc to show the discussion going on, so in effect discussing request for redirection. I don't think i have worded this properly but you get the gist. Simply south (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ideally, such discussions should be held at the talk page of the redirect and consensus reached among the interested parties there. If additional community input is needed as a resolution cannot be found on the talk page, tagging it with and listing it on WP:RFD is appropriate. That is already routinely done and would not be a change. It was one of the reasons behind renaming this from Redirects for deletion to Redirects for discussion in the past. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems with WP:BLP1E shortcut
Not knowing about the existence of this project page, I've already started a discussion about a problematic shortcut (the problem appears to have been created by mistake, the discussion is about finding the best way to fix the mistake). I don't know if it would have been right to start a discussion here, or if it's right to move the discussion here (I've linked to the discussion on numerous pages where I think interested editors would see it.)

Editors who have thought about WP shortcuts could probably contribute something valuable to the discussion, so please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) Noroton (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Redirects for what?"
It's called "Redirects for discussion," but since I started participating a few weeks ago, I've noticed several nominations (where the proposal was something other than deletion) are closed with comments like "this was never a deletion request" (like this one). As if to imply that, if the proposal was to change the redirect's target, or to turn the redirect into a stub/dab page, that it needn't have been brought here, and that the nominator ought to have simply boldly done what they had proposed, instead. I'm just a little confused by this; is this page named differently from AfD and MfD for a reason?  D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 02:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For details, you can check here and here in the archives. Basically, none controversial changes should just be made. If there is disagreement, that should first be attempted to be resolved on the redirect's talk page. If that doesn't work, then RFD is available as centralized page for broader community input. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cross-namespace
While Redirects for discussion says "...a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace...", the CSD R2 only mentions "Redirects to the Talk:, User: or User talk:". Am I missing some additional explanation somewhere? I just noticed New pages patrol → New pages patrol redirect and I'm sure there are a lot of other cross-namespace redirects like this one. I don't think average visitor is interested in Wikipedia internal projects while searching for articles, especially now, with Ajax suggest feature, which displays redirects as well. —AlexSm 20:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:CNS for the arguments both for and against cross-namespace redirects. Redirects which have a high likelihood to deceive our readers (such as redirects from the article space to a userpage as a way to get around the generally accepted inclusion criteria) are immediately deletable.  Redirects that are not deliberately deceptive take more thought and consideration (especially when they refer to pages that date from before the creation of the separate namespaces).  Many editors are interested in the internal workings of our policies and in the history of their development.  Some of the old CNRs are necessary for that archeology.  Rossami (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would still like to point out that the new suggest feature provides a new argument against CNR, and maybe guidelines need to be made more strict. For example, if I type "new pages" in the search field, I see 2 suggestions, one is a redirect to WP namespace, and the other is a redirect to Special page. Anyway, thank you for the answer. I don't think I will pursue this issue further. —AlexSm 21:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Autosuggest mitigates when the need is to find current pages. It does not help when attempting to trace links and shortcuts used in discussions that have been archived or moved into pagehistory.  Rossami (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of redirect
Hi - I am trying to create new article for John Agnello. He is a producer/mixing engineer who has worked on many albums - Dinosaur Jr., Sonic Youth, The Hold Steady, Son Volt, etc. However, when I go to create the article, there is a redirect for John Agnello which takes me to John Gotti Agnello. Obviously not the same Agnello. This is causing a problem with all Wiki pages which list John Agnello as producer. Can someone tell me how to delete this redirect so that I can create a new article for John Agnello the producer? thanks so much! Sharonagnello (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The simplest thing to do is to change it to a disambiguation page. You may need to create John Agnello (producer) first, so that semi-automated tools don't mark the disambiguation page for conversion back to a redirect.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Collapsing of closed discussions
At Deletion Review, they've added some wikicode that causes closed discussions to collapse so it's easier to find and comment on the discussions which are still active. Would it be helpful to add similar code to the templates used to close RfD discussions? Rossami (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Pros: Cons:
 * It's easier to find the open discussions.
 * There's less eye clutter on the page.
 * Closed discussions which have controversial content or harsh words are a step removed from public view.
 * You can't just search for your own name to quickly jump to those discussions where you commented when you want to see how they were closed.


 * Any objections if I update the rfd top and rfd bottom templates and the closure instructions to match the DRV pattern? Rossami (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't object, but I'm not sure I see much benefit. RFD pages don't get long enough that collapsing will make navigation that much easier and RFD hardly sees as much controversial content as DRV. However, if no one objects, feel free to give it a try. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Move, orphan, and db
Sardanaphalus seems to be doing a lot of renaming of templates, followed by orphaning them, and nominating for speedy deletion as "unused", with rationales such as "abbreviation, grammar, incorrect capitalization". (The 'incorrect' capitalisation covering cases where usage would often vary according to context, personal style, which side of the Atlantic one is on, such as Central Bank/central bank.) I'd like to invite comment on whether this is the most appropriate way of handling these.

Incidentally, wouldn't it be more logical for the renaming of templates, and the deletion of template redirects. to be handled over at WP:TFD? (Compare for example, how WP:SFD is scoped.) I shall leave a comment over there, also. Alai (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If the page was not a speedy-deletion candidate before the move, it can not be a speedy-deletion candidate after the move. We had a number of cases at RfD where people moved a page, then tagged the redirect as db-author.  In a few cases, they even got away with it because a cursory review of the pagehistory does show only the one editor.  This was an inappropriate application of the CSD case, though.  Further investigation frequently determined that the page history still had value even though the contribution history had been moved.  Or sometimes didn't have value - but it was clearly a situation that required investigation and discussion. Whether the templates are useful is a judgment call for TfD.  Whether the redirects are useful could be discussed either at TfD or RfD.  But they definitely should not be speedied.  Rossami (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Soft-redirects to non-WikiMedia projects
There is a proposal at WT:AFD to allow greater use of soft-redirects when content is moved to an outside wiki. Since this has come up in several recent RfD discussions, I would like to invite greater participation in that discussion. Rossami (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How about a 'Did you mean?' page for misspellings?
I've just opened a deletion case for the redirected misspelt word "ad hominen", and have argued that seeing a working link in Talk page comments makes it look to the perpetrator, and to others reading it, that the wrong spelling is actually the correct spelling!

Shouldn't there be a special page for all misspellings - not a seamless redirect to the correct article? Maybe a 'Did you mean?' page that could redirect to the Wiktionary (or whatever it is called) and the main article too. A redirect simply cannot be right for clearly misspelled words like "ad hominen/m". People's minds very often don't pick up on the difference.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, clearly the person who typed the link ad hominen on a Talk page did think that was the correct spelling. Or, at least, that his/her finger slipped left by one key but didn't think it was worth a second edit to fix.  I don't think that leaving the mistake on a Talk page particularly encourages others reading that incorrectly spelled version to make the same mistake, though.  People make spelling mistakes all the time.  As readers, most of us are pretty good at identifying them.  And even if we're not, when you click the link, the redirect does show at the top - admittedly, in smallish print - but, I think, making clear to an astute reader that the original was incorrect and that the correct spelling is the big bold version at the top of the page.  A 'Did you mean' page would accomplish the same thing but would also add an extra click to our readers.  I'm not sure that the net benefits to our readers would outweigh the net costs to their perception of usability.  Rossami (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The guy has actually linked to the incorrect spelling several times - he's never noticed the difference as his misspelling provides a live link, you see. The human mind works in a funny way with spelling - he's probably read the page and not noticed the mistake. You'd have to be astute indeed to notice that tiny redirected line, and even big headings aren't always picked up on: that's why we have bad spelling, after all. People get kind-of mentally entrenched, and some are more prone to it that others. It's a myth that bad spelling is always down to laziness - it usually isn't at all.


 * My intitial concern was that other people could be using the incorrect "ad hominen" as a form of 'policy' - but it appears this isn't the case - I've since looked at What links here, and it all seems to be mostly from the same person. My other concern was that it also promotes bad spelling to those reading it - and this was initially true, in the case of myself. We have no way of judging that one, but you can't beat first hand exprience! (ie it confused me for a while, as for a period he tended to use it to a number of editors on various talks etc).


 * I honestly don't think that straight-redirecting incorrect spellings can possible be a good thing for spelling itself. I'm sure teachers etc would agree en mass too. If Wikipedia wants to be taken more seriously by academics, perhaps it should address this in some way?--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as redirect spam?
User creates ZCubes, which is fine, and then within a few days creates Zcubes, ZCubes - Calci, Paint online, ZCubes Inc., ZText Editor, ZPaint, and VML/SVG Editor, all of which are redirects to the ZCubes article. Is creating so many inbound redirects a problem, and would there be a chance of deleting these multiple redirects via RfD, or would the response be "well, keep: they might be useful to someone?" UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question, and this is my take. Just because there is a commercial intent that does not automatically make it spam.  Spam is advertising masquerading as non-advertising that's got little or no "nutritional value".  It's hard for redirects to have that concern.  These are useful (particularly with the predictive text in the search box) and they don't seem to be hijacking other names.  JASpencer (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirects from misspellings
User Pie4all88 has created a whole lot of redirects from false spellings to the article Parallelogram, see Special:Contributions/Pie4all88. We agreed that this is a difficult word and often spelled incorrectly, but we're not sure whether these redirs are really in the sense of WP:REDIR. I think that to many such redirs (including lots from plural forms of misspellings) may encourage users to actually use the false spellings and they may also clutter article lists. And then we have autocompletion now, which in most cases will help you find what you're looking for without the additional redirects. Pie4all88 thinks, that these redirs don't hurt anyone and that not all users/browsers can use the ajax autocompletion feature. Any third opinions would be appreciated. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You can find the discussion Pater is referring to at User talk:Pie4all88. Thanks for your help!  &mdash; Pie4all88  T  C 09:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're both right, sort of. Redirects are cheap and we are supposed to assume good faith when another editor says that a redirect is personally useful to him/her.  Not everyone navigates through the encyclopedia the same way.  Autocomplete has made one of those navigation channels easier but there are still others which are not helped by autocomplete.  The rule about plurals, for example, has more to do with the common editing editing of new authors who don't yet know that foos works.  (The argument that they somehow encourage poor spelling has not really gained favor at Wikipedia.  Redirects are held to a lower standard than article content.) On the other hand, we ought not to be preemptively creating redirects for every possible misspelling.  Redirects are cheap but not completely free.  For example, redirects show up on Special:New pages and trigger a surprising amount of overhead as the newpage patrol editors review the page.  It is much better to wait until you've made an actual mistake (like typing it in wrong twice) or seen an actual redlink in an article before creating the redirect.  Hope that helps.  Rossami (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So what is your suggestion? Delete these redirs or let it be for now and just not create that many for another topic? --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

September 25
Why is the September 25 log not showing up here? Did I mess something up? Corvus cornix talk  02:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I added ?action=purge to the URL and it showed up for me. John Reaves 02:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John. I kept reloading the page, but it wouldn't show up.   Corvus cornix  talk  02:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the purge needs to be done on the URL to the main RFD page, not the URL of the date page that is not displaying. MSJapan (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

New notification template RFDNote
RFDNote is a new template that may be used to notify those involved with a redirect about a RfD concerning that redirect. -- Suntag  ☼  14:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

off-wiki redirects
Where should deletion nominations for off-Wikipedia redirects, such as redirects to Wiktionary, be listed? At WP:MFD or at WP:RFD? Nsk92 (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there is an established precedent. In my opinion, if it's a softredirect, I'd use RFD and it's a wi, I'd use MFD. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to expand R2
Based on the recent nomination of several redirects from article space to the image namespace, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion about expanding speedy deletion criterion R2 to cover these. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion, but please post there, not here. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Protocol for nominating multiple redirects
It has been pointed out to me that that the method I used for nominating multiple related redirects doesn't leave the links working properly. (As the anchors don't seem to work for me, anyway, I never noticed, so I can't test any corrections.) Any ideas how to do that? If so, please insert it in the main text, so I won't confuse anyone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Changing a redirect from one page to another page
I am new editor especially regarding changing redirects/name of pages/etc. On 25th November on the Talk:Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles discussion page I raised the question why the redirect World War II atrocities in Poland goes there not to World War II crimes in Poland. No-one has replied hence I raised the same question on Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board. One experience editor agreed with the suggestion. So I want to check the procedure.

Can I change the redirect myself or do I put something on WP:RFD? The Help:Redirect has nothing about having to do a WP:RFD. The WP:RFD states it deals with problematic redirects. It further states you can change unprotected redirect with an actual article. However I can find what to do with a change of redirect from one page to another. Here on the discussion page an editor stated “Basically, none controversial changes should just be made”. So I take it I can do it myself and only raise something here if another editor disagrees? Thanks for any advice in advance. Jniech (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case World War II atrocities in Poland has once been moved to World War II crimes in Poland and was already a redirect. Then someone redirected the target away to and a bot tried to catch up with it by fixing the double redirects, but would not notice the reversal. So the original redirect can be safely restored. General procedure is that misleading redirects can be 'retargeted' boldly. If is is controversial it is an editorial dispute that can often still be resolved on the respective talk pages. Especially problematic cases or those that have unclear implications can still be bought here. See also the guiding principles of RfD.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Action and rfd2
I was just bold and updated everything accordingly as not all things mentioned here are for deletion. Even the logs comment that it is for deletion or other actuion. As other actions also take place here, not just deletions the whole thing has been updated accordingly and this should not be controversial, I thought. Many other pages do this as well, in a different way, e.g. WP:CFD, WP:UCFD. This was just a simplification which works and avoids multiple templates. Simply south not SS, sorry 17:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That can be fixed without adding another parameter to the template. The extra parameter makes it more complicated, not less. I was in the process of changing the header page to reflect your concerns when I received a conflict due to your revert. Please note, being bold is okay, but when someone objects to it, you need to bring it to talk and get consensus before reverting them. By the way, WP:CFD does not separate the action and the rationale. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it does but in multiple templates. See Cfm2, Cfr2, Cfc2. It doesn't quite use the same wording though. Simply south not SS, sorry 18:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The first parameter is not the action to be taken. It is the target category / article. See Cfd2 which is the counterpart to rfd2. How CFD works does not match to the change you made. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * However without it it seems automatic assumption of delete. It is only one extra parameter and would help to clarify what is being proposed. Simply south not SS, sorry 19:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirects to a foreign language Wikipedia
Are these redirects never allowed? The bot operated by Chris_G is deleting them automatically. See, e.g., this action by his bot. I added some foreign language redirects to French Wikipedia because it has many tennis articles that are unlikely ever to be created in English Wikipedia. It is not unreasonable to anticipate that many English speakers also can read French. And aside from that, tennis tables, which are very commonly used and appreciated in both English and French Wikipedia, are easily understood regardless of language. Tennis expert (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirects to other languages don't work. Since the MediaWiki software doesn't support them, they are by default broken redirects and should be deleted per the CSD criteria. You can create a soft redirect instead, but that tends to be discouraged. The best solution is to translate the French article to English and copy it here (along with the attribution history for GFDL compliance). If you cannot do that yourself, you can make a translation request at Translation. That is a much more inclusive solution for our readers. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Especially with the particular example you cited. I think it's funny that there is an article about a Pennsylvania tennis tourney on fr.wp but not here.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not "funny" that French Wikipedia has better tennis coverage in many respects than English Wikipedia. This is the reason for the redirects, to better serve our readers.  And what's more important than that?  Tennis expert (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What would better server our readers would be to have the article translated as I stated. Why be fixated on transferring people to the French Wikipedia when that only benefits a small subset of our readers? Why not take the solution that benefits all English readers? -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the redirects that I created do work. I tested them before Chris_G's bot summarily deleted them.  As for your soft redirect proposal, see this and this.  Tennis expert (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, they don't work. I just restored the redirect to test & see if anything has changed and it hasn't. A redirect automatically transfers you to the target page. If you put in a link to a different Wikipedia, it only shows the link, it does not actually redirect you. Hence, it doesn't work. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, they do work. I just created a new article entitled Toyota Championships.  When someone clicks that link or types "Toyota Championships" in the search box, a blue link with Tournoi du New Jersey appears.  When you click on that link, you are taken to the appropriate article in French Wikipedia.  That is exactly what I intended; therefore, I do not understand how this "doesn't work".  Tennis expert (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, they don't per your own description. A redirect transfers you to the target page. Click on House boat. You don't end up at a page with a blue link to Houseboat. You end up at Houseboat. That is redirection. Going to one page, but ending up at another. All you have done is effectively create a page with a single external link which fails CSD A1. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why exactly does Toyota Championships fail and why? Tennis expert (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I just explained why. What part do you not understand? Did you try the House boat link? The difference in behavior is pretty obvious. You might want to read WP:Redirect and Help:Redirect. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't be condescending. I had already read all that stuff several times.  What exactly is "CSD A1" and why does Toyota Championships fail it?  It's really not helpful to use jargon and cryptic language.  Tennis expert (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:CSD: No context. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is full of context, which clicking on the redirect link plainly shows. Tennis expert (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the effort spent arguing this would have produced a decent stub. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I'm not being condescending. I was trying to figure out what you meant as your question was vague. I thought you were talking about redirection. CSD is Criteria for speedy deletion and A3 is article criteria number three (I wrote A1 above, but I meant A3). A3 states that articles consisting of only external links are to be deleted immediately. By the way, is there a reason why you haven't responded to the translation questions above? -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

← There ya go.. 20 minutes and you have an article in English. Only reason it took so long is because I don't read French, so had to fire up the online translator and I had to clean up a few of the links. Much better than a redirect. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The result of your translation was a very bad article that I had to clean-up. Tennis expert (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Better that than the redirect. If you feel that fr.wp has better tennis coverage than en.wp, then transwiki it over here, as Bobblehead did.  Don't just create a soft redirect to fr.wp.  That will just act to discourage people from creating the article here.  Better to have the redlink than the redirect. Best to have the article.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 09:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable. His content matched the French article. And yet you call his "a very bad article", but state the broken redirect was necessary to "better serve our readers". That's hardly consistent. Instead of insulting him, you might want to be gracious and thank him for doing the work you refused to. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Rfd-closing script?
Is there a script to close Rfd's? It would be really helpful.--Aervanath (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Added a search box for old discussions
I've boldly added a fulltext search box to help find old RfDs, on both Redirects for discussion/Header and Redirects for discussion/Log. If you're not familiar with this functionality, check it out - it automatically restricts searching to subpages of Redirects for discussion/Log, eliminating irrelevant results that the main search tends to return. I'm open to seeing the placement/style/etc. tweaked if anyone hates SVG magnifying glasses. Note that some very old discussions (from 2005 and earlier) aren't archived except in page history and can't be searched this way; however, most discussions are searchable. Hopefully others find this sort of thing as helpful as I do. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I always put a link to the Rfd in my deletion summary (or edit summary if it's kept), but most admins don't do this, which can make it hard to find the old Rfd. This tool should be very useful.--Aervanath (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nomination instructions
I've been bold and updated the nomination instructions to clarify the step where rfd2 is substituted. Instead of multiple top-level bullet points explaining this (like there were previously), I wanted it to be a single top-level bullet point followed by one or more sub-level points. However, because of the indented bold line giving the exact text to be entered, there needs to be a second top-level bullet point to avoid the list being split up. I would rather not have this but I can't see how to avoid it.

I clarified that the target is the current target after seeing a recent incorrect nomination (latest version). Brian Jason Drake 09:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Mystical experience and religious experience
I would like the redirect from "mystical experience" to religious experience being challenged, please. The term "mystical experience" has a more specific meaning than "religious experience" - it was argued by W.T. Stace that a mystical experience, properly so-called, involves a sense of union (and indeed, some data suggest that only 10% of religious experiences would qualify as "mystical experiences" in this sense). Can some one please challenge this one? Many thanks if you could look into this, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to a redirect
Sorry if this has been raised before but I couldn't quite find the answer myself. This page redirects to this page which is now a redirect to heavy metal music per an AFD discussion. I understand the second page has to be kept to preserve the history but the first page has no history since it was a move that changed the article's name. So should the first page/redirect be deleted or do we keep it around no matter what? Just wondering. --Bardin (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The answer is that you can change it yourself if you wish to, but you don't need to as a bot will fix it automatically a short while later--Rumping (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked the header again
I've tweaked the header again to use a single for the various tools rather than several. While I was in the middle of blatantly stealing this design from Templates for deletion/Header, I added another improvement in use over there: the entire header text is now wrapped in a css class of "rfd-header", so you can hide the header text through your personal css page if you find clicking "skip to current discussions" too tedious. As always, anyone should feel free to revert me if they hate it. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Soft redirects
Is this the page to discuss soft redirects to other Wikimedia sites, or should they be taken to WP:MfD? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this page covers all redirects, soft or otherwise, to any destination, in any namespace.--Aervanath (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Listing a protected redirect
I would like to RfD Various artists (it's a soft redirect to wikt, but the wikt entry has been deleted), but it's protected so I can't template it. What to do? r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You can place editprotected on its talk page. I've added it for you this time though. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you. I feel like a n00b now... r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from other capitalisations and Template:R from other capitalisation
FYI, I thought you'd like to know:

R from other capitalisation and have been nominated for deletion on 4 May 2009. See WP:TFD and WP:CFD. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirect deletion
The redirect at the following internal link: is unnecessary and therefore ought to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaiusRoth (talk • contribs) 21:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's not doing any harm. Such redirects with different capitalisations are common and may avoid the possibility of someone not finding the right page, or someone starting a new article about the same topic. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Should disambiguation pages be brought to AFD, MFD, or RFD? (or a new venue)
I think there's sufficiently few instances that a new venue need not be created, but I do think we should provide some guidance on where to list disambiguation pages for discussion/deletion. Please provide your thoughts here: Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions. –xeno talk 16:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy for robotically created redirs
I have found a tendency by some authors to robotically add every possible version of an article title based on CaMeL casing, punctuation, short forms, etc. Most of these end up completely unused. These are littering the namespace, and because they are inward pointing links, they can be considered linkspam by Google - which is extremely bad. Why are these not in CSD? Do I really need to go through this this page to get rid of unused redirs that have "ltd", "Ltd", "Ltd." etc? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: Maury is talking about perfectly valid redirects like VIA Rail Canada Inc. --NE2 21:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm talking about an entire class of useless redirs all over the Wiki. Don't take this so personally. If anyone thinks this is just a personal debate, be sure to check my Contributions, I've been deleting these for years. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone here? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you would like to propose a new speedy deletion criteria, I would go to WT:CSD and propose it there. First, however, a good way to gauge consensus in this area would be to take several redirects that you feel are useless and then propose them for deletion at WP:RFD.  If they are deleted, then you have a good argument for proposing a new speedy criterion.  However, based on past experience, you are not likely to succeed here; RfD nominations based on your reasoning have typically resulted in "keep" closures, on the basis that redirects are cheap.  See WP:RFD.--Aervanath (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He's also been overturned at DRV. --NE2 08:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Would it be a problem if I combined the US census redirect discussions?
Would it be a problem if I combined the US census redirect discussions? They probably should have bean nominated together from the start.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Never-mind, it would probably be better to ask in the redirect discussion.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD
WP:CSD is specifically for recently erected redirects. However, I recently tagged a redirect for deletion that was about five years old, and was warned not to do so. I don't know what the best course of action would be should that instance ever happen again.--Launchballer (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You would nominate it for deletion here at RfD. See the main page for the directions. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to allow vanity user redirects in subpages of one-letter redirects
See Village pump (proposals) –xenotalk 17:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Good double redirects
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Double redirects. &mdash; Sebastian 00:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Extending the instruction's colored bars to include notifying creator and main contributors
Redirect creators who merit RfD notification of nomination often fail to receive it. Notification is suggested below the RfD instructions, but, coming after the end of the colored bars, it may be missed by some nominators. Would it be appropriate to extend the colored bars (possible making section III with an even darker orange) to include the suggestion? -- ToET 04:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Early closing
Is their any particular process or precedent for closing discussions early? I'd like to withdraw my - in hindsight rather ill thought out - nomination at Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 1 - no one has expressed an opinion favouring deletion. Guest9999 (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I would say don't doubt yourself, but if you want to withdraw, just say so on the RfD and a passing sysop (or, since you withdrew, WP:NAC applies as well) will close it. Normally I'd close it now, but I'm hoping there'll be some more comments in response to your suggestion to Jafeluv, as others seemed to express some interest in discussing retargeting options. ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 03:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, forgot this was "for discussion" and not "for deletion" fot a moment. Guest9999 (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion will be wrapping up its seventh day tomorrow. Then it would be likely to be closed. WP:NAC does apply at that point, provided there is no controversy or conflict of interest on the part of the closer. For example, I cannot close this discussion as a non-admin close as I have posted a comment/recommendation in the discussion. B.Wind (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's completely okay to close a discussion early if the nominator withdraws and no one else has argued for deletion. This can be done by non-admins as well. See Speedy keep. Jafeluv (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to expand purview of WP:RfD is at the Village pump
I have posted a proposal at the WP:Village pump (policy) in which RfD would be expanded to cover disambiguation pages and exempt them from WP:PROD. Anybody with a viewpoint about this is welcome to participate in the discussion. B.Wind (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Stefan Salvatore
I think that the redirect for Stefan Salvatore should not be redirect to The Vampire Diaries (TV series). There should be a separate page for Stefan Salvatore, since he is a main character in both the tv show and the books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampchik96 (talk • contribs)

I think you're disputing the redirection of an article you created, Stefan Salvatore (The Vampire Diaries). RfD is not the right forum; take this up with the user who redirected the page. 71.255.89.120 (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

XfD logs
See Village pump (miscellaneous). Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

RfD notice was removed from redirect while discussion was active.
As I understand it, normal sequence is to leave the rfd in place on the redirect, notifying redirect-users of the discussion, until the discussion has been resolved and closed. At the moment, Redirects for discussion is still underway, but the rfd was removed from the redirect Lord Byron; and no new participants have joined. To me it seems like locking the doors during an "open" town hall meeting. What exactly are the policy implications for this RfD? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the template is used for tracking purposes mostly, as well as informing frequent users of the redirect of the discussion. The template also turns the redirect into a soft redirect for the duration of the discussion. Generally I suspect that the RfD template should sit there for the entire discussion, however this particular case may be heading towards a WP:SNOW result, and thus a user boldly decided to return the redirect to its normal functionality. As you noted this on the RfD itself I am sure that the closing admin will take it into consideration, but I doubt it will be relisted as consensus seems clear. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I retagged it with RfD, but underneath the redirect, thus categorizing it for tracking purposes. I am neither endorsing or not endorsing the removal of the RfD tag in this scenario. --Taelus (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I restored the RFD to the top but added a dab-like hat-note for the duration of the discussion.  Rfd serves to announce to anyone using the redirect that its behavior may change shortly, and as such they should not be removed or hidden from view.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, I'm seeing a lop-sided discussion but not enough for WP:SNOW. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to Rfd
See Template talk:Rfd. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Recreating some db-r3
I've been going through User:Gmaxwell/seo which is a list of search terms from the 2006 AOL data. These are actual things that actual people type into actual search boxes, in some numbers.

Many are misspellings of "MySpace.com", "Google.com" or bits of eBay which have been deleted as db-r3. I've recreated them when they're on that list, as evidence that they are not in fact unlikely to be searched on in real life (as r3 says), or they wouldn't be on that list. I hope no-one objects unduly - they're things actual bad typists look for on teh intarweb, or at least teh aol.

I fear real people type much worse than we'd want them to ... - David Gerard (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Real people type badly and they use random search boxes as if they were the browser address bar - just ask Google about that. I don't have a problem with recreating R3 deletions based on a genuine belief that they might be typed. Having said that, beware of doing this for really obscure web addresses, since it can be seen as unduly promotional, especially when there are many typo redirects for sites less well known than the ones you listed. Just use common sense, and I'll bet no one will object. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a reasonable move, except in the case that the mis-typing is expected to be fairly rare and the search results for the mis-type would not be helpful. —Zach425 talk / contribs 09:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's examples like Yahoo, MySpace and Google. I realise they're not getting quite what they wanted typing it into Wikipedia, but at least they'll learn something ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Question re some of the criteria
I made a request for clarification of a couple of the deletion criteria, at WT:R. Please help explain them if you can.--Kotniski (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)