Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion

(talk · links · history · stats · search)

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)

• Support. Another link that can be added is of the target talk page. Jay 💬 15:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• This is a great idea. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Given the support here, I've taken this to Template talk:Rfd2 § Adding a link to internal search looking for implementation. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I support this. FaviFake (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

VWF bot removing open page date

@Vanderwaalforces: VWF bot removed April 23 even though a discussion was open there. Why does this happen? Even the RfD backlog at XfD backlog shows 0 for some reason although April 23 is open. Does the RfD backlog computation rely on the transclusions of the RfD page controlled by this bot? Jay 💬 07:16, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for noting, Jay. That’s strange, but the bot must have removed it for a reason which I am not able to track for now, will do on a later day. I’ll just revert that edit and investigate later, hopefully something like this doesn’t happen again before I troubleshoot. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, Special:Diff/1352287587 was the problem, which I hope fixes this issue. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Interesting! I don't think something like this happens often. @Intrisit: when you nominated Animal Planet, didn't you use Twinkle or the {{Rfd2}} substitution as per the instructions? Jay 💬 21:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Consarn explained same to me at my nomination of all non-article redirects that are targeting "Polsat" about using Twinkle and also the massxfd script. After I saw the alert, I installed that script, which I'm frightened about because by perception I could get blocked at anytime. To your question then, like I replied to Consarn, I just copied a multi-title RfD code from previous-day nomination log pages to the then-current-day log page and just edited the titles and wordings to match the titles I nominate at RfD. I tried using the Rfd2 template whiles editing, but because I was at an internet cafe with a timer at the time of all pre-May 3 listings, I barely checked for the errors in my listings to even detect and edit out, hence why the errors appeared that the operator of the VWF bot spotted and removed (Thanks for that!) Now that I have my own personal laptop, I hope this is the only time post this edit I come across such information again. Intrisit (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Project space shortcuts

At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WSAD, User:Robert McClenon & User:Organhaver state that the projectspace shortcut is not a “proper shortcut”, intending to mean that it should be discussed at MfD not RfD. No one is objecting to the redirect being discussed for deletion at MfD.

Should the documentation at both MfD and RfD be updated to reflect this? Projectspace shortcuts may be nominated at MfD? Projectspace shortcuts should not be nominated at RfD?

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

The {{copied}} template is kind of misused and doesn't seem to be working, based on the categories of this page right now, but this was copied from Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Project space shortcuts.

I have the same reply here from the one there. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:51, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I created a new (user) essay, WP:BACKGROUNDNOISE

I've recently seen the phrase background noise popping up now and then in reference to low monthly or total view counts of certain redirects, and therefore being deleted on that premise. I searched the RfD archives and found that this phrase has been in rare yet consistent usage (even since 2006!) as an argument; I couldn't find any mention of it anywhere on the project namespace so I decided to write my very first essay, WP:BACKGROUNDNOISE, detailing this argument.

Feel free to "cite" or mention it in future discussions, I guess. Let me know what any of you think of it and whether it should be moved out of my user namespace and into the project namespace. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 14:58, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I've added an important note to the webcrawler point.

Search engines linking to redirects are not a source of background noise hits - such hits almost always demonstrate the utility of a redirect and are thus meaningful. I'd just remove this bullet entirely.

Your point about editors clicking links is also poorly worded, as viewing whatlinkshere or search results doesn't generate a view unless the link is clicked, and even then not every redirect that is viewed in this way should be nominated for deletion. Editors categorising redirects could be construed as background noise, but that's relatively uncommon. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, @Thryduulf! For the "Causes" section I had to resort to reading a few replies from the archives and those were the main three I came across. I'm not much of a techie so I couldn't really come up with any of my own.

With regards to the editors clicking links, I did intend to mean that but phrased it poorly I guess. I'll take you up on your suggestion to remove the point about search engines.

P.S. I've noticed you were one of the most prolific in using this phrase historically (per archive search results), so you can partially thank yourself for this essay's existence :) 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 15:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Temp user mass-creating redirects

~2026-13161-28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Google · StopForumSpam)

Not blockworthy (yet), but I question the usefulness of many of these; posting here for additional eyes. OhNoitsJamie ^talk 12:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

This is an alternative account of Skipl.ag.

• You can contact me on this talk page, or on User talk:Skipl.ag, or via e-mail.

~2026-13161-28 (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

"Android on Desktop" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Android on Desktop has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 27 § Android on Desktop until a consensus is reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-13161-28 (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

We need better criteria for redirects

Suggestion of update to "The guiding principles of RfD". Nonsense (IMO) redirects have become an epidemic. IMO redirects are missused. What I mean by "nonsense" and "missuse". I'll give 2 examples. From January 2024 until sometime in 2025 Incogni redirected to Surfshark, with the explanation given "product not notable". If you ctrl+f-ed "Incogni" on Shurfshark page there were 0 results. That's nonsense. What does that mean? Does it mean Incogni was renamed to Shurfshark? Does it mean Incogni means Shurfshark in english - first for me. Made no sense. Should I guess? Wiki is supposed to be an ecyclopedia not a guessing game. Second example is PlayStation Spectral Super Resolution (PSSR) redirect to PlayStation 5 Pro. Yeah, PS(5) came with PSSR. And that is the only information that is stated in the PS5 article about the redirected topic. Thank god for that redirect, some people would think it was Nintendo Switch that came with PlayStation upscaling. (sarcasm) It's irrelevant how significant topics are and whether they deserve their own article (I am not talking about that, discussing the significance of those topics), the way redirects are made is the problem. If you redirect sth to an already existing article it should have its own section and the explanation of the topic in the redirect. There is no point having a redirect to an article that says nothing about the topic. In that case no redirect should be made. In other words if a redirect is made, that topic should be covered by a couple of sentences and its own subtitle. If that is not possible, no redirect should be made. That's my suggestion. Think of it as explanining directly in the article why it's a redirect rather than on some buried discussion page. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you're at the wrong talk page. Did you want to post at Wikipedia talk:Redirect instead? What change do you propose to make in the RfD process? Jay 💬 13:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I encouraged this editor to take their complaints about this redirect to RFD rather than idly complaining at the targets talk page, though it appears they've missed the mark again. Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

changing page during an ongoing rfd

Is there any rule or etiquette about changing a relevant page (such as the target page) during an ongoing RFD? my current strategy is usually to change the page and then mention it in the discussion but I would like to know if that's required, discouraged, or anything like that. Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean something like changing a redirect target before the RfD is closed? Or adding relevant sourced content to a (potential) target article? The former is generally discouraged as disruptive. The latter can sometimes be beneficial in demonstrating utility for a particular redirect, and/or sparing it from deletion, akin to WP:HEY at AfD. Left guide (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, I mean changing the contents of the page the redirect currently targets. I definitely don't mean changing which page the redirect under discussion targets (since that's the point of the discussion). Dingolover6969 (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

If you're drafting a disambiguation page, set index or something like that it's conventional to do that below the redirect leaving the RfD tag in place. Do note this does not guarantee the dab/set index will be the consensus result.

If you're writing an article you can do the same as above or replace the the redirect with the article. It's best to leave the RfD tag in place until at least you have a minimally viable stub. Some people remove the RfD when the article is a decent stub length or longer, others don't. Unless there is a clear prior consensus in the RfD that there shouldn't be an article at that title, the RfD will almost always be procedurally closed without prejudice to an AfD.

In both cases you can also draft the new contents in draft/userspace to be moved over the redirect at the end of the discussion (if there is consensus) if you prefer.

In all cases if you make significant changes to the redirect page you should mention it in the discussion, and it doesn't hurt to mention minor changes (e.g. adding or changing R cats if they're very obviously wrong/missing, if it isn't very obvious then just say what you think should be done in the discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Very interesting, thank you. I hadn't even thought of editing the redirect page itself in a way that doesn't disable the redirect, although come to think of it I have seen that before in the wild. Dingolover6969 (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

If the change is related to the RfD, it can be mentioned. Your strategy is fine. Jay 💬 07:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Request VWF bot to slow down

@Vanderwaalforces: it looks like VWF bot is taking 1 minute or less to remove a page log from the main RfD page once the last open discussion is closed. This could put undue pressure on closers, and leads to errors such as the May 8 page. Tavix closed the last RfD of the May 8th page, and decided to revert the close 3 minutes later. But by then VWF bot had removed it from the main page, and we lost track of it, until Tavix added it back today. What is the benefit we get by the minute precision implemented by VWF bot? It adds a page log a day. For removing too, can it do that once a day, or at the most twice a day, instead of not allowing for human flexibility? Jay 💬 09:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jay I have been informed of this already as you can see on my talk page, but thank you for bringing it to my attention (again), anyway. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jay: Actually, I added it back today, but ... yeah ... Steel1943 (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)