This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Wikipedia Help High‑importance This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp High This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Redirect This page is within the scope of WikiProject Redirect, a collaborative effort to improve the standard of redirects and their categorization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Note: This banner should be placed on the talk pages of project, template and category pages that exist and operate to maintain redirects. This banner is not designed to be placed on the talk pages of most redirects and almost never on the talk pages of mainspace redirects. For more information see the template documentation.RedirectWikipedia:WikiProject RedirectTemplate:WikiProject Redirectredirect

Archives

2003–2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 182 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

Given an article created or recreated by an editor (editor A) and a BLAR of that article by another editor (editor B), which BLAR is then reverted by editor A,

can a third editor (editor C), come along and again immediately BLAR the article (revert the revert of the first BLAR)?

... or would editor C have to nominate at AfD if they think that the article should stop being live? (Just like editor B would have to per WP:BLAR, instead of blanking-and-redirecting again).

The question presumes that editors B and C are not wp:tag teaming. —Alalch E. 00:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a bold redirection of an article has been contested, then per WP:BRD a discussion is generally going to be best practice, especially if both prior actions are very recent. That discussion doesn't necessarily have to be at AfD (e.g. editor C could try talk page discussion first) but AfD is the correct venue for a deletion discussion. In some cases there might be exceptions, e.g. if the first redirection was to an obviously unrelated page, the reversion was explicitly objecting only to the target, and editor C's target is very clearly contains directly relevant material; editor B was unquestionably acting in bad faith; or editor C is editing years after editors A and B. Editor C immediately redirecting when editor B has explicitly objected to any redirection (or redirecting to a target editor B has explicitly objected to) is definitely something that should be reverted in favour of discussion though. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if not tag teaming, it's still edit warring. Unless this is immediate reversion of someone creating a nonsense page, I'd say take it to AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf and Voorts:. Thanks both, and I have a follow-up question: What if, in the above scenario, the recreated article is an article that editor A restored from a redirect, with certain changes, and the article had been subject to an AfD "redirect" (on notability grounds). What editor A recreated/restored from redirect is not a copy and contains significant changes made in good faith to overcome the reasons for deletion/redirection from the AfD. Can editor C perhaps then re-BLAR (after editor B had already tried the same and BLAR became contested)?—Alalch E. 14:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically in all cases, if a BLAR is contested in good faith then discuss matters - the talk page, a relevant WikiProject page or the relevant XfD venue are all appropriate.

• If there has been a formal or otherwise clear consensus to redirect and the article is substantially the same as it was when that consensus was reached, then RfD is appropriate XfD.
• In all other cases, especially when the article is significantly different or there are sources that weren't previously considered, then the deletion discussion venue is AfD (after restoring the article version).

Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor C should not re-BLAR. They should go to AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both again. I will now ping SmokeyJoe about his comment in an ongoing deletion review, and I started this discussion to continue discussing the issue brought up at DRV; his comment is purpled to make it stand out, and editors will, I think, be pinged again here, which seems fine to me.

• Comment Let's sum up. I think we have consensus, if perhaps not 100% agreement, that WP:N is now met and the only remaining issue is one of process. so I think per WP:BURO the final place we should get to is plain. The question is, what is the right process. I was looking for guidance about how this situation should be handled in our policies and guidelines and I'm not finding anything. WP:REDIRECT seems to have very little. I think what we'd prefer people do when finding new sources for an article that was redirected at AfD is that they BOLDly restore it, and if reverted, discuss it (probably at the target article). That (undocumented?) step was skipped here. My questions are then:
  • Should that step be clearly documented at WP:REDIRECT (or did I miss it)?
  • What is the next step if an article passing WP:N doesn't get consensus to be unredirected and the nom wants a wider discussion?
  • What is the role of DRV here?

I guess we could hold an RfC on this, but I'm guessing I'm just missing documentation on the issue. Anyone have a pointer? If not, this seems like a good group to hash out something... @SmokeyJoe:, @Sandstein:, @Alalch E.:, @Robert McClenon:, @Horse Eye's Back:, @SportingFlyer:.Hobit (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I think DRV has no proper role here. The AfD is not seriously challenged, and there has been no deletion. It is a WP:SPINOUT dispute. DRV is not a forum for solving all disputes.

Mostly, one editor boldly re-spunout the article, and two reverted that. If any second editor in good standing wants the page in mainspace and subject to AfD, then they have that right. A trivial mechanism for that is to Draftify and then Mainspace the page. I recommend this, because I think the page is at risk of being deleted due to reference bombing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The editor who boldly re-spins-out has the status of "article creator" in the language of WP:BLAR and cannot be reverted repeatedly, only once. Multiple reverts coming from multiple editors does not mean that BLAR can be repeated ad nauseam as long as there are new editors willing to reredirect. After Onel5969 BLARed, there's no more BLARing of that same attempt to create, no matter how many editors are involved.

• Good: (1) Restore from redirect (in good faith, at least a step in the right direction) -> (2) BLAR -> (3) BLAR reverted -> (4) AfD, or talk-page talk (it may be worth trying to restore the redirect on a consensus basis by explaining things to the "article creator"; he can be told to wait a bit more and try again with sourcing that's a bit better, etc.), or give up and let the article exist (anyone can AfD at any time).
• Not good: (1) Restore from redirect (...) -> (2) BLAR -> (3) BLAR reverted -> (4) revert of 3 (that's unacceptable) -> whatever (especially not DRV).

—Alalch E. 15:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I don’t agree with you. It matters that there was an AfD consensus to not “keep”. Short of WP:Tag team, if it is different uninvolved editors that revert to the redirect each time, and only the same editor that reverts to the article, that single editor loses, and risks being blocked for disruption. It is critical that another editor reverts the revert. If any editor but User:Superlincoln reverts to the article, then it sticks in mainspace and detractors should send it to AfD.

If no editor will support Superlincoln, then they should take the AfC route.

This is an interesting DRV discussion, but disputes over reverting a merge should not usually come to DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
— Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 June 4#Urutau (3D Printable Firearm)

So, predictably, while I appreciate what SmokeyJoe wrote here, I don't think it's how it works, and if it sometimes works like that, it's instances of not-doing-it-right on the part of those who take such actions. To me, as with Voorts, the "you lose" logic is basically edit warring. And like Thryduulf, I would emphasize discussion and ultimate resolution of the dispute in AfD, after restoring the article, if agreement cannot be reached informally.—Alalch E. 00:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure what you are saying or asking.

If one editor gets reverted by three different editors, the one should go somewhere else to find something productive to do, for a good while. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When a BLAR has been contested, the next editor coming to the article who would have independently BLARed should not BLAR and should start an AfD. This seems to be the prevailing understanding of BLAR. It's different for ordinary edits and article-creation actions. —Alalch E. 18:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming the article is the status quo ante. In the case we were talking about, there was a recent AfD consensus to redirect. How recent? It was many months, but in terms of edits by others, there were very few. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: A consensus to delete/redirect (no difference in terms of process) is a consensus to delete a concrete page. A new page that is non-identical to the deleted page is not the page to which that consensus applied. As a practical consequence, good-faith and not-incompetent recreations are privileged actions that cannot be assessed as ordinary edits. I see that as a positive feature of the system: permit recreation attempts on a BOLD basis without needing a prior consensus to create (also evidenced in how there's no "creation by committee" as an inversion of AfD and AfC is optional, and does resemble an inverse AfD); if the latter had been the norm, a wrong consensus decision or lack thereof (either from inertia or lack of interest) could frustrate a valid attempt, causing Wikipedia not to cover something that it should cover. Based on this reasoning, I conclude that BLAR is one-shot irrespective of the number of editors attempting to enforce redirection against an AfD-worthy attempt. —Alalch E. 18:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it acceptable for an account's main user page to redirect to an article? Such a thing in the other direction seems to be disallowed per WP:R2, but I'm unable to find anything on the main REDIR page about going from the user namespace to article namespace. Ignoring completely meaningless redirects, I'm assuming in most cases said redirects are the result of someone moving a userspace draft to the mainspace; so, I guess it could be needed for licensing attribution purposes. Is there, though, some kind of shelf life for how long such a redirect needs to be left in place? I mean the user who redirected their user page could at some point decide they want to do something else with the page and remove the redirect themselves, couldn't they? FWIW, I've always wondered about this when coming across it in the past, but started thinking about it again after stumbling upon User:Micheil KnappUser:Micheil Knapp via an unrelated discussion. This particular user page was redirected when the user move their userspace draft to the mainspace, but it now seems to be a double redirect now due to the original target article The Populist PlankThe Populist Plank being itself redirected yesterday to The Young Turks by another user. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Marchjuly: just fyi from the guideline: User talk pages should not redirect to anything other than the talk page of another account controlled by the same user. However, redirects from userspace subpages to mainspace are common and acceptable. Soft redirects are allowed on userpages. Hope this helps, and thank you for your interest and your many contributions! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 22:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A main userpage should never be a hard redirect to anything outside of userspace or user talk space, but soft redirects are allowed. If you find a main user page that is a hard redirect to somewhere else just convert it to a soft redirect (Template:Soft redirect can be used for this purpose). Hard redirects from the main user page to user and user talk pages are OK in limited circumstances, e.g. from a main user page to that account's user talk page, or the user page of a different account controlled by the same person (e.g. User:Example → User talk:Example, user:Example Bot → User:Example/Bots). It should never lead to an unconnected account. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Cross-namespace redirects is an essay, but I have seen pages fixed or deleted with that page as a rationale. It says: Cross-namespace redirects that do not break the division between encyclopaedic content and the organisational side of the project do not generally raise objections. Redirecting from User space to Article space definitely breaks that division. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the replies. Micheil Knapp is a hard redirect to The Populist PlankThe Populist Plank, which itself is a redirect to The Young Turks; so, I'm assuming that's not quite allowed per what Thryduulf posted above. The redirecting of "The Popular Plank", however, seems to be being contested per User talk:KaraEastman#You must declare any conflict of interest, and it's not clear what's going to happen with that. A bot is likely going to come around a fix the double redirect, right? So, what if anything should be done to the user page? Convert to a soft redirect? Blank? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If The Populist Plank were anything other than a redirect then the answer would be simple: change the hard redirect to a soft redirect. If it remains a redirect though, then I'd change it to a soft redirect to The Young Turks with a note that it's an avoided double redirect and the intended target is The Populist Plank. We have {{R from avoided double redirect}} that detects when action is needed, but I'm unsure if that works in userspace or with soft redirects let alone both (I always ping user:Paine Ellsworth with questions like that). Thryduulf (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are no incoming links to this User page. Just blanking it makes sense to me, but after a dozen years here, I still don't know all of the relevant guidelines about redirects and page blanking. I don't play in that area much. Attribution is preserved in the page history of the moved page, so that should not be a concern. Root User pages should not be used for drafting pages, per the guideline at Wikipedia:User pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirects are preferable to blanking as that maintains the link that the user in question is (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) at least happy with and potentially actively wants to maintain. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some years ago, there was a case where a mass message (not necessarily via the official MassMessage system) was going to a large number of user talk pages, plus one article talk page. The subscription list was in the form of a list of user names without namespace prefix, and there was a flaw in the conversion of this list into the list of user talk pages to send the message to. Basically, instead of applying the logic

• ExampleUser → User talk:ExampleUser

it actually applied the logic

• ExampleUser → User:ExampleUser → follow redirect if one exists → apply {{TALKPAGENAME}}

The article talk page was due, I think, to somebody using their primary user page to draft up an article (which is permitted) and then moving it to mainspace (also permitted) but not doing something about the resulting redirect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, editor Thryduulf, for the notie. The documentation page for the {{R avoided double redirect}} rcat template does indicate that it's to be used only in mainspace and never on soft redirects. It's the only rcat template that I know of that's been converted to the Lua language. Since Lua's not one of my strong points, I've lost track of its improvements. Hope this helps, and thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the Rdcheck tool provided on this help page ([1]) is not working for me. Is this tool or a similar tool still available somewhere? Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Jens Lallensack: my diagnostic tool reveals that the "website (69.142.160.183) is online but isn't responding to connection attempts," so you might want to try again later. The site might be down for maintenance. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 09:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Depending what you're trying to do, Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken section anchors may be helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; the Rdcheck link is still not working though, it might be time to remove it? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2025 Midtown Manhattan shooting § Bolding. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen AfDs and many users saying redirect names of people to certain locations. Can we add that should be strongly discouraged as it does effect search results. I feel it maybe getting worse with sports personality that lack notability being redirected to targets when their name maybe mentioned on different articles. Redirection blocks results and I feel we should add this down on the page. Sports Biographies should not be redirected to sports clubs or national teams in my opinion. I feel this needs to be addressed. Regards. Govvy (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is covered by WP:R#DELETE point 10 - "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject."  Stepho  talk  09:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no it doesn't. It should have a point about, if the topic in question is a biography that has his or her name in multiple locations it is suggested to delete rather than any redirect. If a sports person has played for more than one club as well as a national team it would be preferable to delete than redirect as to not effect any search term entered into the search engine. etc. Govvy (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can Royal Patronage (redirect) be moved to Royal patronage. It shouldn't be upper-cased because it's not a noun, but the l/c page is a strange disambiguation page (listing some things only indirectly connected to patronage, where the redirect goes to). If you know what I mean. It's a bit convoluted. Thanks? —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To address the move question, editor Fortuna, imperatrix, Royal PatronageRoyal Patronage is just a redirect. It does not need to be moved; however, it did need to be retargeted to the dab page and correctly categorized. That much is done. The dab page does need some work, and since I'm sort of on a break, I'll have to leave that to you or to someone else to improve. Thank you very much for your help! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 15:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I meant, I think that "Royal Patronage" should probably be "Royal patronage", as not being a proper noun. But I don't think it needs to be RfC'd—I didn't even know the page was there until today! —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: I really don't think this would be an RfC matter, see WP:RFCNOT. Perhaps you mean RfD? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Fortuna imperatrix mundi, I'd add, you can certainly take it to RfD if you want, but it's hard for me to understand why you think it's worth the trouble. --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC) Oh, actually, maybe you don't think it's worth the trouble. I seem to be having problems with reading comprehension today.... --Trovatore (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC) [reply]

I think it might be helpful to have each section have a link that is an example of the link type. Not a kitsune (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I misunderstood the article Not a kitsune (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit introduced a small but controversial change in this guideline without discussion or consensus. The editor introduced this change in several MOS pages and guidelines on the same day. Discussion of this change is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Consensus for the current recommendation to always subst the anchor template within a section header-- Srleffler (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also User talk:Redrose64#Time sink. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Redirect backlog: interesting ideas, could benefit from people experienced in dealing with redirects. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section Wikipedia:Redirect#Module redirects will possibly be irrelevant going forward. There's, at least from Category:Redirects to template namespace only three modules that redirect to template namespace, and two of those are testcases (Module:Sister project links/testcasesModule:Sister project links/testcases, and Module:Contentious topics/talk notice/testcasesModule:Contentious topics/talk notice/testcases. The last redirect is Module:Kivu conflict detailed map, which is mentioned in the documentation; however, its target is nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 January 1#Template:Kivu conflict detailed map. If this is deleted, then the module redirect would also be deleted via WP:G8. Should this be removed from the documentation if Template:Kivu conflict detailed map is deleted? Casablanca 🪨^(T) 20:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section should not be removed because we still need to document how to redirect a module to another module. For example, Module:Footballbox redirects to Module:Football box but it is not obvious how one makes such a redirect. The part about redirecting a module to something that is not a module could be removed however. Warudo (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the example with a generic example. It's easy enough to understand, since it's just a normal redirect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

According to the guidelines at WP:FILMACCOLADES "Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability."

I've been trimming the "accolades" sections in a few film articles to meet this guideline. What's making it more difficult than it should be is the numerous redirects of film awards to the "List of film awards" article. If the awards were not linked (or redlinked), it would be easier to spot the ones without their own Wiki page. Instead I've had to laboriously click on each link to determine if there's an actual article or if it's a link to the list of awards.

For example, here is the Zootopia 2 accolades section before trimming. There are numerous awards listed, such as North Texas Film Critics Association. Iowa Film Critics Association and Puerto Rico Critics Association which redirect to the list of awards.

I think this falls under WP:RDELETE item 10 as a reason for deletion: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject". In this case, the target article contains literally no information on the subject.

Would it be reasonable to delete these useless redirects, and if so, how do I go about it? It's not something I've attempted before. Barry Wom (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]