May 12

Citation templates

Basal Retinal Neuron

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasreverse history merge.@Pppery: taking you up on the offer to ask you for help, I took a look at the histmerge instructions and I do not have nearly enough caffeine in my system to want to learn how to do this today.Rusalkii (talk)22:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Basal Retinal NeuronBasal Retinal Neuron →Bulla (gastropod) (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure what to do with this. It apparently started as a WikiEd article, which was history merged intoBulla (gastropod) (and thenBulla article was moved to this title, which I reversed). I assume basal retinal neurons aren't found only inBulla, but they are apparently only the subject of study inBulla gouldiana. The basal retinal neuron content is overwhelming in theBulla article and I think it is UNDUE (and would also be overwhelming inB. gouldiana).

I think perhaps what should be done with this redirect is to reverse the history merge, and restore the student article (which might then be subject to a deletion discussion).Plantdrew (talk)23:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse history merge per nom. Feel free to ask me to do the technical implementation if that's the consensus, since history merge reversal is a godawful mess at the best of times.* Pppery *_{it has begun...}18:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done the history merge - the old article is atBulla (gastropod). The split-out student work is now atBasal retinal neuron.* Pppery *_{it has begun...}22:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presidental Unit Citation

Xbox Series X

Wikipedia:Tl;dr

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion waskeep. Jay 💬15:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Tl;drWikipedia:Tl;dr →Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Summary: Delete perWP:RFD#DELETE #3 ("The redirect is offensive or abusive"). "Tl;DR" is an insulting way to characterize another editors post, and we don't need formal community-approved redirects for that. (It may beaccurate (sometimes) but that doesn't mean its not also insulting). This redirect contravenesWP:CIVIL which is a fundamental core policy.

So, our articleTL;DR starts off "TL;DR [is]... frequently used to indicate...that the content was disregarded because of its excessive length". Or in other words, "Your stuff is not even worth reading, so I didn't". That's probably not a good way to engage in thoughtful and reasoned and fruitful discussion with your colleagues.

It is true that some -- not most -- really long postsare worthless or prolix blathering, and sometimes editorsdo want to be harsh or even insulting about it, we're not supposed to but it does happen and if it's truly deserved maybe it's not really all that bad. Fine. Do it in your own words, colleague, and on your own dime. Let's not have an official redirect which can imply that you're pointing to some actual rule. (By the same token I would also be opposed toWP:SHUTUP etc. existing as a redirect here.[edit: Good grief, it does. Well anyway I've never seen it used and hope never to, and at least it is supposedly a "joke".]

It is true that "TL;DR" isalso used to mean "here's a summary of my post". And that is perfectly fine of course, butin that case you just useTL;DR rather thanWP:TL;DR if you want a link. Nobody normally writes "Here is theWP:TL;DR of my post" because that would indicate that you just wrote some stuff that you recognize is worthless blather. It's only used to characterize other people's posts.Herostratus (talk)14:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• SNOW Keep, nomination was too long; didn't read it.35.139.154.158 (talk)16:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But seriously, wrong venue...if you don't want people linking to it, nominate the essay atWP:MFD. The redirect to it is completely normal, and it can be a convenient shorthand for pointing out that someone needs to be more concise.35.139.154.158 (talk)16:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Also, this essay has no less than27 different redirects to it, so I'm not sure why you singled out this one. Is there something with its specific formatting that irks you? A lot of the redirects seem less than useful, but this is at least a standard abbreviation of the phrase.35.139.154.158 (talk)
• Keep per IP. I don't see anything wrong with an essay asking editors to be concise.Sdkb ^talk19:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not sure I entirely understand the nomination, but "tl;dr" is a common abbreviation for "Too long; didn't read," which is the title of this essay. This seems like a reasonable redirect to me. -Presidentmantalk ·contribs (Talkback)21:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh dear. Looks like we have a problem here. The reason why it's a problem worth figuring out to deal with is that this redirect contravenesWP:CIVIL, a key foundational rule. We want to be quite conservative when overriding key foundational rules likeWP:RS andWP:NPOV andWP:CIVIL and so forth. I don't this this little redirect is a hill worth dying on in that regard.

So, the request (which does have a summary for those lacking the interest, diligence, time, or acuity to engage more thoroughly, and fine) starts off"Delete perWP:RFD#DELETE #3 ("The redirect is offensive or abusive"). "Tl;DR" is an insulting way to characterize another editors post..." which, maybe it's deadwrong, but I don't think this it's too obscure to be understood.

Nevertheless, two of the responses so far are "I'm not sure I entirely understand the nomination..." and "I'm not sure why you singled out this [particular redirect]...". The other two responses don't even address the question at hand. They are "if you don't want people linking to [an essay], nominate the essay at WP:MFD..." and "I don't see anything wrong with [the] essay..." which are red herrings because this isredirects for discussion. For all I know the essay is fine, what does that have to do with anything? I think thatWikipedia:Consensus is fine too, but that doesn't mean thatWP:YOU_LOST_SO_FUCK_OFF would be a good redirect to it. Different things. I've seen plenty of cases where a redirect has been deleted but the target page not deleted, and I'm OK with that.

So, I hate to have to say this, but... an editor can certainly writeshort things that aren't really worth reading either. I mean the quality of the posts so far are such that it'd have been better if the commentors had just stayedWP:AFK. You all don't have a problem with me saying that, right? If the criteria for what is OK is "it is a common abbreviation" or "I don't see anything wrong withan essay asking people to not beWP:BAM", well, we're good, right? Sauce for the goose. Or do we have an "OK for me but not for thee" type situation here? Cos that's not a good look.

Now, thereare ways to argue against the proposition. They're extremely weak and some are a bit nasty, but at least they actually address the topic. Hoping that any future posters can step up their game. It's not a vote.

(Oh, and "I don't even understand your question" or "I'm going to address a completely different question than what you asked" canalso be disingenuous rhetorical devices. We certainly haveseen them used a lotrecently, by people who don't have an actual argument so instead flood the zone. It's not well thought of, and not condusive to collegial discussion. So in good faith I'll assume that that's not in play here.)

Sorry to be so long. Nobody has to read it in which case they are certainly free to go contribute somewhere else. It's just that I feel kind of strongly that we don't want formal community-approved redirects that undermineWP:CIVIL.Herostratus (talk)06:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with the essay itself, RfD is not the appropriate venue to deal with that. The existence of the redirect has no bearing on whether or not the essay is suitable for Wikipedia.Presidentmantalk ·contribs (Talkback)14:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read is the name of the essay, and the tl;dr abbreviation is natural, non-gratuitous, and legitimately part of the content of the essay. SeeWP:RFD#D3,unless... legitimately discussed in the article.Adumbrativus (talk)07:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with 35, why single out this particular redirect and nothing else? What makes specifically citingWP:tl;dr far less civil than citingWP:TL;DR,WP:TLDR, or evenWP:Too long; didn't read in general? TL;DR is a completely standard abbreviation in use in many different places, and it makes linking to the essay more convenient.mwwv^converse∫_edits22:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep I fail to see where this is an attack, since it is a shortcut to an essay. If you have issues with the essay, that is not what RfD is for. If you believe the essay is not worthy of having redirects, then your nomination is wrong, as it is not formulated that way. --65.92.246.77 (talk)21:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I hear you. Now, it would be legit for me to respond "How about you justWP:SHUTUP andWP:BUTTOUT, OK?", right? Since those are commonly understood terms, link to legit essays, and are reasonable distillations of those essays' titles, surely you wouldn't have a problem with me saying that, right? Whether youpersonally might not like being talked to that way is not a consideration, correct?Herostratus (talk)13:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The title of the target is literally "Too long didn't read" which is the literal meaning of the abbreviation used for the shortcut. Of your examples, only SHUTUP is a similar redirect, while BUTTOUT is not. I fail to see how the proper abbreviation of the exact title of the essay being used is not unreasonable. If you want to rename the essay, thenWP:Requested moves is that way.--65.92.246.77 (talk)16:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, OK, OK, I think I get it now. I had supposed that this was an isolated matter. But looking into it further, I see that we have a number of essays with pretty insulting titles and redirects. Sometimes that's OK and sometimes not, it it looks like. There is a redirectWP:BUTTOUT toWikipedia:Mind your own business for instance. To my mind that redirect is problematical, and the essay mostly gives bad advice and can be a quick way to say "Don't bother me while I'm trying to browbeat people" which, whatever. But hey that's just me. However, most of them are more reasonable. Where the margins are is debatable. We haveWikipedia:Nobody cares which is a pretty harsh title but the text is more normal and makes reasonable points. I still wouldn't want to seeWP:WHO GIVES A SHIT orWP:BOO HOO HOO SNOWFLAKE as redirects to that essay. But I guess they would be allowed as 1) they are understandable enough, and 1) they are reasonable distillations of the essay title, and 3)... there is no 3 I guess. If it was me I would lowkey this, but hey I'm not in charge.Herostratus (talk)13:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a normal abbreviation for the title of the page. Probably someone already said this above, but no surprise, I didn't read all the comments because there are so many of them.Nyttend (talk)22:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Slovaks in Russia

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. Jay 💬15:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Slovaks in Russia →Slovak diaspora (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

SeeWP:RFD#DELETE criterion 10:If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.Slovak diaspora has no information on the Russia's part of the diaspora. --Wolverène (talk)12:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs)23:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Albanians in Russia

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. Jay 💬15:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Albanians in Russia →Albanian diaspora (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

SeeWP:RFD#DELETE criterion 10:If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.Albanian diaspora has no information on the Russia's part of the diaspora. --Wolverène (talk)12:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs)23:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Slovenes in Russia

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. Jay 💬15:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Slovenes in Russia →Slovene diaspora (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

SeeWP:RFD#DELETE criterion 10:If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.Slovene diaspora has no information on the Russia's part of the diaspora. --Wolverène (talk)12:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs)23:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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