Wikipedia talk:Dispute tags

Retargeting[edit]

@user:Nikkimaria, it makes no sense to you, but it makes sense to me. The question then becomes, where's the harm? Has anyone been confused by the two re-directs?
Or perhaps you can suggest a not-nearly identical redirect page name and we can just move this content to that page. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What content would you propose to move? This is a redirect. If I suggest a different redirect, would you want this one deleted? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My alternative suggestion is to move the original text to a new redirect (and then changing the link in Reverting (and on any other page that currently links to the old redirect) to point to the new redirect). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What original text? If you create a new redirect, then another redirect exists. That doesn't itself change what is here. Would you want this redirect deleted, retargeted, something else? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At that point I really don't care what happens to Wikipedia:Dispute tags provided: (1) there is a new redirect to "Template:Dispute templates#Templates" and (b) before anything happens to Wikipedia:Dispute tags, all current links to Wikipedia:Dispute tags are replaced by links to the new redirect. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can use WP:TDTT to update your own sandbox and comments. The only other remaining page using this link is WP:Reverting where the appropriate target is disputed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Butwhatdoiknow: I don't know how your conditions can be met when you refuse to allow them to be met. Can you explain why you reverted the change to a direct link? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide your definition of "direct link." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A link that goes directly to its target. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both Template:Dispute templates#Templates and Wikipedia:Template index/Disputes go directly to their respective targets. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the link you restored here does not. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit on the other page because the edit summary said "per talk" and you posted nothing on the other page's talk page. I'm now guessing you meant to say "per talk at Wikipedia talk:Dispute tags." But even there (here) you didn't post anything saying something to the effect of "I am now making these changes." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What other page are you referring to? I made an edit to this page with the edit summary "per talk" following from the above discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The other page I am referring to is the one you referenced (above at 00:55, 9 February 2023 and 00:23, 12 February 2023).

There is nothing on this talk page that suggests you met the conditions I set (above at 21:11, 21 January 2023) or that we thereafter agreed to an alternative approach, Hence, there was no consensus for your "per talk" change.- Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To recap your conditions:

(1) There is a new redirect. This condition is met.

(2) All current links to this page are replaced. Other than your own commentary, this condition was met at the time of my edit, but subsequently undone by you. Specifically:

There is an link to this page at Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". I replaced that link with a direct link instead, and you reverted it. You have not yet provided any reasoning to support that reversion other than that you feel the initial edit was not explained (which is, ironically, something that page advises against).

There is a link to this page at Wikipedia:Alternatives to reversion. You reverted my edits to that page "pending outcome of discussion at wp:Reverting talk page". That outcome has now been reached, and yet you re-reverted, without providing any further objections.

As to your own commentary, by convention that should be edited by you. I let you know on 21 January that the new redirect was available for you to do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You describe my second condition as "All current links to this page are replaced." In fact, it is "all current links to Wikipedia:Dispute tags are replaced by links to the new redirect." You did not do that nor did you suggest what you did do as an alternative for consensus. Instead, you just took it upon yourself to do what you wanted to do. While that is consistent with the Nikkimaria rule, I'm pretty sure that it is not the process envisioned by wp:CON.

Also, please let me know where in Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" it advises against reverting an objectionable unexplained edit. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All righty then. You have yet to explain what you find so objectionable about having a direct link instead of a redirect, but in the interests of bringing this to a close, I've replaced the two Wikipedia-space links mentioned above with the new redirect. Should you wish to alter your own commentary to use the same redirect, I'll leave this page at its current target for a day or two to allow you to do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I accept your apology. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives to TTDT[edit]

@Nikkimaria: You have proposed one alternative to TTDT (direct links). Here's another, re-writing the two articles where TTDT appears along the lines of the consensus text at QUO:

... add an appropriate tag (if one exists) indicating the text is disputed and leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good.

Your thoughts? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At DRNC tagging is proposed as an alternative to reversion (ie. instead of restoring the status quo), and at ALTREV the context of the link is article-specific so suggesting "{{under discussion inline}} is good" would be incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble seeing why {{under discussion inline}} wouldn't work at DRNC regardless of whether the temporary text is the original or the new version. Either way, the tag alerts readers that something about the sentence is being questioned and that they should click on the link if they want to know more. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at DRNC isn't just that specific tag suggestion, it's the proposal in general. QUO encourages editors to leave the status quo ante bellum in place and tag. DRNC encourages editors to leave a disputed edit in place and tag. No matter what tag is used, what is being tagged is opposite between the two. It's at ALTREV that that tag specifically would be the problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've modified DRNC to clarify that the text we're talking about only applies to an edit (a) that is fixable but (b) for which the editor can't come up with a quick fix. I've also switched to DISPUTETAG. When I have more time I'll probably try to bring the text closer to the language used at the QUO text quoted above (omitting the "leave the status quo and" part).

I take a look at ALTREV tomorrow. Meanwhile, I invite you to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#The_practical_effect_of_presumed_consensus - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration, I've now modified Wikipedia:Alternatives_to_reversion#Responding_to_a_revert_with_discussion, - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]