Comment: I have removed the group headers because they were breaking this nomination on the main RFD page, and making it seem as though it was not part of any daily nomination. In addition, and practice, we usually do not edit nominations on RFD to accommodate tools; if the amount nominations causes XFDcloser to break, it is what it is. Steel1943 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
@Steel1943: I'm in the process of writing a closing statement, so this RfD will be off the main page soon anyways. I'd ask you to self-revert on that, as your changes would only make it more difficult for me to close this discussion properly. Yes, it makes things look really unusual, but the sheer number of redirects makes this an unusual case that calls for an exception. Without XFDcloser, I would essentially be stuck doing what Edward-Woodrow tried to do the first time: manually undo every single one from the nominator's contribs. I was already planning to remove the "group" headers after the close, which would fix the issue on the log. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
@TechnoSquirrel69: I respectfully refuse. My edit summaries speak for themselves. If you can't carry the burden of manually closing the nominations, you may need a WP:RFDAI refresher. Your line of thinking will result in broken section redirects in edit summaries, and hopefully you know what I mean by that because if not, you should not be using WP:XFDC anyways. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
@Steel1943: I don't understand what WP:RFDAI has got to do with needing to manually close large nominations. Doing it manually would be a complete waste of my time and is more likely to result in me making mistakes as I do a repetitive process for a large number of pages. I am aware that XFDcloser would link to the group headers and not the larger nomination, but I was planning to fix this with anchors. Again, unusual for sure, but not uncalled for given the circumstance. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Also, regarding part of your edit summary: and the groupings made no logical sense other than counting a certain number of nominations alphabetically. They aren't my groupings, they're NmWTfs85lXusaybq's. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
@Edward-Woodrow: I never made a claim on who made the section headers, only my issue with them. From my understanding (and not really digesting the rest of this discussion yet), you were mentioned by another editor as the original closer, and I thought that was the extent of it. Steel1943 (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
@Edward-Woodrow: I do not see this as a WP:BURO issue, but rather with the fact that WP:XFDC has not been maintained or updated for a couple of years now after its only programmer went AWOL and never returned to regular editing. Ya'll want the ability to close more than 50 nominations at once with WP:XFDC? Stop finding workarounds and cite examples of how the gadget doesn't work as you want it to; workarounds do not motivate a need for the tool to be updated. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
That would also work just fine for me. I have no preference on how the close is executed, just that it gets done. Steel1943, what do you think of this? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
@TechnoSquirrel69: Long story short, I would be okay with any close as long as two conditions are met with the close so that the reasons for my edits are not lost:
The final additions/changes to the RFD discussion should solely be the new {{Rfd top}} and {{Rfd bottom}} templates (and their parameters) without permanently changing anything else. (If that involves making temporary changes and then reverting them later, so be it.)
The edit summaries on each closing edit on each nominated redirect should link Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 14#INTDABLINK of redirects from incomplete disambiguation and not arbitrary nonsensical section names like "Group 1", "Group 2", etc. ... which you seem to understand. (There is a way to do this without anchors: replace "INTDABLINK of redirects from incomplete disambiguation" with some temporary name, replace "Group 1" header with "INTDABLINK of redirects from incomplete disambiguation", close that section, remove that header, replace "Group 2" header with "INTDABLINK of redirects from incomplete disambiguation", close that section, remove that header, repeat until all groups closed, rename whole section header back to "INTDABLINK of redirects from incomplete disambiguation".)
...Hope that is clear. My goal with what I did was to ensure discussion formatting on the RFD subpage while ensuring summaries so not get messed up during the close. (And by the way, regarding "waste of time": See a RfD nomination I made in 2014 ... it was so massive that I ended up starting from whatever end of the list the closing admin was not working and marking the redirects with {{Db-xfd}} to help the closing admin to get the discussion closed faster. I probably tagged about 200 redirects for deletion ... as well as tagged all the redirects manually for the nomination. Just saying ... I've put in my time on some of these nominations, thus my response and the belief that edits should know what methods that have to get stuff done when tools work either at all or without a workaround.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
@Steel1943: Your workaround to change the headers one by one sounds good to me; it would indeed make sure all of the edit summaries were accurate, so let's go with that option. As for not making any permanent changes to the nomination, the "group" headers actually didn't exist at the beginning, so I have no concerns about using them as a temporary workaround and removing them later. Hopefully using this method (and doing a bit of cleanup after), everything should look as if it were any other RfD. That being said, would you be able to put the headers back in? I've been busy with some real-life stuff today, and will probably have some time to complete the close tomorrow. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
@TechnoSquirrel69: I'm currently editing on mobile, so adding section headers in the manner specified is too much to do at the moment, especially considering that I cannot just undo some of my recent edits because I changed the level to section headers. Steel1943 (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
@LaundryPizza03 and NmWTfs85lXusaybq: Sorry about the delay in closing the discussion, I've been very busy off-wiki for the last few days. I'm going to wait just a little longer, as it seems that one last round of debate is taking place, and I don't want to cut off a productive conversation with a closure. If 24 hours go by without additional comment, I'll close it. That bring said, I still think it's too late to relist it, and the amount of time that the discussion had been open means it should be closed as soon as possible. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Dang, beat me to it. I just had an idea on how to restore the section headers, but you found a way. Either way, happy it's resolved. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ‡ edits10:07, 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)
i found a good few redirects of varying degrees of uselessness in the lists of pokémon, and will ask about them in the project page once i've looked a bit further into pokémon-related articles. for now, the list is compiled elsewhere
Yes. I get why you asked since yes, I know how long that takes for creating a discussion for larger nominations (I did a 357-redirect nomination once), but that's the only way we got. Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I have long had the impression that this page and related pages contain too much of an emphasis on deletion of redirects, as contrasted with discussion of them. The 'D' in "RfD" is for discussion, not deletion. I suggest that the introductory sentence of the daily log pages be changed from
"This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on [date]."
to
"This list contains the discussions of redirects that were proposed for discussion on [date]."
Note also that I also changed the wording to reflect that this is not just a list of redirects, but rather a list of discussions. — BarrelProof (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
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 ‡ edits20:32, 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)
I was not agreeing. My questions would be: What should happen if an editor reverts an actioned close that had no participation? Should the revert be reverted because the close is unchallengeable simply by virtue of being listed at RfD for 7 days? Or is it unchallengeable because there was consensus? (Can there by consensus when there was no participation?) What are the options available with the challenger (just someone who was on a week's break from wikipedia)? Immediate renomination? If so, doesn't this burden the RfD process further? Jay 💬17:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
My initial answers would be that we don't have a big problem with challenges of default closes at present and I don't think this is likely to change. However any reverted close should be reinstated and the reverter told to challenge the close as they would any other - i.e. discuss with the closer in the first instance, take it to DRV if they can't reach agreement. If one of my closes was being challenged then I would almost certainly either reopen and relist or encourage the challenger to open a new discussion, depending on the circumstances (what was the default outcome) and the reason for the challenge (e.g. are they rebutting the original nominator's arguments or making new ones?). The burden on RfD will never be greater than the burden imposed by a relisting, in practice only if every default closure was challenged would it even equal the burden of relisting. There would be a slight increased burden on the person who made the close, but this would always be a "can be closed" not a "must be closed", with closers able to use their judgement about what it likely to be challenged and what isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Some questions have been answered. What if the challenge comes a month after the close? Reopening or relisting would not be an option. If we're going to be routing more discussions to DRV, discussions that could have been settled long-term by waiting and having couple of editors to participate, would be an impact to DRV. The DRV talk page should be notified of this default outcome suggestion discussion, as something the DRV stakeholders need to be aware of coming their way. Soft deletes at AfD have the uncontroversial forum of WP:RfU that bypasses DRV. "Soft" closes at RfD will be something new, without a forum other than DRV. DRV is about the process of discussions and closure, so won't the DRV simply endorse the close stating that the closer waited the requisite 7 days? We don't expect the DRV to become a de facto RfD, so how does it benefit?
I would also like to know what was the trigger for this enhancement consideration (apart from Russell's edit which was only about delete). Is it the increasing number of per-day nominations, which may have been turning off participants from having a go at a good number of discussions, resulting in more relists, and hence longer pages? We would need to find a balance between solving a problem vs creating multiple. Jay 💬19:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
If the challenge comes more than about 1-2 weeks after the close then it would just be a new discussion with the rationale for having a new discussion so soon being limited participation in the first. DRV impact will be extremely minimal as it's only going to be for cases where the challenger and closer couldn't come to an agreement, which will only be a small subset of those default closes that are challenged, which will only be a small subset of discussions that are closed by default. DRV isn't hurting for participants, so there will be very few potentially controversial default closes in the first place. If as many as two discussions a year end up at DRV I would be surprised - remember default closes for deletes are already a thing and I don't recall a single instance going to DRV (although I haven't checked).
As for the impetus, it was just rereading the section after Russell's edit and wondering why default closures were limited to delete outcomes not other types of outcome that could just have been implemented boldly in the first place. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree I haven't seen default delete closes being challenged although some may have been recreated. I guess any default outcome close can be renominated if challenged, with the clause that the new nomination not be closed as default. Otherwise we'll get into the endless circle of AfD soft deletes followed by restorations. Jay 💬15:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I note that there has now been some back-and-forth between C.A.Russell and Hey man im josh about the edit. Contrary to the latter, I do think that it is beneficial to make it it explicit that a default outcome of delete only applies when the nomination is clearly seeking deletion - this is redirects for discussion not redirects for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
That's fine if you think it's beneficial, I felt as though it's redundant and already clear, but I respect that you disagree. After giving it some though, I'm not opposed to a clarifying comment, even if I do still believe it's already clear. What do you think of "This does not apply is the nominator has proposed an alternative to deletion."? This may however end up being entirely moot if your above proposal is implemented, which I'm about to reply to and support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Echoing, readers of this page are welcome to comment... on the page tabbed to the left. Quite the journey I hear :v Utopes(talk / cont)07:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Can we reduce the number of RfDs transcluded on this page?
This page already gets very large and is very difficult to scroll and navigate, especially on lower end devices like phones. I think we should maybe take the approach that is done at AfD and only list all of the nominations on subpages. We can have a bot update the counters for the number of open RfDs on a given day. I did some stuff in user space and found that we could reduce the post expand include size from about 1,000,000 to just above 100,000 (about ten times) if we just linked to each RfD nomination rather than transcluding them. AwesomeAasim17:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
...In other words, a lot of work has already been put into RfD's current setup, splitting it up into nomination subpages has been rejected in the past, the current situation is temporary, it was a lot worse when all nomination headers were listed in the table of contents, and ... dang, I just realized all that work to improve RfD's structure happened in 2017. How time flies. Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with this. On slower connections this page takes ages to load, and I imagine it's very slow when scrolling on lower-end devices. I don't think we should just keep saying it's been discussed before and ignore the problem. CFA💬21:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
It loads fine when I'm at home on 80+ mb/s. But when I'm editing in public on a hotspot this page takes anywhere from 5 to 10+ seconds to load which is very long compared to AfD, for example. CFA💬00:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I will also note that, like a growing number of editors, I use Convenient Discussions, which grinds to a halt on the RfD main page due to the sheer volume of comments it has to format. I do recognize that other editors might not care about the quirks of a script that is not that widely used, but it's something to consider. This issue arises on very few other large talk pages like ANI. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm all in favour of any changes that enhance performance, user experience and make it more usable on mobile devices. However, as Thryduulf mentioned, an AfD-style process would make it harder to access individual discussions, and reduce participation. How about have the main RfD page have only the current + previous day's entries (since different parts of the world are always on two different dates), with the backlog dates collapsed, assuming they get loaded only when Expand is selected? Jay 💬10:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion on Village pump regarding issues with older daily subpage transclusions
Having the cell colour of the How to list a redirect for discussion table hard coded to be white causes most of the text to be unreadable in dark mode, as the font colour is changed to a light grey. Dark mode is still in beta, and you can switch back to standard mode to make it readable, but thought it worth highlighting. Little pob (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Aha, the CSS for that template was setting the background color without setting the text color; I fixed it. Thanks for the pointer! -- Beland (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Closure [keep/retarget]
I find the phrase "Closure [keep/retarget]" in the heading of a section confusing, and wonder if it could be removed, changed, or hidden until there is actually a closure of some sort.
I was looking at one discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 10 and almost didn't comment, because I saw what at first glance appeared to be a closed discussion; it was marked, "Closure [keep/retarget]". My first glance impression was, "Oh, this is already closed as 'keep and retarget'", but then it registered that "closure" is not "closed" and I wondered if that was relevant, so I scrolled around the page, and realized that every discussion had that phrase on it, so maybe none of them were actually closed yet, so I went ahead and commented.
@Mathglot those links are for enacting the closure, so hiding them until the discussion is closed would defeat the entire point of them. See, e.g. this revision to see the contrast between open and closed discussions. If others are finding the "Closure" wording confusing then I guess it could be changed to "close as" or something like that, but the current wording has been in place since 4 August 2011 and this is the first time (that I am aware of) that anyone has raised an issue with it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
How to simplify
This page is WAY too complicated. Example: Trial (TV Series) is a BBC show from 1971. It has nothing at all to do with Goliath (TV Series). But, it redirects there. Why? Who knows. Can the redirect be removed? Maybe. Step 1: Spend the next two years of your life parsing through pages and pages and pages of instructions, most of which contradict with one another, to see if it is possible to put in a request to have the redirect removed. Step 2: You did it wrong. Try again. Step 3: You did it wrong. Give up. What should happen is Step 1: Easily state in one location that there is an invalid redirect. Done. No more work. Is that possible or is the primary purpose of this complicated mess to keep people from making requests? 12.116.29.106 (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Hey there, perhaps the steps required to create a nomination could be simplified in the future, but at the moment the easiest solution to your problem would be to create an account and use the Twinkle gadget, which semi-automatically takes care of the back-end steps. You can ask at the Teahouse if you have any other questions about that, and an experienced editor will be able to help you out. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
The process is creating lint errors. The reason is that there is a <includeonly></div></includeonly> included when you close discussion. But there is already a close div at the end of the discussion.
See this diff for an example manual fix. (IN this case the lint errors appeared in the "yesterday" page, where the page in question is transcluded today..)
Hey Web-julio, cross-namespace redirects are typically considered problematic if they go from article space to somewhere else and not necessarily the other way around. If you'd like the community to discuss this you can make a nomination for a full RfD. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
We do not have enough content on Baton Zabërgja to create a redirect. He has played for different clubs, hence creating the redirect to any one club is not feasible. When you feel there is a good target, you may use this wizard to make a request: WP:Article wizard/Redirects. Jay 💬07:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
User:TeapotsOfDoom (ToD) has been blocked as a sock of a blocked user. ToD has recently raised a significant number of RfDs, apparently without notifying the creators of the redirects. An IP, obviously also a sock of ToD, starting with 35.... (35) has !voted and commented extensively on the RfDs. I have raised a sock investigation on the IP. I have removed those that I could on 20th November with no significant discussion attached. I have struck through comments by either account on 20th Nov, where I could. I can at the moment do no more. We should however:
Strike or remove comments or !votes by either account in any active discussion.
Remove any RfDs with no significant discussion.
Notify the creators of the redirects for any remaining ToD RfDs. Delay the closing of these to allow time to comment by the creators, and for the comment to be digested by the community.
Possibly remove other active RfDs by ToD, according to editors' good judgement.
Significa liberdade relisted a large number to the November 24th page. Do we treat those as nominations in good faith, and go by the discussions, or close them procedurally without prejudice to have them renominated. Some of them (and one relisted by Explicit) had just one comment. Jay 💬07:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Is RFD a valid forum to discuss cases of PTOPIC disambiguation pages?
Note: By PTOPIC dismabiguation pages, I'm referring to only those disambiguation pages that do not have "(dismabiguation)" in their titles.
So, recently I nominated Frank Mrvan (disambiguation page) to RFD to turn it into a redirect, but that was speedy closed. Few editors said that it should have been nominated to AFD instead, but I have a number of concerns about it and believe that RFD is a process better suited in these cases of PTOPIC than AFD is. Here are the reasons:
Firstly and most importantly, Articles are very different from Disambiguations, but are closer to redirects. Had there not been two or more people/things/concepts with similar names, a PTOPIC dab would definitely have been a redirect.
AFD usually determines whether an article should exist based on content guidelines such as GNG, BLPVIO, HOAX, SPAM, COI, etc. These content guidelines are usually not applicable to Disambiguation pages.
AFD does not usually deal with questions on WP:PTOPIC (WP:Long-term significance, pageviews, clickstream, etc.), but RFD does. This makes RFD participants more likely to be good at determining outcomes of PTOPIC.
RFDs regularly lead to the drafting of PTOPIC disambiguation pages, but AFDs usually do not lead to new disambiguations. Undoing the same in the light of recent evidence should not require a different forum, and must be decided at the same place.
AFD (Articles for deletion) primarily exist for deletions. While they may lead to moves, mergers and redirections, it is only a tangential outcome, such discussions are usually outsourced to RMs, merger discussions and RFCs. Whether or not a dab should be redirected has nothing to do with deletions.
Having an entire extra page to determine whether a disambiguation with 2 entries should exist or not seems like an overkill.
I am not suggesting to eliminate the nominations of dabs to AFDs completely. I'm only suggesting that in certain cases, it makes more sense to nominate PTOPIC dabs to RFDs than AFDs. What are your opinions? Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})13:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requested moves is the place where these matters are usually decided for extant articles, including for disambiguation pages. For the example provided, someone would propose the move from Frank Mrvan to Frank Mrvan (disambiguation) (along with any other related page moves), with the rationale for why, along with what they think should happen to any redirects left behind. Iffy★Chat -- 15:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
In that case, unless you wanted to WP:BOLDly make the redirect yourself, the only thing you're proposing is an article deletion, so AFD is the place to discuss that. Iffy★Chat -- 17:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
But it is not an article. It has no inherent value for an encyclopedia unlike articles and exists solely to help with navigation to an article with similar title. "Disambiguation" might as well have been a separate namespace with appropriate redirects to it. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})17:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
