View source for Wiki143 talk:Redirect

{{See also|Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/redirects|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect|Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/Redirect}}
{{Talk header|WT:R|WT:REDIR|noarchives=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{Wikipedia Help Project |class=Project |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Redirect}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(182d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Redirect/Archive %(year)d
}}
{{Archive box |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=6 |units=months |index=/Archive index |search=yes|
* [[/Archive 2003-2005|2003–2005]]
* [[/Archive 2006|2006]]
* [[/Archive 2007|2007]]
* [[/Archive 2008|2008]]
* [[/Archive 2009|2009]]
* [[/Archive 2010|2010]]
* [[/Archive 2011|2011]]
* [[/Archive 2012|2012]]
* [[/Archive 2013|2013]]
* [[/Archive 2014|2014]]
* [[/Archive 2015|2015]]
* [[/Archive 2016|2016]]
* [[/Archive 2017|2017]]
* [[/Archive 2018|2018]]
* [[/Archive 2019|2019]]
* [[/Archive 2020|2020]]
* [[/Archive 2021|2021]]
* [[/Archive 2022|2022]]
* [[/Archive 2023|2023]]
* [[/Archive 2024|2024]]}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn 
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes 
}}

== See related recommended best practice proposal ==

At [[Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Propose_addition_of_the_following_best_practice_to_redirection_section]] concerning recommending the use of {{tl|Uw-blar}} <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 02:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

== RfC on contested BLARs ==

There is an RfC on the proper venue for BLARed articles at {{slink|Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)|RfC: Amending ATD-R}}. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 00:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

== Warning when creating a double redirect ==

Tech News notes that [[:phab:T326056]] has been resolved and will be implemented this week (presumably Thursday). This means that from then you should get an error message when trying to create a double redirect, recommending you change the target to that of the second redirect. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 02:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{to|Thryduulf}} Thank You, that's very handy and helpful''!'' Guess it was a bit tricky when it comes to page moves that create a handful of double redirects automatically. I was hoping to see this in preview, but you actually have to click "Publish changes" to see the error message. It's similar to the user-set "forgot to type in an edit summary" screen, that is, it stops you in your tracks and shows you your error, but if you click "Publish changes" again, the double redirect will be created anyway. Very helpful, thanks again''!'' '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'er&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>09:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)</small>
::All I'm responsible for is spotting the entry in Tech News and thinking people here would find it useful to know about. The developers are the ones who should be thanked. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
:::I've grown to expect such a great response from you. You were the conduit by which I learned of this awesome, needed change. That is what I thanked you for; don' sell yursef short, Thryduulf, conduits are important, too! And yes, I have also thanked those pitiful (read that "awesome") devs, as noted in the Phabulous link you left above. 'Tsall good! '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'er&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>21:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)</small>

== Alternate spellings of given names ==

I have been involved in at least two [[WP:RM]]s, where it was proposed that since a specific person is the [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]] of a specific alternate spelling of a given name, that person should occupy the "real estate" of alternate spelling and not be redirected to the most common name spelling of the given name. I argued that all alternate spellings should redirect to the article about the given name (as per [[WP:POFR]], which has no exceptions), perhaps [[WP:IAR]] in the case if that person using the alternate spelling is the primary topic of all alternate spellings of that given name (which maybe very, very rare). At any rate, for "Jhoanna", an alternate of spelling of "[[Joanna]]", this is now been moved to an article about a specific person (see [[Talk:Jhoanna#Requested move 16 January 2025]]. Another, "[[Mikha]]", an alternate spelling of "[[Micah]]", is currently being discussed at [[Talk:Bini (group)#Requested move 29 January 2025]]. Both Jhoanna and Mikha being discussed are members of [[Bini (group)]].

What's the actual policy or interpretation on this? [[User:Howard the Duck|Howard the Duck]] ([[User talk:Howard the Duck|talk]]) 20:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:If one individual is the most notable (or only) holder of a particular name, they are a likely candidate for being the primary topic. This is especially true for unusual spellings. Jhoanna is not even so much as mentioned at [[Joanna]] so there's currently no reason at all to redirect to there. While ''Mikha'' is mentioned as a Hebrew spelling of the name at [[Micah]], the page does not list any individuals with that name. Whether [[Mikha (singer)]] is the primary topic over [[Mikha Tambayong]] or any other individuals with the name can be discussed. [[WP:POFR]] does not in any way prohibit such primary topic redirects (or moving a mononymous performer to the base name). A case could also be made to redirect Mikha to [[Michael (given name)]] as a hypocorism. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 21:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
::{{tpq|If one individual is the most notable (or only) holder of a particular name, they are a likely candidate for being the primary topic.}} I agree with this, and extend that to if a person is the most notable (or only) person who spells their name a given way, then they are likely to be the primary topic for that spelling. Hatnotes can and should be used to direct people to articles about people with similar names in the same way that [[Carole White]] and [[Carol White]] do. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:: The names Micah ({{langx|he|מִיכָה|translit=Mikhah}}) and Michael ({{langx|he|מִיכָאֵל|translit=Mikha'El}}) are related but distinct. Someone searching for for Mikha is almost certainly searching for Micah, not Michael. Absent a person spelling his name that way or a DAB page, it should redirect to Micah with a {{tl|distinguish}} hatnote. -- [[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 15:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
:::There are a number of persons named [[Mikhail]] for whom 'Mikha' is used as a hypocorism. I only mentioned [[Michael (given name)]] because Mikahil redirects there. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 17:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
:[[William Shakspere]] was well known for spelling his own name in about a dozen different ways. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 21:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:The guidance that applies is [[WP:SMALLDETAILS]] - {{tq|The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for}}. So the real question is if the average reader would be more likely to recognize and use such a term as a reference to a specific topic, or as a variant of a common name. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 13:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
:So apparently my interpretation of {{quote|Alternative spellings or punctuation. For example, Colour redirects to Color, and Al-Jazeera redirects to Al Jazeera.}}
:where "Jhoanna" should redirect to "[[Joanna]]" is not what most people in this discussion agree to, except for Jewish names I suppose. If the interpretation of most people here is the correct one, I propose that the specific bullet point should be amended. [[User:Howard the Duck|Howard the Duck]] ([[User talk:Howard the Duck|talk]]) 00:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

== Adding a trick ==

Should I add the trick where you can append <code>?redirect=no</code> to the end of the URL and ignore the redirect? [[User:Justjourney|Justjourney]] ([[User talk:Justjourney|talk]]) 03:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

== Merge proposal ==

The Help:Redirect page bears many similarities to this one. I am aware that the help namespace is supposed to be a tutorial, but for a tutorial, the help page and this one aren't exactly all that different. That begs the question, if the 2 pages are similar, why separate them? Case in point, the Help:Merging page is simply a disambiguation to the Wikipedia one. [[User:Senomo Drines|Senomo Drines]] ([[User talk:Senomo Drines|talk]]) 17:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

*[[Help:Redirect]] and [[Wikipedia:How to make a redirect]] have a lot of overlap and could be merged without a lot of impact as far as can tell. But I strongly disagree with merging the how-to material with [[Wikipedia:Redirect]]. This page has WAY too much obscure details that would be overwhelming for someone looking for simple how-to instructions. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 18:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
*Just been waiting a few years for someone to do it [[Wikipedia talk:How to make a redirect#Merge into Help:Redirect?]] <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 00:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' merging [[Help:Redirect]] into this page. They cover distinct material: this page is mainly a guideline regarding redirects, the help page tells more about the technical way they work and how to use/make them. [[User:Mr. Starfleet Command|Mr. Starfleet Command]] ([[User talk:Mr. Starfleet Command|talk]]) 00:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose '''per [[User:Bkonrad|Bkonrad]]'s statement, I think the tutorial page should remain separate, as it's intended to be a resource for users unfamiliar with the system to learn how to create a redirect. <span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User talk:Stickymatch|<span style="text-shadow: 2px 2px 2px #F0F5E6"><i style="color: #197C5D;">Stickymatch</i></span>]]</span> 21:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per above arguments, and particularly by [[User:Bkonrad|older ≠ wiser]]. The current status is quite clear and succinct. There is no confusion. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 04:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

== Reason for deletion #1 ==

Hello! Me and fellow users on hrwiki have been working on porting this guideline to Croatian Wikipedia, but we aren't able to think of an example for reason #1 in the pro-deletion subsection ("unreasonably difficult to locate similarly named articles"). I haven't been able to replicate the issue in the example given as searching only covers the mainspace by default, while I suppose "New Articles" is in reference to [[Special:NewPages]]. Same goes for hrwiki. Since we're considering dropping this particular reason for deletion, I wanted to check if anybody could make sense of this before we do so. Thanks! <span style="color:#f1ce2f">☀</span> [[User:Hijerovit|<span style="color:#ad0000">'''Hijérovīt'''</span>]]&thinsp;<nowiki>|</nowiki>&thinsp;[[User talk:Hijerovit|<sup>þ</sup>Ⰱ<sub>č</sub>]] 22:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:See [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 3#Tawnia]] as an example. It redirected to [[Neopets]] where Tawnia is not mentioned. Wikipedia also has an article [[Tawnia McKiernan]] and a redirect for a fictional character [[Tawnia Baker]]. Now, a particular [[WP:PTOPIC]] does not exist here, and a disambiguation page for just two entries, one of them redirect, is overkill. So, the redirect was deleted, so anyone searching for "Tawnia" will find every article with the word in it. Another case is when there are two articles with similar names, and there is a typo that can refer to either of the two articles, in such case the typo-redirect will be deleted so that search function can show both options to the reader. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;'''[[User:CX Zoom|CX Zoom]]'''[he/him]</span> <sup class="nowrap">([[User talk:CX Zoom|let's talk]] • {[[Special:Contributions/CX Zoom|C]]•[[User:CX Zoom/X|X]]})</sup> 01:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

== Aren't redirects used by Web search engines to show the relevant Wikipedia article? ==

[[File:Web search engine shows false Wikipedia article as top search result instead of redirect article of search term (DuckDuckGo).png|thumb]] [[Moral education]] redirects to [[Character education]], not [[Religious education]] to which it, falsely(!), redirected to only up to 9 May 2013. Nevertheless, [[DuckDuckGo]] shows the latter at the top when searching for the 1:1 exactly the same search term, as shown in the screenshot on the right.

Even worse, the Character education article is not included in at least the first 2 pages of results.<br>By the way, I think this should be a redirect with possibilities as Moral education if anything is just one aspect of Character education.

This may also affect more articles and maybe it's not even a relatively rare exception but a quite frequent occurrence. One can't report it at phabricator as it doesn't seem to be an issue of Wikipedia. I thought one use of redirects is that they make articles discoverable to people searching the Web for either synonyms (or very related overlapping terms) or for subtopics of Wikipedia articles (usually linked to article sections). What could be done on the Wikimedia side of things is investigating what the cause of this could be (and if possible fix it eg by changing how things are being crawled/indexed), possibly reaching out, possibly finding ways to identify more such cases, and exploring how big the problem is. [[User:Prototyperspective|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective|talk]]) 16:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Fair point, but there's only so much we can do about how external sources use Wikipedia, so I wouldn't consider this a bug. If crawlers wanted to distinguish between redirects and full articles, they could already do so based on the wikitext. It's still something to be aware of in RfDs, though. --[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 20:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, that's why I'm asking about it here instead of filing a code issue. For example, I wonder if there are more cases like it and if so if there are any estimates how many redirects this affects or how much it impedes people in finding the most relevant Wikipedia article.<br>Another thing that isn't the post above: "moral education" is mentioned 16 times in the Character education article and I don't know why DDG shows that other page at the top. [[User:Prototyperspective|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective|talk]]) 21:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
:There also is a box on the right side of "Assist" that is "Auto-generated based on listed sources" and includes a definition and a link to the Wikipedia article. Too bad I didn't take a screenshot of the full page earlier – I don't know if that's been there before or not (I don't remember it being there; and I think I probably would have included it in the screenshot; maybe DDG is currently changing some search engine things).
:However, it would only make the issue less problematic, not solve it, since the top search results is still very visible and many/most users likely rather read that and/or click that Wikipedia link, instead of reading the possibly auto-generated text in that new box on the right and clicking the much smaller Wikipedia link there. And even if they do, it's still problematic if there is such a large top search result when the redirect of the search term points to another article. [[User:Prototyperspective|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective|talk]]) 21:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
::Just noticed one has to click on "Assist" for the box to appear and when it's visible, that link is blue so it wasn't shown earlier and the default seems to be for the box to not be visible. I think some systematic investigations – with some terms that are redirects on Wikipedia to see whether Wikipedia links in the search results match what those pages redirect to – could be a good idea or if anybody else notices the same thing it would be good if they could comment here with the case so over time we could find out why pages that aren't matching the redirect are shown in the results. Maybe an issue is that those are less-watched and less reliable but there still are many mentions of the term in the article of this example, implying the redirect is very plausible. [[User:Prototyperspective|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective|talk]]) 21:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

== New rcat ==

:{{tlx|R to gerund}}
It doesn't have a category and it isn't in the template index yet. (ping {{u|NoahJohnsen}}) [[User:Hyphenation Expert|Hyphenation Expert]] ([[User talk:Hyphenation Expert|talk]]) 04:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
:{{to|Hyphenation Expert}} "R to gerund" is a redirect that presently sorts to {{cat|Redirects from verbs}}. I don't see any redirects in the [[Wikipedia:Template index/Redirect pages#Alphanumeric listing|index]], although {{tl|R from gerund}} (an rcat template, not a redirect), which sorts to {{cat|Redirects from gerunds}}, does appear in the index. It seems that by far the greatest need is for redirects ''from'' gerunds. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'er&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>19:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)</small>
::Yes, the creator changed it from an rcat to a redirect after my post. "R from verb" is imperfect, as [[Runner]]→[[Running]] would be "R to gerund" but not "R from verb". [[User:Hyphenation Expert|Hyphenation Expert]] ([[User talk:Hyphenation Expert|talk]]) 19:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I wondered about that. Perhaps {{tl|R from common noun}} would be a better target? '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'er&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>20:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)</small>
:What purpose would this rcat serve? [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 00:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

== Consecutive BLARs by different editors ==

Given an article created or recreated by an editor (editor A) and a BLAR of that article by another editor (editor B), which BLAR is then reverted by editor A,

can a third editor (editor C), come along and again immediately BLAR the article (revert the revert of the first BLAR)?

... or would editor C have to nominate at AfD if they think that the article should stop being live? (Just like editor B would have to per [[WP:BLAR]], instead of blanking-and-redirecting again).

The question presumes that editors B and C are not [[wp:tag teaming]]. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 00:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
:If a bold redirection of an article has been contested, then per [[WP:BRD]] a discussion is generally going to be best practice, especially if both prior actions are very recent. That discussion doesn't necessarily have to be at AfD (e.g. editor C could try talk page discussion first) but AfD is the correct venue for a deletion discussion. In some cases there might be exceptions, e.g. if the first redirection was to an obviously unrelated page, the reversion was explicitly objecting only to the target, and editor C's target is very clearly contains directly relevant material; editor B was unquestionably acting in bad faith; or editor C is editing years after editors A and B. Editor C immediately redirecting when editor B has explicitly objected to any redirection (or redirecting to a target editor B has explicitly objected to) is definitely something that should be reverted in favour of discussion though. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
:Even if not tag teaming, it's still edit warring. Unless this is immediate reversion of someone creating a nonsense page, I'd say take it to AfD. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 00:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Thryduulf|Voorts}}. Thanks both, and I have a follow-up question: What if, in the above scenario, the recreated article is an article that editor A restored from a redirect, with certain changes, and the article had been subject to an AfD "redirect" (on notability grounds). What editor A recreated/restored from redirect is not a copy and contains significant changes made in good faith to overcome the reasons for deletion/redirection from the AfD. Can editor C perhaps then re-BLAR (after editor B had already tried the same and BLAR became contested)?—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 14:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
::Basically in all cases, if a BLAR is contested in good faith then discuss matters - the talk page, a relevant WikiProject page or the relevant XfD venue are all appropriate. 
::*If there has been a formal or otherwise clear consensus to redirect ''and'' the article is substantially the same as it was when that consensus was reached, then RfD is appropriate XfD. 
::*In all other cases, especially when the article is significantly different or there are sources that weren't previously considered, then the deletion discussion venue is AfD (after restoring the article version).
::[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
::Editor C should not re-BLAR. They should go to AfD. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 21:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
{{od|2}}Thanks both again. I will now ping {{u|SmokeyJoe}} about his comment in an ongoing deletion review, and I started this discussion to continue discussing the issue brought up at DRV; his comment is purpled to make it stand out, and editors will, I think, be pinged again here, which seems fine to me.{{tqb|
*'''Comment''' Let's sum up.  I ''think'' we have consensus, if perhaps not 100% agreement, that WP:N is now met and the only remaining issue is one of process.  so I think per [[WP:BURO]] the final place we should get to is plain. The question is, what is the right process.  I was looking for guidance about how this situation should be handled in our policies and guidelines and I'm not finding anything.  [[WP:REDIRECT]] seems to have very little.  I think what we'd prefer people do when finding new sources for an article that was redirected at AfD is that they BOLDly restore it, and if reverted, discuss it (probably at the target article).  That (undocumented?) step was skipped here.  My questions are then: 
**Should that step be clearly documented at WP:REDIRECT (or did I miss it)?
**What is the next step if an article passing WP:N doesn't get consensus to be unredirected and the nom wants a wider discussion?
**What is the role of DRV here?
: I guess we could hold an RfC on this, but I'm guessing I'm just missing documentation on the issue.  Anyone have a pointer?  If not, this seems like a good group to hash out something... {{ping|SmokeyJoe}}, {{ping|Sandstein}}, {{ping|Alalch E.}}, {{ping|Robert McClenon}}, {{ping|Horse Eye&#39;s Back}}, {{ping|SportingFlyer}}.[[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 14:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::I think DRV has no proper role here.  The AfD is not seriously challenged, and there has been no deletion.  It is a [[WP:SPINOUT]] dispute.  DRV is not a forum for solving all disputes. 
::Mostly, one editor boldly re-spunout the article, and two reverted that.  If any second editor in good standing wants the page in mainspace and subject to AfD, then they have that right.  A trivial mechanism for that is to Draftify and then Mainspace the page.  I recommend this, because I think the page is at risk of being deleted due to reference bombing. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 14:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:::The editor who boldly re-spins-out has the status of "article creator" in the language of [[WP:BLAR]] and cannot be reverted repeatedly, only once. Multiple reverts coming from multiple editors does not mean that BLAR can be repeated ad nauseam as long as there are new editors willing to reredirect. After Onel5969 BLARed, there's no more BLARing of that same attempt to create, no matter how many editors are involved.{{blist|<u>Good</u>: (1) Restore from redirect (in good faith, at least a step in the right direction) -> (2) BLAR -> (3) BLAR reverted -> (4) AfD, or talk-page talk (it may be worth trying to restore the redirect on a consensus basis by explaining things to the "article creator"; he can be told to wait a bit more and try again with sourcing that's a bit better, etc.), or give up and let the article exist (anyone can AfD at any time).|<u>Not good</u>: (1) Restore from redirect (...) -> (2) BLAR -> (3) BLAR reverted -> (4) revert of 3 (that's unacceptable) -> whatever (especially not DRV).}}  —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 15:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::::{{purple|I don’t agree with you.  It matters that there was an AfD consensus to not “keep”.  Short of [[WP:Tag team]], if it is different uninvolved editors that revert to the redirect each time, and only the same editor that reverts to the article, that single editor loses, and risks being blocked for disruption.  It is critical that another editor reverts the revert.  If any editor but [[User:Superlincoln]] reverts to the article, then it sticks in mainspace and detractors should send it to AfD.}}
::::{{purple|If no editor will support Superlincoln, then they should take the AfC route.}}
::::{{purple|This is an interesting DRV discussion, but disputes over reverting a merge should not usually come to DRV.}} [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 14:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)|source='''[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 June 4#Urutau (3D Printable Firearm)]]'''}}
So, predictably, while I appreciate what SmokeyJoe wrote here, I don't think it's how it works, and if it sometimes works like that, it's instances of not-doing-it-right on the part of those who take such actions. To me, as with Voorts, the "you lose" logic is basically edit warring. And like Thryduulf, I would emphasize discussion and ultimate resolution of the dispute in AfD, after restoring the article, if agreement cannot be reached informally.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 00:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)