Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fingers-of-Pyrex (talk | contribs) at 20:29, 12 August 2005 (→August 12: Montrose new york). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
CfD 0 0 0 30 30
TfD 0 0 0 2 2
MfD 0 0 0 5 5
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 0 0 0
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

  • If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
  • If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss the proper target.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Before listing a redirect for discussion

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

The guiding principles of RfD

Shortcut
  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
  • In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?


Shortcuts

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Moving a page § Moving over a redirect

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").

Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.

Reasons for deleting

Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. Shortcut
    If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting

Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in article text because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects

Shortcut

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

Closing notes

Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion

Shortcut
STEP I.
Tag the redirect(s).

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page.

  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page ("Publish changes").
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination.
  • If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated.
STEP II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
STEP III.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template

{{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

Current list

Older unfinished requests are at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Old.

July 18

  • 1000000000000 → 11th millennium and beyond; nonsensical redirect, we could have one for each year in those millennia. Radiant_>|< 11:26, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • The 11th millenium would be 11,001 - 12,000 AD. 1000000000000 might only be usefully redirected to trillion ~~~~ 06:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • It used to be, but then somebody pointed out that numbers have articles like 42 (number) and years have articles like 42. Either way, it's very obtuse. Radiant_>|< 10:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • (and also, 1000000000 which redirects to same). Radiant_>|< 15:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sigh, some of these have article history, which may have been cut-and-pasted to number articles; will have to check this out more carefully. Noel (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that someone wanting to find the name of 1000000000000 might enter it into wikipedia. Bearing in mind this, the VfD on the article and the naming convention, there is a note at the top of 11th millennium and beyond explaining where to look for number information, and the corresponding (number) article has been created (and will shrtly be VfD'd). I don't think we're in danger of having more than a dozen 100.....0000 articles at most. Rich Farmbrough 21:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's hot → Paris Hilton. This was a phrase in common use before any of us had ever heard of Paris Hilton. Do we redirect "You're fired" to Donald Trump? Of course not.--220.238.233.193 18:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paris has already tried to copyright such a phrase, so I think the redirect is just fine, considering it was an article on its own and the contents were merged and...redirected (ohnoes!!!) Mike H (Talking is hot) 18:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Strong Delete. Just because she uses it so much, doesn't mean she owns it, just because she tried to copyright the phrase doesn't mean it warrants it either. We for one, don't redirect Wheel to whoever has tried to patent it, not to mention to call something "hot", I believe has been in pop culture for a time when Paris Hilton wasn't even born yet. If anything, it should be redirected to something such as "list of pop culture phrases" or something similar. Utter arrogance; there are tons of people who called things "hot" colloquially before she did. If anything, "that's hot" is a phrase used in pop culture, and not solely, or even mainly, by Paris Hilton. -- Natalinasmpf 05:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete as above. Also, you cannot copyright a phrase like that; you're referring to trademark, and you cannot trademark it either in these cases since it was in common usage before Paris and Donald started with it. Radiant_>|< 08:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. That's hot. Hedley 16:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete for reasons above Granite T. Rock 06:39, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Its difficult to argue that Paris Hilton doens't come to mind when this phrase is used; we're not here to decide whether she can trademark the phrase. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:24, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Reluctant keep. I'd love to see that phrase in List of Words Banished from the Queen's English for Mis-Use, Over-Use and General Uselessness next year, but until it mercifully goes out of style, people who type this in will probably expect a Paris Hilton article. Or they'd just recreate it with "Oh. my GAWD! Paris Hilton like says this all the time!!! TAHTS' HAWTT!!" to no end. I think keeping the redirect is the most harmless solution to that for now. :-) --Idont Havaname 20:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete. Should we redirect "Bond, James Bond" to Sean Connery, just because he's famous for saying it? I think not. So maybe she did try to copywrite it, but does her page say anything about that?--Quadraxis 19:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It's too common of a phrase. Nereocystis 20:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Agree with Jareth. --Celestianpower hab 17:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I'm not involved with the article, and I hadn't heard of any association between said phrase and Paris Hilton. Personally though, I think it's ridiculous to try to associate a common two word phrase with someone's likeness, and if anything, mention of the association belongs within the Paris Hilton article, and not in a redirect. I've also never associated the phrase with Paris Hilton, but maybe that's because I don't care about her at all. Simon80 21:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I make the current count Delete: 7, Keep: 4. So it's hovering on the edge of delete, but not quite there yet. Noel (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 19

  • FinlanD → Finland I suggest the first page is deleted instead of redirected, because the title is a typo, and it comes up first in a search! --Janke | Talk 21:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see #Keep #4. Noel (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not a CamelCase, it's a straight typo, probably not linked to from anywhere. (How can one check?) Would You write CanadA? --Janke | Talk 23:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not an incompetent cretin. Look at the history. The date of the oldest version (February 2001) is back when CamelCase was in use; support of the [[]] syntax for links only arrived in February 2001. Capitalization of the last character was the standard at one point; see Wikipedia:CamelCase and Wikipedia for more. Noel (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "I am not an incompetent cretin." Did I ever say that? But I'm a relative newcomer myself... ;-) A 2001 entry in the history says: Deleted in favor of Finland. Also looked at the links you mentioned, and still don't see why this typo can't be removed. It just looks so crazy when it comes up as the first item in a search for "Finland". Technical problem? Explain, please? --Janke | Talk 07:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the policy of keeping CamelCase links is one I didn't help create, merely apply. You can see more about how (and why) that came to be at WT:RfD#Sub-page redirects (sub-page and CamelCase redirects were dealt with in the same way, so all comments applying to one apply to the other). (And again, it's not a typo!) I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other about keeping them; were it not for the fact that they often contain interesting history from the very earliest days of Wikipedia, I personally would support getting rid of them. However, I have no interest in spending the energy to change the policy. (If I had it, I'd expend it on other more productive things (like User:Jnc/Disambiguation. :-). Noel (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all CamelCase redirects. - SimonP 15:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete most CamelCase redirects. There is absolutely no reason to keep these after several years have elapsed since getting rid of the CamelCase misfeature of early wikis. It is not any official policy to keep these, just a convention and inertia followed by some old-timers and cranky extreme-inclusionists, who are as careful in guarding their favourite namespace anomalies than a Buddhist monk is avoiding killing a fly. If we can get consensus on this page to delete one, we can delete it despite any alleged policy saying otherwise. Note also that there is no meaningful history in FinlanD. jni 08:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • RFC the matter. It's been years since they were in use, so it's hard to tell if they're still linked from anything external. Since this case comes up rather frequently, it should be examined rather than people voting keep or delete on the general principle. Radiant_>|< 08:24, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete all CamelCase redirects except genuine alternative capitalisations. There has been long enough. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have set up a poll at WT:RfD#CamelCase redirects, and copied what I take to be the three votes here on the issue (SimonP, jni, Suslovans) there; others who wish to express an opinion on whether to keep or get rid of CamelCase redirects (as a class) should do so there. Noel (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete CamelCase, which is obsolete. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

August 1

August 2

August 4

  • "Centuries" redirects: 5th centuries, 6th centuries, 7th centuries, 8th centuries, 10th centuries, 12th centuries, 14th centuries, and 15th centuries. These were created (apparently) to handle wikilinking of the following kind:
    ...in the [[6th century|6th]], [[7th century|7th]] and [[8th centuries]]...
    All of these redirects are now orphans but for user-space links; most were orphans before I touched them, and those that were not were in use by at most 2 articles (there were a couple that were in use by one article between them). I suggest these be deleted as a matter of cleanup in that the titles are grammatical assists rather than having the plural meaning that they should (i.e. the plural of "8th century" is nonsensical standing alone). Thanks for considering this. Courtland 01:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

August 5

  • Hodgson's Frogmouth → Frogmouth Redirect from a species name to a family are bad, unless the genus is monotypic (and even then, it's the genus that should redirect to the sapecies, not the contrary!) Circeus 16:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

August 6

August 7

August 8

August 10

August 11

August 12

  • Energy policy -- Delete the redirect & restore Energy policy as an article, because there is no equality of terms. Seed material of the article Energy policy, already worked on by several contributors, was completely deleted. A suitable cross reference to Energy development was provided. Is this a vandalism? MGTom 17:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=20877762"