Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion

Titles with en dash - I might have stuffed up

Hi, I just moved Northwestern Syria campaign (October 2017–February 2018) and Northwestern Syria offensive (December 2019–March 2020) to have a spaced dash per MOS:RANGE. My understanding (per WP:AT) is that a redirect has to be created for the title using the hyphen instead of the dash because of keyboard accessibility for the en dash. I did this at this page. The link is a circular redirect and both articles seem to reach the target when using the hyphen. Looks like I stuffed up. Could somebody please have a look please. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Is RFD a valid forum to discuss cases of PTOPIC disambiguation pages?

Note: By PTOPIC dismabiguation pages, I'm referring to only those disambiguation pages that do not have "(dismabiguation)" in their titles.

So, recently I nominated Frank Mrvan (disambiguation page) to RFD to turn it into a redirect, but that was speedy closed. Few editors said that it should have been nominated to AFD instead, but I have a number of concerns about it and believe that RFD is a process better suited in these cases of PTOPIC than AFD is. Here are the reasons:

• Firstly and most importantly, Articles are very different from Disambiguations, but are closer to redirects. Had there not been two or more people/things/concepts with similar names, a PTOPIC dab would definitely have been a redirect.
• AFD usually determines whether an article should exist based on content guidelines such as GNG, BLPVIO, HOAX, SPAM, COI, etc. These content guidelines are usually not applicable to Disambiguation pages.
• AFD does not usually deal with questions on WP:PTOPIC (WP:Long-term significance, pageviews, clickstream, etc.), but RFD does. This makes RFD participants more likely to be good at determining outcomes of PTOPIC.
• RFDs regularly lead to the drafting of PTOPIC disambiguation pages, but AFDs usually do not lead to new disambiguations. Undoing the same in the light of recent evidence should not require a different forum, and must be decided at the same place.
• AFD (Articles for deletion) primarily exist for deletions. While they may lead to moves, mergers and redirections, it is only a tangential outcome, such discussions are usually outsourced to RMs, merger discussions and RFCs. Whether or not a dab should be redirected has nothing to do with deletions.
• Having an entire extra page to determine whether a disambiguation with 2 entries should exist or not seems like an overkill.

I am not suggesting to eliminate the nominations of dabs to AFDs completely. I'm only suggesting that in certain cases, it makes more sense to nominate PTOPIC dabs to RFDs than AFDs. What are your opinions? Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Also see failed proposal WP:Disambiguations for discussion. Jay 💬 15:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves is the place where these matters are usually decided for extant articles, including for disambiguation pages. For the example provided, someone would propose the move from Frank Mrvan to Frank Mrvan (disambiguation) (along with any other related page moves), with the rationale for why, along with what they think should happen to any redirects left behind. Iffy★Chat -- 15:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

In this particular case Frank Mrvan (disambiguation) need not exist, as per WP:ONEOTHER. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

In that case, unless you wanted to WP:BOLDly make the redirect yourself, the only thing you're proposing is an article deletion, so AFD is the place to discuss that. Iffy★Chat -- 17:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

But it is not an article. It has no inherent value for an encyclopedia unlike articles and exists solely to help with navigation to an article with similar title. "Disambiguation" might as well have been a separate namespace with appropriate redirects to it. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of disambiguation pages is regularly and routinely handled at AfD (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts) without an issue and I'm not aware of this causing any issues, nor why this disambiguation page would be any different? Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Crazy idea for a template

Sometimes, discussions get to a point where there is a rough or even pretty clear consensus that a DAB page ought to be drafted, and then everyone sits around looking at each other awkwardly for one to appear.

I mostly enjoy drafting DAB pages, and I sometimes look for where they are needed. I'm sure others do, too.

This is why I mocked up a template, {{User:Cremastra/template}}, that gives better visibility for these requests and even puts the RfD log page into a category where they can all be seen in one place. When someone finishes drafting the DAB, they just need to remember to add |d to the end of the template to close the request. This should (if I did it right) change the appearance of the template and remove the category.

What do you think? Cremastra ‹ u — c › 12:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It is a good idea. Disambig pages are easier to draft. Set index pages are harder. So may be that can also be covered. Jay 💬 10:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't see why we can't also have one for set indexes.

The main problem is that if the template is deployed, people need to actually use it, otherwise it will moulder away somewhere. I'm hoping enough RfD regulars monitor this talk page. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 13:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I like this idea and will try to remember the template when the situation comes up. Good thinking! BugGhost 🦗👻 15:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jay @Bugghost Editors can now use {{DABr}} and {{Setr}} to request. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 17:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The way it works now is not ideal. Adding "|d" should remove the request from the category, but not change the appearance. For example, at the Hallelujah night RfD, you added the "|d" which changed the text to "Disambiguation draft made * Pppery *" giving the false impression that Pppery made the disambiguation draft. It should continue to say "Disambiguation draft requested * Pppery *", and {{DABr|d}} may be added as a reply comment by whoever makes the draft. Jay 💬 07:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the best way to use this template is without a signature. That removes most of that confusion. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Nah, I think Jay is right. Leaving a bunch of unsignatured comments will probably annoy a bot and looks messy. I'll fix the code. Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 15:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Can't subscribe

Editors can't use the new discussion tools and subscribe to be notified of additional discussion in conversations they've participated in – the Subscribe with a bell link you see at the top right of each discussion on this page, for example. I suspect this is because the Redirects for discussion are in the Wikipedia space rather than Wikipedia talk namespace. Keeping track of these discussions has always required extra effort and this is not helping. ~Kvng (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kvng: The technical reason RfD threads can't be subscribed to is because they're under fourth-level headers (==== Like this ====), not second-level headers like on this talk page. This is a limitation of DiscussionTools, the extension that controls subscription notifications. If I remember correctly, the editing team has suggested this might be supported in the future as part of the talk pages project, but I don't remember any recent changes related to this issue. We'll need a different solution at RfD for now. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

What links here

In discussions of changing a redirect, I think it is very useful know what links to the existing redirect before deciding to change it. Perhaps editors should be advised to look at "what links here" in the tools menu of a redirect page. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Which is why the nominated entry has incoming links as one of the 4 links in brackets that follow it - (talk · links · history · stats). Jay 💬 17:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It may be that some editors are not aware of that. Admittedly I was one. Also for example, in this discussion [1] of WP:PCR, the editor proposing the change seemed to be unaware when they wrote, "In my experience I've often seen this initialism used to refer to the pending changes reviewer user group, and absolutely never for this essay section." In looking at the list of links, it appears to be much, much more like the opposite. So I think some advice to check the links would be worth mentioning. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, now you are aware! There's a first time for everything on wikipedia. Both WP:RFD#DELETE and WP:RFD#KEEP do provide guidance on incoming links. Jay 💬 07:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Rfd notice § The redirect link in the body

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Rfd notice § The redirect link in the body. JJP_Master (she/they) 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC).

Avoid removing links to redirects while RfD is open

Often an RfD nominator starts removing links to the contested redirect while the discussion is open. I remember seeing instructions to refrain from doing so, because it skews the number of incoming links. Does anyone know know of any related guideline that I could quote or a shortcut that I could cite, please? fgnievinski (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Allowing non-admin "delete" closures at RfD

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Allowing non-admin "delete" closures at RfD. JJP_Master (she/they) 13:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Possibly transclude RfD entries onto two pages instead of one

Hello! So oftentimes, it appears that the RfD page has trouble displaying all of the transclusions on a single page, and will occasionally hit the WP:PEIS limit. There is a lot of content to display. Personally, I like being able to see RfDs spanning multiple days on the same page, so the multi-transclusion system is quite nice. I think transcluding multiple days is a good thing.

However, the backlog of RfD will often grow and grow, leaving up to 10 or more days unclosed on top of the most recent 7 that must stay open, and the surplus breaks the display of RfD. I think it might be helpful to only transclude the most recent 7 days at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Once the 7th day is reached, the page would be removed from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, and listed on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Backlog or some name like that, where the same type of deal will occur as it does now (removing the day from the page once all the discussions are closed). At the moment, it seems like "1 page worth of transclusions" is not enough to properly display everything, but 2 pages worth of transclusions might be just right. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Good idea. Yes please. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure. This is technical problem and a technical solution. Closers will know where to look, or bring discussions from the backlog to the front page if they feel it needs more participation. Jay 💬 07:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I'll go through with it by the 25th or so if there's any other pushback against this. Categories for discussion does something slightly similar in purpose with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Previous 8 to 21 days. However, these pages will exist regardless of if discussions are opened or closed. Our logs are pretty suitable I feel for navigation, and are already lengthy enough that putting 8 to 21 days of RfDs on a page is already going to overload it with 14 total days of nominations. I think 2 subpages (1 current and 1 old) is still the right way to go, and there's not a major need to have constantly updating logs of the days between 8-21 days. The only days we'd need to see on such a page, are the days that contain unclosed discussions. Therefore, the page title I think is most suitable to go with is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Old nominations. Not everything on the page is guaranteed to be a "backlog"; some might require other solutions and editor interactions/questions/answers/et cetera, and wouldn't be able to be closed immediately as a result. Therefore, "old nominations" is probably the most accurate title to go with, and is a bit more telling than just saying "/Old". So that's the subpage I'll make in ~48 hours, sans any objections. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem of redirects without a mention

CAT:RAW is a maintenance category. Ever since its creation in 2013, it has grown and grown, and still sees new titles all the time. Many article in the category have been tagged since as far back as 2015, and the quality of the redirects there is, well, dodgy at best. Most of these have been tagged as potentially problematic, yet have continued to exist unbothered for going on a decade plus. I would like this year to be the year we start making serious progress on addressing the concerns that led editors to place this tag on these pages.

We have actually made some really good progress across 2024. By the time me and other editors started consistently nominating such titles, we as a project have brought the total number of pages in this category from well beyond 2,000, to now we are just below 1,200! Whether or not the redirects were deleted, a mention was added within the decade it sat in the category, or if unique/clever solutions and content additions were created to address the issue of not being mentioned, there were many different ways these redirects have been dealt with here at RfD and beyond.

However, the fact remains that so many of these titles have been tagged in this manner, but have never seen the light of day and/or have never been the subject of an RfD discussion. I had previously made it a goal to reach zero redirects in this category by the end of 2025, but honestly I'm somewhat inclined to "rip the bandaid off" so to speak.

From my point of view, the ONLY titles that should be allowed to sit in CAT:RAW, are pages where there is consensus for them to be there, either be it they were the subject of an RfD that closed as "keep", and/or they are currently pending the existence of content that has appeared or disappeared as a result of a dispute, and their existence is held in the balance.

So to that effect, over the next 40 to 50 days (likely to start on the first of February), I would like to start nominating all of the pages that are currently in CAT:RAW, so please expect an increase of nominations here. As there are currently ~1200 redirects in the category, there would be an average of 25 to 30 RfD nominations from me, to last throughout the next 1.5 to 2 months. Ideally at the end of it all, the only redirects that are kept as "R without mention" are the pages that are realistically waiting for content to be added. If not that, then content IS added or found somewhere suitable, or the pages are deleted.

In this quest to clean out CAT:RAW, I will be skipping over any page that has been subject to an RfD debate that closed as "keep", or any page that has suitable content at the target (and thusly cannot be a "redirect without mention"). The only pages that will be nominated are those that have "never seen the light of day", and thus do not have consensus to remain in this category. After these 2 months pass, hopefully we will have a much more managed number of "redirects without mention" that we can take action on and be able to implement this content into the encyclopedia! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer 15–20 nominations a day, personally. I think 25–30 is a little bit too much to handle: it'll basically double the amount of nominations at RfD. We're coping well at the moment with RfD at the busiest it's (ever?) been – but doubling it is too much, IMO. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The "25-30" will include some bundles, so the total number of unique daily discussions might be in the ballpark of ~15-20 at a glance. On days when I don't nominate such as Jan 22, the queue gets pretty small, and CAT:RAW would basically be my only focus. I feel like any more than ~50 on a page becomes rough. Manageable, but not all the time. I don't think it's ever been bad as of 2025 but maybe that's just me. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Well, in that case, I guess I'll need to start ASAP if I want to finish this project before the end of March. I'll start off by doing up to 20 a day until February hits, to see what that looks like. I don't think "15 redirects across all nominations" is efficient enough as a long-term strategy because that puts it up to 80 days/~3 months of just this to get through all 1200, and means that even more pages are going to get added to that backlog at a rate even faster than that at times.

If there's a day that has like 3 bundles of 5 each, that means I'm only opening 3 RfDs that day, which is like a fraction of the iffy redirects I generally see in a regular NPP-redirect workflow. I'll do what I can to balance the ongoing discussions, and I'll aim for there never being more nominations than what there usually is on a page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Any thoughts on making a new separate category to tag redirects where there is no mention, but community consensus or common sense indicates that it doesn't need a mention and shouldn't have a mention (but the redirect is still useful)? I would think that chould help with cleanup efforts, and redirects that have already been discussed and closed with "Keep" could have their tags changed to there. Fieari (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Every redirect requires a mention eventually. So there's no point in making a second category for an inherently subjective "redirects [that] shouldn't have a mention" as directly stated. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)