Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion

Possibly transclude RfD entries onto two pages instead of one

Hello! So oftentimes, it appears that the RfD page has trouble displaying all of the transclusions on a single page, and will occasionally hit the WP:PEIS limit. There is a lot of content to display. Personally, I like being able to see RfDs spanning multiple days on the same page, so the multi-transclusion system is quite nice. I think transcluding multiple days is a good thing.

However, the backlog of RfD will often grow and grow, leaving up to 10 or more days unclosed on top of the most recent 7 that must stay open, and the surplus breaks the display of RfD. I think it might be helpful to only transclude the most recent 7 days at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Once the 7th day is reached, the page would be removed from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, and listed on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Backlog or some name like that, where the same type of deal will occur as it does now (removing the day from the page once all the discussions are closed). At the moment, it seems like "1 page worth of transclusions" is not enough to properly display everything, but 2 pages worth of transclusions might be just right. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Good idea. Yes please. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure. This is technical problem and a technical solution. Closers will know where to look, or bring discussions from the backlog to the front page if they feel it needs more participation. Jay 💬 07:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I'll go through with it by the 25th or so if there's any other pushback against this. Categories for discussion does something slightly similar in purpose with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Previous 8 to 21 days. However, these pages will exist regardless of if discussions are opened or closed. Our logs are pretty suitable I feel for navigation, and are already lengthy enough that putting 8 to 21 days of RfDs on a page is already going to overload it with 14 total days of nominations. I think 2 subpages (1 current and 1 old) is still the right way to go, and there's not a major need to have constantly updating logs of the days between 8-21 days. The only days we'd need to see on such a page, are the days that contain unclosed discussions. Therefore, the page title I think is most suitable to go with is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Old nominations. Not everything on the page is guaranteed to be a "backlog"; some might require other solutions and editor interactions/questions/answers/et cetera, and wouldn't be able to be closed immediately as a result. Therefore, "old nominations" is probably the most accurate title to go with, and is a bit more telling than just saying "/Old". So that's the subpage I'll make in ~48 hours, sans any objections. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

You know, there's an easier solution to this issue. If you didn't overload the venue with so many nominations each day, there probably would be less of a backlog. Your fellow editors need time to evaluate the nominations, and your actions force them to divide their attention. It makes it difficult to give other nominations the attention they deserve, and we wind up with a backlog. - Eureka Lott 18:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Participation isn't an issue here, and nearly all nominations are well-responded to. Unless you see any pages that shouldn't have been deleted and if that's the case WP:DRV is right there. Two pages for transcluding RfD isn't necessarily a bad thing (AfD dwarves in comparison and tops 100+ noms daily, on topics that are way harder to research). Even when I'm not nominating, the PEIS can often be hit during major cleanup projects and NPP drives that you or others might not be interested in !voting on, which is alright. Just requires a solution because there is a growing number of topics to discuss with more participation than ever before. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the overload. And I agree with Utopes as well that no single editor has to attend to all of them. The community attends to each of them eventually. Personally, I have felt overloaded and look at no more than 1 or 2 per page log, and 4 or 5 overall per day. Jay 💬 08:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I would still like this to be implemented. At least for a trial. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible to nominate a non-existent redirect at RFD?

The last line of WP:AFCRRI's lede currently states If declining a close call, consider mentioning that the user can bring it up for further discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. I have never seen either anyone decline with this reason at WP:AFC/R, nor any currently non-existent redirect be nominated here. I was thinking of removing or rewording that instruction, but I would like to know if nominating a non-existent redirect here is even typically allowed. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean, I wouldn't decline it out of hand if it happened, but it certainly is not in line with standard procedure. Better guidance for AFCRRI might be that, for a close call, the reviewer can create it but instantly RfD it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

That was my idea too; I have updated the instructions to suggest taking close calls to RFD after creation. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Closers' opinion

No critique or opinion from me, but I would like to see opinion of other closers on the RfD close of Trump peace plan. I bring this up because I haven't seen such a close during the time I have been here! Jay 💬 07:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

As a discussion participant I feel slightly uncomfortable with it, as a major modification while a deletion discussion is ongoing, but I don't actually object particularly strongly on non-procedural grounds. I don't think we need a dab here but if I saw this in the wild I wouldn't be inclined to dispute it. I guess my actual conclusion is something like "leave as is but frown disapprovingly at closer" (intended tone: lighthearted). Rusalkii (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

It's procedurally correct. Anyone can turn a redirect into a DAB, and RfD does not have jurisdiction to reverse that. There's a conventional courtesy at RfD that people usually don't do this unilaterally (unlike with turning a redirect into an article), but it's not forbidden, and sometimes there are good reasons to do it. Was this a good time to break that norm? Eh. I mean the consensus was going to be delete, after which Alalch E. could have done the exact same thing as redlink→DAB instead of redir→DAB, so I kind of get it. I would have phrased the close differently though.

That said, the fact that we have three different venues for navigation discussions has bugged me for a while. Years ago, Elli and I had a conversation about proposing some kind of "Navigation discussions", to subsume RfD, RM, AfDs of DABs and DAB-like SIAs, and maybe also hatnote discussions. Every now and then I think back to that idea and think maybe I should finally propose it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Where does this stand in WP:Supervote territory? Jay 💬 20:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not a supervote because it's not a substantive closure. It's a procedural closure after Alalch took an action that brought the page out of RfD jurisdiction. (I mean I guess technically the three secondary redirects were still in RfD jurisdiction, but I don't think there was any reasonable likelihood that they would have been targeted anywhere other than the DAB, once the DAB existed.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Tamzin's reading; it would have perhaps been less appropriate if the possibility of a dab had already been discussed and discarded. This judgment is despite the fact that my own view on the underlying issue would probably lean more towards deletion even now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Vancouver Tenants Union

Request for Article Deletion Due to Conflict of Interest & Lack of Notability

This article appears to have significant conflict of interest (COI) issues, as already flagged in 2023. The primary source of its "history" is a single event from 2018 that does not actually establish VTU’s long-term impact or notability. Additionally, past discussions on this Talk Page reveal VTU members editing the page themselves, which violates Wikipedia's COI policies. Given that: 1. The article lacks independent, verifiable sources beyond self-promotion.

2. The "history" section does not document VTU’s foundation, growth, or structure—only a single, outdated event.

3. There is clear evidence of self-editing and conflict of interest.

I propose this article be nominated for deletion unless it can be rewritten with neutral, well-sourced content. Would appreciate input from other editors. Bmm29 (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bmm29 - I think you might be a bit lost here - If you want to nominate an article for deletion, you should head to WP:AFD and read the instructions there. This page (WP:RFD) is for discussing redirects. BugGhost 🦗👻 22:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey. I was redirected here by a senior editor who directly linked to here. I seem to have been misinformed. Bmm29 (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

No worries, they probably just made a typo. Welcome to wikipedia by the way! BugGhost 🦗👻 11:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

RFD nomination of template redirects

@Trappist the monk thinks that a gradual deprecation of template redirect cannot be brought about by RMs, and require a formal RFD. I do not contest this. However, what will be the process to nominate a template redirect to RFD? Since the said redirect will remain broken for a week, if not longer, should the regular RFD templates and process be followed. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

There is code built in to Module:RfD that keeps the template from breaking and adds a link to the RfD similar to with a TfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Any idea how to make it inline? The current system causes unexpected line breaks, see the lede of Andamento lento. I'm trying to fix it with type=inline as in TFD template, but it doesn't work. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, I have found how to fix the issue after reviewing the module code. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, OP is referring to this revert and my associated edit summary.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Making it possible to subscribe to RFDs

After extensive experimenting, I have realised that it would be possible to allow subscribing to specific RFDs while maintaining its transclusion onto main RFD page. It can be done by modifying the individual headers to the following format <noinclude><h2> TopicName </h2></noinclude><includeonly><h4> TopicName </h4></includeonly>. Subscription also works when someone replies from the transcluded page too. In my opinion, the new format should be adopted to make subscription possible (assuming all affected scripts could be modified accordingly to avoid break in workflow). —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Won't that result in a bunch of H2 headers on the daily log pages? Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it would. But also, when transcluded onto the main RfD page, it will show only the H4 headers. H2 headers will aid in getting subscription notifications, and also be easier to deal with on mobile devices, which collapse the H2 sections, allowing a quick scroll to the desired section. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Involved relisting to clear old log days

@Patar knight: relisting discussions is for further opinions / for achieving consensus. Doing it to clear old logs is counter productive. See /Archive 15#Involved relisting to clear old log days. I agree that regular closers are avoiding older logs, but we would need a different solution, or we have Wikipedia:Closure requests. You may want to revert your relists. Jay 💬 07:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

No consensus should be interpreted as keep. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC).

"Send to AfD..."

If someone is proposing "revert to article and send to afd" they should really give a reason and satisfy themselves that the article is suitable for AfD for that reason. Otherwise the closer, who is performing a clerical function, is being asked to make an unsupported AfD. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC).

What I usually do if people have suggested AfD without making an argument for deletion is close as "restore article without prejudice against AfD" and ping anyone who had favored sending to AfD, so they can make the case themself if they want. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)