Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
          This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Deletion
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the WikiProject Deletion, a collaborative effort dedicated to improving Wikipedia in toto in the area of deletion. We advocate the responsible use of deletion policy, not the deletion of articles. If you would like to help, consider participating at WikiProject Deletion.
 
WikiProject Redirect
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Redirect, a collaborative effort to improve the standard of redirects and their categorization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Note: This banner should be placed on the talk pages of project, template and category pages that exist and operate to maintain redirects.
This banner is not designed to be placed on the talk pages of most redirects and never on the talk pages of mainspace redirects. For more information see the template documentation.
 

Move a nomination from the October 19 page?[edit]

Since it's not tomorrow yet, should Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 19#Android L be moved back to the 18th? (I would have WP:BOLDly done it myself but I broke something when I tried and only the "Preview" button saved me from public embarassment). Cheers, 61.10.165.33 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Steel1943 (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Boilerplate notice at Template:RfD - add possible search?[edit]

I don't know about you, but I find it harder and harder to search from within Wikipedia to find articles containing the terms mentioned in an RfD etc. The topbar and sidebar (on Firefox, at least), and the Firefox tool itself, all will whizz you through the R to the article. I have to deliberately type "Special:Search" into the search box to get the search box up. I have the Good Old URL Bar so I can type the addresses manually, but that is hassle with terms with reserved characers in URLs.

I was wondering if on the boilerplate at {{RfD}} we could add a small link 'Look up "Special:Search?search={{{#PAGENAME}}} on Wikipedia' or whatever the right syntax would be, to allow a quick lookup of other pages that contained the text of the article title. So if the R under discussion was "Simon is an idiot" that would be the search term (Special:Search?search=Simon+is+an+idiot). In that way, I feel it would be quicker to find possible related retargets or DABs.

Any views? Si Trew (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

PS I should add, I really enjoy contributing to RfD and the diverse stuff I do because of what I see at it – translating or augmenting articles or adding refs or just tying things up better. A good bunch of clever people thou art. Si Trew (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Jackmcbarn? See above. Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
IMO, such a link would be better suited to Template:Rfd2 than Template:Rfd. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this would be useful and also that it would be most useful at Template:Rfd2 (the listing on the RfD page) rather than Template:RfD (the template on the redirect page). Perhaps not to everyone's taste, but the distinction between Go and Search still exists using the monobook skin, with one button for each. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Now that I better understand this idea (rather then just blindly pinging the creator of Module:RfD to essentially see how it could be technically implemented), yes, it would be better if that functionality was put into Template:Rfd2 instead. Steel1943 (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Trivia: Longest ever stretch of no nominations[edit]

There were no nominations yesterday, 27 October 2014, the first occasion this has happened since 1 May 2012. The 908 consecutive days with one or more redirects nominated is by far the longest in the history of RfD. If it is to be beaten then there will need to be nominations every day until at least 24 April 2017. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I recall closing at least one day in 2013 that had no nominations, but I just cannot remember what day. I think the day was in March. Steel1943 (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Rewording of WP:RFD#DELETE #8 - replace "not be created" with "be deleted"[edit]

It seems lately that consensus has changed so that a foreign-language redirect with no "affinity" for the topic (i.e. not related to the culture or subject of the foreign language) is often deleted. Per [[WP:RFD#DELETE] #8:

In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created.

(The words "no affinity to [language]" and "not related to [language]" are often used in discussions as shorthand for this.)

Often an argument against deletion of a foreign-language redirect is per WP:RFD#HARMFUL, that although it maybe should not have been created, it is harmless once it exists. But I think consensus now is roughly "it can be harmful: we are not a translation dictionary, let alone a Babel fish, and readers are more likely to look at, and better served by, the foreign-language Wikipedia. Unless there is an affinity with the target page, we will delete it, even if it's not recently created."

So I think we should replace "should generally not be created" in reason #8 with "should generally be deleted".

#8 seems the only part of #DELETE that is defined in terms of the act of creation (rather than existence) — and even then only in the sentence regarding foreign-language redirects, not those about synonyms, misspellings and typos. This wording sets a higher bar to deletion than almost anything else in #DELETE.

WP:FORRED and WP:RFD/Common outcomes#Foreign-languages discuss the matter, but neither is a policy or guideline. Both imply, but don't state, that it's OK to delete a redirect that should never have been created.

I can add examples of discussions, but those at WP:FORRED seem instructive enough.

Si Trew (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • oppose Although the larger proportion of foreign-language redirects nominated are deleted, there are still enough dissenting voices and non-delete outcomes that there is not a general consensus that they should be deleted - particularly as what constitutes an "affinity" between a subject and a language is often debated and the potential harm caused by a foreign language redirect varies massively (ranging from none to very significant). "Should generally not be created" however does represent the consensus - the majority of the nominated redirects have been in existence a good number of years, so (whether to do with this advice or another reason) I'm not seeing any need for it to be stronger to discourage the creation of the redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes[edit]

There is a discussion about non-admins closing discussions as "delete" at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes. See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#So, this is the question we're asking, where the opening poster wrote, "Should non-adminstrators be allowed to close deletion discussions as delete?" Cunard (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy new year.

I should like to thank all the people who contribute to RfD, a bit of a backwater but makes the enyclopaedia better.

To Thryduulf, the curmudgeon, for all his work being so To Lenticel, bizarre phillipinean, who knows a lot abot language To Steel1879, who knows a lot about sports and metals (does he live in sheffield?) To Wikid98, who I almost always disagree with but adds intelligent discussion to allow me to

To you all, I hope you are safe and sound and yours go faithfully together. Let us be clever idiots for another year. Si Trew (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)