Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect

This seems to be a problem that's cropped up a bunch lately, but it's struck in other places, too. The issue are redirects like Foobar's-- along with similar redirects that have in the past been deleted, like Foobar. and Foobar,-- which are patently implausible as a search term, but exist to be internally linked to from other Wikipedia pages-- i.e. Colonel Foobar's acquisition of the Example in late Arbitrary Time Period has left onlookers perplexed^{[citation needed]}. The usefulness and propriety of such redirects has been...

Controversial, to the say the least? Like, head onto RfD right now and there's... okay, I immediately could find three that are currently in discussion, brought up by users user:A1Cafel, user:Thepharoah17, user:Steel1943, etc., and defended by user:Tavix, user:Thryduulf, user:Svartner, etc., but I know that there's been more recently, too. And the discussions brought on by these redirects can get really heated.

Personally, my take is that such redirects should be deleted in favor of attempting to blend the redirect-- i.e. [[Foobar]]'s-- but that's been countered in the past by Tavix, protesting that such doesn't actually work (MediaWiki stops the blending at the apostrophe because it considers it a punctuation mark, producing Foobar's.) My own take is that the unblended blend is Fine, Tavix has countered that he considers the possessive redirect equally Fine, nobody contacts the MediaWiki devs to get it fixed because neither of us see it as a Problem but the reason why we don't see it as a Problem differs, nothing gets solved, we end up bickering until Wikipedia gets shut down in late 3093 in preparation for the servers to get hooked up to the Wise Brain of the Wondrous One.

My reason for starting this discussion: I'd rather we not argue for that long about this, so instead, I'd like to get a definitive consensus on what to do about this. (And/or get a solid answer on who exactly we would need to ask to get blending to start recognizing apostrophe-s as part of a word.)

Pinging a few more editors who've been in the discussions on possessive redirects recently: user:ArthananWarcraft user:Myceteae user:RedShellMomentum user:TheTechie user:Crouch, Swale user:Jq user:Asteramellus user:GiantSnowman user:Patar knight user:SNUGGUMS user:MEN KISSING user:Llwyld user:Dmartin969 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes the normal rule would be to link Australia's rather than Australia's as the "'s" isn't part of the name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Crouch, Swale here. They should not be linking as [[Australia's]], but rather as [[Australia]]'s. Nor do I think that ones like Foobar. or Foobar, are plausible. Any errant redirects like these should be deleted. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 19:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The 's should be linked as it is part of the word. It's no different than plurals, which we do include with the link. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe [[Australia|Australia's]]? thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 19:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that's more real estate than the simpler and more straightforward Australia's. When that redirect was nominated at RfD, it had 22 mainspace links, demonstrating that it's a popular way to link. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Popular" doesn't always mean "correct". Jq talk 💬 contributions 20:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about what's "correct", the example is a demonstration of utility. That is, the redirect was found useful by editors at least 22 times. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:19, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

if those links are changed, it will mean we won't have to worry about deleting that redirect so after the deletion people who want to link it will see the red link and be like "oh wait this isn't correct" and fix it. Jq talk 💬 contributions 20:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But those links shouldn't be changed. As I've argued, they're the best way to link possessives because you're able to link the entire word correctly without the messy piping. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with that is WP:NOPIPE, which explicitly states that we shouldn't do that as it impacts the readability of the actual wikitext before MediaWiki formats it. The issue is it goes on to recommend [[Australia]]'s, which as we've previously gone over, MediaWiki doesn't blend because the apostrophe is a punctuation mark. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't wrap my head around how you can get that close to the finish line but still don't see that the best solution is a redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply regarding WP:COSTLY that I made to Thryduulf further down the page. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Useful redirects are not costly, so that argument does not work. I could just as easily say they're WP:CHEAP. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

still, they are only there because of links that shouldn't be linked that way. Jq talk 💬 contributions 20:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're there because editors choose to link that way. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

piping wouldn't really make sense here, when you could just put the 's after the link. Jq talk 💬 contributions 19:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The way to stop having these discussions at RfD is for editors to stop nominating them at RfD. And the way to stop editors from nominating them is by keeping them whenever they're nominated because that discourages further nominations. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:19, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly what Tavix said. Also, even if the consensus is that they shouldn't be linked, people will link them and it's far better for readers that the links work both before and after they are "fixed" than they get dumped at search results (or, depending on multiple factors, up to a few clicks/taps away from search results) or encouraged to create a duplicate article (c.f. WP:RETURNTORED). Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm less trying to get people to stop having these discussions, and more trying to get a consensus built so that the discussions, when they show up, don't devolve into infighting that constantly brings up the same tired arguments from both sides every single time. "Just say keep so we stop talking about it" isn't an argument towards building consensus. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That's going to happen anytime someone controversial comes to RfD. I still can't believe that something so obviously useful is controversial, but that's Wikipedia for you I guess... -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of an aside, but I'd just like to say, I've had the idea to bring this to a talk page too! I think it's a better alternative to sorting it out piecemeal at RfD.

Over at RfD, what seems to happen is a sort of snowball effect, where the initial few redirects that seem implausible on their own get nominated, starting the snowball rolling down the hill. Then later on, a few more redirects that are wrong in the exact same way are discovered and nominated, and the decision is to delete per the prior consensus. Then more and more and more are nominated, the snowball gaining size while it rolls down the hill as that consensus grows stronger with more deletions. But that initial consensus was never developed with the understanding that that many redirects existed in the first place. I've seen this happen with redirects+with+plusses+instead+of+spaces too.

We already have a metaphor associated with snowballs, though. So I guess this is more of a Katamari effect? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 19:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It feels less like "no consensus happened at all" and more like "two different fundamentally-incompatible consensi happened, and they keep colliding every single time the topic shows up", lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm more worried that it's a bad way to build consensus, not that a consensus hasn't been created. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 19:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea I've had is, once we get some sort of consensus here about it, let's make a shortcut redirect to the discussion (maybe something like WT:REDIRECT'S) and start citing it to more quickly close discussions. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 20:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That or create a new essay summarizing said consensus. I've had User:Lunamann/Someone call an exorcist drafted up for a while but haven't gone to the length of starting to cite it like I did with WP:BACKINBOX 'cause unlike BACKINBOX, it didn't feel as... Straightforward an interpretation of existing consensus being applied to a new area? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should write a new essay each time we have a Katamari type consensus start to roll through RfD, though. The possessive redirects aren't the only redirects we're having this issue with, there's also the redirects with plusses instead of spaces and the redirects from the wrong position of power (President of the United Kingdom).

Maybe I could draft an essay about what the proper process should be for dealing with these classes of redirects, in general? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 21:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given revelations further down the discussion re: apparently this has been MOS consensus for a while but they never put pen to paper beyond a buried comment about [[Batman]]'s being helpful, I'm no longer certain this is a Katamari Consensus. Probably a good idea to draft up an essay re: Katamari Consensus anyways, see what comes of it. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was a Katamari consensus, then, haha. It's only a Katamari consensus as long as it's only based off of the first few, flawed consensi that were formed before we knew the scope of the problem. Once we have a more thorough discussion like we're having right now, the Katamari stops rolling.

The process could be to have a discussion like this, and then based off of the consensus formed, propose a new entry to WP:RFDO, the page that Tavix just pointed out.

In this case, though, we may have to do something else, considering there's nearly five thousand of these redirects. A temporary speedy deletion criterion might be more appropriate? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 21:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's is correct, but not Wikipedia's which should be deleted. Same with Hitler's, George Washington's, etc. Jq talk 💬 contributions 19:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why is one correct and one incorrect? What is the benefit to readers and editors in deleting these redirects? Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that these redirects are WP:COSTLY. To paraphrase that essay:

• Redirects often need to be updated as their targets change. Maybe an article ends up BLAR'd, or merged, or renamed in such a way that doesn't make obvious what the previous article is. The possessive redirect then becomes a double redirect (or, when a bot gets to it, an avoided double redirect), may need to be updated manually to point it to a section name, probably ends up at RfD and wastes our time, et cetera.
• Redirects also need to be looked after-- they can get expanded into unnecessary content forks, vandalized, or have their targets changed to unsuitable articles. And when that happens, it's often months to years to even sometimes decades before it gets caught by an editor-- and possibly brought before RfD-- to get fixed. Redirects quite often end up sitting for LONG amounts of time before someone pops open an article's What Links Here page and goes "Hey wait, why does THAT link THERE?".
• RFD itself is costly. You've seen how clogged RFD can get with redirect discussions-- it's getting to the point now that the page can't actually support having enough days transcluded to where the "oldest" day up for discussion reliably contains the discussions that can be actually closed. Having less redirects to worry about means RfD is less clogged.

My issue, is that we gain ALL of those problems with these possessive redirects, for no perceivable benefit-- readers aren't going to search for these redirects, and it takes like six key presses to convert [[Foobar's]] to [[Foobar]]'s. Two of those keypresses being the backspace key, and two more being the arrow keys. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

for no perceivable benefit how many times do the benefits have to be explained to you before you start listening? These redirects are no more or less costly that ones that are unambiguously good, like redirects from plurals or other grammatical forms, and less costly than others that are unambiguously useful like redirects from former and alternative names for living people, ones that refer to current office holders, etc. so your first two points are irrelevant. Your third point has a very simple solution - stop nominating good redirects for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do the benefits have to be explained to you before you start listening?

Here's the thing, Thryduulf-- I have been listening. And the argument for keeping this practice hasn't gone farther than

• "People find it easier to make and link possessive redirects while creating articles"

and

• "We can't use the other two options, because piping the link flies in the face of WP:NOPIPE (something that I myself brought up), and blending the link doesn't work due to MediaWiki jank".

The former, I straight up don't believe, mostly because of the counterargument I put in my prior argument-- attempting to blend the link takes the same amount of keystrokes as using a possessive redirect, and also, if the possessive redirect doesn't exist, takes less work because you don't have to make a new redirect in order to use it.

And if that's my argument re: the former, you can probably guess what my argument re: the latter is, but I'll say it again here: While piping the link is something we shouldn't do (again, re: WP:NOPIPE), attempting to blend the link IS the option we should go with, because the result still looks fine. Only the most pedantic of people are going to pick out a link that didn't blend properly and go "AHAH! THIS ISN'T HOW THINGS SHOULD BE!". And if the goal is to get it to work, we need to actually figure out how to modify MediaWiki to accept that an apostrophe can be part of a word, rather than use these hacky redirects.The goal is not to get it to work, see Myceteae's comment below. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't believe that editors don't find it easier to make and link possessives, then how to explain the fact that a few thousand of them exist? -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

a few thousand of what? redirects or links? Jq talk 💬 contributions 20:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

4612 redirects. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hey! I've been wanting to try and run some database queries to look for this exact thing. I even downloaded some database dumps, but never ended up running any code on them.

Holy smokes! 4612 redirects?! Whether they deserve to be kept or deleted, is RfD even a viable process for dealing with these? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 21:17, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's honestly a fair question. Dear holy gods, what are we going to need to do if we decide they need to go, whip up a bot to go through all these redirects??? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't work because some of them are useful for search purposes as well. For example, Aldi's is a common way to refer to Aldi. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So we really do need to go through these, at like 10 at a time (because any more per RfD and you get WP:TRAINWRECKs), in order to catch redirects like Aldi's that AREN'T simply possessive redirects.

Dear holy gods, this is gonna suck. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another reason to let sleeping dogs lie. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"But it would take a mountain of work to fix it" does not feel, to me, like a good rationale for not fixing it. It near explicitly runs counter to WP:BOLD. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we don't necessarily need to run all of these through RfD. What about a temporary speedy deletion criterion? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 21:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, a temporary speedy-deletion criterion as part of the cleanup effort makes sense. I'd also like to see an addition to WP:RFDO, and more explicit guidance given to editors in MOS:LINKS (or at least some sort of essay to cite when this happens). 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented at WT:CSD the issue with speedy deletion criteria (temporary or otherwise) is that they need to be objective - there are some redirects from possessives that are unambiguously helpful (e.g. Cadbury's as the former name of the brand) but there is no clear objective way (at least that anybody has suggested) to separate these from possessives that are... also helpful. Which brings me on to the second point, speedy deletions need to be uncontestable, but these are not contestable given the disagreement evidence every time someone wastes the community time by nominating them at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion criteria can be contestable, I'm pretty sure. See WP:CSDCONTEST. If we do decide that a CSD is appropriate, it could simply be a kind of CSD that can be contested if the 's form is determined to be justified. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 01:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEWCSD point 2 It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. We have a very clear consensus that at least some redirects with possessives should not be deleted, therefore a speedy criterion would need to apply to some objective subset of possessives for which such a consensus exists. I'm not seeing evidence that any exists. Thryduulf (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the CSD would be more like "Redirects that end in 's unless there is justification for the possessive form" rather than simply all of the possessive redirects. And instead of saying "unless there is justification for the possessive form", it would outline the circumstances in which possessive redirects tend to be justified. Like the thing that Luna said just now. Crazy that we're typing basically the exact same thing.

Anyways, I don't think it would be impossible to identify such circumstances.

All of this is if it is determined a CSD is warranted, though. So far, I'm sort of just neutral on the issue. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 01:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Possessive form redirects, where the possessive form in question is not an established alternate name for the target" wouldn't work? That neatly catches redirects like Aldi's. Alternately we could limit the CSD to merely "things that aren't brands" or "place/people names" i.e. user:Cryptic's comment back in Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion. Then we use the CSD to get rid of the things that we can easily agree should be deleted, which narrows the scope of the issue we need to use RfD to tackle. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing there aren't any things that we can easily agree should be deleted because almost none of them should be deleted, and the distinction isn't objective.

Is it possible for an uninvolved administator unfamiliar with a redirect to reliably determine whether something is a brand, a personal/place name, or both? We ran into something like this when A11 was first introduced when there were a load of speedy deletions of (iirc) mainly Australian and New Zealand brands of biscuits that two American editors (nominator and deleter) were not at all familiar with. Thryduulf (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An example of another sort of redirect that's not been brought up yet, fits this pattern, and that I'm certain would be kept if brought to RFD and just as certain would be deleted if this was made a speedy criterion, is 1960's1960's. —Cryptic 01:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, 's as part of a decade name is not a possessive and should definitely be carved out of the scope of the CSD. Would get dodged through the place/people names qualifier, though. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps let's have the discussion on how to CSD these redirects until after we've determined if to CSD these redirects. I think it would be quite plausible to do so, but we're getting a bit messy with the indents here haha. Let's wait for some more editors to chime in. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 01:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD only works for things that are non-controversial. Any attempt to "fix" these redirects will be met with resistance. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:48, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion we're having right now should hopefully result in a consensus about what to do in the future. Then, any WP:BOLD changes will be non-controversial. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 21:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which, as per WP:BRD, leads to discussions. We're having the discussion now (so, WP:BRB's first alternative option to the WP:BRD process), and once consensus is reached, we'll do the bold thing, citing this discussion when we do. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the only guidance we've given to editors re: what to do in this situation is buried in Help:Link#Illustrative examples of display text agglutination, and even then, is scant on reasoning? Even I wasn't able to find that info, it took Myceteae to point out where it was. Partially because the only reference to agglutination I've found-- in WP:NOPIPE-- referred to it as "blending" instead of "agglutination" 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's not guidance of "what we should do in this situation", it's explaining that punctuation does not get included in the link. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, describing [[Batman]]'s > Batman's as helpful sounds like guidance to me. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, my point is that we don't have any essays or MOS articles or guidelines that I know of that tell editors what to do when they want to link with a possessive word. Of course people are going to do the wrong thing 4 thousand times when we haven't told them what the right thing is! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Possessive redirects should generally be deleted. A key difference between possessives and plurals is that a possessive always changes the subject or object. Of course there are exceptions, but in the English language generally and on Wikipedia, the subject is typically the same whether we use the singular or the plural. The subject of bat or bats is the same: Bat. But the subject of Batman's car is Batmobile, not Batman; and the subject of Batman's partner is Robin (character). Possessive redirects can therefore cause potential WP:EGG or WP:RSURPRISE issues. There have been a couple discussions about this at MOS: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 21#Possessives and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Discussion of formatting links with possessives ('s) at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 11. The general feeling from a style perspective is that including the ⟨'s⟩ as part of the link is improper. There has also been some back and forth about the wording at Help:Link (see: Help talk:Link/Archive 1#Consensus on posessives?). The current wording at Help:Link § Illustrative examples of display text agglutination is:

  Punctuation breaks display text agglutination. This is often helpful for possessives: for example, [[Batman]]'s gives Batman's.

  The implication of often helpful is that this good and proper and produces the correct result. We have had numerous RFDs on possessive redirects and almost all of them have resulted in deletion. A few have closed as 'no consensus'. To my knowledge, none have closed with an affirmative consensus to keep. I had pushed for a broader discussion at one point but we have at least a rough consensus that these should be deleted. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  So, in short, [[Australia]]'s giving Australia's is intentional, and working as intended. That's great information to have, thanks Myceteae! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that guidance is incorrect. the apostrophe in this usage is not punctuation but rather part of the word itself. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) Nah. It is punctuation. Compare "My favourite culture is Australia's" and "My favourite culture is Australia's". There's a semantic distinction. The opinion I'm disagreeing with is Tavix's, not Tavix's. Unlike hats and hats, they mean different things. Hence why "he" and "his" are different words. It's why high quality, peer-reviewed articles don't link the "'s". J947 ‡ ^edits 21:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this is true for some words, but not for others.

  Y'all is pretty much it's own word, and if you wanted to link it to All, you couldn't do Y'all, you would have to do Y'all

  For possessive nouns, though, I feel like there's a stronger case that the 's isn't quite considered as part of the word itself. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 22:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I still am inclined to say they should be deleted per the threads that Myceteae linked here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Those threads are sort of what the 'mess' is, here. The first few recent RfDs went through before editors knew the scope of the problem, that there were nearly 5000 redirects of this sort. Then, later RfDs relied on those earlier RfDs. I've talked a bit about why I don't think this is a good way to build consensus above. We shouldn't put too much emphasis on those discussion results, per WP:CCC. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 21:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• No strong opinion myself (other than that I don't think the case has been made to make these speedies yet, as I said over at WT:CSD), but I'm happy to provide data. Likely to be quite busy over the next week, so please ping if I'm needed. —Cryptic 01:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • quarry:query/101394 has the full current list (at least for straight apostrophes and (one kind of?) curly apostrophe), with target, target's shortdesc, and redir's categories. The last at a skim looks to be even less useful than I thought it might. —Cryptic 02:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Would it be possible for you to provide a randomly chosen sample of, say, 20 of these redirects? That might be good for a spot check. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 02:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    quarry:query/101395. —Cryptic 02:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh. That's... more than I was expecting that are perfectly fine business/product/organization names. Plus an album name that's only off via miscapitalization. Seriously, out of that random sample of 20, there's like... only two that I would delete.

    ...I'm starting to get the feeling that a CSD is not going to be helpful. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    what would we do if we don't have a CSD for this? Jq talk 💬 contributions 02:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming that it's determined we need to delete? We need to start sorting them manually. We definitely can't use a bot to do this, and we can't get a CSD to help us, which means each one of these redirects needs to go through the manual process of
    1. Someone decides it qualifies for deletion
    2. They nominate it at RfD
    3. It goes through the entire RfD process. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    also why do you think a CSD wouldn't be helpful? Jq talk 💬 contributions 04:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Because of how hard it'd be to figure out how to properly word it in a manner that neatly avoids hitting the redirects we DON'T want to hit (like Duke of Edinburgh's, or The Cellar at Macy's, or St Joseph's, or et cetera) while still hitting redirects we DO want to target (like Canada's, or Dobell's, or Physician's assistant's). Given how many of the former are out there (apparently significantly outnumbering the latter), if we can't do that, we're gonna hit false positives. And as Cryptic pointed out, the editors who handle CSDs aren't gonna be going through them with a fine-toothed comb once the CSDs are on 'em.

    Unless you can figure out a way to do that? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not thta hard actually

    -Redirect ends in 's

    -Target is only used for linking purposes

    -Target is an unlikely search term

    -Target or related topic does not end in 's Jq talk 💬 contributions 18:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    How do you determine "Target is only used for linking purposes"?, what is the objective definition of "unlikely search term"? Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    unlikely search term = something like J.R.R. Tolkien's and not 1960's because it's only used for linking, and you determine that by seeing how many pages link to it. Jq talk 💬 contributions 18:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the objective difference between "J.R.R. Tolkien's", "Charlie_Trotter's" and "J. Sainsbury's? In which category would you put Greengrocer's → Greengrocer? (I'm very surprised that one doesn't exist given how often the term is used). Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    ones like that should exist (for searching purposes) as they are commonly called by that name. The ones for people are only used for linking. Jq talk 💬 contributions 18:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Which ones? The first three are all people's names, but the second can refer to a person or his restraunt, the third refers to the person or to the supermarket's run by J. Sainsbury plc under the brand Sainsbury's. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I was talking about 4. For 2 the correct target would probably be the section that talks about his restaurant. Jq talk 💬 contributions 19:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The ones for J. Sainsbury's and Greengrocer's are fine. (I think we already established before that business/organization/product names are fine, didn't we? Hence my mentioning them as an exception in Option B2 below.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    ...New line of thought:

    Can we get a random sample of 20 redirects that have the following qualities:
    -End in 's
    -Target DOESN'T have 's anywhere in title
    -Target doesn't end in s

    See how much narrowing down by that helps. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    quarry:query/101396. —Cryptic 02:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    That's... better, but not by much. We're still going to need to do this manually, then. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    i know about 25 of those but you've probably seen them all. Jq talk 💬 contributions 02:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much! For convenience to commenters, here's those:

    1. Cruft's → Crufts
    2. Dobell's → Doug Dobell
    3. Live At Grimey's → Live at Grimey's
    4. Physician's assistant's → Physician assistant
    5. Leinie's → Leinenkugel's
    6. St Joseph's → Saint Joseph's
    7. Baedeker's → Baedeker
    8. The Cellar at Macy's → The Cellar (Macy's)
    9. Grateful Dead's → Grateful Dead
    10. Head Wrightson's → Head Wrightson
    11. Pringle's → Pringles
    12. Portugal in the 2000's → Third Portuguese Republic
    13. P.J. Bland's → Chili's
    14. Nicholson's → Nicholson's Brewery
    15. Schweppe's → Schweppes
    16. Ross Young's → Linda McCartney Foods#Ross Young's
    17. Duke of Edinburgh's → The Duke of Edinburgh's Award
    18. Anglican Diocese of Saint David's → Diocese of St Davids
    19. Sir Kensington’s → Sir Kensington's
    20. VAFA Women's → Victorian Amateur Football Association#Women's clubs

    MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 02:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    As I alluded to above, out of all of those, the only ones I'd delete are Dobell's and Physician's assistant's. Which, the low number of actual problem redirects in a sea of redirects that might LOOK like a problem to a CSD or bot but AREN'T mean that a CSD or bot would be a bad idea here. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    who ran Dobell's Record Shop is at the target for Dobell's so it seems like a valid {{R from subtopic}}. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I was more trying to assess how many of the ~5000 are actually problematic based on a statistical sample. I'd probably put one of Dobell's and Physician's assistant's on an edge case. That's about 1.5 problematic redirects per 20. So, out of the 4961 redirects in the prior query, we have somewhere around 372 problematic redirects. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 02:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the CSD would be more like "Redirects that end in 's unless there is justification for the possessive form" rather than simply all of the possessive redirects. And instead of saying "unless there is justification for the possessive form", it would outline the circumstances in which possessive redirects tend to be justified. Like the thing that Luna said just now. Crazy that we're typing basically the exact same thing.
  Anyways, I don't think it would be impossible to identify such circumstances.
  All of this is if it is determined a CSD is warranted, though. So far, I'm sort of just neutral on the issue.
  — User:MEN KISSING 01:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  Trans girls think alike lol.
  Anyways, I'm all for the CSD, but that's because I'm of the opinion that these redirects need to go-- and I'd rather not try to comb through 5k worth of redirects at RfD to determine which redirects need to stay and which redirects need to go. And would also rather not have to deal with TRAINWRECKs.
  I can appreciate though, that it's not quite yet at consensus, mostly because of voices of dissent like Tavix and Thryduulf. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Why do they need to go? These redirects existed harmlessly, WP:CHEAPly and benefiting those who use them before you were aware of their existence, and unless editors who dislike them choose to waste everybody's time trying to get them deleted they will continue to exist harmlessly, cheaply and benefitting those who use them. We should only be deleting redirects that are actively harmful, and these simply aren't. Thryduulf (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think 5k redirects can rightly be called "cheap" anymore lol, especially when the alternative is a grand zero redirects to solve the same problem. I also question, as I did earlier (and you still haven't replied to), the actual benefit that these redirects have over [[Foobar]]'s et al. I'd also like to point out that this total disregard of WP:COSTLY would also warrant, if applied the same way, KEEPing every typo redirect, near every novel redirect, and every single other redirect that general consensus states we should get rid of because of implausibility concerns. Because if the implausibility test you're suggesting were applied to them, those redirects would need to catch a grand total of one person at all, or maybe two to five at minimum, before they hit the same status of "they exist harmlessly, they're cheap, and they benefit those who use them".

  Because that's how many editors your average possessive redirect actually ends up helping. One person, who was the one who actually created the redirect. Maybe two to five other people who accidentally use it. Certainly not enough people to match the number of people your average redirect needs to help before it's considered plausible through usage. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If a redirect helps just one person, then it's a good redirect that should be kept. That's literally all it takes for the benefit to outweigh the cost. If a redirect is helping two to five people, that's even better! -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  most of them are helpful because a link took them to the page. ones like Alberta's have no links. Jq talk 💬 contributions 03:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that flies completely in the face of basically all consensus re: the importance of plausibility! Heck, in another discussion we're having that's trying to determine how to potentially rewrite UFILM, Thryduulf himself is trying to give the argument that plausibility measured via pageviews is something we need to use to determine if a UFILM redirect should be kept. If we use this "if it helps just one person it meets cost" definition, then we can just throw UFILM out the window and say that (upcoming film) redirects should ALWAYS be kept! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thryduulf himself is trying to give the argument that plausibility measured via pageviews is something we need to use to determine if a UFILM redirect should be kept. page views is one measure of utilty, not the only measure. Possessive redirects and (upcoming) redirects are qualitatively different things with different purposes, however the commonality is that if a redirect is useful in some manner, and that utility outweighs the cost then they should be kept. (upcoming) redirects to films that are no longer upcoming are not harmless, its just that when they are being regularly used the benefits outweigh that cost. The possesive redirects are harmless, so any use outweighs the non-existent cost. Thryduulf (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  don't think 5k redirects can rightly be called "cheap" anymore lol Why? 5000 (redirects) × 0 (harm) = 0 harmful redirects = cheap.

  especially when the alternative is a grand zero redirects to solve the same problem eh? Deleting a redirect that solves a problem means the problem is no longer solved - i.e. creating harm where none currently exists.

  the actual benefit that these redirects have over Foobar's this has been explained to you multiple times by multiple people in multiple places. It's not our job to WP:SATISFY you when you don't listen.

  KEEPing every typo redirect, near every novel redirect, and every single other redirect that general consensus states we should get rid of because of implausibility concerns. Firstly, that's a slippery slope argument. Secondly it starts from a false premise. Nobody is arguing to keep every typo, novel synonym, implausible redirect, etc. Implausible redirects that don't have any benefit should be deleted, these redirects have benefit. More typos probably should be kept than are, because they are cheap. WP:COSTLY as an essay that gets far more wrong than it does write (WP:PANDORA is just the most egregiously incorrect part).

  Certainly not enough people to match the number of people your average redirect needs to help before it's considered plausible through usage. That's only true if you use the same faulty premise that causes people to prematurely call for the deletion of (upcoming) redirects. If something is harmless and helps multiple people then that's a clear net benefit to the project. When you delete a net positive you, by definition, harm the project. Thryduulf (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thry, I think you've established your stance well enough by this point. You're in favor of keeping the redirects.

  I don't think you're bludgeoning the process or anything, but do keep in mind we need more editors to look at this discussion. They aren't going to want to look at such a giant wall of text. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 03:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Deleting a redirect that solves a problem means the problem is no longer solved I'm pretty sure I've never advocated for the link to just stay a redlink??? Pretty obviously the link would be swapped over to a [[Foobar]]'s style link.

  This has been explained to you multiple times by multiple people in multiple places No, it really hasn't. You two keep parading out the same stuff, and when I present an argument that counters it, you flat-out ignore it, sometimes married with a "Well I shouldn't need to explain THIS part since it's already been explained to you" like here. Honestly, though, I'm glad that you linked WP:SATISFY because it feels like that's guidance I need to follow to deal with you two on this subject. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  'm pretty sure I've never advocated for the link to just stay a redlink??? Pretty obviously the link would be swapped over to a Foobar's style link. Yes the links get swapped out, yet people continue to make links like this, and they continue to make redirects like this, so changing the link once it's been made is clearly not a solution to the problem.

  Yes, we have explained multiple times. You don't like the explanation (maybe because it isn't compatible with your likes and dislikes), but that doens't mean it hasn't been provided. Thryduulf (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  deleting the redirect would make poeple realize it's a red link and correct it before linking. Jq talk 💬 contributions 03:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  And keeping it saves editors' time by not having to correct commonly grammatical forms in links that obviously point to the desired target. It also prevents red links being introduced by the editors who use source editor (I believe a plurality if not a majority especially since IPs can't use visual editor) and either don't preview or don't review enough. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  deleting the redirect would make poeple realize it's a red link and correct it before linking except the evidence is that this doesn't happen - and what is the benefit to the project in making people change a working link for a different working link (c.f. WP:NOTBROKEN)? Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thing is, if they're getting dealt with at all, someone has to deal with them. That can be people at RFD, who work with redirects every day and know the history here; or it can be generalist admins looking through CAT:CSD and deleting whole categories at a time with Twinkle, who've maybe skimmed WP:R once in the last decade and just sees a bunch of pages tagged with a speedy criterion that reads in large part "redirect ending with 's". —Cryptic 01:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    ...What I'm hearing is that we're going to need a lot more closing admins at RfD. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    No, what we need is for people to stop nominating good redirects at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    some of them aren't good though Jq talk 💬 contributions 03:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Examples please. All of the ones nominated at RfD recently, and all of the others included in this thread so far are good. Thryduulf (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Alberta's (no links) Jq talk 💬 contributions 03:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    As Lunamann is keen to point out, these links get swapped out (needlessly imo, but that's beside the point). The redirect is useful until that happens. Even assuming though that it isn't providing any use at the moment, for a redirect to be bad you have to show that it is actually causing harm. You haven't even attempted to do that. Thryduulf (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to many of your recent comments here, @Thryduulf: I think that's enough. "You haven't even argued with me properly" is a WP:BADGER's retort. I'd like to ask for you to disengage. Your opinion has been heard, and will be taken into account in eventually determining a consensus. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 03:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    You haven't even argued with me properly is very different to you haven't even attempted to answer the question that was asked, which is something that the closer will definitely take into account. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. Editors here and in the many prior RFDs linked have argued for why these redirects are problematic. It's fine to disagree but repeatedly saying that no one has addressed this is counterproductive. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Except they've never identified any way in which they actually cause harm that stands up to the slightest scrutiny, despite repeatedly being asked to do so. They've listed ways in which they aren't being actively beneficial at the current moment but that's very much not the same thing as causing harm. Thryduulf (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    if we delete? now people will realize their mistakes when linking and fix it before publishing their edit. Jq talk 💬 contributions 18:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Or we could just leave redirects that are free of spelling or grammar mistakes and which unambiguously point people to the right article. Your preferred way depends on editors who use the source editor (a plurality if not a majority of editors) all being perfectly diligent about previewing their edits carefully if at all or the same after publishing and then forcing them to spend extra time editing something that arguably isn't broken at all. If this is such a big issue, you could always get consensus for a bot task to change these redirects (I think reducing the blue link by two characters would technically meet WP:COSMETICBOT). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Do's you's think's this's is's correct's?

    "George Washington was the first president of the United States." Jq talk 💬 contributions 18:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm trying to engage with you in good faith and you are now replying with taunts implying that I don't understand basic English and using a strawman example of an uncontracted and non-possessive form that no one is supporting. Obviously, I'm referring to the actual redirects being discussed here, which might plausibly be linked in phrasings such as "George Washington's cabinet" or "George Washington's army". -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    "George Washington's army" is the correct way to link Jq talk 💬 contributions 19:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    No apology, no strike. That is my prefered way to link, but I can see why editors would think they are useful (WP:R#K5) and readers might use them to search since word forms are common redirects on Wikipedia. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    No incoming links is explicitly not a reason to delete (WP:R#K2). It's longstanding, correctly targeted at a proper noun that does frequently take the possessive in that form ("Alberta's" appears 74 times in Alberta) and will not be moved. At best harmless, and it obviously has some plausible use cases. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    highly unlikely search term + no incoming links = useless redirect Jq talk 💬 contributions 17:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    No, that just means they aren't being used in the way that pleases you. Tavix and others have explained more eloquently than my attempts how these are both helpful and harmless. We don't delete redirects for being "useless", we only delete those which are a net negative to the project but at worst these are neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Even taking this argument as true, the guideline is quite clear that usefulness in search and the number of incoming links on Wikipedia are not the only or primary factors in what makes a redirect useful. In this case, "Alberta's" was used 73 times by users in the year prior to being mentioned in this discussion [2], making it literally not useless and given what the term is, that's not that surprising. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    @Thryduulf deleting is good as it encourages correct linking. @Patar knight, that was when there were a couple of pages that linked to it. In this case, links are basically all that matters because no one's gonna search for Barack Obama's. Jq talk 💬 contributions 18:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I would disagree with the proposition that these are harmless, precisely because there are entities like Wendy's, and the existence of an -'s ending creates the misleading impression that some similar entity exists for such a name. BD2412 T 18:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    If there was an actual brand independent of the primary topic that uses the possessive form or is frequently incorrectly spelled that way, then yes that would be a potential reason for deletion (WP:R#D2) if there is plausible confusion depending on the relative prominence of the topics. That's something that can be done at RFD and I'm not sure it justifies presumptive deletion or a CSD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Gonna go ahead and ping the following users who have commented on the Speedy Deletion discussion but not this discussion:
  User:Organhaver user:FaviFake user:BD2412 user:voorts user:Hog Farm user:Extraordinary Writ user:Toadspike
  Just to make sure everyone's on the same page, I'd like to ask for a proper !vote
  Option A: Just leave as-is. Put down in WP:RFDO that these redirects, and others like it that are "primarily used to link with" are Fine To Keep (perhaps under new heading WP:RPOSSESS)
  Option B: Do not keep as-is. Start an effort at RFD to actually get these possessive redirects deleted. Add a new WP:RFDO header (perhaps under WP:RPOSSESS) saying that these redirects, if they appear in the future, should be deleted. In addition:
  Option B1: Create some sort of (temporary?) CSD to allow editors to delete at least a subset of possessive redirects they find with impunity, at least until the current issue is brought under control. Said CSD should have rigorous guidelines in place as to what actually constitutes a possessive redirect, which I'd define personally as:
  -Ends with 's or ’s
  -Target DOES NOT have 's or ’s anywhere in the title, and/or does not end with s
  -Target is not a business, product, organization, or other similar locale that can conceivably be referred to in English with an 's at the end, and is not related to such a locale in any manner.
  -(Potentially) Target does not have any RCATs.
  Suggestions for better guidelines to place, including ways to make the guidelines more objective, and ways to close more loopholes, are welcome.
  Option B2: No CSD. We use RFD to handle the entire problem.
  Will also welcome any Option Cs or Option B3s or the like that you guys may come up with. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  At this point, I think this is a MOS issue and needs to be addressed there first. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  All right, can we get a discussion going over there, then? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah this entire discussion has been going nowhere since yesterday Jq talk 💬 contributions 19:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Voorts proposed a CSD at Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_deletion#New_CSD:_Redirect's. I think our discussion here has a wider coverage of editors, and is being a bit more thorough with the issue, so I've advised those folks to come chip in here instead. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 23:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is also now a concurrent discussion at Wikipedia talk:MOS/Linking, here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Possessive Redirects vs Blended/Agglutinated Links 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]