Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion

RfD is getting too long for listing in a single page, needs break-up like AfD

When I came to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion to copy-paste the template stuff from the instruction section, my honkin'-fast gaming PC that I built, with the fastest AMD non-server CPU on the market as of 2 years go, X570 chipset, and 96 GB of RAM, went into "spin the fans as fast as possible mode" from massive CPU load increase, and Chrome almost totally locked up for about 4–5 minutes, to render this page. Happened a week or so ago, too, when I RfDed something else. Not having this problem anywhere else here, even at our longest articles at Special:LongPages (our longest is List of Glagolitic manuscripts, and for me it renders completely in about 30–40 sec. of only moderate-high CPU load.)

The main RfD page needs to be done like AfD, and not try to inline-transclude all the active listings any longer. Lesser machines than mine are apt to probably just crash, or take even longer than 5 minutes to finish rendering the page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

4-5 minutes would probably be an aberration at your end. Never faced a problem, and I like how all entries of the RfD are in a single page unlike the AfD. Doesn't take me more than 2 or 3 seconds to load the page, and I do this everyday, multiple times a day. (Even during the INTDABLINK nominations issue (see discussion above) from couple of weeks back, when you may have experienced slowness.) If you are talking about Step II: List the entry on RfD. Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries., then that opens up the current date's page for editing. If you use Twinkle to nominate a redirect, it will directly add it to the current date page, and there is no loading of the master RfD page involved. Jay 💬 07:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm on an old mid-range PC and not experiencing any performance issues at all, I've also just checked on my ~12 year old laptop and the page loaded just fine, so it seems like the issue is your end. I would encourage Utopes to slow down with their nominations, but that's from the perspective of not overloading the time people have available to consider the individual redirects rather than any technical issues. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Utopes' pace is fine, but several of those nominations should probably be bundled. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

To add onto this, thank you for making me aware! I do my best as to not overload RfD, because I try to be conscious of the pace of the nominations I'm making. If we're taking December 2nd as an example, a good chunk of my nominations yesterday came about due to me pacing out the titles I've had my eyes on since September. 70% of my nominations were of titles very similar to what have been nominated and deleted in the past, 20% were of lawyers not mentioned at the target page, and the remaining 10% were 2 of the 170 redirects I NPP patrolled yesterday that I was hesitant about, target-wise (PARAMIL and Top 30 list).

I did think about bundling some of yesterday's nominations, but when it comes to pseudo-namespace redirects I'm of the perspective that all PNRs are different cases, and should only be maintained on their individual merits and not "oh it's a PNR so it's automatically fine", so I left them separate in the situation different points were made for each. Same with the lawyers; it's 4 different people, and if some of them are worthy for inclusion and others not, it would make things tricky to navigate, so I defaulted to just keeping them separate because they're different titles to different targets. Moving forward though, I'll be more willing to bundle to help tighten up the discussion! Cheers all, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Automatic listing of avoided double redirects?

Would it be possible and desirable for redirects that are marked as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of a nominated redirect to be automatically added to the nomination by bot (if they haven't been nominated manually)? There are going to be few occasions when we will want to delete or retarget one but not the other, and a discussion about the primary of the two seems like an appropriate time to identify those occasions where we do. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• I would not want the RfD to be fed by any bot. The RfD takes up significant human effort, and we don't know how some automation is going to impact it. I do not mind another meta page or category where recent double redirects get listed, and be boldly actioned on. And something that requires discussion can be listed on RfD. Jay 💬 06:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Dozens upon dozens of questionable redirects created by now-blocked user

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Dozens upon dozens of questionable redirects created by now-blocked user. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Song redirects at December 21

A note to closers and relisters of the UK Singles Chart redirects at the Dec 21 page: While we do allow for a default Delete for nominations that have had no discussions, I would request for only the entries with discussion to be closed. There are 137 entries, and while I think I understand why they were not bundled into a single nomination, I don't know why ALL of them were nominated for a single day! I started alphabetically, and spent a lot of time, but haven't crossed 'C'. Also, if relisting, I would request the relisters to not relist all for a single day. Perhaps 10 each for every subsequent day. Another option, do not relist, keep the Dec 21 page open until all song redirects are closed.

Also, I don't know if 03md is aware of, or has an opinion about the large number of redirects listed (assuming that most, or all listed are from this user). I see the user talk page being notified of only one redirect. Jay 💬 08:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I just read through WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 21#Young, Free and Simple for how this unfolded. I would suggest Keep All undiscussed, and renominate in smaller batches, or keep the Dec 21 page open for as long as needed. Jay 💬 09:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't notice that either. I suggest we keep the Dec 21 page open until each discussion reaches a quorum of 2–3 non-nominator participants (which hopefully will be in roughly a week from now), without precluding relisting in special cases. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I closed a few of them that had one or two participants when it seemed pretty clearly to be most helpful to the reader and an WP:ATD, but I won't close any more. 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

"Redirects for discussion" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Redirects for discussion has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 22 § Redirects for discussion until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Default outcome

Following this edit by C. A. Russell, the guiding principles of RfD now states in relation to the default outcome:

• 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. Note that this does not apply if the nomination does not propose deletion; the mere existence of an RFD submission does not imply deletion.

I'm now wondering why the default outcome is restricted to deletion? If a nomination unambiguously proposes retargetting and gets no comments, why should the default outcome not be to treat it as uncontroversial and retarget as suggested? I suggest rewording the bullet to something like:

• If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes a single clear course of action (e.g. deletion or retargetting) and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default outcome is to enact that proposal as uncontroversial. This does not apply if the nomination is unclear, ambiguous, suggests multiple possible outcomes and/or explicitly seeks discussion.

I nearly made the change boldly, but figure (a) discussion can't hurt, and (b) my proposal probably benefit from wordsmithing. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

For a non-delete action, what I have been doing is instead of the default close, I support the nomination as the first vote of the discussion, and let another closer take a call. If it is disambiguation, I try to draft a dab if it is easy. My thought has been if the close action without a vote is reverted, the strength of a close by consensus should prevail over any editor's challenge. And we cannot demonstrate consensus if there wasn't even a single editor who voted in the discussion. On the other hand, I find the delete nomination with no discussion as unchallengeable (as opposed to a soft delete), because if challenged, the challenger has to approach an admin, unlike a non-delete action which any challenger can revert. I would still support at least one editor other than the nominator, agreeing with the non-delete nomination before it is closed. Jay 💬 15:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This definitely makes sense, given that in the process of retargeting a redirect or drafting a dab RfD is an optional step (and if it does seem controversial to the closer they should vote on it!). J947 ‡ ^edits 20:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

A non-delete action resulting by "default" in the nominator's proposal just tracks the ordinary editing process, plus a superfluous RFD. E.g. Alice proposes to change Foo to redirect to Bar instead of Baz. She posts her proposal to RFD. There are no takers. After some time, someone closes the RFD and retargets Foo to Bar. What did the RFD contribute to this? Three things: procedural boondoggle, a Foo redirect broken in the interim by {{subst:redirect for discussion}}, and the false perception of a public mandate—primarily from the types of people who trawl RFD submissions and aren't particularly equipped to contribute meaningfully to the discussion anyway, rather than folks with subject matter interest. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)