The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure of discussion: We are now two months on from the beginning of this discussion and active participation ended many weeks ago. However, due to many users requesting closure, here I am. It is clear that while the community had issues with the mass creation of redirects, there was no consensus to change policies and guidelines, and in the end, the discussion got bogged down in multiple proposals. Moving forward, all users are reminded of the following principles:

• Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. Act in good faith, do not make problems to prove something, and assume good faith on the part of others. -WP:5
• There are many purposes for redirects. Templates help identify the reason for specific redirects. enWP redirect guideline.
• Foreign redirects are permitted, however users are reminded to consult appropriate guidelines when creating them. enWP foreign redirect guideline
• Disruptive changing is when many of a user's changes .. [cause] other effects that stop people from achieving our purpose of building an encyclopedia. WP:DC

It is all our responsibility, regardless of our viewpoints, to work together to build this Wikipedia and stand up to disruptive changing. The mass creation of redirects that began this discussion has stopped, as has the mass proposal of deletion of redirects. In the future, all users are asked to remember the above guidelines and use good judgment when creating redirects, ensuring that the spirit of our guidelines are followed. Users that believe a redirect should be deleted should also be mindful of these guidelines, and only propose redirects for deletion to which policies or guidelines are clearly not followed. Thank you to all who expressed their opinions and thoughts on this topic, they were appreciated and show that a world-wide community of differing views can come together to discuss contentious topics while continuing to work towards a common goal. Griff (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

Original thread:
I'd like to ask for community input on the usefulness of the massive creation of non-English redirects being created by Deppiyy. While some may have use, I believe that the expectation of every user of this project is that they will need to use English to browse the page. If they need to find an article about griffins, they will search the English translation and then look for that article here. We can't and shouldn't be hosting redirects for every single language to every single article here. That's what translate tools and interwiki links are for. These are just my thoughts, I'm curious what others think. Griff (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since Australian English redirects have been deleted as above, I'm afraid to say that not all of these redirects may remain. MathXplore (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MathXplore: I tried finding this discussion but was unable to do so. Were those redirects deleted after a community discussion or at the discretion of administrators? Griff (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The redirects above were deleted by the discretion of Macdonald-Ross (mass deletion). MathXplore (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suspicious of the amount of non-english redirects being made. SoyokoAnis - talk 14:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That appears to be unrelated, this is a different user, not the IP. Consensus is usually for foreign redirects to be kept, they are helpful on a wiki for people whose first language isn't English. e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Новосибирск --Ferien (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was not much of a consensus. It was a very narrowly decided, and I think wrongly decided, (updateː left out two words request for) deletion (Nom and three deletes, one comment leaning against, three keeps.). If I had seen it at rfd, I would have been very strongly in favor of deletion. But, rfds are not always at the top of my radar. That is why we are having a discussion here. A single rfd does not make a governing policy. --Gotanda (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The consensus was the same on other RfDs. But even if that wasn't the case, enwiki allows them (w:WP:RFOREIGN) so we WP:FOLLOW them. --Ferien (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plus the !vote count really doesn't matter, one delete !vote was an IP and one delete !vote was pretty much repeating what the nom said. --Ferien (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It’s true that English is the lingua franca on Simple Wiki, but I think redirects in other languages are convenient. If a Spanish user wants to find the Spain article, they could search up España and it would redirect to Spain. I think my redirects genuinely useful for those learning English. Deppiyy (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A relevant talk page says that: " There is no need for non-English language disambig pages because there should be no incoming links to them. Links should always go to the correct article. So the hypothetical [... foreign language ] speaking user will never just come across the term, they will have to search for it. If there is no exact match, it indicates that it is not an English word, and the English [our] alternative will come up as the top search result (as it does on EnWP). Adding this will just create ambiguity, not clarify it. This opens up endless non-English redirects and adds to potential confusion. This is Simple English Wikipedia. Adding more non-English words adds complexity, not simplicity".

The post of 15:54 today, (arguably) does not have anything to offer that goes beyond "my" borrowed quote. 89.8.173.218 (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How does it add complexity when it’s purpose is to redirect to English articles? Deppiyy (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's an unnecessary addition to the wiki, and it makes searching for stuff needlessly complicated.@Deppiyy Derpdart56 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

English wiki have them, we follow them. That’s called Category:Redirects from alternative languages. Deppiyy (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you actually read Wikipedia:Follow English Wikipedia ? This discussion completely nulifies it here. If we are discussing what we should do for a rule, the whole concept of "if we dont have a rule, use theirs" would have no bearing.--Creol(talk) --Creol(talk) 01:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but we don't need to follow everything from en.wiki. This is adding more confusion and unwarranted pages, I say we nuke these redirects that aren't english. They're pointless. Derpdart56 (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"A relevant talk page says"? First, which talk page and discussion are you referring to? Second, talk pages are not policy or guidelines. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which "talk page"? Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion#Namibië (project page). 89.8.173.218 (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a pointless hypothetical, "If a Spanish user wants to find the Spain article, they could search up España and it would redirect to Spain." If said Spanish user does not already know that the English name for their country is Spain, they will be unable to read or use this wikipedia anyway. And this is backwards, "redirects genuinely useful for those learning English"; it is potentially harmful. Feedback is important in language learning. Searching for a non-English word and getting no results for it shows that it is most likely not an English word. The search box will offer up the closest English results instead, thus showing what the relevant English words are. Giving them a valid result for a non-English word may indicate to them that it is a standard English word. --Gotanda (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have one thing to say. Only English. Only English is allowed in the mainspace of the Simple Wikipedia, excluding quotes, which should be translated as well. (Also Gotanda did a good job explaining) 💠Ely - Talk💠 10:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I don't have a problem with them. I don't think it is a particularly practical way to spend one's time given the scale, however if somebody wants to spend that time, go right ahead. I think we need to fully understand what this Wikipedia is supposed to be doing. We write Encyclopedia entries in simple English for people who struggle to read English at a high level. However, we are not English teachers. The wiki can be used as a resource by teachers, but the purpose here isn't to teach English, rather to make it more accessible to those who have difficulties for any number of reasons. With that basic principle understood, it only makes sense to make it as easy as possible to find the content they are looking for. If that redirect from another language helps even one reader find the content they are looking for easier, it has been a useful redirect. We should write simple articles, make it easy to find them wherever possible, and leave the teaching of English to English teachers.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I think my opinion here needs to be expanded upon based on the Alemaña example. I think we need to be clear that the redirect can't be ambiguous. As soon as the word can mean multiple things, it shouldn't be a redirect. This is true even for topics that are English. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 19:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There is a clear and unambiguous system that we already have in place for thisː the "In other languages" interwiki links. They are clear and unique. These other random, ad hoc pages all need to be checked for errors and maintained. The interwiki system is there, works, and does not add another layer of complexity to the project. Gotanda (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There are a lot of languages that do not have pages on certain countries or cities, so interwiki links are not the perfect solution. --Ferien (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Ferien: Other wikipedia versions have their problems - we have to deal with the problems of our Simple-wikipedia: endless redirecting and redirects. (Simple-wiki can not solve everybody else's problems.) 89.8.131.126 (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  You're overexaggerating here, this is not endless. It's not as if there are tens of thousands of these redirects where the English name is different to the native name. In most cases, English will just take the native name e.g. Paris, although there are quite a few where the English is different to the native language e.g. Cologne. --Ferien (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Ferien: You seem to be underplaying the problem. (The problem is not only about some cities being the target of one redirect each.) Part of the problem is having any chosen city, be the target of redirects of names from many different languages.
  About the word endless - thanks for pointing that out; Seemingly endless is a better description.--Looks like you and I will have to agree to disagree, about the outline of the main problem. 89.8.174.194 (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  When did you see a page with “redirects of names from many different languages”? You are arguing a problem that does not exist. Deppiyy (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Just to be clear, I don't think that there should be a redirect in every language, but there should only be one for languages used in the city/the native name(s) of the city. For example with Cologne, there should be redirects in German and Kölsch (Colognian, a language of Cologne). The redirects in this case would be Köln and Kölle. For most cities, although I appreciate not for all, you will probably only get 2-3 redirects (like in the case of Cologne). And maybe for the cities with many many languages it is best not to have all the redirects and only have the names mentioned on the page itself, or something like that. --Ferien (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Its not a problem yet. And that is where the problem starts and needs to stop. While it is not an issue now, if left unchecked this could easily grow out of hand and become common practice. As is, it doesnt hurt anything but it also helps very little. thousands of these could occur over time if allowed to happen and that's where problems lay. Policy ignored today will almost alway fester and come back unweildy at a later date. This does not make for a better wiki and should be strongly frowned upon. --Creol(talk) 17:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC) 89.8.174.194 (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say we should nuke most of them, I don't see the point. Derpdart56 (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Additional problem when one word is used in multiple ways in one or more languages. See one of the recent one [2]. The whole thing is a complex mess and getting more complicated. --Gotanda (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'm happy that this discussion is happening. It's certainly a complicated issue and it's one that should not rest on any individual admin's discretion. Optimally this would result in an amendment to our deletion policy. As for my thoughts, redirects are cheap, but should have a purpose. Every possible translation of a city name, for example, is not helpful. However, redirects for other common spellings or in the city's primary or other languages (if not English) are helpful. Best, Vermont (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  "Every possible translation of a city name, for example, is not helpful" - I agree with that.--In regard to "When did [anyone] see a page with “redirects of names from many different languages”? [...]. Deppiyy (talk) 00:17, 7 February": Of course I have not bothered with tallying (of) repeat targets in regard to objectionable redirects. 89.8.82.69 (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC) 89.8.82.69 (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Late to the discussion. Just my 2 cents, but I'm generally okay with redirects from any Latin script (such as Deutchland to Germany), but not redirects in non-Latin scripts such as กรุงเทพฯ to Bangkok since there are situations like the Turkey case. My reasoning mainly comes from here, and I really wonder who will be looking up say something about Kaliningrad Oblast in Japanese... SHB2000 (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion break

I appreciate all of the responses from the community. I'm going to try to summarize the opinions that have been given, not including just the general comments (feel free to remove your name if I got it wrong and restate your position).

• Griffinofwales, Gotanda, Elytrian, Derpdart56, Creol, 89.8.173.218 (possibly editing with multiple IPs, counted as one for sake of discussion) and SoyokoAnis have expressed negative opinions regarding the addition of these redirects, while advocating for their deletion, with Creol saying: This does not make for a better wiki and should be strongly frowned upon. (Derpdart56 concurring), and Gotanda saying: These other random, ad hoc pages all need to be checked for errors and maintained [and an] additional problem when one word is used in multiple ways in one or more languages. (with Elytrian concurring).
• Gordonrox24 expressed conditional support for the redirects, stating If that redirect from another language helps even one reader find the content they are looking for easier, it has been a useful redirect. However, they also expressed concern over some redirects that and said I think we need to be clear that the redirect can't be ambiguous. As soon as the word can mean multiple things, it shouldn't be a redirect. Examples of this include redirects currently at RFD such as Alemaña, Namibië, and Calão. In each of these cases, searching these articles on enWP will bring you to a different page.
• Vermont also expressed conditional support for the redirects indicating As for my thoughts, redirects are cheap, but should have a purpose. Every possible translation of a city name, for example, is not helpful.
• Ferien supported redirects relying on previously decided consensus and WP:FOLLOW saying that Consensus is usually for foreign redirects to be kept, they are helpful on a wiki for people whose first language isn't English.
• Deppiyy supported his actions without conditions.

Now, this is a discussion, and not a !vote, but as of right now, of those that have expressed opinions, 7 have pushed for deletion, 2 for in between, and 2 for existing consensus (relying on previous RFDs). I feel that the participating community has come to a consensus that the current practice is not desired. I have two points of discussion for us to move forward the conversation. These are of course discussions and I welcome new ideas. For streamlining the conversation, please include discussion of the overall topic, or alternate ideas below. Discussion about the specific proposals should be in their specific sections. Thanks! Griff (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion point A: Change to existing policies

A change to the deletion policy criteria R3 as follows:

• Redirects with an uncommon typo, or a word that is spelled wrong, that was recently created. However, redirects from common accidental spellings are usually useful.; redirects in other languages are not deletable using this rule.

I propose we adopt the following as a guideline, to be included as WP:MOS 1.3 Redirects:

To help our readers use our Wikipedia, and to make it less confusing:

• Redirects should only mean one thing. If the redirect could mean more than one thing, a disambiguation page should be made. Use other Wikipedias or Google to help find other possible meanings for the word.
• Redirects from other languages should be avoided unless a very good reason can be provided for including them.

  Good reasons to include a redirect:

  • Apparently foreign words which are used as the English variant word in some forms of English e.g. serviette in French is used as a word for napkin in some English speaking areas
  • Original or official names of people or places in the official language of the topic or article title. If a primary official language does not exist, a redirect should not be made

  Bad reasons to include a redirect:

  • Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese, or Russian. As this project is written in English, it is more difficult for vandalism or errors to be found if redirects are made in a non-Latin alphabet
  • Direct translations where the original form of the title is in English
  • Common words or ideas in other languages

Any redirects that are created in the future and do not meet MOS 1.3 can be deleted per R3. Thoughts? Are there other guidelines that would need to be changed? Griff (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don’t see the purpose of deleting non-English redirects, the English version of toponyms aren’t always the official name. Take Novosibirsk for example, its official name is Новосибирск. There are other examples of non-English official names, like the German city of Cologne is actually called Köln in German and Kölle in Kötsch. Deppiyy (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• If we allow it for one, all can (and should) do it. This means for every page there could be a redirect in every language (or at least every wiki-language). Its both nieve and uninlusive to think this would ony affect a small number of redirects. We are looking at 204K articles and currently 325 wiki language so a potential of 66.4 Million redirects. While this is not a likely event, not stopping this now would open the door to it being allowed to happen. No purpose? Just preventing total chaos seem purpose enough for me. The IW system is made for this purpose. It is not our responsibility to help every other wiki which doesnt have a page on a certain article. You want to do this, pick a language, go to that wiki, create every page we have here, link them in wikidata, move to a different language and repeat. 204K pages, 325 tines... 324... we are one of those. And accept that many of these pages will get deleted. En.wiki alone has deleted many pages we keep. If this were just a handful of edits, fine. Human nature will not allow it to be stopped there. --Creol(talk) 16:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Creol: Just to make sure we're on the same page, do you have any issues with the proposal? Griff (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  None. --Creol(talk) 20:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support for point A.--The justicfication for my "vote" are (many of) the opinions in the first section (or very beginning) of this thread. 89.8.120.34 (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC) 89.8.120.34 (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I like the idea of this, although I'm a little unsure about the official names. The "bad reasons to include a redirect" part is the part I am especially in agreement with. --Ferien (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Ferien: Could you expand on what concerns you about official names and what can be done to address it? Just trying to make sure we have everyone's opinion on this. Griff (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Griffinofwales: Sometimes, it can be a little unclear whether a language is official or not, for example Bavarian is an official language in Bavaria but not in Germany as a whole, so it may be unclear as to whether the page can be deleted or not. And, in other countries, there are recognised regional languages (Urdu in India is the best example I can think of right now) - would those count as official or not? Regards, --Ferien (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Ferien:: I believe we should follow the last paragraph of MOS Section 2 as it's already written into the MOS and hasn't caused any issues. The community will just have to use common sense when it comes to following the MOS, and not actively be trying to work around the spirit of this new section. Griff (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support, based on what Creol said and my reasoning from before. Derpdart56 (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Re the proposal, "Original or official names of people or places in the official language of the topic or article title. If a primary official language does not exist, a redirect should not be made." "Original" can be unclear; names and histories are contested. "Official names" seems clear. However, "official language" may not be. India, for example, recognizes 22 languages constitutionally. We can get to many, many redirects. India is just one example I am familiar with; I expect there are other places with multiple official languages. Also, in some places there is no official language (The US for example) and the primary language may be contested or there are multiple languages with a plurality of speakers. It is getting complicated, isn't it? Even this basic proposal is not so simple as it may appear. --Gotanda (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree, I tried to follow enWP's RFOREIGN and MOS guidelines as much as possible, but it's going to have to take some common sense. My thoughts are, if the alternate name is notable enough for inclusion in the first sentence (for example, on India, only the Hindi translation is included), make a redirect. If not, don't. I'll even make that an example in the proposed MOS if that's what it takes. Griff (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Unfortunately, common sense is not that reliable. I really think the default should be that none of these are allowed and that a limited number of the usual suspects (Munich, Cologne) could have other language redirects after discussion. A process not unlike the proposed stubs would work. Limit editors to one proposal at a time. There is no urgency on any of the very few of these that are actually needed by the users this wiki aims to support. --Gotanda (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion point B: Action on existing redirects

I would like to propose the deletion of redirects created that are considered to be uncommon (relying on administrator interpretation of the outcome of this discussion, assisted by the community through the QD process) as created by Deppiyy either through the R3 or G6 criteria, referencing this discussion as a deletion reason. This should be not viewed as a deletion of all redirects created by Deppiyy, but those that are uncommon or could be deleted without creating undue difficulty on those finding the articles, broadly defined. I believe that this will apply to 95% or more of the redirects created. I understand that this a bit much, but so are the redirects, and I suspect that there are issues hidden in the redirects made that may not be found if we don't just start over. Griff (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Question: Does anything in point B, go against anything in point A? For now I am leaning towards "voting" (or supporting) point B also. 89.8.120.34 (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  No. Point A talks about redirects in the future, and Point B is for the redirects that have already been made, or at least that is what I was trying to do :) Griff (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support for point B.--The justicfication for my "vote" are (many of) the opinions in the first section (or very beginning) of this thread. (Disclosure: I have previously also "voted" for point A - that is my claim.) 89.8.149.105 (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support under the condition that if anyone has any opposition to these redirects being deleted on Deletion review then the page will be restored and an RfD discussion can be started instead. --Ferien (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Also support this. Derpdart56 (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "restored and an RfD discussion can be started instead"? In that case, one boring rule must be decided on: "One person can ask to restore-and-RfD, maximum 5 (or whatever) of his/her redirects per day". (Justification: Imagine if one wiki-user says, "Wikipedia nuked one thousand of my redirects today - therefore I will have my one thousand pages restored-for-starting-RfD, all in one day".) 89.8.99.63 (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I don't think we need to complicate matters by having a rule because I don't think anyone would say that. We currently have R3 and let's say someone created 1000 R3 eligible redirects, no-one is actually going to start 1000 deletion review discussions. Please, be realistic. And actually, thinking now, a discussion on deletion review would be fine itself. --Ferien (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to post of 17:17 -- seems like you are not taking into account Murphy's law.--We might have to agree to disagree about what things are unrealistic, and what is not. Perhaps that part of the discussion, has run its course. 89.8.109.239 (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. Derpdart56 (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to address concerns from above, DRV is of course an option for any redirect deleted under this rule. I expect all members of the community to be wise about the use of the DRV discussions and respecting the wishes of the community as expressed here. Griff (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thoughts on why my redirects should be kept

1. They’re either an original, official or alternative name that differs from the English spelling. For example, Shqipëri redirects to Albania.

2. Convenient if someone is using a non-Latin alphabet that redirects to their romanised form. For example 上海 redirects to Shanghai.

3. People might not know the English version of toponyms. Instead, they could use the local spelling. For example, Kölle redirects to Cologne

4. Redirects are cheap

Deppiyy (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This new section has just about zero new points.--Digressions: Wikipedia is not a democracy! (Its a website, where at least most of its leadership input comes from experienced users: Users with more experience than myself - or for that matter, you. You or I are not the ones who will be running the show, so to speak.)--Is there a chance that you are in process of really annoying a significant section of the leadership that has commented about the redirect issue? Yes - and will you be left with anything positive to show for that? Being left with one and one burning bridge - is not going to improve your chances of being influential in (other) decisions on Wikipedia.--The train is leaving the station - but if there is a wikipedian with a frown blocking every door on the train, then some people will be left behind.--There are so many frowns to be seen standing and looking at the redirect mess; so many, so many, so many ... . 89.8.81.15 (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC) 89.8.149.105 (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirects are really not that hard to fix, please stop calling it all a mess... this is an issue that is quite easy to solve. At most, less than 500 of Deppiyy's redirects could be deleted if that is the consensus here. However, most of them are good and meet point A that Griffinofwales bought up, so 500 is unrealistic. --Ferien (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the set up you have listed (just for locations and in languages used in the location) I could break out a couple thousand redirects with ease - How many languages are spoken in NYC, London, Paris, Tokyo, etc. Each major cite sees a multitude of languages spoken. Then you have to limit it to just English and the official languages of that place but that rules out communities not officially accepted there. Only English is official in most US cites so NYC gets no redirects even though it has huge foreign speaking communities. Next you have to allow this and that language, but nothing else. But who is to decide what languages are acceptable where? Policy needs to be clear on what is acceptable and what is not but an arbiquary decision like that is far from clear cut. As long as the door is open people can find ways to screw around with it. Cleaning it up coould be a simple thing IF we had the numbers willing to go around and do it. looking at the cats for cleanup and wikifying articles, that manpower is sadly suspect. The mass location syub creations from the early 2010s are still floating around a decade later.. who exactly will be expected to keep this under control when actual articles cant get attention? --Creol(talk) 00:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. I can come up with thousands that meet the criteria but are pointless or worse. The amount of effort required to make sure these are accurate (just look at this discussion and look at how several of the recently created ones are ambiguous or unclear and require supervision and editing) that effort is wasted. I have often seen in discussion on this wiki hat Simple does not just mean Simplified English, but also that we do things here is a simplified way. Adding a vast, unclear, multilingual nest (I am not going to call it a "system" because there is nothing systematic about it) of redirects around this wiki is just creating future headaches and goes against the basic idea behind this wiki. Make it simple. --Gotanda (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no point in having 100 redirects when the attention used on creating those redirects can be used on other pages that need them badly. Derpdart56 (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Derpdart56: Except that these have already been created, so there's no effort being put on them any more. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know, but the effort that was put *into* those redirects could be used elsewhere. Derpdart56 (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Derpdart56: True, but we're discussing whether to keep the ones that already exist. The effort involved for what's already done is moot. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I see. Derpdart56 (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Deppiyy These redirects are pointless. You created one for a Georgian soccer (football) player today. I agree with the idea that if one person found a redirect useful, then it's not pointless. But why would a georgian football fan look on an english wiki? It seems illogical and unlikely that anyone would find it useful. But that's just my opinion. Derpdart56 (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because ხვიჩა კვარაცხელია is the native name of the footballer. A Georgian user might not know the romanised name of the footballer. Deppiyy (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but why would a georgian user be on an english wiki, when there might already be a page on it on Georgian Wikipedia? (unsure of the name of the georgian's native language, don't quote me on that) Derpdart56 (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry if I seemed mean, that isn't my intention. Derpdart56 (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whilst I believe a lot of these redirects are reasonable, there are a few that aren't and I have a different view to other members of the community, so, Deppiyy, please can I ask you to stop making these redirects whilst this discussion is ongoing. Thank you. --Ferien (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And on the other hand, to all those who are going through Deppiyy's contributions and setting up RfDs, it is probably also best to wait for this discussion to be over. It's best to wait for a consensus overall and then deal with all of the redirects at once instead of going through one by one before this discussion is even over. Just creates more work. --Ferien (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other redirects

This is somewhat unrelated but also relevant. There seems to be some grey area for excessively long names. For example, Phrabat Somdet Phra Paramendra Ramadhibodi Srisinra Maha Vajiralongkorn Mahisara Bhumibol Rajavarangkura Kitisirisumburna Adulyadej Sayamindradhipeshra Rajavarodom Borommanat Pobitra Phra Vajira Klao Chao Yu Hua is incredibly long and redirects to the shorter name.

As for myself, this redirect isn't useful at all. We could implement rules similar to what is being suggested for foreign-language relate rules. Someone said "it helps google indexing", but then it is already a redirect on a few other wikipedias so why waste space? Also, you still get keywords from the article if looking on google and are still likely to get popped up through indexing. Perhaps here we can get a idea for what we should do for that as well. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 05:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vajiralongkorn’s regal name redirect falls under Category:Unprintworthy redirects. Such a redirect can help writers and search-engine indexing. Deppiyy (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Loi sur les mesures d'urgence (one more dubious redirect, of the type that this thread should consider stopping). 89.8.150.53 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Foreign
• Españha‎. (While my guitar gently sings "train wreck" and "Troll factory" - but I don't know why.) 89.8.168.158 (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yes, this redirect is kind of bad. I think it should be deleted. HOWEVER, I do not think Deppiyy means to make Simple less simple. Ok? Derpdart56 (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Sometimes users on Wikipedia, get restrictions, so that they can not do everything they want to do on Wikipedia.--If the redirect is a problem for Wikipedia, then it does not help if mind-reading says that user:Deppiyy's motivation was not to do harm. 89.8.150.96 (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Why do you keep thinking I'm mindreading? I'm not trying to, it's called inference. I was trying to infer Deppiyy's motivation and also Wikipedia:AGF. Derpdart56 (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Italian people - is that the same as "Italy" (or is it a controversial redirect)? 89.8.144.11 (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It's not the same as Italy, but we have this kind of redirect in cases where there is no article on the people. That way, if an article on the people is ever created we wouldn't have to hunt for things that should link to it, we would just change the redirect or create a page instead of the redirect. Although, usually we would be linking to Italians rather than Italian people. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Could you stop? You have made nothing but hostile comments on this discussion. Another Wikipedian told you to stop two days ago on Simple talk. Deppiyy (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Reply to post @ 02:32 - redirects are under scrutiny. Your redirects too. That might be uncomfortable at times (and you have my sympathy) - however I do not see you as a victim. 89.8.150.96 (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  He isn't a victim, no, but he doesn't deserve to have to a bunch of restrictions placed on him. Derpdart56 (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  He actually is being somewhat restricted for now: Several administrators have strongly urged him to stop his main thrust of redirections, until Simple Talk has concluded. (If he and/or everyone will be allowed full thrust on redirects later - that remains to be seen.)--The needs of this project, rank higher than what "he deserves" (whatever that may be in your view). 89.8.65.155 (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Phleng chāt Thai - there is not one single, correct transcription of a Thai name or phrase; All transcriptions of Thai are (arguably) wrong to some degree.--How many "redirects from transcriptions" for this song, should we allow? Five? 100? 89.8.136.191 (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Râul Prut. Is that part of an application for restrictions (for oneself)? 89.8.167.177 (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• That is a perfectly acceptable redirect, at this point I might put forward a topic ban on you, your comments at this point at bordering on harassment. Just drop the stick at this point, everyone is aware of your opinion. -Djsasso (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Hold on there! Please explain why this should be a redirect; There seems to be no clue in the English article or the Simple article, as to why this should be a redirect.--Harassment in a thread about redirects that "harass" this project? Go ahead, make your case and gather yourself a group of "redirect apologists"; When you have gathered the first dozen, you will probably feel important; Just about as important as someone in a Troll factory getting an award for "job well-done". 89.8.167.177 (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This is exactly the point Djsasso is trying to make. You are spending so much time looking through/observing all the pages Deppiyy is creating and complaining about each imperfect one here - that is basically harassment. --Ferien (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Wrong: I look thru "New Pages" (that link is in the menu on the left side).--I breeze thru looking for things that (arguably) sucks (such as Thai stuff in RTGS).--Either a redirect is "Good enough" or "Not good enough".--Please let us know if this redirect is good enough.--At what point should someone have restrictions about making redirects.--Should one get a Red Card when one is given a Yellow Card two times (and a six day redirect-ban when one gets the first Red Card)? 89.8.167.177 (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Like I said in my proposal, we'll need to individually go through the redirects. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean we go through each and every single one right now. Derpdart56 (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Reply to post Derpdart56 @ 16:18 - there is a need to go thru redirects that seem to suck (although there is at least one person who seems to think that none of the redirects suck). 89.8.167.177 (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Also, the community consensus seems to be with Prop. 5, 7, and 3. I'll admit, I made a big deal out of this before. But now I see that there isn't that big of a problem regarding these. Also please stop being antagonistic. It doesn't help anyone. Derpdart56 (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Reply to post Derpdart56 @ 16:23 - there might be quite a few that don't bother with discussions that might seem to go nowhere.--One can only hope that they will not be shy to pin the "sucks" label, when the most sucky redirects get taken to RfD.--RfDs are another type of consensus (and can decide things somewhat beyond a general rule) one might say). 89.8.167.177 (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yes, a select few of these redirects suck, but most of them are fine. Voting because "I don't like it" is not a valid reason. Derpdart56 (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Reply to post Derpdart56 @ 16:55 - you are trying to put words in the mouth of another person.--There are about 3 things which will decide if a redirect is fine (and the opinion of user:Derpdart56 is not a major deciding factor): The coming RfD/ AfD-discussions, the coming "Deletion:Review discussions", and General rules as decided by consensus. 89.8.167.177 (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Nynorsk language. There is no indication that there is more than one notable thing called "Nynorsk". The questionable redirect is arguably using a redirect to explain what Nynorsk is.--This redirect seems to have no value; If the word "Nynorsk" appears in a text, then go ahead and link that word like this: Nynorsk (and anyone can consider to move forward with nominating for Delete, for the dubious redirect Nynorsk language). 89.8.167.177 (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC) 89.8.167.177 (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Diarrhœa - questionable redirect, possibly by somebody who already has received word about waiting with redirects until Simple Talk discussions have concluded. 89.8.146.21 (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• History of Ethiopia‎. If someone were to call this "a pointless redirect", then I would sort of get that.--Suggestions for redirects that we might want to avoid, for now: Geography of Ethiopia; Commerce of Ethiopia. 89.8.128.172 (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doing one-self no favors?

• Template:R typo‎. (If I piss off (or annoy) all my neighbors time and again - will I earn points (or good standing) if I walk an old lady from sidewalk to sidewalk? Correct answer: "Not likely.") 89.8.168.158 (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Does it matter? This redirect might be of some use; typo is a misspelling, so this redirect makes sense. Derpdart56 (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Er, typo is a synonym of misspelling. Derpdart56 (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yes, it seems to have mattered: the person tweaking the redirect, did a flip-flop - 5 minutes after tweaking the redirect.--The size of this entire thread might give an indication that this general subject matters. 89.8.167.177 (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Foreign-script redirects

• Maybe say "No" : Example of questionable redirects [3]. (This time, something questionable was deleted quick.) 89.8.144.184 (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• المغرب. - maybe best to say "No". 89.8.167.177 (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There around 30 language links to foreign scripts.--Are some days slow, at Troll factories, one wonders. 89.8.167.177 (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  What is a troll factory? You keep mentioning it. Derpdart56 (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• نوروز. This is not a necessary redirect, since that "Iranian information" is already mentioned in the article. Anyone, please nominate for Delete. 89.8.146.21 (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  List of words in Farsi script - in something like that is where the word might belong, and such articles might be an okay place to contain eager beavers.--Instead of many thousand different pages, then eager beavers can write many thousand different words on one page - without redirect pages. 89.8.146.21 (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enwiki policy

Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English is what I could come across in enwiki that can be helpful in this case. I think allowing the useful redirects from other languages can be helpful. But I would also like to discourage people from doing it as a primary task where/when not necessary. In a nutshell: "Redirects from other languages should generally be avoided unless a well-grounded rationale can be provided for their inclusion."--BRP ^ever 12:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah this is my view on things as well. -Djsasso (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah like the name for Spain in Spanish as a redirect seems fine to me, but not the name for lemon, for example. --IWI (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep that is a perfect example, other things that often happen on en.wiki is official names of companies/organizations in the native language of that company. -Djsasso (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm okay with that too, but only for scripts in the Latin alphabet, plus a couple of others such as the German ß or the Icelandic Þ. SHB2000 (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Combining threads - the Griff proposal

Thank you to everyone for your comments. I am now combining this all up into a formal proposal to change our policies and guidelines. While general comments are welcomed, please clearly state your support, opposition, and thoughts regarding this proposal, including its sub parts. This will make it easier for the community to determine consensus on changes. This is just one option, but what I consider what most of the community (as expressed in this thread) desires. This proposal involves four parts:

1. A change to the deletion policy, speedy deletion criteria R3

   This more closely follows the English Wikipedia's use of the R3 criteria. They use the term implausible, which is defined by the Simple English Wiktionary as something that is not likely to happen.

2. An addition to the Manual of Style guideline regarding redirects

   This formalises parts of enWP's RFOREIGN guideline and provides help to members of the community when nominating redirects for deletion.

3. A formal note to Deppiyy about creating redirects that go against the spirit of this proposal

   This directly addresses the behaviour that initiated this discussion and emphasises the community's desire to have Deppiyy focus his work on other tasks that build the Wikipedia.

4. The deletion of redirects that meet the re-written criteria R3

   This action specifically addresses existing redirects and reflects the comments detailed in Discussion point B.

• Deletion policy change
  • Deletion policy - speedy deletion criteria R3 will now read:

  Redirects with an unlikely typo or search term, or a word that is spelled wrong, that were recently created. However, redirects from common accidental spellings are usually useful.

• Addition to the Manual of Style
  • Manual of Style section 1.3 will be created and read:

  Redirects

See also: A help page on how to make redirects and the English Wikipedia's guideline on foreign redirects

Redirects should only mean one thing. If the redirect could mean more than one thing, a disambiguation page should be made. Use other Wikipedias or Google to help find other possible meanings for the word.

Redirects from other languages should be avoided unless a very good reason can be provided for including them.

• Good reasons to create a redirect from another language:
  • Apparently foreign words which are used as the English variant word in some forms of English e.g. serviette in French is used as a word for napkin in some English speaking areas
  • Original or official names of people or places in the official language of the topic or article title. These names are generally found in the first sentence of the article.
• Bad reasons to create a redirect from another language:
  • Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese, or Russian. As this project is written in English, it is more difficult for vandalism or errors to be found if redirects are made in a non-Latin alphabet
  • Direct translations where the original form of the title is in English
  • Common words or ideas in other languages

• Formal note to Deppiyy

  Your work on this Wikipedia is valued and appreciated. However, the community has decided that your creation of redirects is unnecessary and not helpful to the goals of the project. You are asked to respect the consensus of the community and stop creating redirects of which there is an unlikely chance of them being used. If you would like additional help in deciding whether a redirect is one that should be created, please read our related policies and guidelines, the Simple Talk thread discussing redirects, or discuss the matter with other members of the Wikipedia community. You are also asked to not make changes that violate the spirit of the Simple Talk redirect discussion {include permalink to closed discussion} or to simply make a point. Changes that do so may be seen as disruptive. Once again, the community appreciates your continued work in the article space and wishes to see your energy used in continuing to improve and create articles. For the community, Griff

• Deletion of existing redirects

This should not be viewed as a deletion all redirects created by Deppiyy, nor is it meant to be exclusive to redirects created by Deppiyy. Users wishing to mass nominate redirects under this changed criteria should create a list that can be reviewed by an administrator to reduce flooding New Changes. Administrators have discretion in deleting redirects under this criteria, using their judgment and understanding of new policy. QDs that are declined can still be deleted through RFD, and QDs that are accepted can be appealed directly to the deleting administrator or through DRV.

I know that this does not cover everyone's concerns, and I know that there are still users who disagree with the discussion, but I'm trying to summarise everyone's thoughts and create a proposal we can all agree to. Yes, there are gray areas, but we are the Simple English Wikipedia and I do not feel that we need to be creating policies for every single situation. It is expected that all members of the community, regardless of their thoughts on this discussion, will use common sense, good faith, and focus their time on actions that build the project, refraining from disruptive or POINTy changes as a result of the outcome of this thread. I hope that all my proposals address the broader issues regarding redirects while also focusing on the issue that started this discussion. Your thoughts are welcome on this proposal, but I ask that we focus on the merits of this specific proposal and not on past issues that have already been discussed (those discussions can continue in other sections above). Griff (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Supporting/Opposing/other comments

• Support I agree with this. --Derpdart56 (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support . 89.8.156.187 (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
•  Comment: Redirects for pages on non-latin characters such as Ҏ, Ф, etc are in a grey area. They are the subject of the article but also non-latin, which makes it both eligible for deletion and not eligible for deletion. What should we do with those?
• Oppose - Policies should remain unchanged, these changes might cause further confusion and disputes. -Deppiyy (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirects such as Ελληνικό αλφάβητο would also fit into this category. What should we do for these? MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 03:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support I think this is an accurate representation of the community's general feelings here, and will support these changes. Would suggest possibly removing the "that was recently created" part from R3. It's subjective in terms of timeline, and I don't see why it would have to be recent anyway. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 04:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Recent is there because its meant for situations where someone spelled a new article wrong when they created and then moved it right away, at which point a redirect with a typo is created. The intention being that those can be deleted right away, any other typos etc go to Rfd usually on en.wiki atleast. Recent is usually considered the day or so it was created. Remember the whole purpose of redirects is for typos and less likely search terms, they shouldn't just get QD'd based on an Admins whim. While there are obvious ones that should be so far most of the examples I have seen people upset about are perfectly acceptable redirects that I would likely end up restoring and sending to Rfd instead of QD if I saw them QD'd. I think people need to slow way down and think what exactly do they think they are solving by essentially making the QD for redirects a situation where people can delete them if they just don't like them, which is what I see above so far. -Djsasso (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per above. Bobherry (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support As for non-latin characters, I propose that those can be kept. In the situation somebody doesn't know that the name of the Greek letter θ is "theta", it would be a useful redirect. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 23:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Retracting this until I have enough time to read the new proposals and make up my mind. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 05:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Fehufanga I then propose that MoS 1.3 reads the following:

  "Bad reasons to create a redirect from another language:

  • Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese, or Russian(except for pages in which the subject of the article is directly a non-Latin alphabet letter, eg., θ). As this project is written in English, it is more difficult for vandalism or errors to be found if redirects are made in a non-Latin alphabet."

  As a side note, I don't think that this proposal really includes anything about long foreign names. Given on the general consensus of the votes in RfD, I would suggest if the redirect is their actual given name given by their parent, then yes. If it is only a full title, however then no. Idk what people actually think about that tho so maybe it can be discussed a little. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 04:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support MathXplore (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @MathXplore: Could you please explain why you support? This is not a vote. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The policy change seems good to me, and the formal note to the editor simply summarizes what I wanted to say. MathXplore (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

•  Comment: - For those above, MOS is a guideline. The deletion policy simply says "Unlikely". Nominating a redirect for QD does not mean it will be deleted, and administrators are trusted to follow MOS/DP and delete (or not). Gray area redirects can always be kept or sent to RFD. There are two main principles here, 1. Providing guidance through MOS to users creating redirects and 2. Allowing redirects to be deleted in other languages, not requiring it. Griff (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose People also need to remember en:WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Most of the redirects I see currently nominated are completely valid redirects (that used the latin alphabet). While I would not recommend going and making it your goal to create every possible redirect for every possible thing. I think this whole discussion was making a mountain out of a molehill. The real issue was mass creating redirects and then not stopping to discuss it. Changing current perfectly acceptable QD criteria in a knee jerk reaction to a single user makes for bad policy. Almost all of the arguments I have seen so far have essentially boiled down to "I don't like them". Redirects are cheap even if they are almost never used. Redirects are helpful, even if they are almost never used. I think people need to stop and breath for a second, y'all are gettin way out of hand. -Djsasso (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sending every possible gray area redirect, however(because there are probably gray-area redirects around 50 I can find) doesn't really help anything. The reason for this discussion was, among other things, to limit the absolutely large and absurd number of RfD cases that takes up time on this rather than what other people can do. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 05:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• And what I am saying is almost none of these redirects should have even made it close to Rfd. Almost none of them were even close to being something that should be deleted. -Djsasso (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose I don't think the changes to the policy are necessary just because of one or two cases where people are found doing it as a primary task. The existing guideline already doesn't allow the creation of redirects unless there is a well-grounded rationale that can be provided for their inclusion. What we need to do is discuss individual cases and topic ban the users if needed. Also, the changes here are suggested to be included as a policy, which is likely bound to cause more debates and conflicts moving ahead. Likely more than what it will solve. Non-latin redirects will be disallowed regardless of usefulness which doesn't really make sense. Currently, we can delete the ones that are unnecessary after discussion, but once there is a policy not allowing that, we won't even be able to include the useful ones in our encyclopedia. There had been no issues with our existing rules until Deppiyy started creating them as a primary task. And us creating policy that could potentially be disadvantageous to our encyclopedia in the long run simply doesn't seem like the right choice.-BRP ^ever 01:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• That is exactly it, the proposals above will be far more disadvantageous to the wiki than beneficial. It will cause more issues that it solves, and banning outright non-latin characters is outright silly. This has never been an issue in my almost decade plus editing here, I think people just got overly annoyed at a single editor and jumped the gun in trying to shut them down when we already have the tools needed to do so without changing the current criteria to a much worse one. All that needed to be done was to ask them to stop creating them and discuss, and if they continued then topic ban them. Instead this proposal is almost like self harm. -Djsasso (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there does come up to be a problem, why don't we just mentioned this? Guidelines and rules are added so that problems don't happen in the future. Rules are generally only added if something comes up. If another "primary task" comes up, now we can point to this discussion because there are almost 100 RfD discussions because of Djasso's redirects. And, if something else comes up, we can make another rule. As I mentioned above, spending time individually going case by case by case by case by case takes up WAY too much time. I know there isn't a deadline, but there could be better things done.

In this case, there was apparently enough well-grounded rationale for there to be a full-blown debate that was very blatant to every active editor here. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 05:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MrMeAndMrMe I think you misunderstood the point of my comment. What you are mentioning isn't a solution. These changes reflect changes to whole encyclopedia and they shouldn't be done without thought. We can't just delete and restore things without putting enough thought behind it. What we have is not actually a big enough problem, but it is made to look big. Redirects are harmless unless abusive. The only problem I see here is the significant changes we are making to our policies which could, in fact, be counterproductive. I have given an example of 'how' above. And along with that, there are are several other reasons. The changes in policies at this point can be confusing to those who are not aware of this discussion and to those who come here from enwiki or any other wikipedia. It has never been inconvenience for years, and what we have here is a problem caused by mass creation by a user. And imo it can be resolved by discussing with the user, and taking actions like I mentioned above. We should not be taking short-sighted decisions for convenience. BRP ^ever 05:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is done with an incredibly thorough investigation, however. Almost every active user is contributing in this conversation(not every active user of course, but a large number) and it is taking up seven entire sections just to discuss it. If that's not thorough, I don't know what is.

If the rules actually are counterproductive, then, as I mentioned above, we change the rules with thorough discussion. When the people first came up with 3RR, they didn't say "no let's not" just because it could be counterproductive. I would agree with you if you had an example where something like this isn't counterproductive, but there is no justified reason to believe that it is. But, if there is an actual reason as to why this rule is counterproductive, then why not change it when it happens? There is no due date in Wikipedia and things can change throughout its history.

Changes in policies differ from wiki to wiki and users should actually read the rules first when jumping from wiki to wiki. This isn't different and changing a policy(which is arguable very minor in comparison to other things) isn't that big of a deal. This isn't just being done with a single user as well. I've seen multiple IPs make these redirects throughout my time here and a lot of time can be saved from doing something like making a rule against it. As I stated previously, nothing becomes a rule until it actually happens, and that's to ensure it doesn't happen again. There could be another thing like this that happens in the future and bam, lots of argument once again. Actions against the user should not happen unless if they are outright breaking the rules, in which case, Djsasso was not. He had a justified reason to make these rules and the current rules basically say "no vandalism" and leave it at that. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 07:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And that's why I think the situation is being exaggerated. You say thorough, but I don't even see one real harm the redirects are causing. I already mentioned why frequent change in policy can be counterproductive. But we don't have to go that far in the future to see how. The blanket ban on non-Latin redirects is already not helpful. Our wiki is also known to have simple policies and environment, and this change will certainly complicate things. Both for admins and non-admin. The disruption and disagreement can always be discussed and resolved. (...also, you are mistaking the user. It's Deppiyy not Djsasso who created the redirect.) --BRP ^ever 10:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see thorough. I see a lot of jumping on the bandwagon and shouting lets do it without any talk of the potential problems this creates, all of which in my opinion appears to be motivated by an I am annoyed by this editor creating so many redirects. They problem isn't the policy, it was the editor. I went through most of their redirects, and almost all of them would still be valid under the above proposed measures so these changes don't even accomplish what you were setting out to do. That being said almost all of their redirects were good redirects that should not be deleted, official names or names in the native language of a place or organization for example are all perfect examples of when redirects should be created. People are also forgeting we are simple wikipedia where we do things to cater a bit more to the non-english speakers than other wikis because our target audience are people learning english who might not know the English version of a name/topic for example and so might type in Türkiye instead of Turkey when searching for the country. -Djsasso (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I've mentioned, it isn't just Deppiyy creating this problem. Not all of them would be invalid either, as I've mentioned because there is sill a large number of blatantly useless redirects. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 13:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just because you don’t like it does not mean it’s useless. Redirects are cheap. Deppiyy (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like Deppiyy says, just because you wouldn't use it doesn't make it useless. If it helps even one person it is better than nothing. Redirects are cheap. -Djsasso (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Discussion about these pointless redirects is ongoing. This demonstrates why redirects are not cheap. Every one of these requires checking. This one doesn't even come close to passing the test."

-Gotanda in one of the threads.

These RfDs are becoming so abundant that it's becoming amazingly tedious to go through case by case. They are very blatantly not cheap. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 14:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, the discussion is peoples need for useless discussion and doesn't really relate to the redirects themselves. The redirects themselves don't actually have to be discussed. In very few cases do redirects need to be deleted. They are cheap that they do not take up server space, they almost never harm something (baring vadalism of course). And even some of the things I have seen people complain about such as not redirecting to the best target are almost not remotely problems cause targets can be changed if necessary. Neither are RfDs on this wiki tedious because our RfD acts as prod in which no one needs to even comment and the item will get deleted. The above quote misunderstand why redirects are cheap, and your comment misunderstands (or perhaps is not aware) of how RfDs work here. No one ever needs to comment in an RfD on this wiki as our RfDs work in the same manor prods do on en.wiki and we soft delete an item if no one comments. You are very much making this issue bigger than it is. -Djsasso (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why should we add every single redirect for every possible language that is related? Why should we have someone translate German to every article about Russia because Germans were once from Russia? It's a waste of space. Even if redirects are cheap, translating all 200,000 articles in five different ways makes an excessive amount. The purpose of redirects are to put another common way of calling something into a link to another article or something that is of a specified coverage of an article but not notable enough to create its own article. Redirecting "Breetish folk" to British people doesn't help. It's not even of a relevant language. This can be considered the simple misuse of redirects.

When you say that people may be "overreacting" or "making it a bigger issue than it is", I am just trying to treat this professionally and see any actual downside and defend issues before it does or does not become a policy. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 15:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because no one is saying every redirect from every language should be created. That is overstating the situation. People are saying related ones should be able to be created. Current policy already says this. What the change above is doing, is making any non-english redirect deletable by QD. "Breetish folk" while not one I would create is debatable because scots is one of the native languages on that island, and anything debatable shouldn't be QDable. QD isn't for debate, Rfd is. Deleting things by QD that are debatable is a misuse of QD. The above change makes it open season on any redirect that is not English, and this wiki especially needs the ability to redirect from other languages where necessary. -Djsasso (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But again, why would anyone who isn't in Scottish use simple wiki? Breetish folk isn't even in Scots and if it were, Scots isn't the official language and very few people actual speak Scots. It's like using a German redirect for a Russian article because there is a large population of Germans from Russia

This proposal doesn't delete every foreign redirect. My interpretation is that it has to be the direct subject of the article and it should be kept as long as it is in reason. It can be their actual name in that foreign language(in the case of countries, names, etc), actual characters(in the case of omega or e with an umlaut), etc. Anything that is in the grey area can be set up for rfd and administrators should know the difference between an RFD and a QD case and act accordingly.

You keep saying that the new policy will both "make every non-english redirect deletable" and "not apply to very many articles, you're making a big deal out of it." What is it? MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 16:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It removes the protection from QD for foreign language articles which based on how the other QDs operate in the real world means anything not English will be deleted. We already have to fight with admins not to us A4 inappropriately, this will just cause the same amount of issues. You are right people are saying those things, will be good, but now people can say "Oh but I don't think that things is likely even though it is country name" etc and QD it without discussion. It will make any non-english redirect QDable. You are missing the nuance in what I am saying, the articles created by Deppiyy that caused this will mostly all still be valid redirects so this won't allow for their deletion any more than they can be deleted today. It does however, open up to quick deletion a lot of other redirects that we previously required to go to Rfd. QD reasons are supposed to be black and white lines where there is no debate, it can be QDed or it can't be. Your comment about admins knowing when something is in the grey area is exactly the problem. A QD criteria is not supposed to have any grey area and admins are supposed to not have to make any kind of judgement call on if it should go to Rfd or not. QD reasons are intended to be bright line rules. The above proposal is asking admins to make value judgements during a QD request. -Djsasso (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is a good point. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 17:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for why would anyone here use a Scots word here. You do know that our wikis primary goal is for people learning another language right? Everything we do here is in service to making things easier for people coming at simple.wiki from another language. Someone doing a search here might not know the English word for a topic but they might know the native word for it. That QD criteria said that languages couldn't be QD'd because non-english redirects are core to our mission here and any deletion of a non-english redirect would need discussion to decide if it was a necessary redirect or not whereas a typo is likely not to need much discussion. -Djsasso (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Djsasso agreed, Scots is an Anglic language sharing similarities with English but have different grammar and spelling. Deppiyy (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

justs side noting. The correct term is "Breetish fowk". Breetish folk is not Scot its a mixture of two languages. Not many people here edit there so I thought I should point out it isnt a Scots term. see sco:Breetish fowk --Creol(talk) 20:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If a redirect is made, no effort is needed anymore. Redirects are not treated like articles. Deppiyy (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is that that's not even a Scots translation. Here I get "Breetish fowk", but it's only "Breetish folk". Why combine two different languages?

• Oppose, at least for now. The blanket ban on non-Latin redirects is not helpful. Some of the harm that's actually been caused by this has also been overexaggerated by many members of the community, with some even saying "Redirects are not cheap"! As Djsasso says, I think everyone just needs to calm down... --Ferien (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I would agree with you on the blanket ban. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 14:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Partial support I am opposed to redirects e.g. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ to Nunavut – if someone really wants to look up a redirect in another script, then they're on the wrong wiki. However, redirects in Latin scripts but not English are okay, as Turkey is officially Türkiye (both now in English and Turkish), even though the former is the common name but we might get English speakers type up the Turkish spelling. With letters like Þ in Þingvellir, they are part of the Icelandic alphabet and so they should be allowed. The same goes with the German ß. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  SHB2000, simply out of curiosity, why do you think non-Latin redirects should be treated differently to Latin redirects? --Ferien (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The thing with Latin script redirects being okay is because it is common to incorporate names of places in other languages into English (like Turkey for example). That doesn't apply to non-Latin script names tho. SHB2000 (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  If ᓄᓇᕗᑦ is the native name of Nunavut, then a redirect should be made. I don’t see any problem with genuine native-name redirects. Deppiyy (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support –Morneo06 (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Morneo06: Could you please explain why you support? This is not a vote. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The deletion policy change and the addition to the Manual of Style seem appropriate and necessary to me. Morneo06 (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Ok, it would always be helpful if you could provide more discussion to the situation, because this is quite a controversial discussion and reasons always help (and we don't seem to have many at this moment in time) --Ferien (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose - Unnecessary, complicated addition to the policy, making Simple Wikipedia less Simple the way it is. -Deppiyy (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Many of the redirects of user:Deppiyy are not contributing to the smooth operation or smooth running of Wikipedia. Not keeping wikipedia Simple - that is therefore one of the results of many of the redirects of user:Deppiyy. Sad to say so.--The Griff proposal (or the first proposal that this thread has "voted" on - that is what I am leaning toward.) 89.8.162.69 (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC) 89.8.162.69 (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Firstly, please stop bolding multiple random things in your sentences, it makes your replies quite difficult to read. Secondly, it is only affecting the "smooth operation" or "running" of Wikipedia is because we're getting worried. The rules we have right now are quite simple, please read w:WP:RFOREIGN and Deppiyy is following them well, so please do not accuse Deppiyy of disrupting the encyclopedia because that's simply not true. The Griff proposal/proposal 1 would actually make things much more complex because there would be more ambiguity to R3 and we already have problems with A4 (which is not even that ambiguous...) where admins will delete non-notable articles that have claims. --Ferien (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A secondary proposal

Djasso, SHB2000 and others have made good points that I would like to bring up in a secondary point that seems like a better idea than the Griff proposal.

This includes the following:

1. No QD change

   QDs should only brought up in the case of no grey area. RfDs may be brought up, but R3 should not be reworded.

1. Manual of style section 1.3 will be made and will now read:

Redirects should only mean one thing. If the redirect could mean more than one thing, a disambiguation page should be made. Use other Wikipedias or Google to help find other possible meanings for the word.

Redirects from other languages should be avoided unless a very good reason can be provided for including them.

• Good reasons to create a redirect from another language:
  • Apparently foreign words which are used as the English variant word in some forms of English e.g. serviette in French is used as a word for napkin in some English speaking areas
  • Original or official names of people or places in the official language or regional language of the topic or article title.
• Bad reasons to create a redirect from another language:
  • Names for articles that are not the direct topic of the article(often in bold in the first sentence of the article)
  • Article names that are directly translated from other languages or translations of redirects.

This is the best that I can come up with as the original Griff ProposalTM may not work in those ways. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 17:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose Still not clear enough imo, there are other good reasons to create a redirect which aren't addressed and would fall under the bad reasons. Also sometimes a minority or regional language is used more than the official language and for example you created Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Breetish folk which is a Scots redirect. Scots is a minority/regional language in the UK. And sometimes, the minority/regional languages can be used more than the national languages (for example in the Hebrides in Scotland). --Ferien (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  2 things:

  1. This doesn't ban the use of regional dialects

  2.Breetish folk isn't even scots. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 19:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The official language of the United Kingdom is English. Your proposal says "places in the official language" (in this case English), not minority or regional languages (English, Welsh, Gaelic, Scots, British Sign Language etc.) It may seem like a minor detail but it's very important, because these regional languages aren't actually official languages. Folk not being Scots is not actually something I noticed (folk and fowk are relatively similar words) but your main reason of creating that RfD was because Scots is not the official language (which is correct), not based on that folk is not Scots. --Ferien (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I can have more than one reason that changes over time. If I were to rfd that again, it would be that that is in two different languages and there's no purpose for it. There's no reason that people would combine a regional dialect and an informal language. Anyways, I apologize because I had included regional languages but then accidentally deleted, forgetting to revise the original sentence. This makes my statement stand true. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 20:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  My RfD !vote was mainly that the nomination was flawed and I could find no other reason of deleting it, and as Deppiyy says, even folk is Scots. Thank you for changing your proposal to allow a few more redirects. That being said, I am still unsure why anything here needs to be changed. --Ferien (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose Ferien pretty much sums it up. My !vote is for the 3rd option. -Djsasso (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - Unclear proposal, leave redirects at risk of deletion. -Deppiyy (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I explicitly said that "R3 should not be reworded" as a fix to the Griff proposal. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 20:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It's still unnecessary to have any sort of change to manual of style (as done here), it is just complicating things and redirects will be deleted because of it if it comes into place. We do have WP:FOLLOW for a reason.. --Ferien (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Of course some redirects will be deleted, that's the point. Not all will, but there will be some that will be kept, instead of the Griff proposal. 2 paragraphs that are reworded and added doesn't complicate things and just because it's the simplest, doesn't mean it'll get the job done. Enwikipedia, however, isn't having this problem and we still don't follow things exactly. Futhermore, enwiki policy basically says this(with a few things excluded) but also says to basically just do it case by case, which is what I'm doing. Really, it's only a small amount of information added and doesn't "overcomplicate things" like you think it does. I guarantee that if someone were to do the same at en, a similar and quicker course of deleting these would be immediately done. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 03:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The problem is that its some of the most important redirects this wiki creates that will be deleted. En wiki doesn't have this problem because it doesn't cater to non-English speakers like we do. This is our core purpose as a wiki. En doesn't need these type of redirects in the same way we do. It is almost like you are ignoring Simple English's mission or maybe just aren't aware of it being fairly new to this wiki. -Djsasso (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tertiary proposal: do nothing

A lot of this discussion, with all respect, seems to be pointless. What is wrong with continuing the status quo? We follow enwiki and send questionable redirects to RfD, but not based on "we don't like them". It has worked up until now, what has changed? One user has created maybe some questionable redirects, that as Djsasso says, would not even be deleted under this rule. This is my opinion, but I'm curious what reasons people have for making our own rule instead of following enwiki's guidelines that have worked for years. --Ferien (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support This is my preferred action. I definitely don't think the QD should be changed. And most of the MOS stuff still is too unclear. I see no actual thing that is being solved by changing our status quo for an incident that has come up exactly once in my 15 years on this wiki. Our current guidelines already allow for the deletion of bad redirects at Rfd. Our various other guidelines allow for us to deal with disruptive editing with many such options ranging from topic bans to blocks to complete bans. There is zero in the above proposal that would actually have altered how this recent spat of redirects would have been handled. Most of if not all of the redirects they created were acceptable redirects by both current guidelines and the ones proposed above. All the above proposal does, is serve to open up redirects for more indiscriminate deletion for no gain on the wikis part. -Djsasso (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of these guidelines haven't been like this for years, though. "Breetish Folk" has never been on any Wiki(including enwiki, and I doubt it would be allowed) ever and doesn't do anything. Wikipedia isn't a file dump; even though this applies to files, it implies that too many useless files is not helpful. Our friend here Deppiyy here is translating just about every language to anything possible and frankly, it doesn't help build an encyclopedia and isn't in our project scope to made these useless redirects. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 19:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it really anything possible? Most of the redirects are to do with country names and these would still be allowed under the new system. And just because "Breetish folk" has never been on any wiki doesn't mean we should never have it on simplewiki or any wiki. Yes, enwiki is a big place but it's still far from perfect in many ways. And these redirects are helpful on a wiki where non-native readers are our audience, and therefore who we should always be thinking of when we make massive changes like these, and instead of limiting the amount of redirects that can be created, it could be expanded instead because people could know what the name of something is in their language but not in English, even if they are very familiar with English. --Ferien (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As mentioned above, "Breetish folk" isn't in any particular language. It's a regional dialect and an informal dialect combined and it's utterly useless. There are also cases where it can be increasingly confusing for the newer users

I agree that some redirects are useful. I had tried to retract one of my RfDs because ultimately, they were useful. Some of these, however, are outright useless. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 21:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Folk is an alternative spelling of Fowk, meaning people. Wiktionary:folk#Scots Deppiyy (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies, didn't see that part. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 03:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But they aren't really translating anything possible, as Ferien mentions they are mostly just redirecting place names/proper names which is exactly the type of redirects we say in both the new proposal and the current guidelines say are ok to create. And I think at this point they understand that the community doesn't want every possible topic translated. If they don't then a block/topic ban would likely be coming their way. -Djsasso (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - Policy should remain unchanged, avoiding confusion and future conflicts. -Deppiyy (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I don't see any harm in extra redirects created. This is of course under two conditions:
  1. The redirect goes to an existing content page (not a disambiguation page).
  2. We can imagine a scenario where some people actually search for the term.

I am sorry to say so, but giving the full name of a king/emperor/nobleman, and redirecting it to the "more manageble" short name, or giving the name of a geographical feature in its original writing, and redirecting it to the page we have (with English spelling) is no form of abuse. We are here for English learners too; how many people from Russia know the name of their city with the Cyrillic spelling; when they have only started to learn the language, they might not be familiar with the Roman letters. Also note that transliteration is often governed by how people speak the word, and there may be different transliterations. So I really don't see any harm in keeping these redirects. --Eptalon (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This... is pretty much what I was getting at in my initial comment at the beginning of the discussion. I supported Griffin's proposal as I felt it was an accurate summation of how the discussion was going. However, I do still stand by my original comment, so would obviously support this as well. It kind of hurts to be discussing redirects forever. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support It was already covered in our guidelines and no changes are necessary. Also, based on my earlier comments.-BRP ^ever 23:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - the actions of one user, has (arguably) significantly disturbed a number of users. At least one new simple rule has to come in place (and I am not the one who can dictate what that rule should be). Or the actions of one user needs some formal limitation (and I am not the one who can dictate what that limitation should be).--One example of how a single user was given a limitation on another Wikipedia: that person was given a quota of only starting no more than 5 articles per day. (Redirects were not the problem in that case.)--If our one particular user does not get slapped with a limitation, then there is already at least one new-rule proposal in this thread that could be chosen (as a rule for all users); In that regard, I will let all the arguments in this thread, speak for themselves. 89.8.162.69 (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Could you give an example of a significantly disturbing redirect? - Deppiyy (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  One particular user's actions has made some user realise that it is not desirable for this project, that the 6,000+ languages (not counting the various extra scripts) in this world, should each have "their" redirect to every city on Earth, every settlement on Earth, and every article or topic on Simple-wiki.--If there had only been one redirect that was a problem, then one RfD would have resolved the issue.--(Maybe not a major issue, but a question to user:Deppiyy - how many of your redirects have been shot down at RfD? How many months have gone - cirka - since the first time that one of "your" redirects were shot down at RfD?)--Whether you like it or not, many of the actions of one particular user on Wikipedia - is viewed (by a number of users) as a disturbance of wikipedia.--During the history of wikipedia - some users have been asked to shape up or be shipped out (or kicked out); Loosing just one user, can (arguably) be a small price to pay for keeping things Simple.--There is not one user on Wikipedia, that is indispensable - some users will stay with us for close to 100 years, and many will not. 89.8.77.117 (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The real problem here is over-exaggeration, further causing drama over harmless redirects. Deppiyy (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Serious concerns from a number of users.--If one wants to disenfranchise users, one could say: "causing drama over harmless redirects".--I would not want to imply that user:Gotanda is some kind of "Drama royalty" (but that seems not to be a far stretch from what user:Deppiyy is saying.) 89.8.65.245 (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Significantly disturbed? I'd love to see some evidence for that. Your only reasons you've given again is "I don't like the redirects" and "I don't like them" (because you're just saying they've disturbed the encyclopedia with no true evidence whatsoever). It's not Deppiyy disturbing a number of users, it's a number of users getting overly concerned about a few questionable redirects in a load of good ones. Do you have any genuine reason for getting upset about these redirects? They don't breach any rules right now and Griff's proposal would actually make us more strict on redirects than the English Wikipedia – keep in mind, we should probably have more redirects on Simple Wikipedia for cities in other languages, because native speakers are our priority. --Ferien (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I would have to agree, it wasn't the redirects that have significantly disturbed the wiki, but the people freaking out for no good reason. I guarantee you that if these same redirects were created over a period of weeks instead of so quickly, absolutely no one would have objected to their being created. -Djsasso (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  You are aware that he created approximately 10 redirects that were ones that could be questionable/bad. 10, all the others he created were considered valid by current policy and the propossed one by grif. All this fuss you and some others are making are over 10 redirects. If you think that is significantly disturbing the wiki then I don't know what to tell you. -Djsasso (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose -- deliberately closing this argument without doing anything doesn't help. RfDs will still be put up and there will still be argument — just not here. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 03:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That sounds pretty much perfect though. Going that route ensures each case can be considered and reviewed on its individual merits, as opposed to being all grouped together and possibly not thoroughly considered. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 03:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Using the logic from 03:48, 24 February: there is no need for any rules about any of Wikipedia's articles: "each [... new or old article] can be considered and reviewed [at RfD] on its individual merits".--Either a new Simple rule (for every user) must be added about redirects. Or a Simple rule must be handed down for one particular user. Sad to say so, 89.8.186.131 (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yes, as pointed out there are already rules about redirects. It isn't that anyone is saying don't have rules about redirects, we have always had rules about redirects. Secondly, if anything was Significantly disturbed it was due to the unnecessary drama mongering about an issue that really didn't exist. As mentioned this change at most would have only prevented 10 or so of Deppiyy's redirects, almost all of the others were acceptable redirects. At this point your argument sounds very very much like "I don't like redirects" and "I don't like the user". -Djsasso (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Reply to post at 11:41 - one could reasonably argue that if a user is not breaking a guideline or rule, then s/he is okay to make 500 redirects per day or even 2,000+ redirects per day.--If there are too many RfD - about redirects - then the smallest, new rule would have to be applied to either everybody or first to one particular user.--(If user:Djasso does not have Good Faith in my opinions/ideas - then why should one have Good Faith in the motives of user:Djasso; This last thing I am saying as a comment to user:Djasso's hyperbole at the end of his/her post.) 89.8.67.151 (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  My comment wasn't hyperbole, its a common description on Wikipedia to describe the kind of argument you are making. It is neither good faith nor bad faith. It just is what it is. And yes, a user is actually free to make 500 redirects a day if they are valid redirects. Which is why it is so unbelievable that this is being argued as much as it is. Valid edits are valid edits full stop. That being said, if someone is asked to stop and discuss and they do not then that is an issue. -Djsasso (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  In your view: the main issue is that one particular user should stop and discuss, and much of the other stuff is blown out of proportion. Noted! 89.8.67.151 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This talks an exceedingly long time and a lot of them can be quickly limited down by forming an actual set of rules, whether you're for redirects or against them. This just makes a disconfigured mess which deletes the articles on who's the most active and who replies to the hundreds of RfDs. This is the direct opposite effect that Ferien was trying to get I believe because at some point, it has to become tiring, especially through bringing up the same opinion over and over through a slightly more magnified spectrum. The present issue with the rules is that they're too nonspecific and only block blatant vandalism with everything being fair game. If someone opposes a rule or interprets it another way, however, they can just as easily bring it to RfD. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 04:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @MrMeAndMrMe: We have a help page for redirects, but we don't have the Redirect page that en has. We've already got a set of rules from enwiki: w:WP:FOREIGN. Right now, we just follow that. If they don't meet that guideline, we RfD them. Most of these redirects you will easily find meet the first point of w:WP:FOREIGN, Original or official names of people, places, institutions, publications or products (such as Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Banco Central do Brasil, El Laberinto del Fauno or Maya y Miguel). What is the point of going through with proposal 1 (Griff's proposal)? It might affect 10 of Deppiyy's redirects max, so we've spent all this time for 10 redirects. Most of Deppiyy's redirects are still going to be kept under Griff's proposal. But to say we don't have an "actual set of rules" is completely wrong, w:WP:FOREIGN does the job just as much as so many other guidelines on enwiki do here. --Ferien (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I think perhaps you are unaware of WP:FOLLOW. We have every rule en.wiki has if we don't have a local one that superceeds en's. So if your concern is that we don't have a formal set of rules, we do. -Djsasso (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal 4 (or the "Three Bravo" proposal)

On the RfD page, one should put all the "RfD regarding redirects" - in its own section, directly following all the "non-redirect RfD".--(My idea behind that: one can prolong the decision making process regarding this entire thread.--Maybe it will be okay to give some months for some main alternatives (or status quo) to crystallise.) 89.8.67.151 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 01, 2022: Update on "my" proposal: It looks like we have not reached the point yet, where we on most days, have 3 or 10 or 30 "RfD about redirects"; If we are not there yet, then it is my opinion that Proposal "3 B" should be frozen or put on pause (within a few days). 89.8.113.29 (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose - Only adds complexity to existing RfD policies. -Deppiyy (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Your idea appears to be "let's add redirects for discussion to simplewiki". RfD does the job and it's simple, we do not need Redirects for Discussion. --Ferien (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I merely want the RfD things to be in its own section on the page: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion.--Sorry that I was not able to explain better - "my" proposal 3 B (or "Three Bravo"). 89.8.67.151 (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  So the idea is you want the redirects to be in a different section the other pages on RfD, right? --Ferien (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Reply to user:Ferien - Yes! (However, if Proposal 5 goes thru - then almost everything else can maybe wait or even be in status quo. 89.8.65.245 (talk) 08:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Ok, I'm not sure what good that'd do though. There really aren't many redirects that should be deleted there... --Ferien (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose. I'm sorry 89, but I'm gonna have to agree with Ferien on this one. Derpdart56 (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal 5

I propose the following.

• No policy changes regarding redirects. Some supported it, but the community at large doesn't seem to want it.
• Evaluate each of these redirects individually and determine whether or not they're useful. I think we could keep a few or many of these depending on how we handle this.

--Derpdart56 (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose, specifically "Conditional Oppose": If one particular user does not get some sort of restriction in regard to creation of redirects - then I oppose Proposal 4. 89.8.123.162 (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This snowball effect you're claiming, is it even feasible? Derpdart56 (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The wikipedia-users in this thread will one day arrive at a conclusion about some of the questions in this thread.--If I am asked to support Castles-in-the-sky thru (questionable) redirects - my answer is 不. (不 should redirect to "No", according to de facto policy.)--At one level, I think the question of user:Derpdart56 belongs in category "crystal ball" - so that question I will refrain from answering now. 89.8.123.162 (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC) 89.8.123.162 (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC) 89.8.123.162 (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  These redirects might be useful to some people, though i don't know how many. I suggested we look through them individually. Derpdart56 (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Also, the snowball will stop somewhere, not every page needs a redirect, and those that are obviously not needed should be sent to RFD. Derpdart56 (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support This is pretty much my opinion in proposal 3 but put a bit clearer so of course I support. --Ferien (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak support -- I think that maybe the best idea is to keep them around for a few months and see what becomes the norms for these redirects. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 17:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Deleting them (after Delete discussion), is (arguably) a better idea.--It might only take a very few Delete discussions, before a small, good rule-proposal becomes wiki-policy.--If I am sounding like a Troll factory - then that was not my intention. 89.8.168.158 (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal 6

• Put a limit on one particular user: "Maximum 10 redirects per day", for the month of March. (There is not much point to argue anything in this proposal; Now there seems to be at least two people on Wikipedia who (arguably) are not listening to any suggestions.) 89.8.65.245 (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose. This seems useless, and a semi-direct counter toward Deppiyy. Derpdart56 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    You want to limit it because you don't like these redirects. I agree, some of them are unneeded and probably don't need to redirect to anything. But I'm gonna go with the community consensus that we should keep at least some of these. Derpdart56 (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Seems like there are attempts at mind-reading at "17:29, 28 Feb", if not at "17:21, 28 Feb" too. 89.8.101.140 (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I'm not even mind-reading, I'm attempting to figure out your motivations. Derpdart56 (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Comments like these don't help anyone MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 03:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose this doesn't help anything MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 17:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose No, 10 redirects per day is way too little, and not even over 15 redirects per day are being made by this "one particular user". And instead of making things awkward by criticising the actions of "one particular user", please let's just be honest and clear, who is the user being talked about and what are they doing wrong? --Ferien (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'm assuming he's referring to Deppiyy in a vague sense. Derpdart56 (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yeah, but I don't think it's appropriate to be vague in discussions like this. --Ferien (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Agreed. It doesn't help anyone. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 17:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yeah. Derpdart56 (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose Seems like a discouraging way to target a “particular user”, quite the opposite of Wikipedia’s intended purpose. -Deppiyy (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  He's targeting you. I think. Derpdart56 (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Who else would they be referring to? MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 17:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: I hear the word "discouraged", being used.--Maybe there is a victim here: One user has been "born" into a system (or website) with (arguably) unclear rules about any limits about the use of redirects--I am glad that we have had this discussion; I am sort of reading in between the lines, that anybody should be permitted to have at least 15 redirects per day; furthermore that will arguably never be a problem (because nobody is likely to have all redirects become "Delete".)--Around 3 or 4 users for now, have sympathy for the edits of one particular user.--We don't know what number of users are biting their tongue, in regard to "voting" "Support" or "Oppose".--Proposal 5 seems to be dead in the water - unless new and significant information, should surface.--If I leave new or old complaints in this thread, unanswered - then that should not be a problem; The usefulness of the thread, might have reached its maximum already. 89.8.101.140 (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal 7

In defense to the very reason not to keep the non Latin redirects: "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese, or Russian. As this project is written in English, it is more difficult for vandalism or errors to be found if redirects are made in a non-Latin alphabet."

I propose:- What if those non Latin redirects are the very names of the equivalent articles in other existing language wikis (not non-existing wikis' languages). As of now, we have 300+ languages wikis. So, only the page title of those equivalent articles might ease us in confirming that the redirected name is not error, not vandalism. What does the community think? Haoreima (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose - It does not keep simple-English wiki, Simple. (@User:Haoreima - thank you for your Good Faith proposal.) 89.8.168.158 (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  How is this proposal not simple? If the language doesn't have a Wikipedia, don't create a redirect in that language. There is nothing complex about that. --Ferien (talk) 10:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  300+ wiki languages (and throw in some extra scripts) for every city in the world, nearly every settlement in the world, nearly every topic on Wikipedia.--What is there not to like?"'--From the point of view of troll factories - the idea is not complex enough. 89.8.148.24 (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support -- I think this is a very simple and helpful solution, but could be done alongside other proposals. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 00:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gathering all of the thoughts

This discussion has reached its toll — 14 individual discussion points over the course of over a month and we still seem to not have reached a consensus. We are getting to the point in an argument in which nobody actually brings anything new to the table. Here I will outline the current stances, reiterate proposals made and try to find a formal consensus. Of course, new proposals and ideas may be made.

Current stances and ideas

Stances

The following list is a list of the stances that many contributors to the discussion have made. Please correct me if I have made a mistake with this, I am writing this down based on your messages and may be incorrect or misremembering. They also may not be fully up-to-date and might need further stands. If it isn't, I will fix it.

• A: Griff, 89.8 and Creol have all expressed opinions in which they wish for all non-romantic languages to be quick-deleted. Furthermore, languages that are not official to that particular area should be deleted unless if it is specifically related to the title. WP:FOREIGN should also be taken into account.
• B: MrMeAndMrMe and Macdonald-ross said that languages that are almost always secondary languages(Scots, Welsh, etc and dialects that are not directly related to the title) should be deleted.
• C: MrMeAndMrMe has expressed the opinion that all non-romantic languages should be sent to RfD. WP:FOREIGN should also be taken into account.
• D: 89.8 has stated that there should perhaps be disciplinary actions taken towards users who make exceedingly large numbers of redirects
• E: Ferien, BRPever and Deppiyy has stated that they support these redirects as they are important to minority languages, especially since multiple of readers come here from other languages, along with the fact that redirects are cheap.
• F: Derpdart, MrMeAndMrMe and Ferien has mentioned that it would be necessary to go case-by-case and see the effectiveness of this.
• G: Haoreima and MrMeAndMrMe have agreed that the redirects made should at least be one that is in the WikiMedia project.
• H: Djsasso mentioned that we should simply do nothing.

Proposals

The following list is the list of all current proposals and reiterate the ideas made.(If I am misrepresenting one of the proposals, please tell me)

• 1: The Griff Proposal. Change manual of style to say that non-romantic languages should be deleted and languages that aren't the official language.
• 2: The Me Proposal. The same as the Griff Proposal, but with no QD change but change MoS to also include regional dialects
• 3: The Do Nothing Proposal. States that there is nothing wrong with the status quo and should stay that way. No changed to QD, MoS or anything
• 4: The Three-Bravo Proposal. Put RfDs for Foreign Redirects into its own section
• 5: The Do Nothing Evaluation Proposal. Same as Do Nothing, but look at each RfD individually and try to create a consensus.
• 6: The Proposal-limit Proposal. Put a limit of making 10 redirects a day for the month of march.
• 7: The Wikimedia Restriction Proposal. Any foreign redirect made should be one of the 300 or so languages that is in the Wikimedia project.

Consensus

I think the best way to find a consensus is to find what everyone thinks and find an opinion formally instead of having it scattered everywhere. Here I suggest that you say what proposal/ideas you agree with(they can be more than one of course) and find an actual consensus to truly see where everyone's at and maybe act on it. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 02:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Prop. 1 and 4 and 6 - Support.--Arguments are, earlier in this thread.--Proposal 6 or 6B or "6 Bravo", should read something like,
  "6: The Proposal-limit Proposal. Put a limit of making 10 redirects a day for this month and next month, in regard to one and one particular users".--If this proposal gets accepted, then we can find out who can be considered "particular user". 89.8.64.121 (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There is no reason for any form of restriction for Deppiyy. The redirects were completely in policy and probably still will be after this. They did not break any rules and the fact that this whole discussion was bought on simply because some people didn't like Deppiyy's redirects is worrying. There is no reason to punish someone simply because they didn't follow your new ideas. --Ferien (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Reply to Ferien's post at 21:40 - if there is a problem (as this long thread is a strong indication of), then one can protect this project from all edits (or some edits) of any particular users.--If there are strong arguments that any particular users, are making a bunch of problematic edits, then one can give any particular user, a restriction on the number of redirects per day, that he can create.--However, another type of decision making process is underway: a number of particular redirect are under discussion for Delete; As the number of killed redirects rack up, those numbers will become an argument of its own. The number of Deletion Review that will follow, will also be an argument.--Redirects are cheap? My a$$. 89.8.146.21 (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The "particular user" is Deppiyy. Stop being vague. Derpdart56 (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  User:Derpdart @ 16:08, 7 March seems to be saying that it is his/her impression that the edits of user:Deppiyy should be considered, in regard to the user being slapped with a Proposal 6.--If user:Derpdart56 is trying mind-reading, then please let us know. 89.8.176.203 (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'm not mind reading, stop saying that. Derpdart56 (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Proposals 5 and 7. We need to do something, but nothing too big. Derpdart56 (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Proposals 1 and 7, with the note that I don't think that there should be a QD change(perhaps proposal 1B, but I don't think something would get much traction so I'll stick with 1). If 1 and 7 do not get chosen, I would be happy with proposal 5 as at least a status quo gets decided eventually. I'm going to Oppose proposals 2, 3, 4 and 6. Proposal two includes the use of non-romantic redirects, which I disagree with. Proposal three claims to "follow enwiki" but differs almost completely with simple wiki. Furthermore, I am going to uphold my point in which the Simple Wiki does not exclude advanced ideas. A small sentence change isn't even advanced or difficult to understand, so I don't see why this is so difficult a proposal. Proposal 4 doesn't solve the problem and proposal 6 doesn't either; its missing the point of what we are trying to achieve. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 17:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Please use a separate sub-section for "Oppose" (or arguments that are not directly about "Support").--The current sub-section is Consensus. 89.8.176.203 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'm trying to see what people think about certain ideas. Not have "oppose" and "support" MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 18:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Reply to post @ "18:17" - if we are looking for a "non-decision decision", I will nominate you to run "the show".--I am fine with giving some of the propositions, a big fat kick, off Simple-wiki.--I think we will be left with something that might sort-of qualify as consensus - or at least give administrators some non-subjective weight, so that one can put a big fat yoke, on some of the redirects of any particular user who carries a big fat redirect-wand (for controversial or wrong redirects). 89.8.176.203 (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Who said anything about me "running the show"? I saw no progression and I made a suggestion. If regrouping some the consensus was not a good idea, then they could have mentioned this and I am still open to suggestion. I am just saying how I disagree with a certain idea. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 19:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Reply to post @ "19:06" - I have (sizably) replied [4] in one of the sub-sections below. 89.8.176.203 (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Prop. 2 and 3 and 5 and 7 - Oppose.--The arguments are earlier in the thread. 89.8.176.203 (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I would suggest putting this section with your support comments. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 18:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Reply to post @ 18:23 - you are not running "the show".--Your post makes me think that there might be a need for the word wiki-diplomatWannabee (and I say that while having Good Faith). (The word wiki-lawyering is not the first word that comes to mind, now.) Regards! 89.8.176.203 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support After a reconsideration, I support proposals 5 and 7, with some of my own thought regarding the evaluation: What is the language relevant to the topic/article? Given names in their native languages, are acceptable redirects. For example, 李振藩, Bruce Lee's given name in Chinese, is a perfectly valid redirect to Bruce Lee, however, 이진번, which is his name written in the Korean reading of Chinese characters, is not. It's reasonable to have Ελληνικό Αλφάβητο as a redirect to Greek alphabet, but "Alfabet Yunani" (Indonesian) is not. There are also some things that do need redirects in a foreign script, such as letters of foreign scripts. Ѫ is an acceptable redirect to Yus, as not everyone reads archaic Cyrillic. Some redirects should be given careful thought (eg. "folk" for people). In the end I agree redirects are cheap. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 23:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Support per Fehufanga -Deppiyy (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Supporting Proposals 2 and 5 per allll my comments above, thanks MrMe for launching this section! Griff (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I think my opinions are clear but Proposals 3, 5 and 7 are the ones I support. Questionable ones should just be bought to RfD based on current guidelines we have. I don't think this section needed to be started, I am sure that closing admin (if this discussion even is closed...) will be looking very closely at the discussion above and it is not at all based on number of people supporting certain proposals, it's the comments surrounding them. --Ferien (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Etymology has now become a stated reason for redirects, [5]. (That latest redirect has stopped me from writing a short story about a Troll factory that did outrageous stuff so that the ordinary users on "Simply Wiki" did not have time to write about the 2022 Invasion of Ukraine and a "Vladdy Daddy" who seems to have a lot of blood on his hands.)--The latest redirect does not change my earlier "vote" on consensus, but it might make a difference to some of you. 89.8.146.21 (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1, yes we have. See 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

  2, Etymology is important for determining this. Derpdart56 (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• There is no consensus for change so I am with #3 or #5.--BRP ^ever 08:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• part of Proposal 1 – as I have previously expressed issues with non-Latin scripts, and I will do so one more time – it's the [Simple] English Wikipedia, not the Khmer Wikipedia, or the Inuinnaqtun Wikipedia (though the latter doesn't exist yet) and no-one would be stupid to search foreign non-Latin scripts into an English language Wikipedia. Meanwhile, I support Latin script redirects in foreign languages, because there are cases like Turkey where both Turkey and Turkiye are used, and it is reasonable to search both. Similarly, it is reasonable to have a Thingvellir redirect to the Icelandic Þingvellir as not everyone has the Þ symbol on their computer. So, for the last time, I support Latin script redirects, and strongly oppose non-Latin scripts. Period. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  To make it clear, my thoughts are similar to Griff, 89.8 and Creol. SHB2000 (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nonsense or gobbledygook or even "regrouping some the consensus"

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.