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	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	7	7
TfD	0	5	5
MfD	4	0	4
FfD	0	0	0
RfD	0	57	57
AfD	0	0	0

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 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

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

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?

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

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, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (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

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 article text 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

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

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

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

October 21

Wheaton's law

Wheaton's law → meta:Don't be a jerk (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unless there is an appropriate local target for this page, deletion should be contemplated. The plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (along the lines of the sentiment expressed at WP:SOFTSP). Thus, see this deletion discussion; if this is deemed worthy to exist as is, then that template will need to be restored. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Bangladesh Khilafat Majlis

Bangladesh Khilafat Majlis → Khelafat Majlish (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Bangladesh Khilafat Majlis and Khelafat Majlish are distinct organizations, as per the Election Commission of Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 04:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Ambiguous "planet 3" redirects

Planet Three → Earth (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
3rd planet → Earth (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Third planet → Earth (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
3rd Planet → Earth (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Earth is, unsurprisingly, not the only "planet three". This is a highly ambiguous and fairly implausible search term. Delete'. Cremastra (u — c) 01:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment these are probably trying to complement the names used for outer planets and theorized planets. (Planet Nine / Planet Ten / Planet X / Planet V ... ) but the phrase "3rd planet from the Sun" and "Sol III" are commonly used in certain circles to refer to the Earth... -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Planet of Water

Planet of Water → Earth (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It's not an alternative name, it is just a descriptor. I think this should be retargetted to Water planet which better discusses the subject broadly. Cremastra (u — c) 01:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to the disambig page per nom -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget as per nom; I'd like to point out that "Planet of water" and "Water planet" mean the exact same frickin' thing lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Colour redirects to earth

Blue and green planet → Earth (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Green and blue planet → Earth (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Highly ambiguous and Earth-centric. Delete. Cremastra (u — c) 01:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment both Uranus and Neptune are blue-green ... -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

October 20

Crapulinksy

Crapulinksy → Napoleon III (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in the target or anywhere on Wikipedia. As the HTML comment in the redirect tells us, the term comes from The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, which itself was referencing Heinrich Heine's Two Knights. Since, as far as I know, the term isn't used to refer to Napoleon III outside the Eighteenth Brumaire, I think the redirect should be retargeted to The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and a reference be added there. Nickps (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Invest 90L

Invest 90L → June 2024 South Florida floods (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Invest numbers are frequently reused by the NHC and others; and often multiple times during the same year. It is this, not feasible to have a redirect like this given the certainty that another storm will receive the 90L designation in the near future. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

If I had to give a suggestion; I’d say delete this entry and salt ALL possible invest designations (90s with suffix letters A, B, C, E, L, M, P, Q, S, and W) that way something like this can’t happen again. They’re not going to retire invest designations and they're going to use them multiple times. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I concur with this. I feel like we have had this discussion a few dozen times. ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete Too many 90Ls exist for this to be the target. If anything, some other hurricanes should be prioritized. ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
@Quxyz, you mean someone has used invest numbers as redirects before? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Retarget to Invest (meteorology)#Designation to match Invest 91-L, Invest 93L, Invest 98L and Invest 99-L. We have relevant non-ambiguous content for this highly plausible search term so deletion doesn't make sense. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Retarget as per Thryduulf; it may also be a good, worthwhile endeavor to grab as many invest designations as possible (as per Hurricane Clyde) and, instead of salting, point to Invest (meteorology)#Designation to match this one. Probably while also protecting them all so they can't be retargeted by a WP:GOODFAITH editor off to another disaster page. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Decco Bishop

Decco Bishop → List of Fair City characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No entry at the target page, only appears within a reference. Nothing really encyclopedic about this person. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect that the character appears only within a reference. Decco is mentioned as Samantha Bishop's father, and some relation with Xavier Bishop. However, a better target would be Fair City#Social realism, related to life in prison. Jay 💬 16:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jay: Thanks for the tip on the mention; imo that's still WP:SURPRISEing though (at the Fair City subsection), especially if the material changes and the mention disappears, then we'll be left with an unhelpful redirect while that occurs. If people are searching for a character, I'd think they'd expect to end up at a list of characters. This still feels niche enough to delete as the character appears to be exceedingly minor from what I'm seeing. Can always be recreated if there's an entry that gets created later. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per Utopes. A7V2 (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Vaca Dam

Vaca Dam → Chalillo Dam (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Like #Mollejon Dam below, this is a separate dam that is not covered at the target article beyond a single passing mention. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. A7V2 (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Mollejon Dam

Mollejon Dam → Chalillo Dam (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect is to a separate dam, not an alternate name for the Chalillo Dam itself, hence, I think it should be deleted. Tavantius (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. This would be an acceptable redirect if there were coverage of this dam on the article, but it just gets a passing mention. Thryduulf (talk)
Delete per nom and Thryduulf. A7V2 (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep - @Thryduulf, A7V2, and Tavantius: Mollejon Dam is a tiny secondary dam in a small developing country. It will never meet Wikipedia notability standards. Nevertheless, it is possible that someone on Wikipedia might search for it. In that case, sending them to the article on Chalillo Dam (the larger upstream dam) at least tells them some basic information about Mollejon Dam (what river it is located on, what country, and that it's a small dam downstream from the Chalillo). Isn't that better than offering them nothing? Nosferattus (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Adrian Shephard (Half-life, Opposing force)

Adrian Shephard (Half-life, Opposing force) → Characters of the Half-Life series#Adrian Shephard (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Disambiguation was written incorrectly. The correct name is Half-Life: Opposing Force, not Half-life, Opposing force. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep - appears to have been the title of the former article Adrian Shephard for around 3 years. Harmless, unambiguous. A7V2 (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Launch into a new adventure!

Launch into a new adventure! → Super Mario Galaxy 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target, has received less than a hundred pageviews throughout its entire existence, and a search online did not bring up anything related to the Mario franchise. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. If you add "Mario" to your google search term you can find there is a connection (e.g. [1]), but it is also the strapline for multiple other things, particularly recruitment adverts. Without any hint of context and no mention in the target, this far too vague to be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

3.1415926535…

3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456 → Pi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. This has been created a few months ago. It is just the maximum number of digits that Wikipedia happens to allow for a page title. This is not a reasonable search term, and I would argue it fails rule #8 of WP:RFD#DELETE: being a novel or obscure synonym that's unlikely to be useful. The edit summary for its creation, which is "255 (the max) number of characters. Lol.", also makes me wonder if this was a joke edit (this user has had something of an "obsession" with the 255 character limit, compare this example). Renerpho (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I did not notify the creator of this redirect, because they were banned indefinitely a week after creating it, for sock puppetry. I notified 2003 LN6 as the only other user who has edited it. I have also mentioned it on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia records#New longest redirect title, which is where I originally became aware of it. I believe that should cover everyone who may have an interest in this redirect. Renerpho (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
An overview of previous discussions of this question (up to 2018) can be found at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 10#Redirects to pi. Since then, there has also been Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 22#3.141592653589.... Relevant arguments may also be found there. Renerpho (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep Harmless, goes exactly where it should point. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete not a reasonable search term, created by a sock. Not useful. Polyamorph (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep. I argued at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8 § The Boy Bands Have Won, and All the Copyists and the Tribute Bands and the TV Talent Show Producers Have Won that in a case where the full title would exceed 255 characters, "I think it's reasonable to say that any plausible truncation of the full title is a valid search term". This is a bit different because the full length of the string in question is, well, infinite, and I wouldn't support keeping redirects for each of the 251 possible truncations past 3.14. But it seems reasonable to allow a redirect for the longest possible truncation supported by MediaWiki. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 08:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
"Plausible" is the crucial word here, and you have not explained why a number of 255 digits in particular is reasonable to keep. That it happens to be the maximum allowed by MediaWiki doesn't make it a plausible search term. Renerpho (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete, not a plausible search term. Graham87 (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete, do y'all really think it'd be plausible for someone to type this entire string in to search for Pi when they literally only need to plug in "Pi" or "3.14"? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep Some readers may stumble on a very long series of digits and not realize it is pi, so they would search it up, truncating as necessary. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

And where does "truncating as necessary" at exactly 255 digits come in? Truncating at 256 will result in an error, and truncating at 254 leads to a redirect that doesn't exist. Renerpho (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete - not a useful redirect title. Jay 💬 15:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep unambiguous and cheap. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep per Tamzin. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete as a sequence of digits no one will type into any kind of search engine. --Викидим (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not for typing, it's for copy-and-pasing. If you paste 255+ digits of pi into Wikipedia, it would truncate to this redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK this is not how the search engines work. If one types more that this exact number of digits, search engines will not truncate the token to our 256 characters and will not point to our article (try Google). If the search is done inside Wikipedia, the long prompt will actually work and elicit a Pi suggestion without this redirect (the redirect will actually be confusing as it will distract attention for the actual article). Викидим (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep per Tamzin. Longest technically possible version of a number that is infinite. This is especially relavent because it is a non-repeating number that it is not uncommon to memorize many digits out in popular math culture. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete for too long to look at the digits. What is the point of adding these huge numbers of digits, expecting the audience to search the number of Pi in an alternative way by those digits they memorize? If they would like to search for this mathematical constant, can't they just type "Pi" instead? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep per Tamzin, Pppery, Tavix, et al. and my arguments at a similar discussion that took place in March 2021. It's unambiguous, harmless, and potentially helpful to people searching for pi regardless of how many digits they type in. Like Tamzin argues above me, this is a plausible truncation of the full number pi (which has thousands, millions, possibly even billions of digits), just like all the other pi-digit redirects I cited in that discussion. Regards, SONIC 678 01:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
The only way to use this redirect AFAIK is to memorize hundreds of digits of pi and actually type (or paste) an exact number of these digits into the search engine. All modern engines would try to autocomplete the prompt (the one in Wikipedia after 3.141592 is typed will identify just the Pi and this strange redirect, so it would be great to hear a description of the scenario, where a genius who memorized all these digits (1) does not know that they belong to pi and (2) is oblivious to the suggestion of the search engine. Викидим (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Harmless, accurate. Steel1943 (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep technically correct redirect. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from nominator: To those arguing for keep, are you saying we should have a redirect from all the other possible lengths? Do you recognize that this goes against most previous discussions involving redirects to truncated versions of pi? We have some, like all up to 3.14159265358979323846264338, but most others -- including some like 3.14159265358979323846264338327950, which is actually mentioned in another article and could be a useful search term, but has been deleted per R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect -- are missing. See also this old deletion discussion, and this one. I'm sure there are others; both of these have resulted in the deletion of multiple similar redirects for the same reason, and are given as examples.

If that argument doesn't hold then we should have 255 different redirects, one from each possible truncation, plus a note on the policy page that such redirects are considered useful per community discussion. Renerpho (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Correction: It's actually all up to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795.

(It was also nominated for deletion, but it was kept due to the 32-digit version being useful for the floating point reason that you mentioned. I guess the extra 0 was too much.

Not sure if there's a similar use case for 255 digits.) ApexParagon (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No, 3.14159265358979323846264338327 doesn't exist since 2011, and 3.1415926535897932384626433832 was deleted in 2015. Renerpho (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The latter is of course different from the others, because it was an article, not a redirect. It was deleted under A7 (Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject), which is a reason I wouldn't have thought about. One could argue whether it should have been turned into a redirect at the time. I would say no, for the same reasons to delete the other one(s), but you could. Renerpho (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't follow that because we don't delete a redirect of a certain character, we should therefore create others of the same character, or even encourage, or even not discourage such creations. With articles these three lines are so close that for most people and most purposes they merge into one. Redirects are different because they can be harmless, they don't advertise their presence like articles, and they are very cheap in all resources, especially editor resources (unless they get nommed for deletion). All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC).

Keep per Tamzin. Not all truncations are plausible search terms, but this one is because it will catch every one using both it and any longer titles. It will also help search engines (internal and external) direct people using slightly shorter tuncations to the article they want to read. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete and salt as implausible and per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 22#3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706. It's clear that nobody would reasonably type this in for anything other than novelty (I am not convinced by the "copy paste" argument, more on that below) and these types of titles cause more trouble and discussion than its worth, all for reaching a two-character article. We wouldn't permit e (number) or square root of 3 to have these types of titles, and all of these digits are not discussed at Pi either, making the full length of this title an undiscussed subject at the target page. We don't have any material on Wikipedia about 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844-(arbitrary space)-6095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456. This number doesn't appear anywhere on Wikipedia. Conversely, we have an article on the mathematical constant, and that constant has this value at two hundred and fifty-five significant figures. By extension, this redirect is misleading because all of these digits included in the search term are not listed at the target, so people who want to read about all of the digits they typed in, wouldn't be able to. Tests to copy-pasting into the search bar do not work for me, as the search bar does not accept anything longer than 255, gives a MediaWiki error and/or "no results matching the query". But Google takes more than 255 characters and actually HAS all of the digits listed on various pi sites. so if "someone sees it without context", Google seems the way to go. A Wikipedia redirect for not 254, not 256, but exactly 255 digits of unmentioned material, does not seem useful or helpful, nor realistic for reading the Wikipedia article about Pi. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete per Utopes. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 15:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep - it's obviously the right target and it's a plausible redirect (someone who sees pi written down this way and copies as much as wikipedia allows in the search box). Stop and consider "realistically, if a user typed this into a search box and pressed enter, where should they go?" Do the delete voters seriously think that a "0 search results" page is a better target for this than Pi? BugGhost 🦗👻 23:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a straw-man argument, because a "0 search results" is not what's in question. Have you actually tried it? If a user copy/pastes 254 digits, the redirect won't help them, but the autocomplete gives them Pi even if we delete the redirect (they always get autocompleted to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751, which is not in question). And if they copy/paste 256 or more (which they absolutely can do), they'll also get an autocomplete for Pi -- unless they actually press search, in which case they get an error message. In neither of those cases, the redirect is of any help. Renerpho (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

A correction (I admit I wasn't careful enough when I tested this myself): If you search for between 256 and 300 digits, you'll just not find anything (neither the current redirect, nor Pi). It is only when you enter 301 or more digits that you get the error message. Compare H:S vs. WP:TITLELENGTH. Renerpho (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep - This redirect is not just this redirect, it's this AND EVERYTHING LONGER. It's plausible, as they could paste in any larger number of digits and still get this redirect. Unambiguously accurate target. Harmless. WP:CHEAP. For the record, I would not mind if literally every amount of digits between this and 3.14 was also a redirect, but that is another discussion. Fieari (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
"They could paste in any larger number of digits and still get this redirect" -- that is not true. Pasting in anything longer and clicking "search" results in an error, with or without this redirect. Renerpho (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
And for completeness, using a smaller number of digits (say, 254) isn't helped by this redirect either. Clicking "search" doesn't find the article, but Wikipedia's auto-completion will suggest 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751, which leads them to the correct target. The redirect in question is only useful if users paste in that exact number of digits. Renerpho (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Renerpho, this redirect is a handful of bytes in size, and it is obviously going to the right place. The fact it is "only useful" if the user types in something non-standard is completely fine, that is the very point of a redirect. By my count, you've made 10 comments over 23 edits on this RFD - it may be beneficial to take a step back, the outcome of this is not really a big deal in the wider scheme of things. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
The comment Renerpho was responding to states this redirect works for 255 characters and "EVERYTHING LONGER [sic]"; capitalization not mine. The strength from the !vote seems to be derived from (>255) functionality. Renerpho then says that it's not actually the case, and that the redirect only functions at 255 digits exactly, or (=255). (Indeed, I've come to the same conclusion from my tests). You then say that's "completely fine", seeming to agree with the (=255) status, a wholly different state of mind from what Fieari stated in their !keep. Where is the goalpole? Is this being !kept for encapsulating everything beyond >255, or exactly =255? Because I was led to believe the former, as the only reason it could be seen as exceptional and not meet a fiery fate alongside the rest of the overly long "exact digit matches", such as this (deleted) (=28) and this (deleted) (=35) and this (example of reasonable length) (=12) and this (speedy deleted) (=208) and this (speedy deleted) (=29) and this (deleted) (=98). We deleted these because digits of pi aren't listed on the page. This indicated "consensus to limit" these, but no rule beyond the existing outlier of 3.1415926535897932384626433832795. It's cannot be "obviously going to the right place" if obnoxiously long pi redirects have been discussed ad nauseum and historically deleted at 100% certainty @RfD every single year since 2011.{{cn}} Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
@Utopes: Consensus can shift, of course, and there's nothing wrong with that. Right now, a small majority of votes is in favour of keep, and claiming consensus to delete it looks illusory at this point. I feel like this really opens Pandora's box though. If we keep this one then we should think carefully about how we limit redirects like this in the future. There are some serious votes here, staying unchallenged by most other keep voters, for creating redirects to literally every possible truncation. That would be a huge shift in policy. But even if we only allow the redirect with 255 digits as a special exception (because it's considered useful for some reason, even if based on a misconception of how the search function works), why only for Pi? What about any other notable real number? Renerpho (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
@Renerpho: I'm not sure what you mean if you're responding to me, I'm !voting delete. I totally agree with where you're coming from. Creating a redirect for every single amount of digits for specifically only pi is not reasonable or practical imo. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
@Utopes: I did intend to respond to you. The argument that this was historically deleted at 100% certainty isn't really relevant if the consensus has changed since. I am trying to understand the consequences of what we're doing here, and if Bugghost is right that I was/am overreacting. I stepped away for three days, and what's happening looks as wrong now as it did when I left. I don't plan to make many further comments in this discussion. BugGhost is right that this isn't worth a big hoo-haa either way. Still, I'm trying to understand where we're coming from with the serious arguments for keep (that's not a question to you, Utopes, just something I'm asking myself). Renerpho (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree consensus can change. It was just interesting because it seems like people who are !keeping have not actually tried typing more than 255 digits (it doesn't work). So the only way this works is exactly 255 digits. But we deleted exactly 98 digits and many others, historically. So if the assumption is that we are keeping this because "exactly 255 digits is plausible", my question for !keepers is "what makes exactly 255 digits more plausible than exactly 98 digits", which was deleted. Because the fact that MediaWiki prevents things more than 255, is purely coincidence and not something that a casual reader could possibly consider when beginning their quest of typing 255 numbers and then stopping immediately. And then do we do this for every number with repeating decimals? 0.999? 1.00000 and 255 zeroes? Because 1.0 redirects to 1, and that's a whole number. For the last 14 years it seems that any amount of decimals beyond 30 is viewed as utterly implausible. But consensus can change! So I'm curious exactly what became different, where two years ago =98 digits (no more no less) was unfathomable but =255 digits (no more no less) is a-okay. Oh well. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Please let me know the search engine that you tried with a larger number of digits. I tried quite a few, and did not get the results described by you. Викидим (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete per Utopes and others. Come on people, this is exactly the sort of useless stuff that WP:PANDORA is suited for. And for all you keepers, why Pi? Why not Chronology of computation of π or Approximations of π instead? Wouldn't someone pasting in so many digits be more likely interested in the computational aspects of generating those digits and not a general article on the number itself? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Those targets would WP:ASTONISH. If a user searches a decimal version of pi (no matter the quantity of digits) then Pi should be target; we shouldn't guess that they would prefer a more niche article. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
No, nothing should be the target, because no one is going to search for exactly 255 digits, as others have already pointed out. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I have to agree with @Utopes and say delete and salt on the basis that this redirect is excessively and unreasonably large. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep for previous reasons. It would be more costly in terms of bandwidth to delete the redirect, as there is a very small chance someone might actually use it. Not problematic, as an opposition to WP:COSTLY. 2003 LN 6 17:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. While 255 characters may be the limit, I find it implausible that someone is going to type all 255 characters (or even copy and paste 255 characters; where would they even get 255 characters from? I would argue for keep if the search bar limit was 255 characters, but that's not the case). Procyon117 (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the search bar limit, anyway? (It's 300, not 255; 255 I think is the limit for the length of article titles.) Renerpho (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep absolutely no policy reason to delete. It is by no means novel or obscure. It's a very cheap way of getting people to the right place, compared with the cost of having a discussion about it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC).

Delete that's too implausible redirect and numbers are too long for the 255 digits so far per Utopes and other supporters. So, these would be applied as WP:COSTLY, WP:PANDORA and WP:RFD#D8.

✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 02:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 19:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Redirects are cheap but this is straight up implausible. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete and salt too long implausible and which may confusing an infinite number of 255 digits so far per Utopes mentioned earlier? IMO, this would be applied for deletion as WP:COSTLY, WP:PANDORA and WP:RFD#D8.

✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 21:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Icarus58 you have already !voted. Please make one of your !votes a comment, or strike it. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 22:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Alpha Omega Mu

Alpha Omega Mu → Om (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Seems like an implausible search term. There seem to be quite a few sororities/fraternities with this name, but none with a wiki article. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete A phrase consisting of three Greek letters does not seem like a plausible search term for a Hindu concept. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom as WP:COSTLY. ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 21:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Δελετε per nom. Cremastra (u — c) 22:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Oman women's national under-17 football team

Oman women's national under-17 football team → Women's football in Oman (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of this team on the target page. No relevant Google search hits even -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not confident this even exists. Cremastra (u — c) 22:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom and Cremastra. A7V2 (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Harshveer Sekhon

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Moot.

I'm easy to find

I'm easy to find → Clay Higgins (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Seems to be from a quote from 2016 based on some Googling. If not mentioned at target, seems not relevant enough to be a redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to I Am Easy to Find. This is a quote from a video that went a bit viral, and while it is the single most thing in google results it's far from the only thing and using the term will not be helped by the lack of mention at the target. Meanwhile it is plausible misremembering of the title of the album, song or film listed at the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Retarget to disambiguation page I Am Easy to Find. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
'retarget' per Thryduulf -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Liberal Democratic Hotline Team

Liberal Democratic Hotline Team → Liberal Democrats (UK) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target page/ -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep, but ideally add a mention. This is an alternative designation that was used in some council elections in 1990 by some party members, along with Liberal Democratic Focus Team and Liberal Democratic Spotlight Team (Focus Team at least is/was used in more elections and is mentioned in the article) and so appears in election results tables. Those candidates represented the Liberal Democrats so should take readers to the article about that party, but yes a mention would be ideal. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

A Novo

A Novo → CAC Small#Index composition (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete: There's no longer a mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Murder of Bouba and Kiki

Murder of Bouba and Kiki → Bouba/kiki effect (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Nothing about murder on the target page or on a Google search. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete. I can't determine why this was made. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete, nonsensical. May have qualified for R3, but we're here now. Cremastra (u — c) 22:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Α-Methylmescaline

Α-Methylmescaline → Trimethoxyamphetamine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirect subject is never mentioned in the target article, and only other editor/page creator is site banned. Should be deleted. MimirIsSmart (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Move. The correct spelling should be α-methylmescaline, α-Methylmescaline, or Alpha-methylmescaline. Enix150 (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep. It's mentioned as α-methylmescaline, which hard to type on a regular keyboard. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep per Shhhnotsoloud. Substituting A for alpha is highly plausible. A7V2 (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment the nominated redirect is α-Methylmescaline ; that's a capital-Alpha, not a capital-A -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

IRAS 13349+1428

IRAS 13349+1428 → IRAS 13349+2438 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in the target page and unable to find anything on Google. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Also note that when created the edit summary was "Redirecting IRAS 13349+1428 to IRAS 13349+2438 since the designation does not exist on any databases" which seems like a reason not to have created this. If it doesn't exist why would anyone search it and why target it here? A7V2 (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
@A7V2: I guess someone clicked on it somewhere on Wikipedia? There are dozens of Wikipedia articles that link(ed) to the misspelled redirect. Template:List of Seyfert galaxies, which is used on every article about Seyfert galaxies, has used the misspelled designation since 2015, and continued to use it until I corrected the template two minutes ago. Renerpho (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh, and keep. Even though the redirect is relatively new, this misspelling has existed on Wikipedia for almost 10 years. There's no telling if anyone saw (and used) the wrong name. Renerpho (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Older

Old business