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 (Rated Project-class)
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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Automatically notifying targets[edit]

There's a class of editors that are normally in a very good position to comment on a redirect but who aren't normally notified of the discussion – the watchers of the redirect's target. To get them involved, wouldn't it be a good idea to have a bot automatically place RfD notices on the talk page of the redirect's target? There's an earlier discussion about notifying talk pages. Uanfala (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

As noted in that discussion, such talk pages aren't always very likely to be watched, especially outside of mainspace. I wouldn't object to such a scheme, though. I like to see increased participation at RfD, and especially in cases where there's a content question, this could indeed bring relevant knowledge to discussions. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
With the "new" notification system, doesn't this happen anyway? When someone links to a page on my watchlist I get a notification that it's been linked to. Wouldn't mentioning it in an RfD discussion have that effect anyway, then? Or do those notifications only work e.g. for links from pages in mainspace? Admittedly all the ones in my notification list are in mainspace, and I'm not sure how I could create a test case for this since you don't get notified about links you've made yourself etc. I'd have to collaborate with one of you (or another editor) to create a redirect to an existing target that you're watching, then list it at RfD and see if you get a notification. Providing the name of the test redirect was either obvious enough (e.g. Test redirect please see RfD for 2016 October 12) or obscure enough I don't think the temporary pollution of the mainspace would be too big a worry, we'd delete it afterwards of course. Or we could just ask... .but I don't really know where to ask. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Don't we only get notified for links to pages we've created? – Uanfala (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
No, pages we've edited, I think. Good point, I am not sure. Certainly I get notified for pages I dragged out of WP:PNT that I didn't create, just translated, I get a lot of notifications for links to Quirine Lemoine for example, I didn't create that, I just translated it. Don't you get the same? Si Trew (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually I'm a liar, I did create that. It came up at PNT and I translated it, and I know sod all about tennis and even less about Dutch tennis, I just did the fiddly bits cos there was not much text etc to do. The history says I created it. I can't remember why it was at PNT quite, then. I usually mark as {{translated page}}, perhaps it was a WP:Requests for translation but I rarely hang out there. But yes, I did create that one. Hmmm... Si Trew (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
ERight right, I did indeed tag as {{translated page|nl}}. I am not sure why I bothered with doing it really, this was back end of 2014, I don't pick out Quirine Lemoines at random. I think somehow the original comment was at RfD but I am backtracking my fallible memory now. It is not a subject I would happen to chance upon and suddenly say "oh I must translate that". My Dutch is only so=-so anyway, but since it was mostly tables and results etc it was hardly an effort to translate, just to translate the templates etc. Duly noted etc on its talk page. Hmmmm... you may be right, maybe it is just the creator who gets notified then. That's a bit stupid because bots are often the creators then the real editors won't be notified at all. Si Trew (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move crosspost[edit]

I am posting here to notify you of a requested move I made regarding a bunch of deletion discussion templates. The discussion is at Template_talk:Cfd-notify#Requested move 21 August 2016 Pppery (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Formatting and warnings[edit]

A lot of people who show up here may not be informed about policies related to this discussion.

I think a warning should be placed at the top of the page requiring people to read Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.

I think it would also be a good idea if we forbid the practice of people posting Keep or Delete in posts. This sort of behavior is essentially saying "read this, this is all that matters" when actually it's what matters least. What should be weighed is discussion, not simply a yes/no polling.

I believe this practice caters towards mob rule activity and encourages lazy admin resolution of these discussions. They can come along and just quickly tabulate keep/delete bolds without necessarily reading what comes with them.

"Per nom" or "Per above" type posts should also be banned. This is similar poll/voting material. It is not actually building a discussion and doesn't necessarily mean the person understands the text they are agreeing with, just that they agree with the bolded stance taken.

Another good warning at the top of the page would be instructing people to read Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons as often these policies do not appear to be considered in the stances people take when engaged in discussion here. Ranze (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Mandatory log reporting for date and user[edit]

Once a page is deleted, the only log that is viewable is the date it was deleted. It is no longer possible to check via the history when the deleted page was initially created.

Knowing this is useful information for deletion reviews. People may make other edits at the time of creating a redirect related to supporting its existence.

I would like to make it mandatory, when nominating a redirect for discussion, to include the date a redirect was created in the initial post of that discussion, in case people push for and receive deletion as a result.

This is basically a simple cost-free thing, and anyone nominating a redirect to discuss would be checking the page history anyway and be easily able to write the date the redirect was created.

Another thing that should be mandatory is WHO created the redirect. Already we contact the people who made it, but we should list them in the discussion itself. That way, if someone makes a redirect and then doesn't get to the discussion in time, it would still be possible for other editors to use the date of redirect creation to monitor edits adjacent to that date to see if other edits (say, to the page a redirect points to) contain evidence that would be worthwhile for the initial discussion and any possible subsequent ones. Ranze (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Collapse of closed discussions: Was this ever discussed before deployment?[edit]

I've been struggling to find where we have consensus for collapsing the results of RfD discussions aat WP:RFD, can someone point me at it? It seems to me unhelpful as it makes it harder to search for things within the WP:RFD digest. I can't see any upside to it since that digest only contains closed discussions for a limited time period, it's not as if it's an exhaustive list of every RfD we ever had.

Can someone point me to the discussion where we have WP:CONSENSUS for collapsing these all? For example I procedurally closed Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Template:Nemzeti_Bajnoks.C3.A1g_II_teamlist. It looks like the template subst of {{rfd top}} now does it automatically (I hadn't noticed that so struggled to find which editor collapsed it, but apparently I did automatically, with the subst in the close at this edit).

It seems to have been merged in by User:Deryck Chan and User:Steel1943 with these two edits of 27 May and 1 June 2016. I was taking something of a Wikibreak over the summmer and hadn't really noticed this new behaviour, so if someone could point me to the discussion for changing this behaviour, I should be grateful. There's nothing at Template talk:Rfd top nor at Template talk:Rfd top collapse.

I can't see the rationale behind this beyond making it harder to search for things within the page at WP:RFD. It doesn't make loading times any better because the content still has to be loaded, whether it is collapsed or not. (Actually the extra markup for the collapse box will make the loading time a bit slower.) Yes, I get expanded boxes if I navigate to individual day logs, but it's actually not trivial to naviage to an individual day log for reading. Clicking on a link in the ToC just takes you to the section at WP:RFD. e.g. clickin on "October 10" takes me to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#October_10 where they are shown collapsed, whereas if I go to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_10 I get them expanded: all very nice in theory but in practice how do I get to read the page for 2016 October 10 without manually typing it into the search bar? I can't do it by clicking on anywhere in the WP:RFD page itself.

Sometimes, if discussions are related but not strongly enough to combine, I cross-reference each to the other and this makes it very hard to see those kind of crossrefs.

I can think of a few possible improvements for the expand/collapse behaviour, I don't know how feasible any might be:

  • Make the section titles for a given day be hyperlinks to the individual pages
    • Could work but may make a mess of the ToC
  • At the top of each daily log, hyperlink to itself so that "This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on ..." is linked to itself.
    • e.g. "This is athe list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 10, 2016".
    • Perhaps that particular way of linking (piping "This") is a bit obscure but you get the idea. We could link the date bit, that is also a bit surprising. Anyway that's just detail.
  • Have a bit of script on links or something on WP:RFD itself that allow one to collapse all and expand all the {[tlx|rfd top collapse}} boxes. I guess with a bit of Javascript. This should be fairly easy if the {{Rfd top collapse}} boxes are in a "class=" of their own that the Javascript can iterate over. However I am no expert in Wikimarkup for that kind of thing, I just think in principle this would be quite easy to do in the client's browser.
  • have a bit of script to expand all the collapse boxes, not just specifically the rfd top collapse.
    • I don't like this so much, because sometimes we collapse off-topic discussions (usually mine) and long discussions for reasons other than closing the RfD.

Of these the second would seem to me the easiest to implement and a bit of a no-brainer as the downsides to having such a link seem negligible (a tiny bit more Wikimarkup that can be added to the {{Rfd log header}} or whichever it is that is substs the "This is the list of redirects... in each daily log). But even if we do that, also being able easily to expand all the closed discussion boxes for the whole of WP:RFD would be extremely useful to me. Si Trew (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion that produced the current collapse box is here: Wikipedia_talk:Redirects_for_discussion/Archive_8#Splitting_daily_log_page --Deryck C. 09:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

And another thing... crosslinks at WP:RFD[edit]

This just made me think of something that is not entirely unrelated. If I want to cross-ref discussions I have to include the full link to the separate log pages. That makes sense except if someone is viewing it either at the very same log page, or via its tranclusions at WP:RFD itself, where it would be nicer if it was just a section link to the content on that page. Could we have a {{rfd xref}} template that also said "If the FULLPAGENAME is just WP:RFD itself, or the same as specified in the template parameters, make a section link, otherwise make a fully-qualified link"?

So e.g. {{rfd ref|2016 October 10|Trump effect}} would produce:

  1. "Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/" + the date parameter (after normalisation) matched the FULLPAGENAME of the transcluding page or
  2. the transcluding page was the WP:RFD page itself

I think this is possible but when I tried it some time ago (if I did) I couldn't get it to work properly; by definition it's hard to test in a sandbox because of the reliance on checking that the FULLPAGENAME is (or is aa subpage of) "Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion". Perhaps the template was getting parsed too early. Note that this is useful even when discussions are initially on the same daily log page, where you would think just a section link would be enough: because that can break if the page is relisted, as the discussion (including the crossref) moves to the new log page. Si Trew (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

This "rfd ref" template idea doesn't seem to interfere with anything that is currently being done, so I think you should feel free to do it yourself. Deryck C. 09:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Redirects with specific disambiguation errors[edit]


A proposal to expand the criteria for speedy deletion to include redirects with specific disambiguation errors has been made at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirects with specific disambiguation errors. Interested editors are welcome. Thank you. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

what about disinterested editors or uninterested editors? Thanks, I'll have a shuftie. Si Trew (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Double soft redirect[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Double soft redirect has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. (Participants of RfD may be interested in participating in this discussion due to this template being used possibly like a two-entry disambiguation page but not being a disambiguation page itself.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

requesting template addition on talks[edit]

WP:RFD#HOWTO mentions:

"after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page."

Does anyone know if there is a request template we can use to standardize such a request? Perhaps something that would add the talk to a category to have it completed more speedily? Ranze (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

New nominations placed at top[edit]

Is there any logical reason why new nominations at RfD are placed at the top of the section? TfD seems to put new nominations at bottom, and it's annoying when I try to edit an RfD section to comment on it, only to end up editing another section because the page has been edited since then and the section number (which edit links use) has changed. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems I was wrong about TfD, I don't know why I thought that when I was looking at it yesterday. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion about this at WP:VPT § New discussions placed at top in certain venues causing issues with section edit links as this applies to more than just RfD. nyuszika7h (talk)