Knowledge (XXG) talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 14

477:, There is established precedent, though, to discussing certain types of templates in other venues. For example, userbox templates, regardless if in userspace or template space, are discussed at MfD. In this case, as discussed above, there are wide-ranging implications with rcats, both in terms of how they're categorized, how they're used, and the impacts to scripts like Archer, Capricorn, Twinkle, etc. CfD does seem to have modestly higher participation than TfD, at least on some days, though it really varies. Crucially, though, the active CfD editors are more likely to be keenly aware to the intricacies of the rcats as the two are closely related. 526:, because they're almost entirely about maintenance categorization. That the categories are usually placed via templates is simply incidental; many maint. cats. do not have templates, but they wouldn't suddenly become TfD "jurisdiction" if someone created templates for them. I could see TfD maybe being the right venue when there is no correspondence between a template and a cat., but this is uncommon. Thinking back, we used to have other cases like this, where things that were mostly categories but also with a template or other "feature" were discussed in other venues. E.g., Stub categories/templates used to have their own 1245:

of the few editors who will then realize what the other main purpose is. Okay, I won't leave you in suspense. The other main purpose is to make visible text appear on the redirect page, text that provides information to whomever comes to the page, information about the categorization of the redirect among other things. Rcats are so much more than sorting tools. If they weren't so much more, then we would just still be hard-catting redirects using the ]s instead of the {{}}s. Spread the word, rcats are much more than just redirect sorters, they are sources of important information

4009: 2782:, since these quasi-wikiprojects (especially GA, by a landslide) are the main sources of wikilinks to the OPED guideline. No one cared, except (perhaps predictably) FAC has erupted in remonstrances and grandstanding about it, as if kittens are being stabbed. I dunno what it is about that page that inspires such panic-style behavior so often. At least two of the regulars there want to re-RfD this. I don't really care about the outcome, but I will not be re-volunteering to do a bunch of shortcut changes in archives again. They all use 2328:. There's a scenario that happens from time to time: a redirect is nominated for deletion, during the discussion it's discovered that the redirect was an article at some point in the past, participants then point out that it's not RfD's job to evaluate content and so proceed to recommend restoring the article, at the end of the discussion the article is restored. So far, so good. But sometimes the restored article will be of such a low quality that, had it been created anew, it would have been picked up at 538:(and per Gonnym, above), it should be fine to occasionally TfD an rcat template (if it doesn't implicate a corresponding category; e.g. there are various more-specific rcat template variants that still go to the same maint. cat. as the more general one, unless/until we decide to split the cat. to be more specific; and we might need to discuss a template in template terms only, without any effect on a category that did directly correspond). See also 4071:, that is to say redirects that were moved from a patently implausible title by their own creator, not long after creation, and have no backlinks and near-zero pageviews. The only time these aren't deleted is if there happens to be some other suitable target, and RfD is not actually needed for those rare cases; anyone can recreate a speedily-deleted redirect to point it to a better target. In all other circumstances, the redirects are deleted. 31: 858:, rcats have two important functions: 1) to sort redirects to maintenance categories, and 2) to inform editors who come the the redirect page by explaining the reasoning behind the categorization. Reason "2" is why there are text messages on each rcat. The informative explanations and descriptions are especially helpful for editors who are inexperienced and are learning the details about redirect categorization. 2264:

weeks be presented with a survey question asking them if they've found what they were looking for"). We need tools for implementing class-level decisions: besides "keep" or "delete", we could have "replicate" ("Create this type of redirect for all eligible titles"). We need tools that will allow us to go beyond redirects ("Let the search engine treat the following strings as equivalent.."). We need....

2250:

target, or if Z has no history worth preserving. Sometimes, however, the discussion of one redirect will centre on a characteristic that this redirect shares with thousands of other (potentially) existing redirects, and it may feel desultory to spend time deciding this one case, when countless others can be nominated in the future, each redirect to be debated on the same grounds every single time.

2110: 3852:

be confusion about what is actually being proposed - retargetting (which has been clearly withdrawn) or something proposed by one of the commenters that nobody else has expressed any opinions about? It is likely that at least some further commenters will comment regarding the original proposal and express no opinion regarding deletion, increasing the likelihood of a no consensus closure.

754:. Either TfD or CfD is an appropriate venue and regardless of where the deletion discussion occurs, as long as interested editors are properly notified "a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request." Leave where to nominate it up to the nominator based upon what they think is the most important factor to discuss. 543:

relate to categorization in the end, even if not exactly corresponding categories. So, if there's to be a default, it should be CfD, because a category is always involved one way or another, and moving categories around or deleting them is a more complicated process than doing the same with templates and redirects. This isn't even really about Rcats in particular;

1833:, which means mediawiki's built-in "is this a redirect page" check doesn't work. This was a bug I fixed a few months ago, but Twinkle actually accounts for that and treats such pages as a redirect if it finds them, but only when actually submitting the form; it doesn't delay opening or loading the menu in order to query the page.What almost certainly happened is 2942:), checks if the redirect is being transcluded (so that it doesn't break a transclusion with the RfD notice). Is there any way this check could be done in a less expensive fashion? Otherwise, we could try to be mindful of the issue and just make sure to no-include RfD notices on any template redirects that look likely to be used many times in a single page. – 4181: 2181: 2039: 1034:, per the principle of least astonishment. I think it would be advisable to notify WikiProject Redirects, but I do not think these nominations belong at CfD (can decide what to do with a template-populated category but not whether the template itself should be kept, deleted, redirected, etc.) or RfD (unless the template is a redirect). -- 2439:

deletion as an article. Even when not done in bad faith, and even when separated by years it is important for the integrity of the encyclopaedia that we give article content a full hearing at a forum where those interested and experienced in discussing and evaluating article content will find it (e.g. through article alerts).

4223:

title is clearly inappropriate and/or there is an edit summary clearly noting a mistake had been made (e.g. "typo", "move to the correct title", etc). Redirects created when cleaning up page move vandalism can be speedily deleted under criterion G3. I think that covers at least most of what you are thinking about here.

2458:. Here an article was created in the course of the RfD discussion, which was a botched translation of a Swedish Knowledge (XXG) article. So botched that the result would have probably qualified for G3, and yet the RfD discussion was speedy closed and the concerns about the article were brushed aside, both there and 3921:. I tried to follow the instructions but I think I made a mistake and immediately reverted my attempt. Would anyone be able to help? Here are my edits (attempt to suggest the redirect removal and then my reveral of my edit as it did not look right). I explained the edit and proposed change in my edit summary. 3263:

reverting and then discussing it (which doesn't have to be RfD) is going to be the best. However, there will be exceptions, for example when the new target is clearly better than the old one but there is disagreement over whether it is the best, or where there is no clearly good target (i.e. deletion

2545:

Now, the usual caveats apply. If it's clear someone is forum shopping or attempting an end-run around some other process, of course we shouldn't allow that. If such a redirect is deleted, there may be some ground for reversing it if someone later points out there was significant page history and that

2252:

I feel like we're a new neighbourhood with good systems in place for deciding small matters, like what colour to paint this fence here (all that matters is that it fits with the choice made next door). But we don't have systems in place for deciding larger-scale questions, like the choice of a street

1286:

Maybe it would be a good idea here to mention that I almost always refer to the templates as "rcats", which is actually an acronym of sorts for "redirect categories". That's just me. Back in the old days I called them "rcat templates"; however, with age and decrepitude I shortened it to just "rcats".

1244:

Rcats have been sooo misunderstood, as exemplified by this entire discussion. Rcats serve TWO main purposes, and only one of those is categorization. You're a pretty smart editor, and I would bet ten dollars to a doughnut that if you were to give it just a few moments of thought, you are probably one

723:

on a case-by-case basis. Well, I learn something new every day. I assumed such templates were for the benefit of other editors looking at a redirect's history and status, and wasn't aware of the categorization purpose. From my naive perspective, these are page templates first with categorization as a

259:

I'll be honest and say that I would also prefer to have those conversations here. RFD regulars are the ones who have the most familiarity with them, but I have a hard time squaring my preference with the mandate of CFD to discuss all categories. The last place, imo, that should be the venue for RCATs

166:

where this question was raised. I personally think it should be at RfD since the audience at RfD will likely be more experienced with redirect categories making them better at making decisions about them then the audiences at TfD or CfD. While this is quite different from RfDs regular content I still

3851:

The closure was not an attempt to short-circuit a discussion - the proposal to retarget was withdrawn after receiving opposition and no support. You are free to make a different proposal if you think the redirect should be deleted. Reopening discussions always leads to some confusion, and there will

2359:

I think a pretty easy fix is to just have admins implementing such closes be careful to mark the page as unreviewed after restoring it. Most NACs shouldn't be an issue, as the article will not be marked as reviewed when they restore it. The only edge case is if an autopatroll editor without new page

542:

being the conventual venue for template renames, yet TfD has sometimes been used for template-related rename discussions. Consensus can form anywhere, if there's sufficient clueful editorial input. A further complication is that many rcats are actually template redirects, not templates, yet they all

4222:

Pages obviously created in error can be speedily deleted under criterion G6, and that includes redirects created when fixing such errors. The original creator moving the page shortly after creation is often evidence that the original title was a mistake, especially (but not exclusively) if original

3877:

Whether the withdrawal was incorrect is arguable - nobody was supporting the nomination, including you, and a withdrawal is always without prejudice to a different proposal. You should not reopen the closed discussion at this point as it will quite likely lead to pointless arguments about procedure

3663:

In general it's best to group only redirects to which the same considerations apply and which you are nominating with the same ratioanle. Look at the history, page views and search for any possible alternative targets before nominating, if any have significant history, significant page views and/or

3552:

of unused file redirects and wondered if there was a deletion criteria that would allow for their deletion if they are serving no purpose. I think that they are the result of a file being moved to a new name and they have one to zero links to them from articles. There are hundreds. Is this a matter

2438:

In all other circumstances it is wholly inappropriate for a discussion about a page that was redirected without discussion to be deleted. In some (although obviously not all) this has been used as an end-run around an AfD discussion in an attempt to remove content that would never get consensus for

2393:

I don't think the technical analysis is correct: when the RfD is closed, first the tag is removed (essentially recreating the redirect), and only then does the closer manually restore the article. When I've closed a discussion as restoring the article and go to mark it as unreviewed, it shows up as

2376:

I've got both a technical and a fundamental objection to that. The technical one: unless I'm mistaken, once a redirect is nominated for RfD, it's no longer counted as a redirect so it enters the NPP queue, and it will get marked as reviewed, typically long before the RfD is closed. If the closer is

1584:

Appears to be "no consensus" to me also. I !voted for TfD, because I've always thought that when necessary, it is the rcat templates that should be taken to task. Yet when Mac or someone else takes the maintenance category to CfD, I've never been bothered enough to jump down their throats. It's all

3233:

I don't think there is a hard-and-fast rule, but I would default to restoring the original target, particularly if it was a long-standing redirect and the change was immediately controversial. This minimises disruption caused by existing incoming links that were expecting the original target. It's

3161:

Converting a redirect to something else is usually OK, provided this is done as a draft below the redirect notice. Modifying the target article should also be acceptable (and it's actually quite good to see article content getting improved as a result of an otherwise gnomish activity), although if

2377:

an admin or patroler, yes, they can mark it as "unreviewed", but any patroler who then picks it up will see the article was the result of a discussion and will probably assume there's consensus for it. More fundamentally, I really don't like the idea of RfDs getting closed with what is essentially

2332:

and immediately sent for deletion or draftified. But because it was restored as a result of an RfD, it's marked as reviewed, so it bypasses the page patrol. I guess the assumption here is that if anyone has objected to the new article, it would be their job to send it to AfD. But this assumes that

2263:

stands for a space, leaving out any that have had their targets manually changed in the past"). We need tools for probing user experience – we always presume what readers want but we don't have a way to get any sort of data ("Let 5% of readers who follow any of those 2500 redirects in the next two

2249:

prompted me to think a bit about the overall pattern of what we do at RfD. What we have now is a boutique process: we discuss individual redirects, which we consider on their own individual merits, and this works great when we need to decide if X is unambiguous, if Y is a plausible synonym for its

1927:

I always thought that RfD discussions in the past with only one or two !voters where everyone involved suggested deletion were closed as deleted, even with the low participation. However, the log of May 17 contains many discussions relisted in those circumstances: the discussions for Lefnui, Five

1637:

closed the RfD as being the wrong venue, because a retarget outcome would require a follow-up page move of the current disambiguation page over the redirect, and such discussions should take place at RM. I think otherwise, that since the primary issue concerns what the target of a current redirect

2569:

be deleted at RfD. This isn't about bureaucracy it's about making sure that relevant editors are aware that article content is being discussed and AfD's greater prominence plus article alerts and deletion sorting is always going to be vastly superior to RFD at enabling this. This protects against

2340:

Maybe the two most recent examples are extreme (very short stubs with little or no sourcing, little time spent existing as an article, doubts previously expressed about viability of the topics, a small number of participants in each RfD), but something like that comes up every now and then, and I

1407:

templates serve two functions: they categorize redirects and they provide context/explanation for why the redirect exists in a way that is standardized and can be understood by someone who is only casually familiar with redirects. While I tend to agree that categorization is the more important of

3830:

It's not just deletion though, it's support for what is being proposal. Had your vote been to retarget then withdrawal would definitely have been inappropriate. Similarly if there was support for retargetting to somewhere other than where the nominator proposed then it would (probably) have been

409:

script, does seem to favour CfD because those editors/administrators are more familiar with the subtleties. RfD would notionally make sense as well, so I wouldn't be opposed to that, and it does generate (somewhat) higher participation than CfD. No real clear, runaway "winner" for which venue is

2715:

review pages, so the apparent 600+ instances are actually much fewer real ones (because GA reviews are transcluded into articles' talk pages, doubling the count of those instances in MW's "what links here"). I think I also identifed the GA reviewing template used to generate most of these, and

694:

I didn't proofread the above comment very well. To correct and summarize: The discussion of changes to a specific RCat template should start wherever it makes sense to start it, CfD, TfD, or RfD. However, if there is any impact on the other two areas, there needs to be cross-advertising as

3508:

Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Knowledge (XXG) in different ways. One way to see evidence of usefulness is using the

3378:

So yeah, pageviews numbers for redirects went down. I'm assuming that the redirects would get close to equal pageviews over the same space of time, which I think is a fair assumption. So – has anyone else noticed this reduction in redirect pageviews? And can anyone explain it? Are pageviews

3054:

In many nominations recently the nominator of a redirect believes a redirect to be an implausible misspelling when a simple 10-second search would tell them that the redirect is not a misspelling but related to the target in some other way. This is the most common of many ways a very simple

1455:

was one of the points of disagreement. Some argued it is not and that the template's sole purpose is to categorize, while others (including me) think it is—e.g., a rcat category can be merged or renamed (at CfD) without impacting the existence, name, or display text of the rcat template.

1349:

With stub tagging, the main part of the system is the categorisation, as it helps interested editors to find articles to expand. With redirect tagging, I've always thought the main thing are the templates themselves, which convey useful information to the person viewing the redirect. The

4107:

The redirect has near-zero pageviews. (Could be left subject to common-sense interpretation, much like "recently created" is in R3, or could be defined as something like "Less than ten pageviews in the previous year; or, if less than a year old, on average less than one pageview per

1388:

Huh? Categories have different purposes so it's disingenuous to compare two completely separate categories that have different purposes and declare one more useful than the other. The categorization is what is actually being done, the templates simply explain what the category is.

1557:

I agree with no consensus, the discussion particulars makes that clear to me. There's a lot of gray to be considered, even if folks feel one way or another. I think a "no consensus, don't jump down anyone's throat if they do it somewhere other than TfD" would be reasonable. ~

3301:

And as for the main question: in principle, once an RfD has been started, it's usually not a good idea to change the redirect; this has the potential to lead to errors in the close (for example, a "keep" closure can end up keeping the wrong target). I don't believe there's any

634:

I didn't proofread the above comment very well. To correct and summarize: The original discussion should start wherever it makes sense to start it, CfD, TfD, or RfD. However, if there is any impact on the other two areas, there needs to be cross-advertising as appropriate.

941:, in theory, categorize redirects without the template, but then how would we easily apply the category descriptions below the destination of each redirect? We'd still need a template from somewhere to do this efficiently; copying and pasting doesn't strike me as efficient. 1137:

Hate to say it, but generally amenable to most of the above. My instinct is TfD, just because it'll be the default assumption, but I do agree that the folks at CfD are most likely to care or have an opinion. I actually think RfD is the least-good option; they are

3374:

Now I think what happened – rather than anything else – is that those last 3, the ones with adjusted pageviews, have less pageviews due to being created recently and pageviews numbers for redirects going down recently. I don't know why that happened, but it did.

167:

believe that they are the most suitable for handling these template with RfDers generally having experience using them. Both TfD and CfD have a reasonable claim since they are templates and they are used for categorizing pages. I will transclude this section at

1323:

to be consistent with how stub templates are handled. Both are wrappers for a category. They definitely don't belong at RfD since they are only associated with redirects. Alternatively, have stub and rcat templates discussed at TfD like all other templates.

3331:

Just was doing some investigation about the quote mark RfDs and got an interesting conclusion that kind of confirmed my suspicions as to redirect pageviews going down for whatever reason. I just did a check, because I thought I saw something that I didn't.

609:

so that some moved articles wind up in a new category, then CfD would be the place to discuss it. Again, I may need to give this more thought. Either way, cross-announce the discussion so people who follow only TfD or RfD discussions will be aware of it.

2549:

But otherwise, as a closer, I'm always going to assume competence on the part of RfD participants. "Don't delete because there's page history and we should be at AfD" and "Delete, even though there's page history" are both perfectly legitimate arguments.

2348:

there have been reasonable doubts expressed about the existence, encyclopedic viability, or notability of the topic, then the closer of the RfD discussion should proceed to procedurally start an AfD nomination. Would that work? Any alternative ideas? –

1891:

Looking at the sheer scale of the participation in the MfD discussion (something I don't remember the last time seeing an instance of here at RfD), I'm wondering whether MfD might not actually be the better place to discuss project-space redirects. –

2564:

The very significant difference between a move and a delete is that the former can be done without (formal) discussion the latter cannot. Article prose that is not speedy deletable and/or has not been discussed in an appropriate location should

4116:), we could discuss finally bringing PROD into redirectland. For all but the first subcriterion, there would also be the possibility of a bot to automatically untag pages that don't qualify, which would simplify things for reviewing admins. 3593:

I agree with J947 - as a general rule file redirects should not be deleted. Obviously there will be some exceptions, but they need to be discussed individually with the nomination explaining why that redirect specifically should be deleted.

3158:

Oh yes, retargeting a redirect in the course of an RfD should be discouraged as in that case a "keep" close risks leaving the redirect pointing to the new target instead. It also has the potential to confuse participants in the discussion.

2410:

Oh, I see. But that happens only when the XFDscript is used; if you close the discussion manually (rarely though it may happen nowadays) then it won't go through an intermediate stage of being a redirect again and will remain patrolled. –

3221:. Another editor insists on undoing the original change because that was undiscussed. So now the RFD is technically wrong. I suppose it could be withdrawn and a new discussion opened on the "old" target. Is there a precedent for this? 1088:

has done (very handy, thank you! Now I know how to do that properly!), in practice, it becomes very difficult for an editor to reply on the talk page with the transclusion because they will see no other discussion. So, yeah, I assumed

3107:

Following a number of recent discussions in which this occurred, I've drafted a couple of sentences to the bottom of the lead to clarify that changing the redirect's target during the discussion is frowned upon. Any thoughts on this?

1585:

the same in the end result, either the cat and rcat are kept, or they're deleted. Only problem has been when a deleter forgets one or the other. Happens sometimes, however somebody has always caught it and dealt with it effectively.

2276:

Interesting thoughts. The "boutique" approach may be more feature than bug, since it allows for nuance. There are cases where RfD consensus amounts to "this specific redirect is inappropriate" and those that are more like "this

3264:

is being proposed rather than retargetting but it isn't eligible for speedy deletion) when reverting isn't going to improve the encyclopaedia. In both examples the newer the redirect the more likely they are to apply.

1638:

should be, it is best suited for RfD, and follow-up moves can be carried out uncontroversially if necessitated by the retargeting (since they don't involve articles). I'd appreciate further community input on this. --

1868:

That's exactly what happened. I always nominate from the history page, since I check to make sure there isn't an merge in the history, and never thought thought to actually check if it was going to the right place.

1183:, rcats are templates, not categories nor redirects. They should be discussed at TfD, nowhere else. As always, the category would follow, i.e., if an rcat is deleted, then its maintenance category is also deleted. 111:

An unstated assumption that underlies the RfC question is that there should be one, single venue for discussing rcat templates. During the discussion, editors challenge this assumption, and it's worth noting that

3636:

There are several redirects that I'm looking to bring up here. Most of the multiple-redirect nominations here seem to have similar wording. The ones I'm considering are not similarly worded, but all of them share

1841:

to MfD as the venue (since it couldn't see the template), and then HF didn't double-check the venue. If it had been changed to RfD, it should have worked fine, even if nominated from the edit or history page. ~

503:

I see those as rare (and IMO bad) exceptions to the rule. I also disagree with your participation analysis. I had a category nomination relisted twice with 0 participation. I'm not changing my opinion on venue.

3688:

about the possibility of an automated and/or semi-automated process for restoring redirects to a deleted page when that page is undeleted and/or recreated. Please comment there to keep discussion in one place.

2737:

Did another 50+. It's down to about 175, minus transclusion duplicates. I also notified the talk pages of GA, FA, and PR about using MOS:OPED now, since they're the source of most of the instances of WP:OPED.

1533:

I know this is an imperfect analysis and oversimplifies people's opinions (for example, I belong in the "CfD or TfD" group but responded "TfD" because the original question specifically asked about the rcat

3087:

there are currently two suggestions related to the links at the top of RfD discussions. One will alter their position, the other will add another link. Please comment there to keep discussion in one place.

120:

It seems to me that by the magic of transclusion, rcat template discussions can be listed in or linked from several places at once. Although my close is "no consensus", I commend this outcome to you all.—

2958:

I'm not sure what the consequences of that would be. This requires either someone who knows more than me to look into it, or it requires me or someone else to study enough to give accurate information.

3199: 1180: 3767:

clearly mentions it is inappropriate. Why should it be renominated when the discussion was still in progress and the withdrawal short-circuited it? What is the confusion Thryduulf is referring to?

2333:

the editors concerned will notice the restored article and it relies on their initiative. I don't think these two should be taken for granted. And really, when it comes to problematic content, the

1724: 921:

All Rcat templates have a corresponding category (because that's the purpose of the Rcat template), so it isn't possible to separate the two. If one gets deleted, so does the other, and so on. --

4068: 2882:

after the template is applied then again a few hours later when the "job log" has had a chance to process pages that use the redirected-template. Anyone have any ideas for a permanent fix?

2246: 2253:

numbering system (it's not enough that the street numbers of two adjacent houses make sense; street numbers are any good only of they're consistent from one end of the street to the other).

3724:

In this case as you are arguing for something different to the withdrawn nomination, the least confusing thing to do is just to nominate it again. There is no prejudice against doing that.

3664:

plausible alternative targets then it's probably best to nominate them separately from the rest (except those you are proposing to retarget to the same location can be nominated together).

2872: 2671: 1902: 3575: 163: 2474:

While the follow-up might have been botched, the closure here was not. RfD is not the place to discuss article content - that is the job of AfD and it should have been nominated there.

2612:. I thought it would be helpful for potential closers to know this is a possibility, and it would be helpful to have a shortcut to link to instead of explaining it every time. Too bad 2455: 2325: 3612:

Okay, I'll take your word for it that they serve some purpose. I thought the fact that there is a database report collecting and listing them meant that some action should be taken.

3125: 1427:

So, what's the verdict? It looks a lot like "no consensus", but is there something from this discussion that we can apply? According to my count, TfD received a plurality of support

2879: 2786:

now, which does get to the correct place, and it is the main "advertised" shortcut for it, and is now used the various templates. Ergo nothing is broken. I'm just going to mention

3709: 1837:

opened the XfD menu from the history or edit page — somewhere where the template itself wasn't rendered visible — so Twinkle couldn't detect the template. That meant the XfD menu

1626: 295:, Yeah, similar thoughts as well. RfD makes the most sense to me, too, but its regulars may be less familiar with the intricacies of the rcats and categorization. What about MfD? 2609: 1219:

redirects, so its the categories that matter. I find it shocking that someone with so much experience with RCATs would so wrongly declare that they are not categories when they

89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 2431:

Where the content has been previously discussed at a competent forum (usually this means the article talk page or AfD) and a consensus reached that it should not be an article.

4155:

Since I started this discussion, I'm uncomfortable removing the above comment, but could somebody else, please? The user in question has been blocked as a sock of banned user

3281: 3218: 3198:

in the general guidelines for redirects, and I guess it's understood that closers will be aware of it. However, it may be worth also explaining it at (the surprisingly short)

3059:

could've helped the nominator to not nominate a helpful redirect and not burden extra unneeded maintenance on RfD. So should we encourage nominators to do basic checks on the

3549: 3980:

Hey all, I've proposed some changes to the RfD template to make the display less confusing to casual readers - please consider reviewing them and sharing your thoughts at

937:

What Tavix said...completely. The template is just the conduit by which the rcat categories are applied, since it involves adding text below the redirect destination. We

2341:

think we should do a better job of dealing with it. Because in our punctiliousness about correct discussion venues, we end up undermining fundamental content policies.

1150:

brings up the catfd templates, which I like and would seem to support TfD, but they wouldn't increase awareness unless someone stumbled on the category, would they? ~

109:; but that doesn't mean we haven't reached any decisions. The discussion below contains a lot of excellent reasoning, and it makes a good platform for future progress. 4013: 3238:- if a change is controversial, the safest option is to revert it and discuss - so, in the case of a redirect, restore the original target and run through the RFD. ~ 460:. If the issue is with the category itself, then nominate the category and hold the discussion at CfD. If the issue is with the template, then nominate it at TfD. -- 3485:

means here, because it could imply pageviews tool is meant to assess page requests coming in from outside Knowledge (XXG). Can we rewrite R#K5 as below? Also since

2536:

article is no more inherently problematic than RfD resulting in a page move. I don't think anyone would call such an outcome illegitimate because it wasn't through

3433:

mean here - does it mean what the pageviews tool does is calculate the number of times a page is accessed from outside of Knowledge (XXG) (the 4th point above)?

3179:

Isn't there a procedure for retargeting a redirect? For example, shouldn't all the incoming links be updated so they point to where they intended to be pointed?

3028: 1363: 2779: 2384:. If a major problem is pointed out, it needs to be addressed, I don't think we should be making a mess and then hoping someone else will come to mop it up. – 905:

as changes to any of these types of pages shouldn't be made without input from editors with experience working in the overall redirection pseudo-namespace.

1791:

Yeah, my bad on that. I wasn't paying attention when I nominated the page for deletion using Twinkle, and the soft redirect must have thrown Twinkle off.

105:

This nuanced RfC concerns the question of where to discuss rcat templates. Based on the discussion below, the only formal close that's available to me is

534:

the venue for the parallel case of Rcats. Pppery's "No good reasons to add yet another special case" actually is a better rationale to use CfD than TfD.

2909:, is it possible to put the RFD template at the top of the talk page, and create a secondary template that redirects (pun unintended) to the talk page? — 2220: 2771: 47: 17: 4074:

What I'm thinking of is a CSD along the following lines. (These could be condensed a fair bit in an actual CSD, but intentionally being verbose here.)

3641:

as their target. Would these be included under the same discussion or nominated separately? Some of them may be old enough redirects to be ineligible.

2304:

of redirects with caution, though. What's good for the goose is not always good for the gander, and there's big danger of clutter, if nothing else. --

1367: 1679: 3796:

took me directly to the Explanation table, and I didn't know it is a sub-section of "Deletion discussions needing action before their end date". So

1050:

if the aim is to fine-tune the scope of the templates, because the RfD crowd includes a majority of people who go around tagging the redirects, but

225:

is reasonable, though not necessarily dealing with redirects so the editors/admins there may be less familiar with the template nuances. What about

388:-- they're a type of category. The template is simply a vehicle for applying the category, similar to stub templates which are discussed at CfD. -- 599:

so they used parameters, but the net result would not affect categorization, then TfD is the place to discuss it. If there is an effort to split

2546:

wasn't addressed in the discussion. And to be very clear, no one should be converting an article to a redirect and immediately taking it to RfD.

2285:

and deleted "Bad redirect" after there's consensus to delete "Bad Redirect". I do wish we could make better use of redirect tagging, especially

3749:

It is cleaner if you just nominate it again, and more likely to succeed than arguing about procedure. (Thryduulf is an admin, and so am I). —

3981: 997:

for instructions in regards bundling related categories with TfD discussions. (Apparently, this method has been in place since 2006 or so.)

2169: 2026: 2007: 3685: 777:

choose a place to have these discussions, I would prefer that forum since the people familiar with rcats are most likely to see it there.

155: 4097:

The redirect is the result of a pagemove by the target article's creator and sole substantive contributor (i.e. someone who could have

1538:), but I wanted to at least try to reach some sort of an outcome. Thoughts from others on how to move forward would be appreciated. -- 1212: 547:

template that exists solely to apply a category is really a CfD matter, being an incidentally templatey means to a categorization end.

4142: 2289: 1857: 1573: 1165: 2801: 2749: 2727: 682: 558: 3712:, I had added a note after it was withdrawn by the nominator, saying that the withdrawal is not appropriate. It has been 24 hours. 3763:

This is about procedure. What should happen if a nom who wishes to retarget, decides to withdraw although there is a Delete vote?

2508:

who, as I saw it, took advantage of a loophole to create nonsense. Again, I am sorry for any and all of the animosity involved. --

414:, but on balance, I concur with the sentiments expressed by MJL and Tavix to firm up my support, for the reasons expressed above. 2504:

happening again to circumvent a redirect deletion would be very constructive. I had a gut feeling there was something wrong with

911: 131: 3800:

is applicable for only deletion discussions, not for retargets. That is where my disconnect was. Thanks for the clarifications.

4048: 4029: 4021: 3184: 1351: 351:, Okay, fair enough. No clear answer for me then. It's been RfD and CfD; neither of which are ideal (for different reasons). 4033: 3399:

How are pageviews that are mentioned in the stats, calculated for redirects? Is it a page view if any one of these happens?

3336:. If this is converted into pageviews per day (some redirects were created after the time period began), then we get this: 2674:. While I don't have a problem with the outcome, there's currently ~600 uses of that shortcut. Can these all be updated to 1555:(I participated in the above and a no consensus likely supports my slight preference so take this with a grain of salt but) 148:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4199: 3194:

That sort of clean-up is typically needed only if the retargeting results in a change of topic. It's already mentioned at

3008: 2971: 2920: 2894: 1616:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

901:

if whichever type of page is being discussed is itself a redirect to another page. In all cases, a note should be left at

707: 647: 622: 3816: 2775: 1070:"here" is ambiguous because this dicussion is transcluded on the talk pages of all relevant XfD. I assume you mean RfD. 1336: 1109: 957: 832: 493: 430: 367: 311: 249: 3027:

I've started a discussion about whether the R speedy deletion criteria do and/or should apply to soft redirects. See

1716: 1490:

Editors at RfD are more likely to be familiar with redirects, though perhaps not with categorization and templates.

4044: 4025: 4017: 3993: 3738:

I am saying that the withdrawal was incorrect to do, and has to be undone. So should I do it or wait for an admin?

3180: 2209: 579:

CfD if the change will affect categorization, or TfD if it will not. For example, if there was an effort to merge

38: 2116: 1524: 902: 2816: 2695: 1600: 1371: 1354:) and exists just because it's easy to add a line to the template causing the categorisation. Maybe someone like 1304: 1264: 1198: 873: 4232: 4204: 4173: 4150: 4131: 4104:

The redirect is not linked from any reader-facing page (excludes database reports, mentions on talkpages, etc.).

4067:, but I'm floating this here first to get a sense of what people think. We get a lot of RfDs along the lines of 4052: 3997: 3967: 3953: 3934: 3887: 3861: 3840: 3825: 3806: 3787: 3773: 3758: 3744: 3733: 3718: 3698: 3673: 3650: 3623: 3603: 3588: 3571: 3564: 3532: 3498: 3476: 3462: 3442: 3389: 3320: 3296: 3273: 3254: 3227: 3206: 3188: 3166: 3153: 3118: 3097: 3073: 3040: 3012: 2977: 2946: 2924: 2900: 2831: 2820: 2806: 2754: 2732: 2699: 2684: 2647: 2627: 2597: 2579: 2559: 2517: 2483: 2469: 2448: 2415: 2405: 2388: 2371: 2353: 2313: 2270: 2232: 2199: 2173: 2092: 2052: 2030: 1968: 1937: 1914: 1896: 1878: 1863: 1818: 1800: 1786: 1770: 1751: 1736: 1707: 1686: 1672: 1647: 1603: 1579: 1542: 1412: 1398: 1383: 1341: 1307: 1267: 1232: 1201: 1171: 1126: 1114: 1079: 1065: 1038: 1026: 1012: 962: 930: 916: 876: 837: 788: 765: 736: 713: 687: 653: 628: 563: 513: 498: 469: 452: 435: 397: 372: 343: 316: 287: 254: 188: 135: 4112:

Or, if that's too complicated for a CSD (although it wouldn't be more complicated than some existing ones like

2827: 2761: 2680: 2162: 2019: 2000: 575:

so people who don't follow all related discussions will see it. My gut sense prior to thinking about it is to

209:, since rcats are so widely used, I'm wondering if we shouldn't be discussing these in a more prominent place? 3708:

How do we undo a withdrawal? Simply revert the edit that did the withdrawal, or is this an admin decision? In

4087: 2513: 2462: 742: 2165: 2022: 2003: 4146: 3528: 3472: 3029:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Do and/or should the R criteria apply to soft redirects?

1853: 1827: 1569: 1161: 3812: 3797: 3793: 3764: 2154: 2011: 1992: 535: 530:, but this has been closed, and CfD is now the venue. It would be strangely inconsistent to declare CfD 4083: 2798: 2746: 2724: 1951: 1748: 1733: 1703: 1668: 1621:

Is this the wrong venue for redirects where the outcome might be retargeting to the disambiguation page?

1123: 1062: 731: 679: 593: 555: 4064: 2787: 1901:

Project-space redirects can get that amount of attention at RfD too. The best examples are probably at

1058:

if the proposal is to delete certain templates and categories, by the principle of least astonishment.

994: 664: 660: 176: 172: 168: 3646: 2812: 2765: 2691: 2659: 1588: 1523:

Discussion should be had at whichever venue makes the most sense, and should be cross-advertised (at

1292: 1252: 1186: 861: 603: 583: 184: 127: 4069:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 17 § List of Canis species an subspecies

2529: 2282: 2046:

that syntax appears to be off, please put in an exact request below, in a "change x to y" format. —

747: 4228: 3963: 3949: 3930: 3883: 3857: 3836: 3729: 3694: 3669: 3599: 3269: 3093: 3036: 2575: 2479: 2444: 1008: 783: 760: 724:

side effect. But as editors above me argue, the venue really depends on the action contemplated. --

3448:

Yes, it's in the name: any of those four would count as a pageview. It's ambiguous for me whether

3056: 3047: 2857:

If the redirect is in use by a page that is within 24,000 bytes or so of the 2,000,000-or-so-byte

2334: 406: 4091: 3872: 3084: 2528:"Not RfD's job to evaluate content" does not, and should not, mean "RfD can't evaluate content". 2509: 2344:

What is to be done? I've got one suggestion: if an RfD results in the restoration of an article,

1933: 1874: 1796: 1643: 1630: 267: 3195: 3128:

which did not have a discussion at all. Also, are these encouraged when the Rfd is in progress?

751: 668: 2532:

is my lodestar here: if there's consensus for an action, we can follow that action. Deleting a

2427:

There are only two circumstances in which it is appropriate for RfD to delete article content:

1439:(4.83). If one takes the view that the discussion was specifically about where to discuss rcat 4195: 3524: 3468: 3426: 3403:

Searching for some text in the Knowledge (XXG) search bar and that leads to the redirect page.

3317: 3293: 3203: 3163: 3004: 2967: 2943: 2916: 2890: 2466: 2412: 2385: 2350: 2267: 1893: 1849: 1806: 1683: 1565: 1551: 1539: 1409: 1157: 1035: 703: 643: 618: 3217:

I found a redirect that has been recently changed and questioned the new target. So I opened

2858: 2847: 2667: 1208: 3982:

Template talk:Redirect for discussion § Rework of the template to make display more friendly

2793: 2741: 2719: 2663: 2500:, which I deemed competent, in that case. Any and all efforts to prevent anything like that 1743: 1728: 1699: 1664: 1379: 1355: 1330: 1249:

especially to those editors who possess little or no experience in redirect categorization.

1120: 1101: 1090: 1074: 1059: 1021: 949: 824: 727: 674: 550: 509: 485: 465: 447: 422: 359: 303: 241: 3289: 3235: 3060: 2329: 2266:

Anyway, these are just my late-night daydreamings. What are your craziest RfD fantasies? –

2120: 805: 801: 527: 226: 222: 210: 202: 3783: 3754: 3658: 3642: 1085: 987: 906: 194: 180: 121: 4113: 4098: 4079: 3878:

and is less likely to achieve a consensus for or against deletion than a new nomination.

3285: 3284:

is proposing a move of the dab page over the redirect. That should generally be done via

2537: 1546:— Counts updated on 00:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC). — And again on 01:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC). 539: 230: 4082:

if created recently, or it contains remnants of a botched pagemove (e.g. a hypothetical

2394:

if I reviewed it (i.e. my autopatrol), rather than whoever checked it off in the queue.

4224: 4040: 3989: 3959: 3945: 3944:

I can create the new article (working with community of editors on talk). Thanks again!

3926: 3903: 3879: 3853: 3832: 3725: 3690: 3665: 3595: 3582: 3456: 3383: 3316:

notice already breaks the redirect, as its point is for there to be such disruption. –

3265: 3089: 3032: 2571: 2475: 2440: 2194: 2083: 1959: 1761: 1147: 998: 977: 793: 780: 757: 3416: 3162:

relevant content is removed then it's best practice to mention the fact in the RfD. –

3494: 3438: 3149: 2640: 2623: 2555: 2398: 2364: 2309: 2228: 2059: 2047: 1945: 1929: 1870: 1834: 1792: 1639: 1143: 335: 279: 1512:

CfD if the category is being discussed, and TfD if the template is being discussed.

4188: 3310: 2998: 2982: 2960: 2953: 2936: 2910: 2906: 2883: 2337:

should be on those who advocate retention rather than those who argue for removal.

1693: 1658: 1634: 816:. Without the maintenance categories, these rcat templates would serve no purpose. 696: 636: 611: 3710:

WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 16#Prevalence of male genital mutilation

2854:

Care must be taken when placing the RFD template on redirects in template space.

2610:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes#"No consensus" retargets

2295:, to help bring in related redirects, to get some of the benefits of linked data. 1403:

I don't think it is an either–or situation (or, "actually" versus "simply"). The

164:

Knowledge (XXG):Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 20#Template:R from meme

4217: 4165: 4123: 3574:

is oft ignored. Personally, I think that redirects of the type are harmless and

2864:

If the template is used more than 8 times on a page, it will go over the limit.

1375: 1325: 1179:. Late to this discussion and surprised that I had to hear about it by checking 1119:

Corrected. I didn't realise this was section-transcluded to other noticeboards.

1094: 1071: 1018: 942: 855: 817: 505: 478: 474: 461: 444: 415: 352: 323: 296: 234: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1350:

categorisation, on the other hand, is incidental (save for few exceptions like

3779: 3750: 3686:

Knowledge (XXG):Bot requests/Archive 83#Restoring redirects to recreated pages

3419:

says "The pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility." (This

3333: 3239: 2990: 2929: 2589: 2505: 1906: 1810: 1778: 1390: 1359: 1238: 1224: 922: 389: 2465:. Again, that may be an extreme example, but we clearly need to do better. – 3985: 3941: 3918: 3914: 3910: 3906: 3112: 3067: 2242: 2190: 2150:{{Redirect category shell| {{R from shortcut}} {{R to project namespace}} }} 1928:

Rivers of Lebennin, Lolbert, and Purple Wedge. Has policy changed on this?

1661:

up for discussion, but it's corrently locked for editing. What should I do?

264:

TFD regulars would be the less familiar with their usage than RFD regulars.

3553:

that should go to the Village Pump? Any thoughts on unused file redirects?

3467:

yeah, I meant evidence that a given redirect is actually used by readers -

443:

These are templates; I see no good reason to add yet another special case.

3409:

Entering a redirect's name in the URL and that leads to the redirect page.

659:

Already done; this entire discussion is sectionally transcluded into both

4078:

The redirect's title is patenly implausible: Either it would qualify for

3820: 3801: 3768: 3739: 3713: 3614: 3555: 3490: 3434: 3145: 2783: 2675: 2633: 2619: 2551: 2305: 2224: 973:. Is anyone else in this discussion besides me aware of the existence of 348: 330: 292: 274: 214: 3638: 3222: 1682:

for the protection to be lifted, as it's clearly not needed anymore. –

1498:

Amorymeltzer, Black Falcon, Paine Ellsworth, Pppery, SD0001, Steel1943

2608:

After making one of these closes, I was inspired to write the section

2456:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 8#Fjollträsk

1142:

redirects, but have little in common with them (to borrow a line from

328:

No, definitely not MFD; they're mandate doesn't come close to RCATs. –

3412:

Clicking on a redirect's URL in a webpage outside of Knowledge (XXG).

2878:

I'm not sure what the best solution is, other than to manually check

2672:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 20#WP:OPED

1756:

It belongs here but there's no point in procedurally closing it now.

1595: 1299: 1259: 1193: 868: 3517:

against the redirect. These record the number of views a page gets.

3489:

is commented out there, we can include its redirect site wikishark.

2259:

of redirects. We need tools for querying ("List all redirects where

2221:

Template talk:R to article without mention#Refining/clarifying usage

3200:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Administrator instructions

3137:

Modifying the target article to add more details about the redirect

2281:

of redirect" is inappropriate. In plenty of cases, I've pointed to

3452:

in this case means that 4th point or simply "well-used redirect".

2588:

I echo BDD here, which can be summarized as "use common sense". --

1777:

RfD is the correct venue, but I went ahead and snow deleted it. --

3140:

Modifying the target article to remove details about the redirect

2010:) This message was left at 16:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC) --Stay safe, 4157: 2873:

WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 29#Template:Hebrew

1725:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Poles are evil

1627:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 9#Prasad

1181:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

812:, as Tavix and SMcCandlish explain, by which the redirect gets 114:

this very discussion was transcluded to several different pages

4101:'d it), within the first 24 hours of that article's existence. 2846:

RFD template on templates causes a 24,000-byte charge against

2104: 25: 3510: 3282:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_3#PG-13

2997:

tags directly into the module without messing something up? —

1903:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 25

3958:

Hi, just an update that I figured it out. Thanks very much!

3379:

decreasing across the board or is this something different?

2434:

Where the content would be speedily deleteable as an article

1479:

The template is purely a vehicle for applying the category.

260:

would be TFD since they're just a unique type of categories

4059:

Is there room for a CSD criterion for speedily-moved pages?

3778:

It was never nominated for deletion, but for retargeting. —

3288:, and there's some text to this effect right at the top of 1211:

is for "templating redirects". I always thought it was for

1017:

Yes, although they weren't on my mind when I !voted above.

3819:

to aid those like me who reached there via the shortcut.

2219:

Hi fellow redirect folks. I'd appreciate any feedback at

3124:

Which were these discussions? From the archives I found

2716:

updated it, so it should not generate any more of them.

3922: 3514: 3486: 3421: 2868: 2614: 2497: 116:. And this, of course, gives us a potential solution: 98:

What should be the venue for discussing Rcat templates?

3940:

If I could please have help removing the re-direct on

2880:

Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded

1084:

True, in theory, but when a section is transcluded as

2604:

New RFDO section on "no consensus / retarget" outcome

2570:

both intentional and unintentional bypassing of AfD.

2255:

What we lack is a set of mechanisms for dealing with

1146:, Rcats are to redirects as cooking is to farming). 4063:

I'm aware that new CSD criteria must be proposed on

1408:

these, that does not nullify the other function. --

4014:Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests for approval/'zinbot 3406:Clicking on a redirect link present in an article. 233:? (Twinkle would need to be updated in any case.) 118:the options at the RfC are not mutually exclusive. 1809:, would this be something you could look into? -- 1742:Or as it's a WP redirect, does it belong at MfD? 800:with you here. My first choice would probably be 2780:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article candidates 2770:Just finished the last of them. BTW, I notified 1487:Deryck Chan, Dmehus, MJL, Trialpears, Wugapodes 3923:Link to my reverted edit adding in the template 3131:Converting the redirect to a standalone article 3817:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion process#Early closure 229:(like userboxes), or, possibly, at one of the 154:What should be the venue for discussing rcat ( 2772:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Good article nominations 1364:Category:Redirects from other capitalisations 179:so all interested parties can participate. ‑‑ 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Redirects for discussion 8: 4043:in case you have any thoughts to add there? 1823:So, technically it was a soft redirect, via 1805:No worries, we'll blame Twinkle for that... 4138: 3306:disruption to readers during the RfD – the 3079:Possible change(s) to the discussion header 2989:it may have merit. As I have never touched 2636:, good addition IMO, thanks for adding it. 1287:So I'm guilty... sundowners is setting in. 897:if discussing the underlying category, and 4012:You are invited to join the discussion at 3046:Should there be information about doing a 2690:I have started manually updating links. -- 893:if discussing a particular Rcat template, 217:seems reasonable, but CfD, too, sees even 3898:Removing a re-direct to create an article 1368:Category:Redirects from ASCII-only titles 773:is actually an interesting option. If we 458:TfD or CfD depending on what is discussed 3570:This has been a recurring issue at RfD. 1458: 3917:presently re-directs to the section in 3126:Re-targeting a redirect during it's RFD 2861:limit, it will push it over the limit. 2704:I just did 50+ of them; most in are in 2678:so that the intended use is preserved? 1719:is a redirect mistakenly listed at MfD. 4003:BRFA for bot to patrol RfD'd redirects 3909:to remove the section on the field of 3680:Restoring redirects to recreated pages 2378: 2320:RfD and restoring problematic articles 1991:to the redirect. Thanks. --Stay safe, 1501:Templates should be discussed at TfD. 808:since the template itself is just the 221:participation than TfD in most cases. 205:because of the namespace. However, in 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3134:Converting the redirect to a disambig 2101:Protected edit request on 21 May 2020 1975:Protected edit request on 20 May 2020 1362:can enlighten me how categories like 7: 3085:Template talk:Rfd2#Position of links 1447:(10–8). Of course, whether the rcat 1443:, then TfD enjoys a narrow majority 144:The following discussion is closed. 3902:Hi, we have been discussing on the 3684:There is currently a discussion at 2360:reviewer permissions makes an NAC. 1952:User talk:CrazyBoy826#See WP:RELIST 3327:Pageviews for redirects going down 2993:, would it be possible to add the 24: 3023:Speedy deletion of soft redirects 2379:The result of the discussion was 4179: 4024:) 15:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC) 4007: 3234:also the best implementation of 2776:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Peer review 2463:one of the follow-up discussions 2179: 2108: 2037: 1629:and the follow-up discussion at 1612:The discussion above is closed. 1509:Gonnym, Ivanvector, Mark viking 1370:are useful in the way ones like 29: 3811:I added one word "deletion" to 3481:Ok, it is still not clear what 2300:I'd approach any sort of batch 1727:. I'm not sure how to move it. 4132:21:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC) 3976:Reworking RfD template display 2932:(which runs under the hood of 2271:23:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 1352:Category:Printworthy redirects 1: 4090:and subsequently re-moved to 4053:15:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC) 4034:15:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC) 3576:potentially harmful to delete 3098:15:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC) 2791: 2739: 2733:04:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC) 2717: 2700:17:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC) 2685:12:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC) 1207:Oh weird, I didn't know that 672: 573:it should be cross-advertised 548: 162:This question is prompted by 4233:23:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC) 4205:16:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC) 4174:16:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC) 3074:05:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC) 2832:06:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC) 2821:08:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 2807:04:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 2755:00:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 2648:20:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC) 2628:19:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC) 2598:21:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC) 2580:20:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC) 2560:16:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC) 2518:20:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC) 2496:I am sorry, I was following 2484:14:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC) 2470:12:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC) 2454:And another recent example: 2314:15:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC) 2233:15:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC) 2064:better syntax: please change 1115:23:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 1080:23:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 1066:00:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 1039:23:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 1027:21:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 1013:20:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 963:17:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 931:17:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 917:15:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 838:23:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 789:23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 766:23:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 737:19:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 714:23:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 688:23:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 654:23:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 629:18:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 564:03:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 514:15:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 499:14:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 470:10:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 453:01:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 436:23:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 398:22:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 373:22:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 344:22:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 317:22:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 288:22:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 255:22:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 189:22:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 4151:06:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC) 3998:21:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC) 3831:inappropriate to withdraw. 3041:15:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC) 3013:00:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC) 2978:00:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC) 2947:22:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC) 2925:20:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC) 2901:18:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC) 2449:09:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC) 2416:22:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC) 2406:22:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC) 2389:21:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC) 2372:20:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC) 2354:20:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC) 2172:) This message was left at 2135:to reactivate your request. 2123:has been answered. Set the 2029:) This message was left at 1476:JJMC89, SMcCandlish, Tavix 1451:is separable from the rcat 4249: 3968:15:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC) 3954:18:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC) 3935:18:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC) 3207:22:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC) 3167:22:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC) 3154:22:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC) 2074:{{R to project namespace}} 2070:{{Redirect category shell| 1771:19:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC) 1752:09:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC) 1737:09:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC) 1708:16:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC) 1687:13:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC) 1673:08:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC) 1604:16:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 1580:10:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 1543:00:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC) 1413:04:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC) 1399:14:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 1384:13:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 1342:19:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 1308:07:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 1268:06:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 1233:14:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 1215:. My point is that we are 1202:00:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 1127:22:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC) 877:23:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 571:but whatever the outcome, 536:WP not being a bureaucracy 156:WP:Redirect categorization 4002: 3888:12:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC) 3862:12:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC) 3841:13:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC) 3826:13:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC) 3807:13:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC) 3788:12:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC) 3774:12:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC) 3759:11:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC) 3745:11:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC) 3734:09:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC) 3719:08:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC) 3699:01:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC) 3674:10:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC) 3651:16:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC) 3632:Question on multiple RFDs 3624:03:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC) 3189:22:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC) 3119:04:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC) 2985:'s idea of attempting to 2290:R avoided double redirect 1653:Listing a Locked redirect 1648:20:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 1631:User talk:Paul_012#Prasad 1516: 1505: 1494: 1483: 1472: 1467: 1464: 1461: 1372:Category:India road stubs 1172:21:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC) 1093:meant RfD unequivocally. 405:- MJL, who maintains the 136:12:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 3604:01:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC) 3589:04:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC) 3565:00:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC) 3533:07:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC) 3499:13:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC) 3477:11:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC) 3463:00:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC) 3443:00:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC) 3390:22:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC) 3050:in the RfD instructions? 2875:for a specific example. 2200:11:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC) 2174:01:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC) 2093:19:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC) 2053:17:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC) 2031:16:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC) 1969:01:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 1938:23:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 1614:Please do not modify it. 1431:(7.83), followed by RfD 569:Need to think about this 146:Please do not modify it. 4088:User:Tamzin/SomeArticle 3913:and create an article. 3704:Contesting a withdrawal 3578:(see SoWhy's comment). 3523:yeah, obvious update - 3321:18:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 3297:18:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 3274:00:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 3255:20:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC) 3228:15:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC) 2326:a recent RfD discussion 2324:This is a follow-up to 1915:02:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC) 1897:00:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC) 1879:02:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC) 1864:00:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC) 1819:23:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC) 1801:22:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC) 1787:21:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC) 667:. Also "advertised" at 158:) templates/categories? 3361:Chickering: 0.209 ppd 3213:RFD procedure question 2825:Thanks for the fixes. 1527:or the other venues). 1213:Categorizing redirects 197:, Good discussion. In 4119:What do people think? 4045:ProcrastinatingReader 4026:ProcrastinatingReader 4018:ProcrastinatingReader 3925:. Thank you so much! 3545:Hello, RFD regulars, 3541:Unused file redirects 3181:ProcrastinatingReader 42:of past discussions. 4086:that was drafted at 3919:Orthotics#Orthotists 3259:I agree with mazca. 2670:was re-targetted at 2654:WP:OPED re-targetted 1435:(5.33) and then CfD 1423:Evaluating consensus 3352:Recanati: 0.270 ppd 2762:Hydronium Hydroxide 2330:the new page patrol 2247:a recent discussion 2144:{{R from shortcut}} 2121:Knowledge (XXG):RFD 2072:{{R from shortcut}} 2066:{{R from shortcut}} 1923:Relisting procedure 1625:See the closure of 804:, but secondarily, 4084:Tamzin/SomeArticle 3395:pageviews in stats 3367:Gastro: 0.170 ppd 3355:Berner: 0.219 ppd 3343:Coleman: 0.296 ppd 3280:The nomination at 3175:Retarget procedure 2828:HydroniumHydroxide 2681:HydroniumHydroxide 522:I have to go with 147: 4203: 3876: 3581: 3548:I was looking at 3455: 3427:User:David Gerard 3382: 3349:Hawkes: 0.289 ppd 3111: 3066: 2976: 2975: 2899: 2898: 2238:RfD of the future 2210:R without mention 2198: 2139: 2138: 2081: 1957: 1862: 1759: 1717:WP:Poles are evil 1606: 1578: 1556: 1547: 1531: 1530: 1517:CfD, RfD, or TfD 1340: 1311: 1310: 1270: 1204: 1170: 879: 712: 711: 652: 651: 627: 626: 271: 145: 134: 95: 94: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4240: 4221: 4193: 4191: 4187: 4183: 4182: 4172: 4170: 4168: 4160: 4141: 4140: 4130: 4127: 4126: 4011: 4010: 3870: 3662: 3622: 3579: 3563: 3453: 3424: 3380: 3346:Keats: 0.294 ppd 3340:Merle: 0.342 ppd 3315: 3309: 3252: 3109: 3103:Addition to lead 3064: 3001: 2996: 2988: 2965: 2964: 2957: 2941: 2935: 2913: 2888: 2887: 2830: 2805: 2769: 2753: 2731: 2714: 2683: 2617: 2595: 2294: 2288: 2214: 2208: 2188: 2183: 2182: 2130: 2126: 2112: 2111: 2105: 2089: 2086: 2079: 2077: 2067: 2063: 2050: 2045: 2041: 2040: 1988:{{R to project}} 1965: 1962: 1955: 1949: 1912: 1846: 1845: 1832: 1826: 1816: 1784: 1767: 1764: 1757: 1746: 1731: 1697: 1602: 1598: 1591: 1562: 1561: 1554: 1545: 1459: 1396: 1328: 1306: 1302: 1295: 1288: 1266: 1262: 1255: 1230: 1200: 1196: 1189: 1154: 1153: 1112: 1104: 1005: 992: 986: 982: 976: 960: 952: 928: 875: 871: 864: 835: 827: 787: 764: 735: 701: 700: 686: 641: 640: 616: 615: 608: 602: 598: 592: 588: 582: 562: 496: 488: 433: 425: 395: 370: 362: 342: 333: 327: 314: 306: 286: 277: 265: 252: 244: 126: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4248: 4247: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4215: 4189: 4180: 4178: 4166: 4163: 4162: 4156: 4137: 4128: 4121: 4120: 4061: 4008: 4005: 3978: 3900: 3706: 3682: 3656: 3634: 3613: 3572:WP:FILEREDIRECT 3554: 3543: 3518: 3450:outside utility 3431:outside utility 3420: 3397: 3329: 3313: 3307: 3240: 3215: 3177: 3105: 3081: 3052: 3025: 2999: 2994: 2986: 2951: 2939: 2933: 2911: 2852: 2826: 2813:Asmodea Oaktree 2790:, and move on. 2766:Asmodea Oaktree 2759: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2692:Asmodea Oaktree 2679: 2660:Asmodea Oaktree 2656: 2639: 2613: 2606: 2590: 2461: 2397: 2381:restore garbage 2363: 2335:burden of proof 2322: 2292: 2286: 2240: 2217: 2212: 2206: 2180: 2151: 2145: 2128: 2124: 2109: 2103: 2087: 2084: 2069: 2065: 2057: 2048: 2038: 2036: 1989: 1983: 1977: 1963: 1960: 1943: 1925: 1907: 1843: 1830: 1824: 1811: 1779: 1765: 1762: 1744: 1729: 1721: 1691: 1655: 1623: 1618: 1617: 1596: 1589: 1559: 1425: 1391: 1300: 1293: 1260: 1253: 1225: 1194: 1187: 1151: 1108: 1100: 1077: 1076:it has begun... 1024: 1023:it has begun... 999: 990: 984: 980: 974: 956: 948: 923: 914: 869: 862: 854:Beg to differ, 831: 823: 778: 755: 725: 606: 600: 596: 590: 586: 580: 492: 484: 450: 449:it has begun... 429: 421: 390: 366: 358: 331: 329: 321: 310: 302: 275: 273: 248: 240: 150: 141: 140: 139: 100: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4246: 4244: 4236: 4235: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4110: 4109: 4105: 4102: 4095: 4060: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4004: 4001: 3977: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3899: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3705: 3702: 3681: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3633: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3607: 3606: 3591: 3542: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3515:pageviews tool 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3451: 3414: 3413: 3410: 3407: 3404: 3396: 3393: 3372: 3371: 3365: 3359: 3353: 3350: 3347: 3344: 3341: 3328: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3318:Uanfala (talk) 3299: 3294:Uanfala (talk) 3278: 3277: 3276: 3214: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3204:Uanfala (talk) 3176: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3164:Uanfala (talk) 3160: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3138: 3135: 3132: 3104: 3101: 3080: 3077: 3051: 3044: 3024: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 2949: 2944:Uanfala (talk) 2851: 2850:per invocation 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2823: 2811:Thank you. -- 2711: 2707: 2655: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2637: 2605: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2547: 2542: 2541: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2467:Uanfala (talk) 2459: 2436: 2435: 2432: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2413:Uanfala (talk) 2395: 2386:Uanfala (talk) 2361: 2351:Uanfala (talk) 2321: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2297: 2296: 2268:Uanfala (talk) 2265: 2254: 2251: 2245:'s comment in 2239: 2236: 2216: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2149: 2143: 2141:Please change 2137: 2136: 2113: 2102: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2075: 2073: 2071: 1987: 1981: 1976: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1924: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1894:Uanfala (talk) 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1789: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1720: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1684:Uanfala (talk) 1657:I want to put 1654: 1651: 1622: 1619: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1590:P.I. Ellsworth 1529: 1528: 1521: 1518: 1514: 1513: 1510: 1507: 1503: 1502: 1499: 1496: 1492: 1491: 1488: 1485: 1481: 1480: 1477: 1474: 1470: 1469: 1466: 1463: 1424: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1344: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1294:P.I. Ellsworth 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1254:P.I. Ellsworth 1188:P.I. Ellsworth 1174: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1075: 1041: 1029: 1022: 1015: 967: 966: 965: 934: 933: 910: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 863:P.I. Ellsworth 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 739: 718: 717: 716: 695:appropriate. 692: 691: 690: 566: 546: 533: 520: 519: 518: 517: 516: 455: 448: 438: 400: 382: 381: 380: 379: 378: 377: 376: 375: 257: 151: 142: 104: 103: 102: 101: 99: 96: 93: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4245: 4234: 4230: 4226: 4219: 4214: 4213: 4206: 4201: 4197: 4192: 4186: 4177: 4176: 4175: 4169: 4159: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4148: 4144: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4125: 4117: 4115: 4106: 4103: 4100: 4096: 4093: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4072: 4070: 4066: 4058: 4054: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4031: 4027: 4023: 4019: 4015: 4000: 3999: 3995: 3991: 3987: 3983: 3975: 3969: 3965: 3961: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3932: 3928: 3924: 3920: 3916: 3912: 3908: 3905: 3897: 3889: 3885: 3881: 3874: 3873:edit conflict 3869: 3863: 3859: 3855: 3850: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3824: 3823: 3818: 3814: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3805: 3804: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3772: 3771: 3766: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3756: 3752: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3743: 3742: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3731: 3727: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3717: 3716: 3711: 3703: 3701: 3700: 3696: 3692: 3687: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3660: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3648: 3644: 3640: 3631: 3625: 3621: 3619: 3618: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3605: 3601: 3597: 3592: 3590: 3587: 3584: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3562: 3560: 3559: 3551: 3546: 3540: 3534: 3530: 3526: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3516: 3512: 3500: 3496: 3492: 3488: 3487:stats.grok.se 3484: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3461: 3458: 3449: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3423: 3418: 3411: 3408: 3405: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3394: 3392: 3391: 3388: 3385: 3376: 3370: 3366: 3364: 3360: 3358: 3354: 3351: 3348: 3345: 3342: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3335: 3326: 3322: 3319: 3312: 3305: 3300: 3298: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3279: 3275: 3271: 3267: 3262: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3253: 3251: 3247: 3243: 3237: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3226: 3225: 3220: 3212: 3208: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3186: 3182: 3174: 3168: 3165: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3144: 3139: 3136: 3133: 3130: 3129: 3127: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3117: 3114: 3102: 3100: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3086: 3078: 3076: 3075: 3072: 3069: 3062: 3058: 3049: 3045: 3043: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3022: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3002: 2992: 2984: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2973: 2969: 2962: 2955: 2950: 2948: 2945: 2938: 2931: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2908: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2896: 2892: 2885: 2881: 2876: 2874: 2870: 2865: 2862: 2860: 2855: 2849: 2845: 2833: 2829: 2824: 2822: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2803: 2800: 2797: 2796: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2767: 2763: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2751: 2748: 2745: 2744: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2729: 2726: 2723: 2722: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2697: 2693: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2682: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2653: 2649: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2635: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2616: 2611: 2603: 2599: 2596: 2593: 2587: 2586: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2568: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2548: 2544: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2526: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2510:SergeWoodzing 2507: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2468: 2464: 2457: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2433: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2417: 2414: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2387: 2383: 2382: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2352: 2347: 2342: 2338: 2336: 2331: 2327: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2298: 2291: 2284: 2280: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2269: 2262: 2258: 2248: 2244: 2237: 2235: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2211: 2205: 2201: 2196: 2192: 2186: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2153:--Stay safe, 2148: 2142: 2134: 2131:parameter to 2122: 2118: 2114: 2107: 2106: 2100: 2094: 2091: 2090: 2061: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2051: 2044: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1986: 1982:{{Rcatshell}} 1980: 1974: 1970: 1967: 1966: 1953: 1947: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1922: 1916: 1913: 1910: 1904: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1895: 1890: 1889: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1861: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1840: 1836: 1829: 1828:Soft redirect 1822: 1821: 1820: 1817: 1814: 1808: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1788: 1785: 1782: 1776: 1772: 1769: 1768: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1750: 1747: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1735: 1732: 1726: 1718: 1715: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1695: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1660: 1652: 1650: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1620: 1615: 1605: 1601: 1599: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1577: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1553: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1544: 1541: 1537: 1526: 1522: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1475: 1471: 1460: 1457: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1437:(3.67) (4.67) 1434: 1430: 1429:(5.67) (6.67) 1422: 1414: 1411: 1406: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1397: 1394: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1348: 1345: 1343: 1338: 1335: 1332: 1327: 1322: 1319: 1318: 1309: 1305: 1303: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1289:P.S. left by 1285: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1269: 1265: 1263: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1248: 1243: 1240: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1231: 1228: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1205: 1203: 1199: 1197: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1182: 1178: 1175: 1173: 1169: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1149: 1145: 1144:Mitch Hedberg 1141: 1136: 1128: 1125: 1122: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1113: 1111: 1105: 1103: 1098: 1097: 1092: 1087: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1078: 1073: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1064: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1046: 1042: 1040: 1037: 1033: 1030: 1028: 1025: 1020: 1016: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1004: 1003: 996: 989: 979: 972: 968: 964: 961: 959: 953: 951: 946: 945: 940: 936: 935: 932: 929: 926: 920: 919: 918: 913: 908: 904: 900: 896: 892: 889: 888: 878: 874: 872: 867: 866: 865: 857: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 839: 836: 834: 828: 826: 821: 820: 815: 811: 807: 803: 799: 795: 792: 791: 790: 785: 782: 776: 772: 769: 768: 767: 762: 759: 753: 749: 745: 744: 740: 738: 733: 729: 722: 719: 715: 709: 705: 698: 693: 689: 684: 681: 678: 677: 670: 666: 662: 658: 657: 656: 655: 649: 645: 638: 632: 631: 630: 624: 620: 613: 605: 595: 585: 578: 574: 570: 567: 565: 560: 557: 554: 553: 544: 541: 537: 531: 529: 525: 521: 515: 511: 507: 502: 501: 500: 497: 495: 489: 487: 482: 481: 476: 473: 472: 471: 467: 463: 459: 456: 454: 451: 446: 442: 439: 437: 434: 432: 426: 424: 419: 418: 413: 408: 404: 401: 399: 396: 393: 387: 384: 383: 374: 371: 369: 363: 361: 356: 355: 350: 347: 346: 345: 341: 339: 334: 325: 320: 319: 318: 315: 313: 307: 305: 300: 299: 294: 291: 290: 289: 285: 283: 278: 269: 268:edit conflict 263: 258: 256: 253: 251: 245: 243: 238: 237: 232: 231:Village Pumps 228: 224: 220: 216: 212: 208: 204: 200: 196: 193: 192: 191: 190: 186: 182: 178: 174: 170: 165: 160: 159: 157: 149: 138: 137: 133: 129: 125: 124: 119: 115: 108: 97: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4184: 4143:85.67.32.244 4118: 4111: 4073: 4062: 4006: 3979: 3904:talk page of 3901: 3821: 3813:WP:WITHDRAWN 3802: 3798:WP:WITHDRAWN 3794:WP:WITHDRAWN 3769: 3765:WP:WITHDRAWN 3740: 3714: 3707: 3683: 3635: 3616: 3615: 3586: 3557: 3556: 3547: 3544: 3525:David Gerard 3482: 3469:David Gerard 3460: 3430: 3429:) What does 3415: 3398: 3387: 3377: 3373: 3368: 3362: 3356: 3330: 3303: 3260: 3249: 3245: 3241: 3223: 3219:a discussion 3216: 3178: 3116: 3106: 3082: 3071: 3053: 3026: 2877: 2866: 2863: 2856: 2853: 2794: 2742: 2720: 2657: 2642: 2641: 2618:is taken! -- 2607: 2591: 2566: 2533: 2501: 2437: 2426: 2400: 2399: 2380: 2366: 2365: 2345: 2343: 2339: 2323: 2301: 2278: 2260: 2256: 2241: 2218: 2184: 2157: 2156: 2152: 2146: 2140: 2132: 2117:edit request 2082: 2042: 2014: 2013: 1995: 1994: 1990: 1984: 1978: 1958: 1926: 1908: 1847: 1838: 1812: 1807:Amorymeltzer 1780: 1760: 1722: 1659:Wayne Chiang 1656: 1624: 1613: 1587: 1586: 1563: 1540:Black Falcon 1535: 1532: 1468:Argument(s) 1452: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1426: 1410:Black Falcon 1404: 1392: 1346: 1333: 1320: 1291: 1290: 1283: 1251: 1250: 1246: 1241: 1226: 1220: 1217:categorizing 1216: 1185: 1184: 1176: 1155: 1139: 1107: 1099: 1095: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1044: 1036:Black Falcon 1031: 1001: 1000: 970: 955: 947: 943: 938: 924: 898: 894: 890: 860: 859: 830: 822: 818: 813: 809: 797: 774: 770: 741: 720: 675: 633: 594:R from merge 576: 572: 568: 551: 523: 491: 483: 479: 457: 440: 428: 420: 416: 411: 402: 391: 385: 365: 357: 353: 337: 309: 301: 297: 281: 261: 247: 239: 235: 218: 213:proposed by 206: 198: 161: 153: 152: 143: 122: 117: 113: 110: 107:no consensus 106: 78: 43: 37: 4092:SomeArticle 2795:SMcCandlish 2788:WP:BIKESHED 2743:SMcCandlish 2721:SMcCandlish 2664:SMcCandlish 2498:this advice 1979:Please add 1745:Doug Weller 1730:Doug Weller 1700:Prisencolin 1665:Prisencolin 1525:WT:REDIRECT 1506:CfD or TfD 1445:(8–6) (9–7) 1356:SMcCandlish 1237:Oh, friend 1091:Deryck Chan 995:WP:TFDHOWTO 903:WT:REDIRECT 814:categorized 728:Mark viking 676:SMcCandlish 604:R from move 584:R from move 552:SMcCandlish 36:This is an 4171:(she/they) 4139:(Redacted) 4129:(she/they) 3659:TornadoLGS 3643:TornadoLGS 3304:additional 3000:Tenryuu 🐲 2991:Module:RfD 2930:Module:RfD 2912:Tenryuu 🐲 2530:WP:NOTBURO 2283:WP:NOTBURO 2215:discussion 2125:|answered= 1465:Editor(s) 1140:related to 1096:Doug Mehus 1086:Trialpears 1072:* Pppery * 1019:* Pppery * 944:Doug Mehus 907:Ivanvector 819:Doug Mehus 748:WP:NOTBURO 721:TfD or CfD 480:Doug Mehus 445:* Pppery * 417:Doug Mehus 354:Doug Mehus 298:Doug Mehus 236:Doug Mehus 201:, I'd say 195:Trialpears 181:Trialpears 123:S Marshall 90:Archive 16 85:Archive 15 79:Archive 14 73:Archive 13 68:Archive 12 60:Archive 10 4225:Thryduulf 4158:SimonTrew 4041:Thryduulf 3960:JenOttawa 3946:JenOttawa 3942:Orthotist 3927:JenOttawa 3915:Orthotist 3911:Orthotist 3907:Orthotics 3880:Thryduulf 3854:Thryduulf 3833:Thryduulf 3726:Thryduulf 3691:Thryduulf 3666:Thryduulf 3596:Thryduulf 3550:this list 3511:wikishark 3422:was added 3266:Thryduulf 3261:Generally 3090:Thryduulf 3057:WP:BEFORE 3048:WP:BEFORE 3033:Thryduulf 2995:noinclude 2987:noinclude 2869:this edit 2572:Thryduulf 2476:Thryduulf 2441:Thryduulf 2187:— Martin 1839:defaulted 1698:Thanks.-- 1680:requested 1441:templates 1148:Steel1943 1002:Steel1943 794:Wugapodes 4108:month.") 3994:contribs 3369:ADJUSTED 3363:ADJUSTED 3357:ADJUSTED 3196:WP:EDRED 2972:contribs 2895:contribs 2784:MOS:OPED 2708:PageName 2676:MOS:OPED 2643:Rosguill 2638:signed, 2506:the user 2401:Rosguill 2396:signed, 2367:Rosguill 2362:signed, 2302:creation 2078:Thanks, 2060:Xaosflux 2049:xaosflux 2043:Not done 1950:No; see 1946:Hog Farm 1930:Hog Farm 1871:Hog Farm 1835:Hog Farm 1793:Hog Farm 1640:Paul_012 1536:template 1520:Davidwr 1453:category 1449:template 1043:I'd say 784:a·po·des 761:a·po·des 752:WP:CREEP 708:contribs 669:WP:VPPOL 648:contribs 623:contribs 207:practice 4190:firefly 3639:Metroid 3483:outside 3417:WP:R#K5 2983:Uanfala 2961:davidwr 2954:Tenryuu 2907:Davidwr 2884:davidwr 2859:WP:PEIS 2848:WP:PEIS 2668:WP:OPED 2502:article 2257:classes 2158:PRAHLAD 2015:PRAHLAD 1996:PRAHLAD 1694:Uanfala 1635:Uanfala 1223:are. -- 1221:clearly 1209:WP:RCAT 810:vehicle 743:Anarchy 697:davidwr 637:davidwr 612:davidwr 39:archive 4218:Tamzin 4167:Tamzin 4124:Tamzin 4065:WT:CSD 3290:WP:RFD 3236:WP:BRD 3063:page? 2778:, and 2658:(ping 2615:WP:NCR 2534:former 1462:Venue 1433:(4.67) 1376:SD0001 1326:JJMC89 1121:Deryck 1060:Deryck 993:? See 988:Catfd2 856:Dmehus 665:WT:TFD 661:WT:CFD 577:prefer 528:WP:SFD 506:Gonnym 475:Gonnym 462:Gonnym 407:Archer 324:Dmehus 199:theory 177:WT:CFD 173:WT:TFD 169:WT:RFD 4039:Ping 3780:Kusma 3751:Kusma 3286:WP:RM 2706:Talk: 2567:never 2538:WP:RM 2166:M•T•A 2129:|ans= 2115:This 2023:M•T•A 2004:M•T•A 1844:Amory 1678:I've 1560:Amory 1374:are. 1360:Tavix 1239:Tavix 1152:Amory 978:Catfd 939:could 912:Edits 798:agree 540:WP:RM 16:< 4229:talk 4185:Done 4147:talk 4049:talk 4030:talk 4022:talk 3990:talk 3986:Elli 3964:talk 3950:talk 3931:talk 3884:talk 3858:talk 3837:talk 3792:So, 3784:talk 3755:talk 3730:talk 3695:talk 3670:talk 3647:talk 3600:talk 3583:J947 3529:talk 3495:talk 3473:talk 3457:J947 3439:talk 3384:J947 3334:Data 3292:. – 3270:talk 3202:. – 3185:talk 3150:talk 3113:J947 3094:talk 3068:J947 3037:talk 2974:) 🎄 2968:talk 2897:) 🎄 2891:talk 2867:See 2817:talk 2764:and 2696:talk 2624:talk 2594:avix 2576:talk 2556:talk 2514:talk 2480:talk 2445:talk 2310:talk 2279:type 2243:J947 2229:talk 2223:. -- 2195:talk 2191:MSGJ 2185:Done 1985:and 1934:talk 1911:avix 1905:. -- 1875:talk 1815:avix 1797:talk 1783:avix 1749:talk 1734:talk 1723:See 1704:talk 1669:talk 1663:] -- 1644:talk 1495:TfD 1484:RfD 1473:CfD 1405:rcat 1395:avix 1380:talk 1284:P.S. 1229:avix 1045:here 1009:talk 983:and 927:avix 796:, I 781:Wug· 775:must 758:Wug· 750:and 746:per 732:Talk 730:}} { 726:{{u| 704:talk 663:and 644:talk 619:talk 589:and 510:talk 466:talk 412:best 394:avix 338:Talk 282:Talk 219:less 185:talk 175:and 4164:-- 4122:-- 4016:. 3822:Jay 3815:at 3803:Jay 3770:Jay 3741:Jay 3715:Jay 3513:or 3491:Jay 3435:Jay 3425:by 3311:rfd 3146:Jay 3083:At 3061:RfD 2970:)/( 2937:rfd 2893:)/( 2871:of 2804:😼 2752:😼 2730:😼 2710:/GA 2634:BDD 2620:BDD 2552:BDD 2346:and 2306:BDD 2261:%20 2225:BDD 2147:to 2127:or 2119:to 2088:947 1964:947 1766:947 1597:ed. 1366:or 1358:or 1347:TfD 1321:CfD 1301:ed. 1261:ed. 1195:ed. 1177:TfD 1056:CfD 1052:TfD 1048:RfD 1032:TfD 971:TfD 969:... 899:RfD 895:CfD 891:TfD 870:ed. 806:CfD 802:RfD 771:RfD 706:)/( 685:😼 646:)/( 621:)/( 561:😼 545:any 532:not 524:CfD 441:TfD 403:CfD 386:CFD 349:MJL 332:MJL 293:MJL 276:MJL 262:and 227:MfD 223:RfD 215:MJL 211:CfD 203:TfD 4231:) 4198:· 4194:( 4161:. 4149:) 4114:F8 4099:G7 4094:.) 4080:R3 4051:) 4032:) 3996:) 3992:| 3984:. 3966:) 3952:) 3933:) 3886:) 3860:) 3839:) 3786:) 3757:) 3732:) 3697:) 3672:) 3649:) 3620:iz 3602:) 3585:‡ 3561:iz 3531:) 3497:) 3475:) 3459:‡ 3441:) 3386:‡ 3314:}} 3308:{{ 3272:) 3224:MB 3187:) 3152:) 3115:‡ 3096:) 3070:‡ 3039:) 3031:. 3011:) 3009:📝 3007:• 3005:💬 3003:( 2940:}} 2934:{{ 2923:) 2921:📝 2919:• 2917:💬 2915:( 2819:) 2792:— 2774:, 2740:— 2718:— 2698:) 2666:) 2662:, 2626:) 2578:) 2558:) 2550:-- 2516:) 2482:) 2460:in 2447:) 2312:) 2293:}} 2287:{{ 2231:) 2213:}} 2207:{{ 2193:· 2133:no 2076:}} 2068:to 1954:. 1936:) 1877:) 1856:• 1852:• 1831:}} 1825:{{ 1799:) 1706:) 1671:) 1646:) 1633:. 1572:• 1568:• 1389:-- 1382:) 1324:— 1164:• 1160:• 1124:C. 1063:C. 1011:) 991:}} 985:{{ 981:}} 975:{{ 915:) 909:(/ 779:— 756:— 673:— 671:. 607:}} 601:{{ 597:}} 591:{{ 587:}} 581:{{ 549:— 512:) 504:-- 468:) 187:) 171:, 64:← 4227:( 4220:: 4216:@ 4202:) 4200:c 4196:t 4145:( 4047:( 4028:( 4020:( 3988:( 3962:( 3948:( 3929:( 3882:( 3875:) 3871:( 3856:( 3835:( 3782:( 3753:( 3728:( 3693:( 3668:( 3661:: 3657:@ 3645:( 3617:L 3598:( 3580:— 3558:L 3527:( 3493:( 3471:( 3454:— 3437:( 3381:— 3268:( 3250:a 3248:c 3246:z 3244:a 3242:m 3183:( 3148:( 3110:— 3092:( 3065:— 3035:( 2966:( 2963:/ 2956:: 2952:@ 2889:( 2886:/ 2815:( 2802:¢ 2799:☏ 2768:: 2760:@ 2750:¢ 2747:☏ 2728:¢ 2725:☏ 2712:x 2694:( 2622:( 2592:T 2574:( 2554:( 2540:. 2512:( 2478:( 2443:( 2308:( 2227:( 2197:) 2189:( 2170:C 2168:• 2164:( 2155:◊ 2085:J 2080:— 2062:: 2058:@ 2027:C 2025:• 2021:( 2012:◊ 2008:C 2006:• 2002:( 1993:◊ 1961:J 1956:— 1948:: 1944:@ 1932:( 1909:T 1873:( 1860:) 1858:c 1854:t 1850:u 1848:( 1813:T 1795:( 1781:T 1763:J 1758:— 1702:( 1696:: 1692:@ 1667:( 1642:( 1576:) 1574:c 1570:t 1566:u 1564:( 1552: 1393:T 1378:( 1339:) 1337:C 1334:· 1331:T 1329:( 1247:! 1242:! 1227:T 1168:) 1166:c 1162:t 1158:u 1156:( 1110:C 1106:· 1102:T 1054:/ 1007:( 958:C 954:· 950:T 925:T 833:C 829:· 825:T 786: 763: 734:} 710:) 702:( 699:/ 683:¢ 680:☏ 650:) 642:( 639:/ 625:) 617:( 614:/ 559:¢ 556:☏ 508:( 494:C 490:· 486:T 464:( 431:C 427:· 423:T 392:T 368:C 364:· 360:T 340:‐ 336:‐ 326:: 322:@ 312:C 308:· 304:T 284:‐ 280:‐ 272:– 270:) 266:( 250:C 246:· 242:T 183:( 132:C 130:/ 128:T 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 14 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index