Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 111: Line 111:

:This would require either a software change (see {{phab|T275943}}) or changing the header level of each entry to level 2. The latter would be simple on the face of it, but it would require then changing the daily header to level 1 (normally reserved for the page heading, e.g. “Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion” at the top of this page), which would (I think) cause all sorts of issues on the main [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]] page. I agree it would be very useful, but if it were simple it would have been done long ago. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 21:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

:This would require either a software change (see {{phab|T275943}}) or changing the header level of each entry to level 2. The latter would be simple on the face of it, but it would require then changing the daily header to level 1 (normally reserved for the page heading, e.g. “Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion” at the top of this page), which would (I think) cause all sorts of issues on the main [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]] page. I agree it would be very useful, but if it were simple it would have been done long ago. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 21:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

::I see, thank you. You seem to be everywhere answering these kinds of questions. Much appreciated. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 22:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

::I see, thank you. You seem to be everywhere answering these kinds of questions. Much appreciated. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 22:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

== Untranscluded logs with open discussions ==

Despite 29 January currently being the oldest page transcluded or listed on the main [[WP:RfD]] page, I’ve just closed or relisted open discussions from the 25, 26, 27 and 28 January. There weren’t any open ones on the 24th but I’ve not looked further back.

If we aren’t going to transclude all log pages with open discussions then at the very least we need to include links to them in a list so that they don’t get forgotten. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

A little idea – add a link to Special:Search/”REDIRECTNAME”, with the quotation marks, at the top of each RfD. Thoughts? We should avoid crowding that toolbar, but personally I’d use it way more than the talk page or even the WhatLinksHere and pageviews links. J947 ‡ edits 03:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Another link that can be added is of the target talk page. Jay 💬 15:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too would find search useful. When I’m active here I very often look at page views and history, links and talk are very useful where relevant too (although this is less often) so I wouldn’t support removing any of them. Target talk isn’t something that’s often relevant and with popups is available with one click anyway. Logs (especially move logs) for the redirect and target can be useful too, but are only really needed in cases where there is a lot of history so I’m not sure adding that would justify the screen estate. Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a great idea. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from the discussion related to WP:CSD#G8 at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 3#Draftspace redirects, some avoided double redirects should be deleted for the same reason their parent redirect is deleted (e.g. if Foo → Bar is determined to be misleading then it is very likely that Fóo → Bar is too), but that isn’t always going to be true. Rather than trying to codify this into a speedy deletion criterion, it would be easier if both redirects were discussed at the same time. So what if a bot were to look at every redirect that is nominated at RfD and looks for:

  • Redirects marked as avoided double redirects of the nominated redirect
  • Redirects to the same target as the nominated redirect that differ from it only in case
  • Redirects to the same target as the nominated redirect that differ from it only in the presence/absence of diacritic(s)

And mentions them in the discussion, perhaps:

  • Bot note: {{noredirect|Foo Smith}} is an avoided double redirect of “Foo Jones”
  • Bot note: {{noredirect|Foo smith}} is a redirect to the same target as “Foo Smith”

Humans are now aware of those redirects and can decided to add those redirects to the discussion, nominate them separately or leave them be as they feel is appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally thinking of countering this with a “R5. Draft namespace redirects with with no matching title in other namespaces” CSD proposal that would apply to redirects in the “Draft:” namespace with no matching title (usually in the mainspace) when the “Draft:” redirect has no history as anything other than a redirect … but then I recall there are {{R from move}}s from the “Draft:” namespace to valid articles with the name of the “Draft:” namespace redirect being essentially utter nonsense, but we keep them per WP:RDRAFT. Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favor of G8 covering avoided double redirects of deleted redirects. By definition, they rely on a redirect that has been deleted. — Tavix (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But as pointed out, not all of them should be deleted, meaning that would fail WP:NEWCSD point 2. Far better to just discuss them at the same time and delete the ones that need deleting that way. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of them should be deleted. — Tavix (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
… if they have been correctly tagged. The RfD is an excellent opportunity to check that. —Kusma (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the editor who tags the redirect for G8 and the deleting admin should make the proper check that it was tagged correctly. — Tavix (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve given several examples that should not be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No you haven’t. — Tavix (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of at least some that shouldn’t, namely cases where the ADR is for a distinct topic that either still is mentioned at target, or could be retargeted elsewhere (consider: an album->band redirect is deleted, but a single song from that album might still be mentioned on the band’s article, or failing that on some other article). But that’s just an application of G8’s exception for “any page that is useful to Wikipedia”; compare an ADR for a typographical variant of the album’s name, which is obviously not useful to Wikipedia. — Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 23:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, G8 already covers ADRs that are merely a variant of the main redirect. G8 is “Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page”, and it only gives a list of examples of that, not an exhaustive list of subcriteria. If “Foo Bar” is deleted at RfD, and “FooBar” was an avoided double redirect of that, then that is a page dependent on a deleted page. — Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 13:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion § G8 on modifications of redirects. — Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the mega-nomination at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2026_January_5#Ethnic_group_redirects is causing the main RFD page to end up in CAT:PEIS, meaning that all current RFD pages from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 31 end up being formatted incorrectly. Removing the transclusion of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2026_January_5 from the page might work as a temporary workaround, but I’m not sure if that would be desirable. Sugar Tax (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have BOLDly removed the transclusion of the January 5 log and replaced it with a notice. I would like to use this as an excuse that the RFD page desperately needs a redesign so it can stop going past the post-expand include size. mwwv converse∫edits 18:54, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a WP:RFC pertaining the wording of the section which WP:UFILM targets, specifically for the use of pageviews to determine if redirects ending with “(upcoming film)” should be retained. The RfC can be found at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#RfC: Proposed updates to WP:UFILM regarding pageviews. Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone figure out what’s going on with this discussion? Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not positive, but it looks like there’s a tag nesting error in Template:Poem. It includes this code: <<noinclude></noinclude>poem> . – Eureka Lott 20:13, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The template isn’t being directly called; it was substed. The <poem> tag is probably causing the issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See mw:Extension:Poem. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve opened a Phabricator ticket: T414894 voorts (talk/contributions) 20:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve proposed a new CSD that may be of interest to RfD regulars. See Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion § New CSD: Redirect’s. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t work out why entries for days 17, 18, 19 January are not transcluding correctly into Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The page has hit the limit of expensive parser function calls. If you look at the page source and ctrl+f for “limit report” you will see among other entries Expensive parser function count: 580/500. The page is also in Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls. You’re going to need someone more technical than me to work out what templates we are using result in the expensive calls. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 23 § Raadkamer. J947 ‡ edits 21:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

A discussion has been created regarding the topic of redirects that end in ‘s. I’d like to invite all regular RfD participants to comment there, as the discussion could lead to a resolution on what to do with all of them.

See here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Redirect#Otherwise-implausible_redirects_originally_intended_as_editor_assistance_(i.e._possessive_redirects) MEN KISSING (she/they) T – C – Email me! 04:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Please see: A continuation of this discussion now at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect#Possessive redirects (take 2). This follows a couple other related discussions which are linked in the current thread. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible the redirect for discussion entries could be subscribable like other similar dicussions and talk page entries? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This would require either a software change (see T275943) or changing the header level of each entry to level 2. The latter would be simple on the face of it, but it would require then changing the daily header to level 1 (normally reserved for the page heading, e.g. “Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion” at the top of this page), which would (I think) cause all sorts of issues on the main Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion page. I agree it would be very useful, but if it were simple it would have been done long ago. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you. You seem to be everywhere answering these kinds of questions. Much appreciated. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Despite 29 January currently being the oldest page transcluded or listed on the main WP:RfD page, I’ve just closed or relisted open discussions from the 25, 26, 27 and 28 January. There weren’t any open ones on the 24th but I’ve not looked further back.

If we aren’t going to transclude all log pages with open discussions then at the very least we need to include links to them in a list so that they don’t get forgotten. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version