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 12:25, 1 December 2005 editWoohookitty (talk | contribs)Administrators611,228 edits November 21: rem. %. keep vote← Previous edit Revision as of 12:30, 1 December 2005 edit undoWoohookitty (talk | contribs)Administrators611,228 edits October 26Next edit →
Line 36: Line 36:


* ] → ] — This redirect creates confusion in that there is a "Cyr" listed on ] 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. ] 01:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC) * ] → ] — This redirect creates confusion in that there is a "Cyr" listed on ] 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. ] 01:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
**The rfd tag was not put on correctly. Will keep this open. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


===October 28=== ===October 28===

Revision as of 12:30, 1 December 2005

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
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 23 0 23
TfD 0 0 0 0 0
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 8 0 8
RfD 0 0 0 0 0
AfD 0 0 0 9 9

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. ClimategateClimatic 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.

October 20


October 23

October 24

  • EUROEuropean 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)
  • QuotingString 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 26

  • CyrCyrillic 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)

October 28

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)

November 4

November 5

  • Electric bicycleMotorized bicycle - CyclePat wants the redirected deleted so he can recreate a separate article for electric bicycle. He originally listed on AfD. Moving it here since this is where it belongs.
delete: Like he said "delete the link/redirect and have a seperate article eliminating the confusion withing motorized bicycle. (see other reasons at talk:motorized bicycle)--CyclePat 07:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
THIS ARTICLE should not be deleted as discused in the talk:motorized bicycle. It is essentially a sub-class of "motor assisted bicycle" and has had it's chance of being incorperated with that article, however... that article is purelly narrow minded propaganda for electric bicycles, hence it is my belief so we can lighten up the article on "motorized bicycle" that we resume the creation of electric bicycle --CyclePat 05:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I think CyclePat has nominated this for deletion without really understanding how deletion policies work. cyclePat, this is for nominating an article to be deleted. Sometimes people nominate articles to be deleted when they don't really want them to as a breaching experiment, but I don't think that's what you intended. For anyone else -- CyclePat, a bicycle shop owner in Canada politically active enough to be involved in some petitions and court cases related to the issue, started working on an article on electric bicycles. I and several other editors began helping him. We decided that the article should be moved to Motorized bicycle so that it could incorporate text from several articles about bikes of this sort; they were fractured over electric bicycle, power-assisted bicycle, power-assisted cycle, etc. Not liking changes to the new motorized bicycle, CyclePat has begun reverting the redirect on electric bicycle and re-creating his old article, which was mostly about Canadian jurisdictional laws and was rather POV in spots. Electric bicycle should stay redirected to motorized bicycle. · Katefan0 06:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
actually, yes and no. I was recreating a brand new article on "electric bicycles." (And it might have contained a broader definition and perhaps more details than motorized bicycle. (this page was cluttered with much propoganda about electric bicycles... and still might have some sections that need clarification. (take a look at this past page to see what I was trying to do. This would be a page that motorized bicycle could link to. We could clarify the ambiguities that exist between the various different types of bicycles. (At least something needs to be done to help clarify this) (I also feel we are going to have the same problem with "power-assisted bicycle" and "power-assisted cycle." Actually, during our edit war, we had even decided that moped deserved it's own place. Why the double standard? --CyclePat 09:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Another comment: When the article changed from electric bicycle to motorized bicylce we did not take into consideration the corresponding french article. . A small discussion has started on this @ French:Motorized bicycle link... --CyclePat 08:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think there may be the possibility to separate out an article under this heading in the future, but it's a long way off at the moment. User:Noisy | Talk 18:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. (assuming this is a vote to delete the redirect of electric bicycle to motorized bicycle and thus to keep electric bicycle as a separate article). When I think of a motorized bicycle, I think of a bicycle with a motor that burns some kind of fuel. Yes, technically, an electric motor is a motor, of course, but there is a reason we call electric cars electric cars and gas cars just cars. An electric bicycle is a unique type of motorized bicycle that should be covered in a separate article. However, any issues that are common to all motorized bicycles should be in the motorized bicycle article and appropriately referenced from the electric bicycle article. --Serge 17:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Proposal: I propose that this is closed as keep. The listing has been open for about three weeks and everybody seems to think we should keep either the redirect or a separate article - in neither case is deletion required. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / (W) AfD? 18:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

November 6

November 7

The latter was created at the former name and moved, creating the redirect. At the talk page it was decided the latter was the more correct title, and it appears "Militia Act 1707" is unrelated as it would not be given that title as a bill not given Royal Assent. --KURANDO 13:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

November 8

--Mcmillen76 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

November 9

November 10

November 11

November 12

November 13

  • "Gay straight alliance" and "Gay/Straight Alliance" should just be 'fixed' to link direct as valid alternate puncuations. Having "Gay Straight Alliance" would then be useless and functionally redundant with "Gay straight alliance" and could be deleted. 24.17.48.241 05:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

November 15

November 16

November 17

What's wrong with the above 5 redirects that warrants deletion? I've read the talk pages and they don't shed any light on the nominations. —Cleared as filed. 04:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The NBA Wikiproject is going to reorganize all the stuff and we've decided that those redirects are usefull (will ever someone search for "Jason Chandler Williams" or "John "Hot Rod" Williams"? Maybe "Jason Williams" and "Hot Rod Williams"...). The Gary Payton redirect is completely unusefull, we've decided to move the article Gary Payton (basketball) to Gary Payton so the redirect must be deleted, same for Randy Smith. see also this. --necronudist 12:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The impression I get about Redirect deletion policy is that we don't delete them just because we think no one will use them, we only delete them if there's something actually bad or confusing about them. Obviously someone thought to search for those terms once, because they created the redirect. As far as the redirects that need to be deleted to make way for page moves, I think those requests belong in Misplaced Pages:Requested moves and will be acted upon faster there. —Cleared as filed. 13:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, so delete Gary Payton and Randy Smith (basketball) so we can move those pages. --necronudist 20:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like those two just need to be moved to Misplaced Pages:Requested moves... 24.17.48.241 05:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

November 18

November 19

  • Egg (zoology)Testicle. It was recently created by the same editor, who created the redirects above. Egg (zoology) can't be a disambiguating redirect. I have no idea whether a zoological egg is an ovum, zygote or an egg for food. If editors are aware that a word needs disambiguating, they just don't add an ambiguous extra part, instead they go and look at the disambiguation page. -Hapsiainen 19:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

November 21

November 23

November 24

November 25

November 26

November 27

November 28

Delete - since these redirects are only used in contexts related to Herbert Cardinal Vaughan and linking there already, having them appear as redlinks would actually be more useful. --Kusma (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

November 29

November 30

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: