Leaving redirects section criteria #5 improvement

There's a time-expensive problem exists while situations covered by Renaming criterion #5. From the view of COM:NOT there have not to be any objects with names containing violation of any rules at Commons. And COM:FNC#Which files should be renamed? really have corresponding criterion, but actions allowed to be provided there is irrelevant as not strict (despite COM:NOT that is usually can be it's reason really is).

COM:FNC#Leaving redirects have a common instruction about when suppression of redirects is allowed including the criterion #5 cases, however it would be much better for criterion #5 cases not to just allow such suppression but request it as mandatory, as if file mover have doubts there's #5 violations exists he can just not to make a renaming, but if he's clear about it really have place - suppression have to be mandatory according to COM:NOT. Example of problem when everything is done according to current policy text, creating the same, but new, issue) is:

1. Added criterion 5 rename request.
2. Rename is done but with creating redirect (that way not suppressing it's creation while moving, that is not restricted by current text, because suppression meant to be as just an option and not a mandatory action)
3. proposed deletion of excessive newly created redirect using G2 criteria of COM:SPEEDY.
4. SD declined with unknown reason
5. (from another case, but still relevant as example as was similar) Decliner approved he did it on mistake and redirect still was later deleted after one more excessive action - SD template restoration.

Here's steps 3-5 are not just time-expensive but obviously excessive and can be easily avoided if policy about rename criterion #5 will be changed to something more strict, i.e. at least here the phrase "When the original file name contains vandalism. (Renaming criterion #5)" have to be moved from "Suppression of redirects is only allowed in the following cases:" to newly formed paragraph telling the next: "Suppression of redirects is mandatory in the following cases:".

That way, if file movers will follow the new policy text, steps 3-5 will never be needed/have place anymore.

Why is it important? Cases, when file name violate policies is not rare at all and such change can dramatically reduce the time needed to finally fix the criteria #5-connected policy violations with no need of any excessive actions including fixing other editor's errorous activity that now just multiple each other exponentially, that really hinders the improvement of Commons.

Also here's told why it can be a good idea.

Any more ideas or other solutions of such issue? 201.150.118.26 22:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)