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.
 

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)

Template:Rfd2m nominated for merging into Template:Rfd2 at WP:TFD[edit]

For those who watch this page, I would like to inform you that I have listed {{Rfd2m}} for merging into {{Rfd2}}. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 2#Template:Rfd2m. Also, side note, from what I see, Twinkle only utilizes {{Rfd2}} and not {{Rfd2m}}, so that gadget should be unaffected if this merge occurs per my nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Boilerplate[edit]

Can we move the boilerplate, that is, sections 1 to 5 of the page, into a sub-page (.e.g. WP:Redirects for discussion/Boilerplate) that is then transcluded? The reason I ask is that often I want to refer to the specific wording of one of the WP:RFD#DELETE or WP:RFD#KEEP sections and of course have to load the entire ][WP:RFD]] page - which can be somewhat lengthy because of the transclusions. There's also the minor reason that, because the main page changes daily for the addition of new days and the deletion of old ones, it's harder to spot a sneaky change to the boilerplate (though I don't think that has happened in all the time I have been at RfD).

A similar thing was done at WP:Pages needing translation into English (WP:PNT) after a brief disucssion in 2010, although PNT discussions are different (some might say the inverse) in that they go on at thE main PNT page itself, rather than being on dated sub-pages, so moving the boilerplate meant editors' edit windows weren't always cluttered with it. Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I've got no objections to that. If you do it though please either ping me or just add the new page directly to user:Thryduulf/RfD watchlist. Thryduulf (talk)
@Thryduulf: I'll shove the boilerplate into WP:Redirects for discussion/Boilerplate (this is red now, if it is blue I have done so). I am quite happy to do the tying-up for the transclusion, but I think best left to you or another admin. Si Trew (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Its my mistake. It's already essentially there at WP:RFD/Header, split out. ({{RFD header}}). The question is should the Rs for WP:RFD#D1 etc. then refer to the header page or the main RfD, by transclusion? I use a great bigdesktop of ancient (5 years) heritage that runs like shit off a shovel, but for others onmobil etc. to load that whole page and read it, would it be better to redirect the D1, D2, K1 etc just to /header? I can see both sides of both sides there. Si Trew (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
PS I just saw Wikipedia on mobile today. I usually program the back endm(not MediaWiki but just generally when I write software), so it's the first time I saw it. Very impressive, the simplicity of the site's layout makes it so. My mobile phone, er, just makes and receives calls, which is how I like it. (Actually I prefer one tethered to the house with a bit of black and tan so it can't escape, but those days are gone, sadly. I held out until 2007.) I hate them. Si Trew (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a case of my wanting to change Wikipedia to suit myself, not quite an WP:IDONTLIKEIT but it can't be better than it is, so nothing should be changed. Si Trew (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Displaying section links[edit]

Currently {{rfd2}} does not preserve sections when listed as the target (e.g. target=3 (disambiguation)#Film displays just 3 (disambiguation)). I've asked for this to be corrected at template talk:rfd2. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I grumbled about his a few days ago. Didn't User:Steel1943 put into it? Si Trew (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Si Trew, I may give it a look after {{Rfd2m}}'s merge request is closed. Steel1943 (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Steel1943, aye, best to wait. Si Trew (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Not worried about it, but technically isn't it wrong to close one's own nomination?[edit]

@Oiyarbepsy: closed the discussion for Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_9#Philology_of_the_Soviet_Union as a non-admin closure after converting it to an article. I've no problem with that, Oiyarbepsy took the time and trouble to convert it to an article (all to the good), but technically isn't it a bit iffy to close one's own nomination? Nothing to do with admin or non-admin but I usually expect someone else to close mine even if I say "procedural close, please" or "withdrawn".

I'm not hung up about this, but should I save closing admins the trouble and just do non-admin close myself when I convert to article or change my mind and withdraw the nomination? This is not in the least sarcastic or rhetorical question, have I been wasting admins' time when I should have just closed it myelf? Si Trew (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Generally it is best to avoid closing your own discussions, but there are exceptions. Certainly closing a nomination when you have withdrawn it and your opinion had no other supporters and/or it was WP:SNOWing is fine. Procedural closes when you're taking it to a different venue, again there is no problem with that. When you are converting it to an article, I'd prefer it were left to someone else to close but if nobody has after say 12-24 hours then go ahead and do it yourself. You really shouldn't be closing your own nominations as anything non-procedural/not-withdrawn except in exceptional circumstances (see WP:INVOLVED) - about 2ish years ago I guess I did close a discussion I had been involved in (I think as no consensus), but it was a complicated one that had been open for a good 2 months or more and repeated requests for someone else to close it had gone unanswered. On that occasion I did explicitly flag it as an involved closure in the page and in the edit summary. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Redr[edit]

What's with all the glitz introduced (with page protection) at {{Redr}} in the last couple of months (without much publicity)? Now when I look at a redirect with {{multiple issues}} (redr.), apart from having to wear sunglasses I have to expand a collapsible box to see what the hell is going on. {{Multiple issues}} in reader space doesn't do that so I see no need for it being done in editor space. It's not as if it saves the hidden stuff being downloaded.

I added my six penn'orth at Template_talk:This_is_a_redirect#Visually_confusing. I hope you may contribute, the usual bun (sic) to those who agree with me. Si Trew (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice: Template:Rfd2m merged and redirected Template:Rfd2[edit]

This is a notice in regards to the fact that Template:Rfd2m has now been merged into Template:Rfd2 (per the merge discussion), and the former is now a redirect to the latter. When nominating multiple redirects in one nomination, please see the documentation at Template:Rfd2/doc or Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#How to list a redirect for discussion for the new method to list multiple redirects in one nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Mass nominations[edit]

Perhaps this is answered somewhere, but is there an easy way to do mass nominations? I want to nominate all the names of deputies that redirect to Gabonese Democratic Party (listed in the second section here) as they ought to be redlinks per WP:POLITICIAN, but I can't think of a way to do it that wouldn't require me to individually tag each article (which even using Twinkle would take forever, and I don't know if Twinkle can do tagging without creating an accompanying discussion) and add the relevant code to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)