Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion

Links that have existed for a significant length of time

WP:RFD#KEEP says that we don't delete "Links that have existed for a significant length of time".

My question: Is there an agreed-upon understanding of what "a significant length of time" means?

Concern for breaking internal and external links was added by User:Angela in August 2004. It was updated once or twice soon after (e.g., to include the old subpages – most editors won't remember when AliceExpert was the "correct" title for an article about Alice Expert, and that AliceExpert/talk was what Wikipedia used instead of Talk:Alice Expert, because the idea of namespaces hadn't been invented yet), and it reached its current version in this edit by User:Thryduulf.

Given that the first edits to the English Wikipedia were made about 3.5 years before the creation of the rule, I don't think it's unreasonable to guess that this was meant to discourage deletion (though not changing the target of) of "unnecessary" redirects that something in the range of months to a couple of years old. Do we have anything like a modern understanding of what "a significant length of time" means to us? If we have an estimate, then it'd be a kindness to all concerned if we actually wrote it down, instead of making editors guess whether "a significant length of time" is usually taken to mean approximately a week, a month, a year, or a decade. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

There isn't really a consensus. Those people like me who take the attitude that redirects should generally be kept unless it's clear they are harmful or very clearly useless, generally regard being old as a factor tending to indicate a redirect should be kept ("old" here meaning more than, generally, 6-12 months). Others, Tavix for example, generally recommend deleting redirects that don't have clear utility, and for them age is generally not regarded as anywhere near as significant.

There are a host of exceptions however. For example, if a redirect is the result of a page move shortly after creation from a clearly incorrect original title (e.g. a typo) and the author(s) of the page before the move are (or should be) aware of the new location then it will almost certainly be deleted regardless of age. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you misinterpreting my redirect philosophies. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Tavix, I'd really like to know how you interpret "a significant length of time" in the context of this criteria. Do you agree with Thryduulf that 6–12 months is approximately the right range, or would you pick a different length of time? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I decline to give generalities because it depends on the context. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• It really surprises me that length of existence should have been stated as relevant at all. Of course, I'm not referring to either extreme of the scale: redirects created in 2001 should be part of our hallowed heritage, no matter how silly they might be, while redirects created just now are immediately eligible to get summarily deleted if implausible. But otherwise, I can't see why length of existence should get into the equation. Sure, if a redirect has been around for a long time, it's possible that it might have had a higher likelihood of becoming entwined into the navigation network of Wikipedia and the wider internet, but then we have more direct proxy measure for that (like incoming links or traffic statistics). An argument can conceivably be made that the longer a page has been around the more likely it is to have gained some sort of tacit approval by the community, but this is applicable (within limits) to articles, and not to redirects (most of which tend to remain forever off peoples' radars: redirect gnoming is really a small corner of our garden). – Uanfala (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that the longer a URL has existed, the higher the likelihood of it being linked from somewhere – but "higher likelihood" is not at all the same as "actually happened in the particular case". Traffic statistics will probably show links from external sites (at least higher-traffic sites), but we have no easy way to find links in edit summaries or previous versions of an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Do we ever strive to keep links alive in older revisions or in edit summaries? Whether a link is blue or red doesn't really change the communicative value of the text (and anyway, from a redlink, any logged in user should be able to get via the deletion log to the relevant RfD discussion). I take it we're not talking about retargeting (rather than deleting) WP space redirects (like shortcut for policies and guidelines), in which case a change of the status quo will obviously be a bad idea for redirects that have existed for any non-trivial period of time. – Uanfala (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes. In fact, WP:RFD#HARMFUL indicates that it is one of two major goals for RFD: "if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Whoa! We should chuck that bit out. It's not that I don't care for preserving old revisions (quite the contrary: I've often argued at Templates for Discussion that templates that have formerly been used widely should always be kept for this precise reason, and I've almost always been a lone voice there), but that just doesn't make sense. The only difference that the existence of a redirect will make on the pages that link to it is the colour of the link, and that's beyond trivial. – Uanfala (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
          • If you keep an old redirect, then anyone reading will see a blue link and be able to reach the target article (either by clicking on it or by using WP:NAVPOPS and similar tools). If you delete an old redirect, then anyone reading will see a red link, and instead of reaching the article, if they click on it, they'll be taken to a wikitext editor to re-create the page. (There's a handy red link at the top of WP:Red link if anyone wants to try it out.) If you delete a redirect, a red link is the result, but the difference between a blue link and a red link goes well beyond the visible color. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
            • I agree completely with WhatamIdoing here. If someone sees a link and understands from the combination of context, their memory and experience what the target is and why it was referenced then all is fine. However, if any one of those four is missing or if they are unsure then with a blue link they can find all the necessary understanding with a single click. With a red link they will be taken to either (a) an edit screen to create the page after a summary of the deletion log (if they have the necessary permissions to do so), or (b) a page explaining there is no article at that title, and that they do not have permission to create it. The message invites them to search for a page with a similar title, or as the last of about 6 options, search the deletion log to see if it was previously deleted. If someone does choose to view the deletion log, there is no guarantee that the message will give any hints about the previous content meaning the reader is not helped. These are only some of the reasons why deleting redirects can be harmful and why I recommend keeping so many redirects that have evidence of potential use. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
              • Well, if preserving the clickability of links in old revisions is so important, then imagine what grave consequences there might be when retargeting redirects. So a link that previously went to one article, now goes to a completely different one, and the meaning of the original text is turned on its head. If old revisions are an argument for not deleting redirects, there are all the more an argument for not retargeting. If this logic is followed through, then redirects that have existed for a certain amount of time should never ever be edited again! – Uanfala (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
                • Yes and no. We do always need to be careful when retargetting (and especially so for shortcut links, which are referenced far more often than they are read) but when a page is retargetted the link remains blue and hatnotes/disambiguation pages can give links back (with context) to the previous target and a user is never confronted with an apparent dead-end. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • With the recent changes, deletion is acceptable for "recent" (rather than just "very recent", which sounds more like weeks or a couple of months) redirects. Looking at this discussion, I think that about a year is probably "recent". This, of course, is unrelated to other considerations; elderly redirects that are actually harmful (e.g., insults) should still be nuked on sight. This will mostly apply to the harmless-but-pointless redirects. I think I'll go add that note to the page, so that nobody else will have to guess what our unwritten rules are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    • User:Tavix, you have broke something else on that page when you reverted my changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
      • That was intentional, I also disagreed with another recent addition. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Rewriting WP:RFD#HARMFUL

Currently, WP:RFD#HARMFUL reads:

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

• a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
• if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.

Additionally, there could exist (for example) links to the URL "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorneygate" anywhere on the Internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere for Attorneygate"—since those links might come from somewhere outside Wikipedia.

Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.

Now, the second bullet point and the paragraph that immediately follows it are all really about the same thing (breaking incoming links), so I think it's reasonable to merge them. Additionally, I think it goes to a greater than necessary length explaining external incoming links. And the presence of really in the last sentence seems to imply – using the common everyday meanings of the words – that we should only delete really harmful redirects, but keep redirects that are just a little bit harmful, which I take to be obviously bad advice. I'm proposing the following version:

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

• a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
• if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (if such links come from older revisions of Wikipedia articles or from the internet outside Wikipedia, they will not show up in "What links here").

Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of very recent ones.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• I certainly see the rewritten section as an improvement. I'd also remove very for the same reasons you removed really. Perhaps it may be a good idea to pipe break incoming links with WP:EXTERNALROT (or is there a better location?) in case someone does want more detail on that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Tavix that this is an improvement and that the "very" is not really needed (although I'm not opposed to it remaining). I would though expand the final sentence to: "...if such links come from older revisions of Wikipedia articles, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, they will not show up in "What links here")". It might also be worth mentioning offline sources as well, but I can't think how to elegantly do this. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Incorporating the above suggestions, and with a little tweak to the wording, the section could look something like that:

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

• a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
• if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").

Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.

I'm not sure of the best place to refer to WP:EXTERNALROT, I've provisionally linked it from the text from elsewhere on the internet as it's the most specific: WP:EXTERNALROT doesn't seem to talk of the other types of incoming links, though of course, linking earlier in the text as Tavix suggests would in some ways be more natural. I'm going to update the project page with this provisional new version (obviously, feel free to edit). – Uanfala (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Encourage new article creation

In a recent RFD folks argued that #KEEP clause 7 is obsolete and incompatible with #DELETE clause 10: Please delete the keep clause for clarity. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Please remove keep clause 7 as obsolete, it is not always compatible with delete clause 10, and while it is in theory still true, in practice deleting a redirect makes it more obvious on other Wikipedias that enwiki does not yet have a corresponding article. "Obsolete" as in "since ILLs are managed on WikiData and not more a hopeless mess tackled by bots". –84.46.53.221 (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 21:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

 – I anyway like DIY or {{sofixit}} better. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP84, thanks for being bold! Editing policies is a valid way of testing and building consensus. I disagree that KEEP7 is obsolete, and the linked discussion doesn't give me reason to believe that consensus has changed. I totally understand your problem with K7 and D10, but disagree that it's one or the other. Neither of them is an absolute truth, in every case we need to weigh the benefits of deleting and keeping an article (you may find this essay interesting). I don't think the discussion shows that editors came to a decision on whether K7 or D10 is better in this case, so I asked Rosguill to reconsider the close. It may well be that K7 has outlived its usefulness, but I'd want wider consensus than an RfD with 3 participants before removing it entirely. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You should have something on public record that supports #Encourage new article creation as valid delete reason overruling #K7. I don't care how it's arranged, I was only surprised by this "obviously wrong" argument, and folks convinced me that the ILL argument is in fact better than what I recall from 2006…2011. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to wait for more participation, but fundamentally I agree with IP84 on striking K7. Incidentally, K7 appears the newest of the clauses; it was added in May 2015, apparently unilaterally and without associated discussion. In addition to being inconsistent with D10, it also seems to highlight a loophole to (or promote bypassing) the long-standing restriction on article creation by unregistered accounts. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"Loophole" or "Feature" is interesting, AFAIK it's a feature of redirects. I tested it two years ago (works), I suggested it as AFC accelerator one year ago (not done). As a potential "attack vector" creating yet another account is simpler for the attacker, and CU is more expensive than NPP as defense.
It could be a free honeypot to catch stupid attackers, and at that point I'd think that the main purpose of enwiki is not to be the biggest computer adventure of all time, otherwise I'd login and look for a clan/alliance. –84.46.53.192 (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

AFC/R feature example: 3, 2, 1, ignition. –84.46.52.152 (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Nominating lots of related redirects

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink#Food_additives_codes_redirect_to_chemical_compounds_instead_of_E_number_article where I make a suggestion to mass-change a class of redirects. It has attracted no discussion so far, so I believe the logical next step would be to mass-nominate the redirects in question. My question is twofold:

1. Should I do this? (that is about 1000 redirects)
2. If yes, how to do it? More precisely: I would want the list of all existing pages with a title full-matching the regexp E1?[0-9]{3}[a-j]? and which are redirects, ask for a bot-task to tag them, and put up a bundled nomination. But I do not know how to search for that list.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

What should be the venue for discussing Rcat templates?

What should be the venue for discussing rcat (WP:Redirect categorization) templates/categories?

This question is prompted by Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 20#Template:R from meme where this question was raised. I personally think it should be at RfD since the audience at RfD will likely be more experienced with redirect categories making them better at making decisions about them then the audiences at TfD or CfD. While this is quite different from RfDs regular content I still believe that they are the most suitable for handling these template with RfDers generally having experience using them. Both TfD and CfD have a reasonable claim since they are templates and they are used for categorizing pages. I will transclude this section at WT:RFD, WT:TFD and WT:CFD so all interested parties can participate. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Trialpears, Good discussion. In theory, I'd say TfD because of the namespace. However, in practice, since rcats are so widely used, I'm wondering if we shouldn't be discussing these in a more prominent place? CfD proposed by MJL seems reasonable, but CfD, too, sees even less participation than TfD in most cases. RfD is reasonable, though not necessarily dealing with redirects so the editors/admins there may be less familiar with the template nuances. What about MfD (like userboxes), or, possibly, at one of the Village Pumps? (Twinkle would need to be updated in any case.) Doug Mehus T·C 22:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll be honest and say that I would also prefer to have those conversations here. RFD regulars are the ones who have the most familiarity with them, but I have a hard time squaring my preference with the mandate of CFD to discuss all categories. The last place, imo, that should be the venue for RCATs would be TFD since they're just a unique type of categories and TFD regulars would be the less familiar with their usage than RFD regulars. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

MJL, Yeah, similar thoughts as well. RfD makes the most sense to me, too, but its regulars may be less familiar with the intricacies of the rcats and categorization. What about MfD? Doug Mehus T·C 22:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: No, definitely not MFD; they're mandate doesn't come close to RCATs. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

MJL, Okay, fair enough. No clear answer for me then. It's been RfD and CfD; neither of which are ideal (for different reasons). Doug Mehus T·C 22:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• CFD -- they're a type of category. The template is simply a vehicle for applying the category, similar to stub templates which are discussed at CfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• CfD - MJL, who maintains the Archer script, does seem to favour CfD because those editors/administrators are more familiar with the subtleties. RfD would notionally make sense as well, so I wouldn't be opposed to that, and it does generate (somewhat) higher participation than CfD. No real clear, runaway "winner" for which venue is best, but on balance, I concur with the sentiments expressed by MJL and Tavix to firm up my support, for the reasons expressed above. Doug Mehus T·C 23:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• TfD These are templates; I see no good reason to add yet another special case. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• TfD or CfD depending on what is discussed. If the issue is with the category itself, then nominate the category and hold the discussion at CfD. If the issue is with the template, then nominate it at TfD. --Gonnym (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

  Gonnym, There is established precedent, though, to discussing certain types of templates in other venues. For example, userbox templates, regardless if in userspace or template space, are discussed at MfD. In this case, as discussed above, there are wide-ranging implications with rcats, both in terms of how they're categorized, how they're used, and the impacts to scripts like Archer, Capricorn, Twinkle, etc. CfD does seem to have modestly higher participation than TfD, at least on some days, though it really varies. Crucially, though, the active CfD editors are more likely to be keenly aware to the intricacies of the rcats as the two are closely related. Doug Mehus T·C 14:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

  I see those as rare (and IMO bad) exceptions to the rule. I also disagree with your participation analysis. I had a category nomination relisted twice with 0 participation. I'm not changing my opinion on venue. --Gonnym (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have to go with CfD, because they're almost entirely about maintenance categorization. That the categories are usually placed via templates is simply incidental; many maint. cats. do not have templates, but they wouldn't suddenly become TfD "jurisdiction" if someone created templates for them. I could see TfD maybe being the right venue when there is no correspondence between a template and a cat., but this is uncommon. Thinking back, we used to have other cases like this, where things that were mostly categories but also with a template or other "feature" were discussed in other venues. E.g., Stub categories/templates used to have their own WP:SFD, but this has been closed, and CfD is now the venue. It would be strangely inconsistent to declare CfD not the venue for the parallel case of Rcats. Pppery's "No good reasons to add yet another special case" actually is a better rationale to use CfD than TfD. WP not being a bureaucracy (and per Gonnym, above), it should be fine to occasionally TfD an rcat template (if it doesn't implicate a corresponding category; e.g. there are various more-specific rcat template variants that still go to the same maint. cat. as the more general one, unless/until we decide to split the cat. to be more specific; and we might need to discuss a template in template terms only, without any effect on a category that did directly correspond). See also WP:RM being the conventual venue for template renames, yet TfD has sometimes been used for template-related rename discussions. Consensus can form anywhere, if there's sufficient clueful editorial input. A further complication is that many rcats are actually template redirects, not templates, yet they all relate to categorization in the end, even if not exactly corresponding categories. So, if there's to be a default, it should be CfD, because a category is always involved one way or another, and moving categories around or deleting them is a more complicated process than doing the same with templates and redirects. This isn't even really about Rcats in particular; any template that exists solely to apply a category is really a CfD matter, being an incidentally templatey means to a categorization end.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Need to think about this but whatever the outcome, it should be cross-advertised so people who don't follow all related discussions will see it. My gut sense prior to thinking about it is to prefer CfD if the change will affect categorization, or TfD if it will not. For example, if there was an effort to merge {{R from move}} and {{R from merge}} so they used parameters, but the net result would not affect categorization, then TfD is the place to discuss it. If there is an effort to split {{R from move}} so that some moved articles wind up in a new category, then CfD would be the place to discuss it. Again, I may need to give this more thought. Either way, cross-announce the discussion so people who follow only TfD or RfD discussions will be aware of it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't proofread the above comment very well. To correct and summarize: The original discussion should start wherever it makes sense to start it, CfD, TfD, or RfD. However, if there is any impact on the other two areas, there needs to be cross-advertising as appropriate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  Already done; this entire discussion is sectionally transcluded into both WT:CFD and WT:TFD. Also "advertised" at WP:VPPOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't proofread the above comment very well. To correct and summarize: The discussion of changes to a specific RCat template should start wherever it makes sense to start it, CfD, TfD, or RfD. However, if there is any impact on the other two areas, there needs to be cross-advertising as appropriate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• TfD or CfD on a case-by-case basis. Well, I learn something new every day. I assumed such templates were for the benefit of other editors looking at a redirect's history and status, and wasn't aware of the categorization purpose. From my naive perspective, these are page templates first with categorization as a side effect. But as editors above me argue, the venue really depends on the action contemplated. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Anarchy per WP:NOTBURO and WP:CREEP. Either TfD or CfD is an appropriate venue and regardless of where the deletion discussion occurs, as long as interested editors are properly notified "a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request." Leave where to nominate it up to the nominator based upon what they think is the most important factor to discuss. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • RfD is actually an interesting option. If we must choose a place to have these discussions, I would prefer that forum since the people familiar with rcats are most likely to see it there. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

    Wugapodes, I agree with you here. My first choice would probably be RfD, but secondarily, CfD since the template itself is just the vehicle, as Tavix and SMcCandlish explain, by which the redirect gets categorized. Without the maintenance categories, these rcat templates would serve no purpose. Doug Mehus T·C 23:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• TfD if discussing a particular Rcat template, CfD if discussing the underlying category, and RfD if whichever type of page is being discussed is itself a redirect to another page. In all cases, a note should be left at WT:REDIRECT as changes to any of these types of pages shouldn't be made without input from editors with experience working in the overall redirection pseudo-namespace. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • All Rcat templates have a corresponding category (because that's the purpose of the Rcat template), so it isn't possible to separate the two. If one gets deleted, so does the other, and so on. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  What Tavix said...completely. The template is just the conduit by which the rcat categories are applied, since it involves adding text below the redirect destination. We could, in theory, categorize redirects without the template, but then how would we easily apply the category descriptions below the destination of each redirect? We'd still need a template from somewhere to do this efficiently; copying and pasting doesn't strike me as efficient. Doug Mehus T·C 17:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• ...TfD. Is anyone else in this discussion besides me aware of the existence of {{Catfd}} and {{Catfd2}}? See WP:TFDHOWTO for instructions in regards bundling related categories with TfD discussions. (Apparently, this method has been in place since 2006 or so.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, although they weren't on my mind when I !voted above. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• TfD, per the principle of least astonishment. I think it would be advisable to notify WikiProject Redirects, but I do not think these nominations belong at CfD (can decide what to do with a template-populated category but not whether the template itself should be kept, deleted, redirected, etc.) or RfD (unless the template is a redirect). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• I'd say here if the aim is to fine-tune the scope of the templates, because the RfD crowd includes a majority of people who go around tagging the redirects, but TfD/CfD if the proposal is to delete certain templates and categories, by the principle of least astonishment. Deryck C. 00:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  "here" is ambiguous because this dicussion is transcluded on the talk pages of all relevant XfD. I assume you mean RfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  True, in theory, but when a section is transcluded as Trialpears has done (very handy, thank you! Now I know how to do that properly!), in practice, it becomes very difficult for an editor to reply on the talk page with the transclusion because they will see no other discussion. So, yeah, I assumed Deryck Chan meant RfD unequivocally. Doug Mehus T·C 23:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Equinox#RfC on season-specific redirects

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Equinox#RfC on season-specific redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48