The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 06:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:GOODRFC → Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This relatively new shortcut is a confusing WP:UPPERCASE. It claims that an RFC is "good", but an RFC can comply with the advice in that section and still be bad (e.g., brief, neutral and tendentious). I assume it was created to match WP:BADRFC.

I suggest deleting per WP:RFD#DELETE #2, but, as with its sibling, another option is to repoint it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FAQ, where some of the myths about RFCs and available solutions are outlined. This one could also be pointed at Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It is misleading to point to #Statement should be neutral and brief when the section itself doesn't clearly define or discuss what makes an RfC "good" or "bad" (and it probably shouldn't). Some1 (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I added GOODRFC to match the existing BADRFC. No opinion on whether they stay, go, or are redirected, only that what happens with one, should probably happen with the other. - jc37 00:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per my comment on WP:BADRFC. I do not think deleting this is helpful, unless both "WP:GOODRFC" and "WP:BADFRC" are replaced by "WP:INVALIDRFC" which might be best.Iljhgtn (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn, RFCs that aren't brief or neutral usually aren't invalid. Most of the time, the problem can be solved with a quick, simple edit. You might be interested in reading Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FAQ. Usually, the person who wants to declare the RFC to be "bad" or "invalid" is trying to gain an advantage in a dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - same as for BADRFC.

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 06:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:BADRFC → Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This relatively new shortcut is a confusing WP:UPPERCASE. It claims that the RFC is "bad", but an RFC can comply with the advice in that section and still be bad (e.g., brief, neutral and tendentious), or appear to violate the advice in that section – at least in the opinion of the speaker – and still be good. (We are seeing editors declare an RFC to be "bad" when they actually mean "I think my side is going to lose", or because they don't actually understand what "brief and neutral" means.)

I suggest deleting per WP:RFD#DELETE #2, but another option is to repoint it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FAQ, where some of the myths about RFCs and available solutions are outlined. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It is misleading to point to #Statement should be neutral and brief when the section itself doesn't clearly define or discuss what makes an RfC "good" or "bad" (and it probably shouldn't). Some1 (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I added GOODRFC to match the existing BADRFC. No opinion on whether they stay, go, or are redirected, only that what happens with one, should probably happen with the other. - jc37 00:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think there is always the potential for misuse or misreading of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and in most cases people seem to use the WP:BADRFC argument to say "The pre-RFC requirements were not met", including discussion in advance of an RfC and therefore the RfC is "bad" or lacks standing or is invalid. Maybe change to "WP:INVALIDRFC" if that makes more sense or conveys the proper message without confusing anyone, though I think the status quo makes sense and has not proven to show widespread confusion or issues.Iljhgtn (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This redirect has been used eight times, including three times by the same person, and once by you, the creator. You used it redundantly, giving two WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts to the same section of WP:RFC in the same sentence ("thereby making the RFC a WP:BADRFC and not WP:RFCNEUTRAL").

  If the people using it mean "The pre-RFC requirements were not met", then they should be linking to Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Before starting the process ("WP:RFCBEFORE") instead of to the section that this redirect points to. More importantly, they should actually read that section first, so they can discover that there aren't any pre-RFC "requirements". There is only pre-RFC "good-but-optional advice".

  There are no provisions in Wikipedia:Requests for comment for an involved editor to declare an RFC to be "invalid". In my not-inconsiderable experience with the RFC process, I have noticed that most people who attempt to shut down RFCs, usually by asserting non-existent requirements or complaining about non-neutral questions (but some times through straight-up edit warring), are doing so because they are concerned that their side will "lose", and they think that if their side loses, Wikipedia will be harmed. If such people have serious concerns, they should post a note at WT:RFC. Otherwise, they should swallow their objections and respond as if it were "an ordinary Wikipedia discussion that follows the normal talk page guidelines and procedures, including possible closing", exactly like it says at the top of the WP:RFC page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you see whom has used the redirect and how many times etc.? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a BADRFC shortcut should point to a description of what makes an RFC bad, but this just points to a description of a specific way in which an RFC could be bad. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mostly seems rife for abuse to shut down a discussion if a statement is nonneutral… generally community is smart enough to decide how to handle a nonneutral statement on its own. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Fletchamia dakini → Fletchamia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Fletchamia flavilineata → Fletchamia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Fletchamia fuscodorsalis → Fletchamia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Fletchamia mediolineata → Fletchamia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Fletchamia mmahoni → Fletchamia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Fletchamia quinquelineata → Fletchamia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Lenkunya adae → Lenkunya  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Lenkunya arenicola → Lenkunya  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Lenkunya frosti → Lenkunya  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Lenkunya ornata → Lenkunya  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Lenkunya virgata → Lenkunya  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Delete per WP:REDYES and per previous discussions of deleting circular redirects of this type. Thanks to Galactikapedia for their support in the discussions below. Sorry to make so many bulk nominations. Cremastra (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All - per WP:RETURNTORED to encourage article creation on clearly notable topics. Fieari (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Newzealandia agricola → Newzealandia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Newzealandia graffii → Newzealandia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Newzealandia inaequabilis → Newzealandia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Newzealandia inequalistriata → Newzealandia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Newzealandia iris → Newzealandia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Newzealandia moseleyi → Newzealandia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Delete all per WP:REDYES and precedent of deleting this kind of circular redirect. Cremastra (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, delete. I created these long before I understood the purpose of redirects. They are pointless and obstructive. Galactikapedia (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All - per WP:RETURNTORED to encourage article creation on clearly notable topics. Fieari (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Kontikia andersoni → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Kontikia ashleyi → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Kontikia assimilis → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Kontikia atrata → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Kontikia bulbosa → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Kontikia canaliculata → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Kontikia chapmani → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Kontikia circularis → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Kontikia cookiana → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Kontikia coxii → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Kontikia cyanea → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Kontikia forsterorum → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Kontikia insularis → Kontikia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Delete all per WP:REDYES and precedent of deleting this kind of circular redirect. Cremastra (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, delete. I created these long before I understood the purpose of redirects. They are pointless and obstructive. Galactikapedia (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the lot (also applies to other batches) to open up the expected species redlinks. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All - per WP:RETURNTORED to encourage article creation on clearly notable topics. Fieari (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• William Watson: Civil War Surgeon → William Watson (surgeon)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Very novel synonym for the target. One might believe it is a film or book related to the subject which is definitely not the case. MimirIsSmart (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While unambiguous, this does not seem like a plausible way to search for the target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Redirect was deleted via G6. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Afterlove EP → Fellow Traveller Games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Deletion of redirect according to WP:RDELETE reason 10. Will move Draft:Afterlove EP to mainspace. RFNirmala (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. asilvering (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Visting the page → World Wide Web#Linking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Visiting the page → Pageview  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

not necessarily a world wide web thing, not necessarily tied to linking. originally created as... i'm just going to call it "an unsourced stub" consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 19:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and ... I'm not a knight from medieval times visiting pages. Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  oh yeah? why is your name "steel1943" then? steel is a material known exclusively for being worn by knights, and anything before 2016 is basically medieval times, so what gives? consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 20:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Haha ... before 2016 ... no lol. If you are serious though, look up the "steel" and "1943" with a space in between in any search engine, and the reference should become obvious. Steel1943 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you toss a coin before deciding on the name? Jay 💬 17:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ...😂👍 Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Neutral now since I'm currently not sure if Pageview is an appropriate target or not. Steel1943 (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. I am now convinced there is no good target for these. Steel1943 (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to pageview as {{R from other name}}. Duckmather (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, delete because of the typo (visiting -> visting). I've created the correctly-spelled visiting the page redirect, so this one is unnecessary. Duckmather (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Duckmather: Probably should have waited until this discussion closed for this misspelled (I didn't even notice that) redirect before creating the properly spelled one. Now, I feel it needs to be bundled with this discussion (which I just did with this edit, so you may need to change your stance here.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Consarn: Pinging initial nominator since the properly spelled redirect has been created and added to this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

eh, i'd actually vote to have that one deleted as well, since i don't think pageview would be an appropriate target consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 10:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unfortunate redirect that got created because of a poor page title for a good faith stub by newbie that was BLARd within 10 mins in 2015. For the one created by Duckmather, regardless of the reason for creation, poor title for a redirect. Jay 💬 17:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. One has a typo and the other is awkward, could technically refer to a bunch of things (pageview, browsing, etc.), and isn't a DAB candidate. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relist to close an old page and get more eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom. / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 01:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete awkward typo Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "visting":

"Visiting the page, refers to viewing a link on the internet when a he/she links you with a link leading to a page, in this case its the visiting the page page, NOTE THAT SOME LINKS ARE DANGEROUS! Do not open links from people you don't trust! An example of this is jump scares/scary rolls" reads more like some random Urban Dictionary entry than a wikipedia article.

No opinion on "visiting" User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 08:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy retarget. BD2412 T 04:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• XbsXbs → XB  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

New disambiguation page XBS created. Should Retarget to XBS. Justjourney (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This could have been done boldly. BD2412 T 03:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @BD2412 Should I do it now? Justjourney (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. I would. BD2412 T 03:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Partially  Done, but I haven't removed the templates at the top of that page yet. Also, how do I close this discussion? @BD2412. Justjourney (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• True death → Soul#Life and death  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This formerly targeted a section which was removed in 2011, and which didn't seem to have anything related to the string "true death". Worth discussing what the best target is, or whether this is even a good redirect to keep. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't help thinking that I have heard this phrase prominently in fiction. BD2412 T 03:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as generally vague. Although used frequently in True Blood, the article here mentions it merely once in passing, in quotes, without any further detail, and it would make a bad target. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as vague. I got hits from DnD, WH40k and other franchises as potential targets but none of them seem to use this term in a non-obscure way --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).