Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes
This is an explanatory essay about the Wikipedia:Deletion policy and the Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect? guideline. This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
There have been many Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (RfD) debates over the years. This page summarizes how various types of articles, subjects, and issues have often been dealt with on RfD. It is modeled on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, an equivalent page for AfD. But there are significant differences between AfD and RfD, chiefly that AfD debates are often focused on whether the topic is notable, whereas there is no standard or requirement for notability of redirects.
There are many pages of essays, policies, and guidelines about determining notability. RfD doesn't have a similar focus, so there's not much documentation available to guide redirect discussions. This page is an attempt to address this deficiency.
Citing this page in RfD
This page summarizes the typical outcomes of past RfD discussions for some commonly nominated types of redirects. This page is not a
Don't rely too much on these "common outcomes" when stating a case at Redirects for Discussion. Precedent can be useful to help resolve these debates, but editors are not bound to follow past practice. Furthermore, for most examples on this page, counter-examples exist. This page describes some past practices; it does not prescribe mandates for the future.
This page simply attempts to summarize Wikipedia's common daily practice in redirect debates. If you feel that a common outcome for the type of redirect you are discussing does not apply, then give a
Capitalization differences
One of the
The major exception is with
Another thing to keep in mind is
Cross-namespace
Redirects from one
If the redirect has a title that suggests an article, whether it is kept often depends on whether the target is intended for readers or editors.
Treatment of pseudo-namespace redirects (PNRs) is not as straightforward. A redirect from "P:Foo" to "Portal:Foo" is technically cross-namespace, so some editors believe a PNR should be treated like any other CNR. But because some PNRs are widely accepted (such as "MOS:" redirects), others feel PNRs need to be weighed individually.
Emoji
Redirects exist for most single
Editors should be aware that emojis are often rendered differently on different systems. Titles that contain multiple emojis or mix emojis and other characters are usually deleted.
Examples
- 💇 (discussion)
- 🏯 (discussion)
- 🎱 (discussion)
- 🔔 (discussion 1, discussion 2)
- 👾 (discussion, DRV)
- 🔞 (RfD1, RfD2, RfD3, DRV)
- 🎈 release (discussion)
Foreign languages
As the above essay states, "Redirects from other languages should generally be avoided unless a well-grounded rationale can be provided for their inclusion." This means redirects in languages other than English are usually deleted. The major exception is for redirects where the language of the redirect relates strongly to the content of the target, such as
Examples
- دورايمون ("Doraemon" in Arabic) (discussion)
- Espainiako Erresuma ("Kingdom of Spain" in Basque) (discussion)
- Lundi ("Monday" in French) (discussion)
- აშშ ("United States" in Georgian) (discussion)
- Страдание ("suffering" in Bulgarian/Russian) (discussion)
- Japanese romanization of "Miley Cyrus") (discussion)
From userspace
Redirects from User namespace are a type of cross-namespace redirect. To some extent, the practice of deleting cross-namespace redirects conflicts with the practice of offering "fairly wide latitude" for what can go in a user's own userspace. A redirect from a user page to an article is automatically created if a user makes a draft on their own user page before publishing it, for example. At RfD, these redirects are often deleted or converted into soft redirects to avoid reader confusion. An editor who specifically wants their user page to redirect to an article might be allowed to do so; this does not occur frequently.
The practice of redirecting a user page to the user's own talk page is not uncommon. User talk pages themselves should always primarily be a way of contacting that user. So while a user talk page may redirect to a current page from an old username, or to another Wikipedia where the user is primarily active, user talk pages should never redirect to another namespace.
Examples
Mixed-script redirects
Redirects containing a mixture of Latin and non-Latin characters are often implausible search terms because characters from different scripts generally never appear on the same keyboard. A common example is the substitution of a Latin letter with an identical-looking non-Latin letter (e.g. Greek capital alpha ⟨Α⟩ for Latin ⟨A⟩), which also amounts to an implausible typo (see below).
Most types of mixed-script redirects (e.g. titles with both
.Examples
- August 2 (Cyrillic) (discussion)
- Маrchа dоs Реsсаdоrе (Cyrillic) (discussion)
- भोजपुरी language (first word in devanagari) (discussion)
- Chen Mingyi (Taiwan) (right parenthesis is a ")", which is not present on Latin-script keyboards) (discussion)
"No consensus" retargets and disambiguations
In some cases, there's broad consensus against an existing redirect, but editors disagree as to whether it should be deleted, retargeted, or another action taken. Although an outcome of no consensus usually means no change to the status quo, this can be nonsensical when there is broad consensus that some sort of change should occur. Because we are encouraged to seek
Though this results in a final outcome of retarget, it is still useful to record the close as "no consensus, retarget", just as we would say "no consensus" rather than "keep" in a typical no-consensus close with no change to the status quo.
In some cases, such as when editors are suggesting multiple retargeting options, it may be best to close the discussion as "no consensus, disambiguate" with the disambiguation page listing the various options as applicable. Other times, it may still be appropriate to give a simple no-consensus close. This is especially true when there is no scope for disambiguating and/or there is some appetite for the status quo.
Examples
- Formation (album) (discussion)
- Redirects pointing to List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2019 (discussion)
- Developed (discussion)
No quorum
The default outcome of any request for change which receives no other discussion is to approve the request. Thus, a redirect nominated for deletion in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will always be deleted if the nomination is unopposed, even if no one else participated in the discussion. Compare to the proposed deletion process, in which even a mainspace article can be deleted without objection after a week.
An administrator may consider such a close a
Examples
Non-neutral terms
- Related template:
{{R from non-neutral name}}
While a neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's Five Pillars, redirects are meant to help readers, who may use non-neutral terms in searches. Non-neutral redirects may still be deleted if they appear to be pushing a specific point of view. Especially if they are terms in common usage, however, they may be kept.
Examples
- Butcher of the Balkans (discussion)
- Foxy Knoxy (discussion)
- Gaza Holocaust (discussions: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5)
- British independence (discussion)
- Destruction of Israel (discussion)
- )
- Pro-marriage (discussion)
- Russiagate conspiracy theory (discussion)
Typos
- Related template:
{{R from misspelling}}
Redirects from plausible
Examples
- Wikipedia. (discussions: 1 · 2 · 3)
- Georgia (U.S. state (discussions: 1 · 2)
- Gridncore (discussion)
With possibilities
- Related template:
{{R with possibilities}}
One common type of redirect is from a subject which could be expanded to its own article in the future. The template {{
Examples
X or Y
Redirects in the form "X and/or Y" that could equally point to multiple targets are commonly deleted, as there is no way to determine which topic a reader is searching for. In these cases, search results may be more helpful, allowing the reader to make the decision. It may be possible, however, for such redirects to point to a location in which both topics are discussed. In some cases a
Examples