The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Unreality show → Reality television  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Term does not appear in target article. Doesn't appear to have been discussed in any reliable sources. Can't think of any reason why this would be a likely search term. Seems to violate RNEUTRAL. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:RNEUTRAL doesn't necessarily apply here since the redirect isn't necessarily harmful ... however, the phrase seems made up to a point it's not clear what it's indented to refer to. Steel1943 (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I was reading it as derogatory toward reality television, but you're probably right. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unreality goes to derealization. Neither article explains how the term is used in a show AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Seems to be an ((R from antonym))... when that antonym is basically never used. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Fat upper pussy area → Abdominal obesity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Fupa → Abdominal obesity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• F.U.P.A. → Abdominal obesity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Foopa → Abdominal obesity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Foopah → Abdominal obesity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There appears to be no mention in the article text. I am aware it is a slang term for this, though I do not know whether it should be removed or to stay. per WP:RNEUTRAL, it is permissible though I want to confirm for sure. Also to note is Fupa, though it was created then fully protected in 2017. Jennytacular (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete along with Fupa per nom. Veverve (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fupa will need to be nominated separately or formally added onto this RfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should Fupa also be added to this nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fupa should be added to the nomination. Veverve (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled Fupa. And some more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. Veverve (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to Mons pubis. Is that not what it is really understood to mean? Hyperbolick (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: unencyclopedic slang. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Arbitration clauses and class action waivers → Arbitration clause  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:XY class action waiver * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, though either Arbitration clause or Class action waiver are both fine targets. The lead of Arbitration clause states Arbitration clauses are frequently paired with class action waivers which prevents contracting parties to file class action lawsuits against each other., and the lead of Class action waiver states Class action waivers may be found on a standalone basis, though they are more commonly found as part of an arbitration clause, and when paired with such clauses, frequently include jury trial waivers. However, this redirect is actually an ((R from move)) (it seems that Arbitration clause was moved here and back?). Since the quotes I took said that arbitration clauses and class action waivers are commonly found together, we might be able to write an article about the combination as distinct from its two components. Duckmather (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming your last sentence is true (I'm not convinced), isn't that an argument in favor of deletion to encourage article creation? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No I think it would be better to stick ((R with possibilities)) on the redirect and let it be; I have a pretty strong distaste for WP:REDYES as a policy. We already have Category:Redirects with possibilities, but there's no such listing for REDYES-style deletions, and the red deletion log box arguably scares editors away from creating new articles over deleted redirects, as compared to the relative ease of overwriting existing ones. Duckmather (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:XY. CapitalSasha ~ talk 11:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: XY. Veverve (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. As both entries already had Supreme deity as the target, there is no action to be done. Doing a swap move, or discussing about it, may be done outside of this RfD. Jay 💬 14:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Supreme Being → Supreme deity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Supreme being → Supreme deity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Supreme Being" was a longstanding redirect (from merge) to God, but was retargeted to the dab page at Supreme deity last week. It appears that the lowercase "Supreme being" was also a redirect to God in the past, but was retargeted to the dab page in 2022. Should these both be retargeted back to God? Natg 19 (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve, Rosguill, The Anome, UpdateNerd, Editor2020, and Obscurasky: Natg 19 (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Target all to Supreme deity: the page Supreme deity, as per its lede, is the intended target. Veverve (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Target all to Supreme deity: current target discusses many sorts of beings who are not referred to as gods, and it wouldn't be neutral to favor that terminology. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (hoping it'll be built out as an article soon)! UpdateNerd (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Been thinking about this for some time. A supreme being is not necessarily a deity, so swap. Move Supreme deity to Supreme being, and redirect the other way. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperbolick: I would support such a move, but I would rather wait until this RfD is closed to perform it. Veverve (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Names of Japan#Classical. No prejudice against a later RfD to determine if Japan is a superior target. (non-admin closure) J947 † ^edits 00:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 일본국 → Japan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Violation of WP:RLOTE. The country's name in Korean is not a useful redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Korea was a colony of Japan for half a century, and was considered an integral part of the Empire of Japan. So there is a degree of affinity for this. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per prior RfD WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 9#일본 for 일본, it was decided to retarget to Names of Japan#Classical -- "일본국" is a variant of "일본" with the signifier wikt:국, a suffix element that is attached to names to indicate the term is referring to a country. So this is a synonym of the other redirect 일본 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and should point to the same target. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per the prior RfD for 일본, and retarget to Names of Japan#Classical per the result of the 9 May RfD -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget - There is a clear connection between the Korean language and the country Japan (see also Koreans in Japan). Per the previous discussion (for a slightly different redirect), Names of Japan#Classical is probably a better target but I would also be fine with keeping at Japan. A7V2 (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Embankemnt tube station → Embankment tube station  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I fail to see how this is a plausible typo, and believe it should be deleted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obvious typo Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a common error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 02:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sunny Marlborough → Charles Spencer-Churchill, 9th Duke of Marlborough  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Disambiguate - Both the 9th and 11th Dukes of Marlborough were called "Sunny" so there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A simple Google search returns mixed results for which of the two dukes is known by the name[1]. estar8806 (talk) ★ 11:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. Page drafted. I can't determine a primary topic either. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Drafted dab looks good. Jay 💬 14:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Family(biology) → Family (biology)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of a space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Family (biology), is the target of the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as evidently helpful given that it receives non-negligible views, perhaps from a handful of backlinks. And I just want to note something: I think that the number of times redirects like this are created, and the number of times these discussions pop up at RfD, is itself a indication that this is a plausible, frequently-made mistake. J947 † ^edits 06:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ...Not particularly. The page views were probably the result of someone linking the wrong page in some category pages about a decade ago ... like this instance I corrected. Steel1943 (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  365 views since 1 July 2015 which could indeed be from the link now fixed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it never had any significant content. It had "A group of similar species" for about a minute in 2005 before being redirected. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete(per nom). AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Drafted DAB looks good to go. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Guillaume V → Guillaume, Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and discussions about redirects "Haakon VIII" and "Frederik X of Denmark". estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate several of the William V's listed there are also rendered as "Guillaume V", since they involve nobles in what is now the territory of France, where they are called "Guillaume" -- fr:Guillaume V d'Aquitaine (Aquitaine is in France) , fr:Guillaume V de Nevers (Nevers is in France); so aside from this potential future "Guillaume V", we already have articles on two "Guillaume V"s already, William V, Duke of Aquitaine and William V, Count of Nevers -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per IP above. Draft looks truly impressive, and I would have gladly closed this discussion if it wasn't for the lack of consensus. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per the draft and a shoutout to IP64 . Jay 💬 15:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Leonor I → Leonor, Princess of Asturias  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Also per related discussions regarding redirects of "Haakon VIII" and "Frederik X". estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 15:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Kevin Duran → Kevin Durant  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Declined R3, but I believe this is still an implausible typo, and has potential to create confusion considering there are people with the name Kevin Duran (albeit, none of whom currently have a Wikipedia article). Concern brought up on creator's talk page a week ago with no response. I will note there is at least one AMNY article that does have this typo in the title, but I don't think that's enough to support this being a plausible typo. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (I was the initiator of R3). Articles have not made any issue concerning the spelling of his last name in all these years, so this is not a plausible typo. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment typos by omission of single characters are an extremely common type of typo, especially such as terminal letters, especially with copy-paste errors. Other than that, I have no opinion on keeping or deleting this typo, but it is a common form of error -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the IP has a good point it is plausible since omissions of character are very common due to a variety of reasons Qwv (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Missing one letter is a plausuble typo, and Duran is a surname too. Imagine hearing his name on the radio or podcast and not hearing the difference between Duran and Durant.—Bagumba (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Plausible indeed. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete (R3). Speedy deleted under R3 by Deb. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Durant Durant → Duran Duran  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible typo/incorrect name; it takes at least several pages of google results to get a response for the target, as the first few pages bring up nothing, both in and out of quotation marks. Brought up the concern at the creator's talk page a week ago, with no response. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Delete per nom. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Tagged for R3, since it was created barely a week ago. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Abusive, mean, petty Wikipedians → Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

When a category is deleted by community consensus and someone ignores it and adds it back as a redlinked category, the solution is to remove it from that page, not to reward them by re-creating the category as a redirect. Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all previous participants: @VegaDark, @Black Falcon, @AusLondonder, @Zeke, the Mad Horrorist, @Lugnuts, @JarrahTree. Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Accesscrawl (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Out of my depth, but wouldn't this apply to all categories under Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages? Feels weird to single out one and nominate it here. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I think this one is different. The rest of the comedic redirect-categories are named such that they're not obvious personal attacks, and in fact are obviously jokes. This one is different because, while it is also intended as a joke, it has the potential for abuse. See my comment below. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear violation of WP:PA. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. From Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages: Some editors have reinstated the category entries on their userpages. In doing so, they have created a redlink that, per WP:REDNOT, shows up in error lists such as Special:WantedCategories. These lists are used to identify errors in categorization. It is also limited in size and shows only a subset of the currently red-linked categories, so a red-linked category on a userpage displaces categories that other editors are trying to fix. Therefore, these formerly-redlinked categories have been re-created as hard redirects, and thus, no longer redlinks. This way, they still appear on userpages (respecting those editors' wishes), but are not navigable categories (respecting the consensus of the deletion discussions). We can't stop users from adding redlinked categories to their own pages so there's a maintenance burden to not simply allowing joke redirect-categories like this one to continue existing. This one is different because of its potential for abuse. I'm not convinced it is actually usable for abuse though. All members of the category appear to have voluntarily placed this on their own userpages. Anyone who actually tries to use it for abuse is pretty clearly asking for a block. I don't think there's a real world use case for abuse here. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We can indeed stop editors from adding a category that was deleted by letting them know that such action is disruptive editing, with everything that it means. Gonnym (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That didn't work when it was tried back in 2017. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with both the nominating statement here and much of Axem Titanium's rebuttal. First, I don't see how this is a personal attack - and I say this as an avid member of the category police who others will probably say are abusive, mean, and petty. There's some ugly history here, but that can be forgotten about now that it's 2023 not 2017.
  Second, [Special:WantedCategories] is also limited in size and shows only a subset of the currently red-linked categories, so a red-linked category on a userpage displaces categories that other editors are trying to fix is no longer true (it's limited to 5000 entries, and the one person working on clearing this queue is ensuring that it never reaches that size). But, on the other hand, nothing useful would be accomplished by letting this remain populated and red other than pissing that one person off.
  Likewise, we learned in 2017 that, despite what policies and guidelines say, actually trying to forcibly depopulate these categories will likely cause a giant mess.
  I suggest we try for a compromise solution, and soft delete, removing all members, and in the event one of them adds themselves back allow it to be recreated. That seems to have worked the previous time this came up. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking the soft delete suggestion since the discussion below is making it clear that soft deleting won't work, and the giant mess I was warning about is now already happening. What this discussion is now coming down to is whether this defiance of process should be ignored, and I don't find the arguments for doing so convincing, so delete and salt * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt - fails multiple WP:USERCATNO criteria: categories that are broadly or vaguely defined, categories which group users by dislikes of any type, categories which group users by advocacy of a position, categories that are jokes/nonsense, and especially categories that are divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive. There is no possible use for this except as a self-deprecating joke, a pointy statement, or a clear personal attack. Salt because it will continue showing up in Special:WantedCategories because of the very small number of editors who insist on keeping it on their page anyway, but it should not be recreated. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak soft delete; oppose salting I generally think what Pppery said makes sense, and as such, I think a soft delete is fair, but I don't feel strongly. I don't think salting is a good idea, though; if people are that determined to add it to their user page, there's no reason to force it to be redlinked. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: pointless and derogatory. Cannot imagine what legitimate purpose it would serve. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I have never been a fan of the solution that currently seems to have unofficially evolved through the failure of the ability to enforce category deletions when it comes to user pages. Keeping them as redirects so they would stay out of red link reports I can understand as someone who used to do a ton of redlink cleanup. That being said, If I had to choose between a red link or a blue link redirect, I'd take the redlink in a heartbeat. Keeping them as redirects was a very distasteful compromise in my view, but when I argued against this solution at the time, there just weren't enough voices that cared about a user category squabble, which partly led to refusal to have consensus to enforce user category deletions on userpages. As I recall, a couple admins said they would not be willing to block an individual or protect the individual's userpage who repeatedly re-added a category on their userpage that had been deleted by consensus when the issue was brought to the administrator's noticeboard, so that pitted the few Wikipedians who cared about user categories against the regulars who performed redlink cleanup work. Eventually someone just started creating redirects so they wouldn't show up on their reports, and not enough people disagreed for anything to ever be done about it. I think that there are better solutions (I'd have a bot go through and remove all previously deleted redlink categories from user pages every so often, forcing users to proactively re-add them every time. Over time, the number of populated redlinked categories would dwindle, likely to a level the red link cleanup folks could learn to live with). Either way, I would welcome reopening this discussion, and my preference would be to salt this even if the end result is a user in a redlinked category. VegaDark (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have a bot go through and remove all previously deleted redlink categories from user pages every so often, forcing users to proactively re-add them every time.
    That sounds like a foolproof plan. Absolutely no way this would result in a ton of drama and a cat and mouse game, being forced to run a bot that is not ((bots))-compliant, coming up with a million ways to stop your bot from removing anything, inviting users to add actual redlinked categories (which the bot won't be looking for), finding admins to enforce all these shenanigans and ultimately blocking editors over.. what exactly? And that harms the project.
    A four-word solution: live and let live. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per @Axem Titanium and Pppery. The reason that this (and some other similar categories) was re-created as a redirect is that after it was deleted and emptied, a small number of editors re-added the category to their userpage(s), as a redlink. Their failure to accept the consensus meant that the category caused clutter at Special:WantedCategories. The redirect is workaround to remove that clutter.
  :The deliberate disruption by a few editors is a selfish and self-indulgent action which should, as the nominator notes, be dealt with by removing it from their userpages. We agree on that.
  So the way to achieve Gonnym's goal is not to have another debate at xCFD: it's to enforce the consensus at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 15#Category:Abusive,_mean,_petty_Wikipedians by emptying the category, and opening a WP:ANI discussion to deal with any editor(s) who choose to selfishly and self-indulgently ignore the consensus and falsely claim that the content of a WP:USERPAGE is unrestricted. Per WP:UPNOT: there are restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance, value, and non-disruption to the community. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but don't be inconsiderate.

If the guideline is upheld, and this category is emptied, then it can be speedily deleted per WP:C1, so this RFD is redundant.

OTOH, if the emptying of the category is not upheld, then the basis of Gonnym's nomination fails, and the category should not be deleted, because deletion of a non-empty category adds perma-clutter to Special:WantedCategories, which is a perma-nuisance to the editors who do the thankless task of cleaning up Special:WantedCategories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS I suggest that the best way forward would be to open a WP:RFC to propose the addition to WP:UPNOT of something like:

Editors must NOT categorise any of their userpages in a category which has been deleted by consensus of WP:CFD. Any page in any namespace in such a deleted category may be removed from the deleted category by any editor."

If that RFC passes, then Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages and its subcats can be emptied and deleted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl, as one of the 7 editors who has that category on their userpage, I have no problem with removing it and no intention to clutter WantedCategories. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl: thanks, that's great. Any chance you could try to persuade some of the other 6 to reconsider? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect we can probably just remove the category from the inactive editors (MjolnirPants). As for the others, @Alexis Jazz, Darwinbish, Kevo327, No such user, and Randykitty?— Qwerfjkltalk 14:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qwerfjkl, you're not cluttering WantedCategories. None of us are as the category is a redirect.
BrownHairedGirl: "The deliberate disruption by a few editors is a selfish and self-indulgent action (..) deal with any editor(s) who choose to selfishly and self-indulgently ignore the consensus" is this sarcasm? If so, please use smileys or something. Because while this category isn't a personal attack, that almost sounds like a PA. I placed myself in this category. I'm not disrupting anything, it's a redirect. And you're calling me selfish and self-indulgent because..? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz: No smileys. I am serious.

I re-created the category as a redirect because it was cluttering Special:WantedCategories. I stand by my assertion that categorising pages in a deleted category is deliberate disruption by a few editors, and that it is a selfish and self-indulgent action which should sanctioned. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Gonnym's and BrownHairedGirl's comments on fellow editors with this category on their pages sound fairly threatening, as well as a bit abusive ("selfish and self-indulgent"?). And you only have to read this discussion to see the wrongheadedness of BrownHairedGirl's claim that "we all agree" that "the deliberate disruption by a few editors is a selfish and self-indulgent action which should, as the nominator notes, be dealt with by removing it from their userpages". We all agree on that? If Pppery and Axem Titanium agree on that, it's not apparent from their posts above, to put it mildly. The potential for abuse is, as Axem Titanium points out, not a real thing. Let me also link to Johnuniq's super wise comment from 2017. Please read it. I am the Darwinbish, the abusive, mean, petty version of Bishonen. I like that to be explicit. darwin bish 15:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Now that I've seen some name-calling below using these words, I've added quotes to selfish and self-indulgent to clarify I'm not for my part calling anybody by them, I'm quoting the words (as being abusive). Sadly, Bishonen has told me to be polite if I must post in Wikipedia space. darwin bish 13:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

• In theory I agree with that. I just couldn't bring myself to actually say that explicitly and be responsible for what will likely happen. And I disagree fundamentally with Johnuniq's 2017 comment - the time to make that sort of argument was way back at the October 2017 deletion discussion, which closed unanimously in favor of deletion, and at this point the harm in leaving rules unenforced and having enabled a culture of exceptions for 6 years is greater than that Johnuniq describes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Darwinbish please don't put words in my mouth.

  I did NOT say "we all agree". I said "we agree", while commenting on the nominator's statement: meaning that I agree with Gonnym. Your addition of the word "all" twists my meaning.

  All this timewasting drama arises from the refusal of a few editors to accept consensus. WP:consensus is a core principle of Wikipedia, so I stand by my view that this defiance is a selfish and self-indulgent action. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Johnuniq: forcing good editors to submit (and submit now) over trivia is harmful for a collegial community. I self-identify as abusive, mean and petty and I think it is only fair to warn fellow users about it. I just don't see the point of messing again with a piece of self-deprecating humor, except that it's being instigated by a selfish and self-indulgent action of category police with too much time on their hands. The potential for abuse is only in the eyes of the potential abusers. No such user (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• We seem to be experiencing exactly what was predicted way back in 2017 at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 17#Notifying stakeholders and natural justice. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Volunteers are welcome to spend their time as they wish but really? Please just accept that people are different and some find the user category to be helpful. No benefit would come from deleting categories like this. Johnuniq (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I categorized myself like this years ago. Fully agree with No such user that this is a selfish and self-indulgent action of category police with too much time on their hands. This is a stupid thing to go to war over.
  Potential gain: deletion of a joke category-redirect. (jay??)
  Potential loss: exactly one fuckton of drama (as you'll be going after all redlinked-redirected categories if this succeeds), wasting time creating non-((bots)) compliant bots and getting them approved, playing cat and mouse games with said bot which the bot can never win, incentivize users to add actual redlinked categories, convincing admins to block users, maybe get an admin or two to resign over this stupid shit, loss of contributors to the project.
  Live and let live. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alexis Jazz: lemme get this clear.

  You categorised yourself in a deleted, contrary to the WP:consensus.

  You are aware of WP:REDNOT, but you think it doesn't apply to you.

  But you call others selfish. Really? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  BrownHairedGirl, I never had a red category. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alexis Jazz: but you do have a category which was deleted by consensus.

  Do you think that consensus doesn't apply to you? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It wasn't deleted when I added it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; redirecting stuff like this is part of a compromise between the "chill out, dude" side and the "deleted means deleted" side. I'm not entirely happy with it. The other side isn't either. But it addresses the most critical desire of our side, and the most critical desire of the other side. That's what a compromise means. Please stop trying to blow up this compromise; it took a lot of time and bad feelings to hammer out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).