User:Awesome Aasim/rfd rewrite

Copied from WP:RFD with few changes

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page · Archives

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	8	17	34	59
TfD	0	14	1	15
MfD	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	2	2	4
RfD	1	20	9	30
AfD	0	0	2	2

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.
Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
Wikipedia:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

Shortcut

WP:RGUIDE

The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons. (edit | history)

Shortcut

WP:RHARMFUL

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").

Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.

Reasons for deleting[edit]

Shortcuts

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
Shortcut
- WP:RETURNTORED
If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

Shortcuts

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
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 Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut

WP:RNEUTRAL

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

Closing notes[edit]

Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Shortcut

WP:RFDHOWTO

STEP I.

Tag the redirect(s).

Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page.

Does this look too complicated?
Try this semi-automated process instead: (note only confirmed users can use this)

Enable Twinkle in the Gadgets tab of your preferences.
Go back to the redirect page, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle menu.
Fill in the form and submit it.

Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
Save the page ("Publish changes").
If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination.
If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated.

STEP II.

List the entry on RfD.

Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

Enter this text below the date heading:

{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}}

~~~~

For this template:
- Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
- Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
Please use an edit summary such as:
Nominating [[RedirectName]]
(replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:

{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}

{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}

{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}}

~~~~

If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.

STEP III.

Notify users.

It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template

{{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes.
Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

Current list[edit]

June 11[edit]

June 10[edit]

Factory owner[edit]

Factory owner → Businessperson (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Comparing the current target of this redirect, the former targets Bourgeoisie and Means of production, and Factory which doesn't seem to mention "owner(s)" ... it does not seem that there is a specific article readers may be attempting to locate when searching this phrase. Steel1943 (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hummingbird Salamander (film)[edit]

Hummingbird Salamander (film) → Lists of Netflix original films (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Another failed WP:CRYSTAL based on Netflix acquiring rights to make a film (in 2017), but then nothing really found in third party search engines after that. Seems as though the film would have been based on the subject at Hummingbird Salamander; however, the aforementioned article currently does not contain information about a film, leaving it currently a "not-so-good" target to retarget this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Dorothy & Alice[edit]

Dorothy & Alice → Lists of Netflix original films (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Dorothy & Alice (film) → Lists of Netflix original films (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Dorothy and Alice → Lists of Netflix original films (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Dorothy and Alice (film) → Lists of Netflix original films (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Seems like failed WP:CRYSTAL. Per third party search engines, looks as though Netflix acquired rights to produce a film by this name, but then ... not finding anything else on third party search engines. In addition, the only place where the phrase "Dorothy & Alice" is mentioned on Wikipedia is Allelon Ruggiero, but not in the content of the article but rather a reference. Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The Waffle House has found its new host[edit]

The Waffle House has found its new host → Waffle House#Cultural icon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I have not found a mention of the "new host" thing in the target article, though I had first learned about it from a MatPat video a while ago. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

EMBO journal & reports[edit]

EMBO journal & reports → The EMBO Journal (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

XY redirect. The subject is The EMBO Journal or EMBO Reports, not both. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I want to say delete, as what little content this page previously had is reflected in the current, separate articles, and the old references are broken links to the Nature website. However, I vaguely remember there being licensing reasons to keep old page histories for attribution. Retarget to European Molecular Biology Organization#Conferences and journals may be the way to go if that's right. ― Synpath 04:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
There's nothing in that redirect's history that was ported over the other articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Taking another look, I see that now - striking retarget suggestion and delete. Thanks ― Synpath 16:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The history should be merged to EMBO Reports. It seems to fit cleanly there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete as ambiguous. However nothing in the redirect appears to be copied to other articles? Still, I don't know much about guidelines regarding histmerges, so I don't have any opinions of it. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge history or simply delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Barood (2003 film)[edit]

Barood (2003 film) → Munin Barua (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

If this film does exist, should probably "Delete per WP:REDYES". Either way, it's a bit misleading and WP:UNDUE and WP:SURPRISEing that this film redirect targets one of potentially multiple notable people that could be associated with the film. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

For a while after I nominated this redirect, I was thinking this redirect may represent a WP:HOAX, but ... it seems the only source I could find about the subject of this redirect is https://letterboxd.com/film/barood-2003/watch/ . I could not find any other sources, but the subject of the redirect definitely seems to represent a different subject than Barood (2004 film). Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Terrible Secret of Space[edit]

Terrible Secret of Space → All your base are belong to us (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Original page covered a non-notable meme and was redirected in a 2005 VfD to The Laziest Men on Mars, who wrote music that was a popular bit of the meme. That page was itself redirected to All your base are belong to us in 2023 ([1]). The end result is that this page for a non-notable meme now redirects to an entirely different meme. Technically this is "mentioned" on Eye Drops but given the lack of content on that page I think it's unlikely to be useful as a redirect and recommend deletion. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Papa Emeritus 2[edit]

Papa Emeritus 2 → Tobias Forge (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Papa Emeritus redirects to Ghost (Swedish band)#Papa Emeritus section and already covers Papa Emeritus II.

I wonder if the initially capitalized redirect contradicts with Papa emeritus (Bishops in the Catholic Church#Pope emeritus). LEILA FERRAZ (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep or Retarget to Ghost (Swedish band)#Papa Emeritus. Either way, the use of "2" makes it seem as though it does not/could not refer to Bishops in the Catholic Church#Pope emeritus. Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTION[edit]

Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTION → Wikipedia:Trivial mentions (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTIONS → Wikipedia:Trivial mentions (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Usually, people are looking for WP:TRIVIAL, which has seen more attention, has more information, and details guidelines instead of just restating them. While searching these redirects will probably include the target page as a result even without this redirect, it will not bring out WP:TRIVIAL. Thus, I think it'll be most helpful to navigation to retarget both of these redirects to WP:TRIVIAL.

I've also talked about the confusion a bit on the article creator's talk page. I believe that this is a good compromise instead of using a hatnote as I've previously advocated for. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the request. WP:TRIVIAL is a redirect, and redirecting WP:TRIVIALMENTION there would create a double redirect. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course, I mean retargetting it to where that redirect points to. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep/No Change: Currently, WP:TRIVIALMENTION is a redirect to the essay called "Wikipedia:Trivial mentions", which clearly makes sense. This redirect has been used int his way for more than a decade, and changing it would break the redirect in archived discussions. WP:TRIVIAL is a fine redirect, but doesn't discuss trivial mentions, and we shouldn't conflate the two. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep per Shooterwalker. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep. I don't see any evidence people using these shortcuts are doing so with the expectation they're linking to the ATA section instead of the essay. There are ~725 uses of these combined across Wikipedia, and it seems worse to change intended targeting in historical discussions than potentially correct for mistakes I didn't find in spot checking those uses. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Emigration from North Korea[edit]

Emigration from North Korea → North Korean defectors (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This may refer to multiple topics. I propose to retarget it to Category:North Korean diaspora. GZWDer (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Carpenters[edit]

Carpenters → Carpentry (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I reverted a bold change of target from Carpentry to The Carpenters, but the idea deserves discussion. A disambiguation page is also an option. What do others think? Certes (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Disamb makes the most sense, the terms seem co-primary for this redirect. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to Carpenter (disambiguation) which already covers the plural. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I came here undecided but support that option. The two most likely meanings are (perhaps fortuitously) right at the top of the dab. Certes (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Retarget to disambig (if we keep it at all). It's easy to link to either Carpenter or The Carpenters, there's no need for this to be there to support one in particular as any sort of 'convenience' or 'clarity' redirect. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Nicktoons (TV network)[edit]

Nicktoons (TV network) → Nicktoons (American TV channel) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This title is a bit considerable considering the international versions of Nicktoons. But I'll also consider the other side of it towards deletion if the title is unmerited now. What do you think. Intrisit (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to Nicktoons (disambiguation) as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Retarget per Thryduulf (who also fixed the hatnote on Nicktoons to point to the disambiguation page which I was intending to do as well). Skynxnex (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Nicktoons (TV channel)[edit]

Nicktoons (TV channel) → Nicktoons (American TV channel) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This title is ambiguous considering the international versions of it so it could be a DAB page. American Wikipedians may dispute this; that's why I've listed it here, since this title hasn't hasn't fallen into one before. Intrisit (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Per nominator

TheNuggeteer (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to Nicktoons (disambiguation) as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Retarget per Thryduulf. Skynxnex (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

㌽[edit]

㌽ → wiktionary:Special:Search/㌽ (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Why would the English Wikipedia redirect to non-English Wiktionary entries? Fram (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Eh? The target is an English Wiktionary entry. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Wiktionary entries for non-English words or terms. Wiktionary starts with the languages an entry is in (the heading), and the only such heading here is "Japanese". For comparison, the entry for "bread"[2] has headings "English", "Middle English", "Old English", and "Spanish", so that is an English Wiktionary entry. Fram (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Because English Wiktionary explains in English the meaning of the Japanese word that forms the character. I don't know that there is any exact meaning of point (disambiguation) that is represented by ㌽, so I leave the readers to find out what works in their case. --Error (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

But why would we have redirects to explain words in other languages? We could add millions of redirects if we do this, for every word in every language. Fram (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep. We have articles and redirects for characters (not words), because people want to know what they mean and look them up in Wikipedia. In this case the English Wiktionary entry is better than anything we have locally, so the soft redirect is the most helpful to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Why would we allow redirects for foreign-language characters because people want to know what they mean, but not for words because people want to know what they mean? What makes characters so special? Fram (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Because characters and words are not the same thing. The reason we don't have redirects for foreign words is expressed best at WP:RFOREIGN, those considerations don't occur for single characters. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a non-answer if ever I saw one. Why A and not B? "A and B are not the same, and here we explain why not B". Well yes, but you argue to keep A, and don't give a reason why the arguments would be different. Further, the page you list to is about internal redirects, not about redirects to Wiktionary or the like. You also claim that "those considerations don't occur for single characters", but most of the arguments in the "Rationale" section of that page apply just as well to single characters. Fram (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

To editor Fram:: Is your objection to redirects to Wiktionary, redirects from non-Latin characters or redirects from CJK characters? --Error (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Redirects from characters, words, ... not in use in English and without an article here. Fram (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

is there a reason the target is a search, and not the thing that would be searched? if not, retarget to wikt:㌽. otherwise, keep cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That's how interwiki soft redirects work (my guess is that it's so that you get search results rather than an error if the target page doesn't exist, but you get taken to the page if it does) so your suggested retarget is the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you please wait before you create more similar redirects. You have now added ㍀ and ㍁, but if this one gets created, then adding more of the same onbly creates more work afterwards. Fram (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment There are tens of thousands of Han characters/Kanji. Is the plan to redirect all of them (or at least the reasonably common ones) to Wiktionary entries? What about characters in other scripts, or words in other languages? I actually agree that there is some value to a reader, however if you search for a Han character (arbitrary example) on Wikipedia, the corresponding Wiktionary entry will already appear in the search results on the side under the heading "Word definitions from Wiktionary". If the desire is to make the link to Wiktionary more prominent, that could be done much more efficiently with a few lines of CSS or JS instead of creating thousands of redirect entries. Just my 2¢. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I realize that the entry above is not Kanji but rather a "square katakana" symbol, of which Unicode has only ~100, but I think the general reasoning may still apply. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

There are some kanji categorized as Category:Kanji, Category:Kyōiku kanji. I think that Category:Simplified Chinese radicals‎ and Category:Kangxi radicals list most of the radicals. There are few redirects there, either because they don't exist or they are not categorized. Category:Specific_kana lists all of them, it seems. Picking one at random, ra has seven redirects from specific Unicode characters, all of them seem reasonable to me. --Error (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Open Access/OAFD[edit]

Template:WikiProject Open Access/OAFD → Wikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task force/Open Access File of the Day (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Cross namespace redirect that existed for 22 minutes. Gonnym (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment Template → Wikipedia CNRs are uncommon but only problematic if transcluding the target would be harmful in some way (or it conflicts with something else). In this case it's not harmful (transclusion works fine) and it doesn't appear to be in the way of anything else. That said it isn't transcluded anywhere and I can't think of a reason why it would be transcluded (unlike {{OAFD}}). Ultimately I think I'm neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Druisk[edit]

Druisk → Kaunas (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 11 § Druisk – Keep

This redirect is simply incorrect. It stems from a misinterpretation of a redirect in a paper encyclopedia printed over 100 years ago. Druysk is an agrotown in Vitebsk Oblast, Belarus, near Braslaw. It is situated over 200 km away from Kaunas, Lithuania. The mixup arose because the Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) contains the following entry:

DRUISK. See Kovno.

However, this just refers to the fact that Druysk belonged to the Kovno Governorate of the Russian Empire, an administrative division which covered a fairly large area, including Braslaw and its environs. For confirmation of this fact, one may consult this 1864 map of Kovno Governorate. Druysk (Друйскъ) is in fact the easternmost labelled locality on the whole map, found within the yellow-green (i.e., primarily Orthodox) region centered around Braslaw (Браславъ).

The Jewish Encyclopedia does this with other localities as well. For example, the entries for Dusyaty (Dusetos; Russian: Дусяты Dusyaty) and Eiragoly (Ariogala; Yiddish: אייראַגאָלע Eyragole) also redirect the reader to Kovno, and the entry for Eishishki (Eišiškės) points to Wilna.

What's even more confusing is the online version of the Jewish Encyclopedia hosted on StudyLight.org, cited in the previous RfD discussion, which includes full entries for these redirect entries that just transclude the content of the redirect target, without any indication that this is what's happening. Thus, the entry for Druisk is identical to the entry for Kovno, except for the header; the same applies to Eishishki and Wilna, and so forth.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I would like to solidify the argument for deletion by showing that other written sources that talk about “Druisk” are in fact referring to the city in present-day Belarus and not using it as a synonym for Kaunas.

Cholawsky, Shalom (1998). The Jews of Bielorussia During World War II. Routledge. ISBN 9057021935.
"Druisk" is mentioned alongside other towns in Belarus (e.g. Braslav, Glebokie, Dolhinov) and eastern Lithuania near the Belarusian border (e.g. Swienciany, Podbrodzh). None of these locations are near Kaunas.

Petronis, Vytautas (2007). Constructing Lithuania: Ethnic Mapping in Tsarist Russia, Ca. 1800-1914. Stockholm University. ISBN 978-91-89315-78-5.
“Druisk” is described as being on the Dvina River, in the Vitebsk province. Mostly accurate, but the author (or I) might be slightly confused. Druysk is not directly on the Dvina, which actually forms the border between the nearby towns of Druya, Belarus and Piedruja, Latvia. The Dvina is approximately 10 km from Druysk. In fact, the place-names Druya, Druysk, and Piedruja all refer to the Druya/Druyka tributary of the Dvina. In any case, nothing to do with the city of Kaunas.

Lokotko, Aleksandr; et al. (2013). Tourist Mosaic of Belarus. Belaruskaya navuka. ISBN 978-5-457-63663-7.
“Druisk” is described as being in the region of Braslaw, listed alongside other nearby Belarusian localities such as Opsa and Ukolsk. Again, this description definitely does not apply to Kaunas.

By the way, in the course of researching this, I also noticed that Eiragoly → Eiguliai is probably another incorrect redirect. As mentioned above, this refers to Ariogala (here's a source to support the identification), not the Eiguliai neighborhood of Kaunas whose name is pretty different anyway. I hypothesize that the author of this redirect also created it based on the Jewish Encyclopedia, but in that case tried to make sense of it by finding a part of Kaunas with a somewhat similar name.

98.170.164.88 (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Older[edit]

Old business[edit]