Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

[edit]

FYI: We now have Wikipedia:Navigation pages, for those cases in which a certain topic shouldn't have its own article but is discussed in multiple places, and so the proper redirect target is ambiguous. I just learned about these, so this a general PSA. Further discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Navigation_pages, where there seems to be some debate about whether these should be kept. Rusalkii (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Administrator instructions

[edit]

As someone to whom this page has been recently relevant I found it rather out of date. I have now updated it to reflect the fact that most closures are now done by script and made a few other tweaks. I'd appreciate another look from more experienced RfD closers, especially at the Redirects with history section. It recommends an action for closing RfDs with significant history that I don't think I've ever seen anyone take, and if anyone has thoughts on whether that is still current and, if so, more detailed instructions, that'd be great.

I'm also interested in any thoughts on whether there's anything closers check as a matter of course beyond history and incoming links for deleted pages. Rusalkii (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove redirect of Sectigo to Xcitium

[edit]

Hi all — I'd like to nominated the cancellation of the redirect from Sectigo to Xcitium. Sectigo is a distinct company from Xcitium, formerly known as Comodo CA, and has operated independently since 2018 under separate ownership and branding. The current redirect is misleading and conflates two unrelated entities. Here are some sources that corraborate this:

Primary source: https://www.sectigo.com/resource-library/attention-journalists-and-researchers-dont-confuse-comodo-with-sectigo

secondary sources that have part of the rebrand/change of name story highlighted: https://www.wsj.com/articles/sectigo-buys-entrust-public-certificate-business-2025-02-03 https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2025/02/03/scottsdale-cybersecurity-firm-acquisition.html https://www.channelfutures.com/article/sectigo-google-chrome-policy-partnership https://www.thesslstore.com/blog/comodo-ca-changes-its-name-to-sectigo/ https://www.pehub.com/gi-partners-purchase-of-sectigo-values-the-company-at-900m/ https://www.msspalert.com/cybersecurity-news/gi-partners-acquires-sectigo/ https://www.wsj.com/articles/sectigo-buys-entrust-public-certificate-business-2025-02-03

Thanks everyone for you consideration!! 181montreal (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@181montreal, if you'd like to nominate this redirect (or ask someone to do it) this isn't really the best place for it (this is the talk page, for discussing general issues related to redirects; you may have wanted to follow the instructions at WP:RFDHOWTO). That being said, since you have a COI you probably shouldn't do it yourself, so I've taken a look, and the target page says that "Francisco Partners acquired Comodo Certification Authority (Comodo CA) from Comodo Security Solutions, Inc ... and rebranded Comodo CA to Sectigo.", so at first glance it seems appropriate to me, since there's relevant information on the page. I recommend first opening an edit request on Talk:Xcitium using the Edit Request Wizard, explaining why this sentence is wrong or doesn't belong in the Xcitium article, with sources, and what it should be changed to. If that gets accepted, ask that whoever responded to the request nominate the redirect for deletion as well. Rusalkii (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch, Rusalkii I have done that. 181montreal (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Redirects in native script

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Redirects in native script. Thryduulf (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avoided double redirects of nominated redirects

[edit]

Following on from the discussion related to WP:CSD#G8 at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 3#Draftspace redirects, some avoided double redirects should be deleted for the same reason their parent redirect is deleted (e.g. if Foo → Bar is determined to be misleading then it is very likely that Fóo → Bar is too), but that isn't always going to be true. Rather than trying to codify this into a speedy deletion criterion, it would be easier if both redirects were discussed at the same time. So what if a bot were to look at every redirect that is nominated at RfD and looks for:

  • Redirects marked as avoided double redirects of the nominated redirect
  • Redirects to the same target as the nominated redirect that differ from it only in case
  • Redirects to the same target as the nominated redirect that differ from it only in the presence/absence of diacritic(s)

And mentions them in the discussion, perhaps:

  • Bot note: {{noredirect|Foo Smith}} is an avoided double redirect of "Foo Jones"
  • Bot note: {{noredirect|Foo smith}} is a redirect to the same target as "Foo Smith"

Humans are now aware of those redirects and can decided to add those redirects to the discussion, nominate them separately or leave them be as they feel is appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally thinking of countering this with a "R5. Draft namespace redirects with with no matching title in other namespaces" CSD proposal that would apply to redirects in the "Draft:" namespace with no matching title (usually in the mainspace) when the "Draft:" redirect has no history as anything other than a redirect ... but then I recall there are {{R from move}}s from the "Draft:" namespace to valid articles with the name of the "Draft:" namespace redirect being essentially utter nonsense, but we keep them per WP:RDRAFT. Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favor of G8 covering avoided double redirects of deleted redirects. By definition, they rely on a redirect that has been deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But as pointed out, not all of them should be deleted, meaning that would fail WP:NEWCSD point 2. Far better to just discuss them at the same time and delete the ones that need deleting that way. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]