Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          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.

What's the point of proposing a redirect be turned into an article? One could just, er, create the article.[edit]

I haven't keep a regular eye on RfD (or anything) lately, but it seems to me that it has become far more frequent for someone to propose that a redirect is turned into an article. All very well, but I notice that the proposers never themselves offer to do so.

It seems to me that it is idle to suggest this course of action since we can't leave an RfD open indefinitely until someone creates an article (at which point the RfD is redundant; I've done this before by translating an article from FR:WP that was a redirect at WP:RfD and so the RfD went speedy close). Neither can we in conscience close the RfD with a "create" result when the article is not in fact created.

Presumably if someone wanted to create an article they would have, er, created the article – if an editor were new to WP editing and just presumed the title was "taken" they'd likely create the article at another title, and presumably it would come to RfD sooner or later anyway. There is also WP:Requested articles, so one could always propose adding to the list there (implying deletion of the redirect).

So, what am I missing that other editors think will happen when they propose that a redirect be turned into an article? Si Trew (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that what you are missing is the same thing that I am missing in AFDs where people propose "merge". In my experience, in 90% of cases where an AFD closes as "merge", the merge never gets done. Editors who passionately argue in favour of merging in the discussion are not interested enough to bother to actually perform the merge. Somehow, if one proposes something in an xFD discussion that involves actually doing some writing, the mere fact of having suggested doing it is expected to magically cause it to happen effortlessly. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson:@SimonTrew: It was my understanding that when wp:AfDs end with a merge decision the closing admin ensures that the article is not deleted until such time that its contents are merged? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Not just "until such time that its contents are merged": when a discussion results in a "merge" decision, the article should never be deleted, because the editing history needs to be kept. What should happen is that someone merges the content, and then the article is replaced by a redirect, but not deleted. What all too often happens in practice, though, is that the article is left as it is, unmerged. I have seen many articles which still exist years after there was an agreement to merge them, because nobody ever bothers to do the merging. The result of this is that very often, in fact I think it may well be more often than not, the practical effect of a "merge" decision is that an article is kept, despite the fact that there was a clear consensus that it shouldn't be kept. Unlike a "deletion", anyone can perform a merge-and-redirect, not just an administrator, so usually the closing admin just closes the discussion and goes away and forgets it, leaving one of the editors who said they wanted a merge to carry it out. However, there is no guarantee that any of them will ever even come back to the deletion discussion and see that there is a "merge" decision, let alone actually take the effort of doing the merge. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Well this is just my opinion of course, but I think it is just a bit too easy to use automated tools to propose something at an XfD and then forget about it, and the automated tools these days make it easier (see other discussions here ad nauseam), then nobody bothers to do the manual work of actually doing the merge, creating the article stub. translating it from another WP, or similar.
I am guilty of this myself but I try to compensate by actually making new content sometimes in the hope it may be useful to other readers. My goal here is simply to make Wikipedia a little bit better, recognising it is not perfect and not finished and WP:there is no deadline. I quite understand other editors may disagree with an opinion at a talk or discussion page, but with the automated tools one rarely gets any discussion at all these days. O tempora O mores! Si Trew (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The other thing is that being able to see that there is a need for an article doesn't necessarily translate into being able to create that article themselves, right now. Competence and simply having the time to do so are required. Mangoe (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
That's true. I have plenty of time but no competence: I rely on making a stub or something and other editors sweeping up my mess afterwards. But perhaps we should more often suggest referring to WP:Requested Articles? Si Trew (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

New page[edit]

I created Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes as a parallel to the AfD "Common outcomes" page. You're welcome to help build it. See also my comments on the talk page. --BDD (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 8[edit]

Can someone fix Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 8 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) ? There are some weird nominations on this page. -- (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

XFDs for category redirects[edit]

When a category redirect is proposed for deletion, should the discussion be held at RFD or CFD? I'm not sure, so I've made a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 113#Deletion of category redirects. Your participation would be appreciated. Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hide closed discussions from transcluded pages[edit]

I drafted modifications for {{rfd top}} (sandbox) and {{rfd bottom}} (sandbox) that would hide the closed discussions from this page (only the resolutions would be shown), while keeping them visible of the daily pages. See testcase for daily page and testcase for this page for details. This change would make this page easier to navigate, potentially increasing the amount of views for each discussion. Note: if this proposal gets community approval, administrator instructions should probably be changed to request placing closing admins' signatures inside the {{rfd top}} template. Opinions? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 09:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Implementing in the lack of opposition. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • @Armbrust: I've noticed you've reverted my edit to {{rfd bottom}}. Do you object to the idea of hiding closed discussions from WP:RFD, or to particular implementation? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 19:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    I don't see any reason why they should be hidden on the RfD page. IMO hiding them can be confusing (at least I was confused). BTW just made a script to hide closed RfDs: User:Armbrust/hideClosedRFD.js. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    The main idea was to make older discussions more visible. RfD page is currently hude enough to make it unreasonably difficult to locate the tail of the backlog. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 20:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    Locating the backlog could be better achieved by adding an additional header (like "Old discussions"). Of course that would need a modification in DumbBOT's task. (All other XfDs have a similar section: "Old discussions" for AfD, FfD & TfD, "Old business" for MfD, "Holding cell" for PUF, "Discussions awaiting closure" for CfD and "Recent discussions" for DRV). Armbrust The Homunculus 20:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    Additional header won't make these discussions stand out among "wall of text" of closed discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 20:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    The closed discussions already stand out of the "wall of text" with a distinct background colour. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    Not when they are so numerous, and more so when the page contains so much text. The only way to locate open discussions right now is to scroll, and it is unreasonably difficult to spot remaining discussions among huge amount of closed discussions, color-coded or not. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 20:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Change to how the Rfd template works[edit]

I've rewritten Template:Rfd (and Template:Rfd/core) in Lua. This allows template redirects with this tag to still work when transcluded, but also stop the redirect when the page is visited. I can't implement this yet, though, as it requires a change in how the Rfd template is placed (which also means a change to Twinkle). For example, to tag this redirect:

#REDIRECT [[Template:Foo]]
{{R from move}}

the old way to tag it would result in this:

#REDIRECT [[Template:Foo]]
{{R from move}}

The new way would result in this instead:

#REDIRECT [[Template:Foo]]
{{R from move}}

With a mass nomination, the old way looks like this:

{{subst:rfd|Whatever name they're listed under}}
#REDIRECT [[Template:Foo]]
{{R from move}}

The new way looks like this:

{{subst:rfd|name=Whatever name they're listed under|
#REDIRECT [[Template:Foo]]
{{R from move}}

I've manually converted a single template redirect under discussion, Template:Lede, to use the new style. If there are no objections, then I'll implement the change and work with Twinkle to get it supported there as well. @Steel1943: @Codename Lisa: ping. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that I've updated the current Template:Rfd (and Template:Rfd/core) to support both the old and new style to make the transition easier. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Jackmcbarn, I'm neutral about this right now. Part of me says that changing the way such a core template works is going to be a bad thing, the other part says this is progress. The templateFu part of me is wondering however, why we need to change the parameters to do this. Can't the implicit {{{1}}} parameter retain its current function and just add the change as a new parameter name? So, {{{1}}} would be "Whatever name they're listed under" and there would always be a {{{contents}}} parameter with the page's current contents. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I thought of that, but there's a slight difference between named and numbered parameters that makes it too complicated. And how is this "such a core template"? Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • A potential problem I see is that since pagenames can include the = symbol itself, it would be required to use |1=whatever and make the page name explicit in the call anyways. This defeats the benefits, as I recall, of using implicit parameter numbers. I count almost 1,100 links. I'd say that makes it fairly core. Rfd doesn't work without it... — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
That's not the case, since the target would be wrapped inside of a wikilink, which "hides" the = from the template. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

With a mass nomination, the old way looks like this:

{{subst:rfd|Whatever name they're listed under}}
#REDIRECT [[Template:Foo]]
== Redirect from alternate name ==
{{R from alt}}

The new way looks like this:

{{subst:rfd|name=Whatever name they're listed under|
#REDIRECT [[Template:Foo]]
== Redirect from alternate name ==
{{R from alt}}
  • Such a use case would fail. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I've never seen a redirect with a heading in it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jackmcbarn: I can provide you an example that I have seen on a few occasions where a redirect will have a section header. Let's say a redirect is nominated for WP:RFD, and during the course of the RFD, the redirect is determined to be ambiguous. In cases like these, before the discussion is closed, one of the editors involved in the discussion may boldly create a draft of a disambiguation page directly below the redirect scripting on the page. Usually in these cases, the section that would be on the draft is a "See also" section. (I had to play devil's advocate here; section headers could happen). Steel1943 (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I know I've seen them before. I'm currently doing an AWB DB scan for #REDIRECT ?\[\[(.*?)\]\] redirects and then I'll filter that to see which ones also have [=\|] in them as well. I'll post the report here when I'm done (I've done the scan once, but I filtered them wrong causing me to only come up with one page title that is s redirect with a = in it and have to do it again). — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 00:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
@Technical 13: @Steel1943: Okay, parameter 1 is the name again (like it is now), and there's a "content" parameter for the content now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Seems like excessive complexity for very little gain. Template redirects are seldom seen at RFD and if they are sent there, it makes sense just to put the {{rfd}} tag below the redirect on template pages. (Not sure if Twinkle does this, but it should be made to do it if it doesn't already.) — This, that and the other (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
@This, that and the other: What's the excessive complexity? With the change I just made, the only difference between the current way and the new way is that the existing content of the page goes inside the RfD template. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support proposed change: RfD notice instead of content causes confusion. FWIW this fix will fail with some templates (eg. Template:GERB/meta/color), but the old way performed no better for such cases, so I don't see this issue as a blocker. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 17:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
How would it fail with that? Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That's great that you can see it will fail Czarkoff. Would you mind detailing how that failure would happen so we can try and fix it? Thanks, greatly appreciated. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 17:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    • This particular template is only a color definition, it is used in constructs like style="background-color: {{GERB/meta/color}}" (eg. as seen here). I don't think this issue may be avoided. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 18:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
It should still work even then. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I misinterpreted the code. Sorry for noise. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Since there's no longer a BC break, and there doesn't seem to be any remaining objections, I'm going to implement the module now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn I do not think this was well advertised. You should post to Village pump first. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't think enough people would care about how the internals of {{rfd}} would work for that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

New instructions on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header for the new Template:Rfd function[edit]

I'm starting this discussion in regards to the instructions changes that were recently made by Jackmcbarn due to their recent updates to {{Rfd}}. First off, I want to make clear that this discussion is in no way any quarrel with the recent changes to {{Rfd}}: I support the changes, mainly due to editors needing an option if the redirect has transclusions to ensure that the Rfd template doesn't get transcluded when the redirect is transcluded. However, the issue with the "new way" to place the {{Rfd}} template is that it complicates the Rfd tagging process since the editor, per the instructions, would need to encapsulate the entire text of the redirect in the substituted {{Rfd}} template prior to saving. The "old method" just requires placing the tag at the top of the page without any additional steps. An example that I can provide that was recently nominated for discussion where the nominated used the "old" method of tagging the redirect is Wikipedia:Deletion is not clean up; in this example, the nominator placed the {{subst:Rfd}} at the top of the page without encapsulating the rest of the text; anyone searching with this redirect is still stopped before reaching the target, as it did before. In conclusion, I believe that it would be wise for both versions of how to post the Rfd tagging template in the instructions, but specify that the "new" method is only truly necessary if the redirect is transcluded. (This usually redirects in the Template: namespace.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Most people post RfD with Twinkle. Also, there are a few non-templates that have transclusions, and that isn't obvious unless you go out of your way to check. There's also no downside to doing it the new way, so I don't see why it's necessary to mention the old way anymore. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Misspelled native language redirects[edit]

This is based on Δίκαιο RFD. Should we keep misspelled native language redirects? --Lenticel (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)