Misplaced Pages

:Redirects for discussion: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:54, 3 November 2005 editHaeleth (talk | contribs)3,970 edits →November 3← Previous edit Revision as of 20:09, 3 November 2005 edit undoGateman1997 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,159 edits →November 3Next edit →
Line 367: Line 367:
** '''Keep''' Doesn't matter WHY the redirect was created. It's a useful redirect; even if the misspelling is uncommon, it could still happen and it would direct the searching user to the (presumably) correct location. --] <small>] &#149; ] &#149; &#149; ] ]</small> 19:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC) ** '''Keep''' Doesn't matter WHY the redirect was created. It's a useful redirect; even if the misspelling is uncommon, it could still happen and it would direct the searching user to the (presumably) correct location. --] <small>] &#149; ] &#149; &#149; ] ]</small> 19:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep''' bad faith nomination of useful redirect. --] (]) 19:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC) **'''Keep''' bad faith nomination of useful redirect. --] (]) 19:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', useful redirect. You did ''not'' ], Gateman, and I'm baffled as to why you felt it necessary to say that you did. --] (]) 19:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC) **'''Keep''', useful redirect. You did ''not'' ], Gateman, and I'm baffled as to why you felt it necessary to say that you did. --] (]) 19:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', possibly bad faith nomination. Redirects are often used for misspellings, and the second "L" is silent, so it's probably good to keep it. ] 19:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC) ***Actually I did assume good faith initially, however that doesn't mean the other users actions were in good faith and that was later proven to be the case.] 20:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep''', possibly bad faith nomination. Redirects are often used for misspellings, and the second "L" is silent, so it's probably good to keep it. ] 19:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep''', and that right speedily. How can something that gets 17,300 Google hits not be considered a common misspelling?! &mdash; ] <small>]</small> 19:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC) **'''Keep''', and that right speedily. How can something that gets 17,300 Google hits not be considered a common misspelling?! &mdash; ] <small>]</small> 19:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


Revision as of 20:09, 3 November 2005

Skip to Table of ContentsSkip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page · Archives
Shortcuts
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
CfD 0 0 16 0 16
TfD 0 0 0 0 0
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 1 9 0 10
RfD 0 0 0 0 0
AfD 0 0 1 0 1

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 Misplaced Pages: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?

This page is transcluded from Misplaced Pages:Redirect/Deletion reasons. (edit | history)

Shortcuts

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages.
  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 Misplaced Pages 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:, Misplaced Pages:, 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Misplaced Pages 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.

Does this look too complicated?
Try this semi-automated process instead: (note only confirmed users can use this)
  1. Enable Twinkle in the Gadgets tab of your preferences.
  2. Go back to the redirect page, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle menu.
  3. Fill in the form and submit it.
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RfD: see ].
  • 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 and specify on {{rfd}} the nomination's group heading from Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
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 ]
    (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 ]

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 Misplaced Pages:Redirects for deletion/Old.

August 6

October 1

October 3

  • Yugor → Gog -- This redirect has been questioned on Talk:Gog for some time. I have no explanation for it, and I suspect that the redirect is the result of original research. Pages that link to Yugor include Ostiaks and Hephthalite, subjects I know little about. Suspect that someone has a theory that links various central Asian peoples with the murky figure of Biblical Gog; I've had to remove some unfounded speculation in the Gog page to talk as well. History of Yugor indicates that an article of that name was sent to Wiktionary; but I don't see it on Wiktionary anymore. Smerdis of Tlön 20:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

October 4

October 7

October 8



October 10

October 11

October 12

October 13

October 14

  • Fake news → News propaganda -- I recognize that there was a VfD on a previous article called fake news. I am not trying to revive that article. However, I think a good article could be written at that space, and that it doesn't mean the same thing as News propaganda. I'd like to write an article there about the use of the term "fake news" for comedy built around news. As far as I can tell, the first person to use the term "fake news" was Norm McDonald, during his Weekend Update stint. Jon Stewart has used the term to describe what he does, too. I think in many people's minds, this phrase describes a form of comedy television, not what it redirects to. Jacquelyn Marie 17:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I'd like to change my request. There is a reasonably good article at News satire, and I feel that this is what Fake news should point to. I'm not sure what the policy is -- should I be bold and just do it, or create a disambig there, or not play with it because it was at VfD before? --Jacquelyn Marie 17:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Does the term "fake news" appear in either article? If so, that's the article it should redirect to. If "fake news" appears in both articles, or neither article, I'd say use your judgment and be bold if you think it points to the wrong place. If you do decide to mention "fake news" in one or the other of the articles, be sure to say that some people use "fake news" to mean something else, pointing to the other article correctly. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 18:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

October 15

October 17

Saying there is content history is a huge overstatement for what's there (a few lines, and nothing of any use). Saying something is "harmless" is no help either, as it's also useless and taking up space for no reason. It makes sense to clean up the junk, like this. flux.books 16:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

October 18

  • Before Polish Corridor → Pomerania -- The earlier is some strange form and apparently refers to a political concept from 1920's, while the latter is a geographical term and was used since times immemorial. Also, the redir is used solely on one user page and one personal talk page, so I doubt it's needed. Halibutt 22:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

October 20

  • Casca Longinus → Longinus (Christian mythology) -- I'm not entirely sure, but I think this character is based on Longinus, but is not necessarily him as such. In any case, there is room for an article on the "Casca" series of books (there are some 20 or more volumes; though probably one article can cover them all), and this redirect is probably making such article less likely. -R. fiend 00:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

October 21

October 22

October 23

October 24

  • EURO → European Football Championship -- Not an official acronym; causes confusion with Euro the currency (only difference being capitalization)
    • Change target - Agreed, the current redirect doesn't make sense; the acronym "EURO" doesn't even appear in the target article! Rather than deleting the redirect, how about modifying it so it points to the article about the currency? Engineer Bob 05:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Quoting → String literal - Original article at Quoting was an article about string literals, so I changed it to a redirect, but it turns out that there are no links to the article within a computer science context, but there is one from Gang violence. Thus, I think Quoting should remain a redlink to encourage someone to write an article about the process. I'd write it myself, but I have no idea what it is. --howcheng 21:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

October 25

October 26

  • Cyr → Cyrillic alphabet — This redirect creates confusion in that there is a "Cyr" listed on List of people by name: Cy that links to the alphabet article via this redirect and there is no discernable article for the person. Also, I've looked briefly to see if "Cyr" or a variant is a ISO-type code for the alphabet but have not found that information. Therefore, I would suggest deletion to avoid confusion unless there is evidence supporting the term being a valid abbreviation. Courtland 01:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Richmond Sound Design (company) → Richmond Sound Design — This redirect was created because of my misunderstanding of the format for company pages and I'm quite confident that the only pages that linked to this one were ones I created within the last few days. The company has a web site which is where virtually all external links would point and this page is only a few days old itself. I realise this doesn't provide a 'proper' argument for deletion but that's all I can really come up with other than the fact that it's completely unnecessary... Charlie 23:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

October 27

  • NPOV -> Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Ancient old bit of cruft from the early days. Hundreds of references to this, which should be fixed by a bot if this deletion is undertaken. --Tony Sidaway 12:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Not sure... if a user types "NPOV" into the search box will he still be taken to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view if this redirect is removed? If not, keep it. Newbies may encounter the abbreviation and want to know what it means, and typing it into the search box will be the most obvious way of finding out. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • KeepThe links to NPOV are shorter than a link to the long name would be. I never use the search box and type everything in the address bar. First I type en then go down the list of wikipedia addresses to find a short one, delete everything after / and then type what I am looking for, in this case NPOV. Hackwrench
    • Delete. Redirects between name spaces are confusing and should be avoided. Typing "NPOV" in the search box and clicking "Search" should at least show the way to the shortcut WP:NPOV - which isn't much trouble typing, either. / Habj 23:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I never notice when a name space change occurs. Furthermore, I don't think of it as a separate namespace, simply because I think of everything after the http:// as in the http: namespace or the whole url in the url namespace. Hackwrench 02:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Will the bot that fixes the old references also operate continuously to modify newly added references? That would seem to be mandatory if this redirect is going to be deleted, since there's no way to keep users from constantly adding more. The abbreviation occurs in text much more than the full phrase, and most authors will simply assume the link works. --Teri Pettit 07:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep - what harm is it doing? --Shawn K. Quinn 09:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

October 28

October 29

October 30

November 1

November 3

  • I nominate the following:
They are all the result of me moving templates to subpages of the portal page they where used as part of. They where only used on that one page, and there is no danger of accidental links. Pluss they are cross namespace, wich should be kept to a minimum.
--Sherool 10:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Footer

NOTE: WE DO NOT DELETE REDIRECTS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY INCOMING LINKS. DO NOT LIST THIS AS A REASON TO DELETE A REDIRECT. We also sometimes delete redirects that do have incoming redirects, so it's not a necessary condition either. See #delete and #keep above for the reasons for deleting or keeping redirects.

Category: