Wikipedia

User:Awesome Aasim/rfd rewrite

< User:Awesome Aasim

Copied from WP:RFD with few changes

"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Feb Mar Apr May Total
CfD 0 0 11 32 43
TfD 0 0 0 1 1
MfD 0 0 0 4 4
FfD 0 0 0 2 2
RfD 0 0 5 23 28
AfD 0 0 0 3 3

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 what should be 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 edit

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

The guiding principles of RfD edit

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? edit


Shortcut

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 edit

Shortcuts
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, are an exception to this rule. (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 edit

Shortcuts

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 the article texts 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 edit

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 edit

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 edit

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.
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 edit

May 25 edit

HD resolution edit

The aspect ratio is not itself "HD", this is misleading and confusing. I'm not sure where this redirect should lead, maybe High-definition television? Leaving that up to people with a better understanding of the area than me. Rusalkii (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Tenerife edit

Tenerife not mentioned in target. No reason to believe it is different from the rest of Spain. Rusalkii (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Aland edit

Alad not mentioned in target, I can't see any reason why it should be called out or why someone would expect same-sex marriage in Aland to be governed by different rules than the rest of Finland. Rusalkii (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change edit

Lyric from the song not mentioned in target. Rusalkii (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Toggle the table of contents Scottish Westminster constituencies 2005 to 2024 edit

Redirect from a move to Scottish Westminster constituencies 2005 to 2024; this preceding title was an obvious mistake. Ham II (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: "Toggle the table of contents" is obviously a copy-paste error. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as G6: "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace, or redirects created by moving away from a title that was obviously unintended." as it existed at the mistaken name for less than a minute just a few days ago. (!voting here since I'm not a huge fan of tagging RFDs with speedy tags unless it's for a good reason). Skynxnex (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Tagore (name) (disambiguation) edit

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

With the lengthy list of name-holders now moved from Tagore (disambiguation) to Tagore (name), this doubly-disambiguated redirect should be deleted as confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Gastrosexual edit

Not mentioned. Retarget to wikt:gastrosexual if there's no mention anywhere else. --MikutoH talk! 04:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of Gastrosexuality?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Argyle station (Ontario) edit

There's no indication of why this redirects here Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The Doctors (Doctor Who) edit

Propose a disambiguation: While the episode was planned to be named "The Doctors," the redirect could potentially also mean any multi-Doctor episode due to its vague naming. I feel a disambiguation would clear up confusion with this redirect. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Boston Incident edit

This isn't commonly referred to as "Boston incident"; searching the term finds little about the massacre compared to other incidents (such as the 2007 Boston Mooninite panic). In the cases where the massacre is referred to with this term, it's only in a descriptive fashion and not as an actual name. Redirect was created by a quickly-reverted WP:POINTy page move in 2006. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete one would think the Boston Tea Party or Battle of Bunker Hill would be better -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - although it seems ambiguous (my first thought was the Boston Marathon bombing) the article on the Boston Massacre notes in the lede that the event is also known as the "Incident on King Street"; "Boston incident" is a plausible misremembering. It's a more neutral title anyway, the article also notes in the lede that calling it a "massacre" was American patriot propaganda. As far as I can tell, the other events listed here aren't widely known as named "incidents". If deleted then don't disambiguate, search results would handle this better. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Ivan. Queen of ♡ | Speak 20:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete I can't find a primary topic. GScholar results, for example, are split primarily between the current target and the Boston Marathon bombing. When referring to the current target, they seem to be mainly quoting from primary sources. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete seems to ambiguous/generic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Seems more specific to the massacre than the bombing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

2023-24 Major Clubs Limited Over Tournament edit

Delete to encourage article creation, consistent with 2022–23 Major Clubs Limited Over Tournament. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep: Pretty common for these types of redirects to exist and there's nothing stopping someone from starting an article. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hey man im josh and the clear fact that this is a future rdr to a title with en-dash(es), like the 2023-24 FA Cup. By the way, the redlinked title the nominator brought up is to me what happens when info on this exist(s) at that/the time and is/are not documented here with sourcing. Just like the 2023–24 Ghana FA Cup, 2023–24 Samartex F.C. season and the 2024 Absa Cup articles which I'll create soon. Intrisit (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no information on the 2023–24 competition, so this is misleading and bound to disappoint readers. --BDD (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Fictional musical instruments edit

Misuse of category redirect. Merged per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_14#Category:Fictional_musical_instruments. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: How is it a misuse? jlwoodwa (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Iranian nuclear scientist killed edit

the redirect is way too specific, and seems almost like a search engine query. Gaismagorm (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep. Looks fair enough to me, since there have apparently been five Iranian nuclear scientists killed. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Ambisexual edit

Since @Smasongarrison: commented in my talk page, ambisexual(ity) and bisexual(ity) are synonyms and it should be retargeted there, along with the others which are translations from Greek and Esperanto. --MikutoH talk! 00:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Support in principle, but these should all be retargeted to bisexuality or an existing page, not a other redirects.Mason (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Muscle Shoals edit

Muscle Shoals, Alabama is mentioned at target, but a battle there is not described. This does not seem to be a term in use. There is evidence for a skirmish at Mussel (sic) Shoals on October 30, 1864 1, but there is no content on enwiki about it and no evidence it is referred to as "Battle of Muscle Shoals". Delete to encourage article creation if notable and avoid confusion/astonishment. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Intersex man edit

Shouldn't they have equivalent targets (Intersex man to Man#Sexuality and gender xor Intersex woman to Intersex) {xor meaning exclusive or}. --MikutoH talk! 00:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

May 24 edit

Semi-Protection edit

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 March 15#Semi-protection → Wikipedia:Protection policy; WP:CSD#G4 declined by Hey man im josh due to the discussion being 16 years old. Similar to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 24#Full protection below, with mentions at History of Wikipedia and Vandalism on Wikipedia. Mia Mahey (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Just commenting to state that I did indeed decline the G4 tag, though that tag was valid. I did so because it's a 16 year old discussion with only a single participant other than the nominator. This discussion may very well end the same way, and that's fine if it does, but I thought this was worth discussing to see if there is consensus to uphold the old result or whether the perception of the usefulness of this redirect has changed. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete this unnecessary and potentially misleading WP:CNR. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Vandalism on Wikipedia or delete. This is clearly not a Wikipedia specific term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Shhhnotsoloud. I oppose retargeting to Vandalism on Wikipedia specifically because it's not a Wikipedia-specific term. Indeed, "semi-protection" as it's used on Wikipedia could be found on other sites, although admittedly the only one Google mentioned was its use on Wookiepedia of all places-- though I'll note that it's on a page talking about its use of the MediaWiki software, which *is* the software Wikipedia uses. I could also see someone using the term 'semi-protected' in other contexts, unrelated to both wiki sites and websites in general. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Never Gonna Dance Again (song) edit

Current lyrics (?) not mentioned at target, retarget to dab at Never Gonna Dance Again as ambiguous. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep. There's a good hatnote at the current target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Retarget to dab as incomplete disambig; the dab itself lists two different songs that can be valid targets. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Full protection edit

WP:XNR only linked from one talk page archive. Solo climbing and Protected intersection both have sections titled "Full protection". Mia Mahey (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Pātītī edit

Not mentioned in target. Most google results suggest this is first a kind of axe and only secondarily a (different) grass, Microlaena stipoides. See e.g. dictionary entry Rusalkii (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. It is now mentioned at the target. However, it is a Maori common name that has been recorded for 3 species of grasses [1] as well as perennial grasses in general [2]. Use as a general term for grasses takes this into WP:FORRED territory. Plantdrew (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Center for Transpacific Studies edit

Not mentioned in target. May be appropriate to include since it does seem to be a center of the university, but unclear to me if it is due weight; no objections to keeping the redirect if the subject is added to the article. Rusalkii (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Older edit

Old business edit

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Awesome_Aasim/rfd_rewrite&oldid=1201929683"