Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion

Question for redirects

I saw this redirect discussion Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh_redirects_listed_at_Redirects_for_discussion and was looking into the target page and saw that it has 100+ redirects (look at last 100+ here) using various combinations of words (not sure if some are encyclopedia worthy terms) added by the same user who has done this nomination. Is this something that this encyclopedia allows? Asteramellus (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for the future of the WP:X3 speedy deletion criterion

Just wanted to note for participants at RFD that I have initiated an RFC to determine the fate of the X3 speedy deletion criterion. At this point, it seems most, if not all, applicable titles have been deleted. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#Time to promote or repeal WP:X3?. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Avoided double redirects of nominated redirects

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]

CAT:PEIS

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]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:RFD