Wikipedia talk:Twinkle

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

Nomination for merger of Template:Over-coverage[edit]

Template:Over-coverage has been nominated for merging with Template:Globalize. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This TFD is leaning merge. Will probably need to action this when the TFD closes. Please keep us posted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A selective bolding proposal at Uw-copyright-new may interest Twinkle users; your feedback requested[edit]

Template:Uw-copyright-new is a "gentle" variant of {{uw-copyright}} for new users. This is one of those single-use advice/user-warning templates that has a few bullet points of text between a header and footer; there are many others of that ilk; {{uw-coi}} comes to mind.

Via happy serendipity, an enhancement has been proposed that would allow the transcluder to do some simple style enhancements of the generated text, notably, bolding one of the bullet items, and perhaps a bit more. If the proposal is adopted and gains use, this could be a paradigm for updating other user warning templates in a similar manner, so getting the UX and functionality right for this initial use case could make life easier and possibly provide a consistent approach for other templates down the road. As a Twinkle user who may see such options popping up on this and/or other user warning templates in the future, your feedback would be welcome at Template talk:Uw-copyright-new#Adding bold style to bullet items or text. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove db-g13[edit]

Please remove G13 from the list of CSD options per discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Are CSD tags edits for the purposes of WP:G13? if the consensus is that we should not be tagging drafts as G13. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we can take action yet. Please keep us posted though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deploy[edit]

Hey @MusikAnimal. Mind doing a Twinkle deploy when you get a chance? Thanks for your help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done MusikAnimal talk 16:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improve confusing "Unlink backlinks" dialogue description[edit]

The "Unlink backlinks" current description dialogue is confusing:

This tool allows you to unlink all incoming links ("backlinks") that point to this page. For instance, [[San Jose de Buenavista|link text]] would become link text and [[San Jose de Buenavista]] would become San Jose de Buenavista. Use it with caution.

The description does not mention that it will look for such backlinks in other articles and not on the page itself. My understanding was that the feature was to remove within the San Jose de Buenavista page all links redirecting to it. I had tried using the feature on San Jose de Buenavista with the intent to delink several table links within the Barangays section, like Atabay and Badiang, which is a redirect to the San Jose de Buenavista article. Upon clicking the "Unlink backlinks" link, the link checkboxes that Twinkle later showed did not make it clear to me what were supposed to happen to them; should these links within the San Jose de Buenavista article be delinked if they redirect to the article? I assumed it would remove the redirects so I clicked, and was surprised it unlinked all links of San Jose de Buenavista in all those articles which had their checkboxes checked. I already reverted the automated mass edits which I had misunderstood. I suggest adding a more specific dialogue description and mentioning redirects will help in avoiding similar potential mass edit mistakes:

This tool allows you to unlink all incoming links ("backlinks") from the checked pages below that point to this page.

or maybe add something like:

This tool will not unlink redirects or links within this page that point to this page. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support this change. We use too much jargon that sometimes we forget how difficult it is to overcome that mountain of words. (Links to this article within this article are called selflinks.) - UtherSRG (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the idea. Patch submitted for approval. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome message gone[edit]

Hello, Twinkle folks,

I tried to leave my standard Welcome message and it was gone from the list of commonly used messages. It was called "graphical". Did you remove this for some reason? I must use it a couple of dozen times a day. I work with drafts and welcome dozens of new editors whose draft have gone stale. Could you please return it to the list of commonly used Welcome messages? I probably welcome more new editors than anyone outside of AFC reviewers so I'd like it to be there. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just look at any page of my Contributions and do a search for "Welcome" and you can see all of the Welcome messages I post (many also for the Teahouse). Unless a template has been deleted, I think some consideration is due those who use these features the most. I don't care for the other options that are available and I know other editors who welcome new users, especially those who review drafts, favor this template over the others as well so it's not just my preference. Please put it back. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 19:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey @Liz. Yes we were forced to remove it because of an RFC. I apologize for the inconvenience.
@Sdkb, FYI, the patch removing {{Welcome-menu}} and {{Welcome-graphical}} deployed today. Sorry for the delay. Hopefully that is all wrapped up now to the satisfaction of you and the welcoming committee. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the ping/heads up, NL! @Liz, I see you participated in the RfC, but I know it can get hard to keep track. As a reminder, you're free to add it as a custom welcome in your Twinkle settings so that you can continue to use it, although I hope you'll take into consideration the reasons we removed it and choose a friendlier alternative for the newcomers you welcome. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I did not see the RfC but I was one who was annoyed last time it was removed. Just doing a rough query me and Liz who both use {{Welcome-graphical}} a lot are the 2nd and 4th twinkle welcomers. Also I note from the last complaint Peaceray the 3rd on the list complained about the removal. Us three make 835 twinkle welcomes and I've been on a semi break. On the other hand Sdkb has 4 uses! Also I have seen other AfC reviewers using "graphical" - but I cant remember who. A quick check of the others who said remove in the "RfC" had the following uses: 0, 0, 18, 0, 1 & 0. So basically we have those who don't use a tool determining the functionality for those that do use! I would also note that the Wikipedia:Welcoming committee has graphical in the main three listed {{Welcome}}, {{W-basic}} and {{W-graphical}} and suggests using Twinkle so now makes no sense. I did think about working out amongst all the actual uses which templates were used and how many each, but frankly I can't be bothered. KylieTastic (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@KylieTastic: I've certainly welcomed way more than four newcomers, so I'd suggest your query needs some adjusting. I also have to strongly dispute your implication that I'm some outsider unqualified to work in this area — template design is one of my main focus areas, having worked on dozens of rewrites, as is newcomer help, being an active Teahouse host and the primary maintainer of the introductory tutorial series. The proposal was backed by widely recognized usability principles and was persuasive enough that we reached a consensus in a widely advertised RfC. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 13:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Sdkb, to clarify the query is only welcomes via Twinkle and only in the recent edits table so ~last 30 days, and per those parameters you have four. I was not implying anything other than I actually said. My point was the RfC did not appear to come to the attention of many of the actual users ending up with just 7 people who had used Twinkle just 24 times to welcome in the last 30 days were telling 3 people with 835 twinkle welcomes in the last 30 days we're wrong. — I find welcomes are subjective, conditional and personal. I find {{Welcome}} personally non-helpful as Help:Introduction is already on the side bar and I welcome people after an AfC review so have already added a Teahouse invite and whilst I agree the Wikipedia:Task Center is a good link for someone very new who does not know where to start, I find not so appropriate for someone already submitting draft articles. I don't like {{welcome-retro}} as I don't like the invite to come to the welcomers talk page as I think the Teahouse is much more appropriate. {{welcome-short}} is friendly but again I do not find very helpful. {{welcome-cookie}} I just personally don't like the image or the disguised links to Help:Getting started (I think links should be obvious in a welcome) and again an invite to the welcomers talk page. {{welcoming}} is generally fine but I find the style of {{W-graphical}} easier to use and what I would prefer to have got. I don't think 20 links is too many as they are in clear groupings and only slightly more than {{welcoming}} which does not tell people to sign messages or use edit summaries something many new users need to be told about. Also {{W-graphical}} has a links to Help:Cheatsheet and Wikipedia:Five pillars that I think are very good additions. Although I agree it could be improved such as Help:Editing could be changed to Help:Introduction to editing with Wiki Markup/1 etc. I can perfectly understand why some prefer {{Welcome}} or {{welcome-short}} as a good basic welcomes but I can also see, as it is what I would have preferred, {{welcoming}} or {{W-graphical}}. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@KylieTastic, re your specific critiques for {{Welcoming}}, the instruction to sign messages was removed from there and others per the recent talk page improvements. The edit summary suggestion is a good one, though; I added a line for it. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That RFC is a load of BOLLOCKS. The arguments to remove it were based on irrelevant reasoning, and both are well used. Welcome graphical is the best we've got. I've had to fork other templates to make versions that are either all signed, or all unsigned, to allow the custom templates thing to work. Pfft. Had my whinge. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Username implies shared use"[edit]

I feel that when reporting a user to WP:UAA, this option should be removed as UAA is not for usernames that only imply shared use. Either that or it should be merged with the option for a promotional username as I usually only see the 2 used together. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Blaze Wolf I agree support - I have only ever used and seen them used together and more importantly WP:UAA/I says it's not an UAA issue and WP:UAA header covers it as point 5 "Discuss less-serious violations". Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ferien: Pinging Ferien as they brought this up at WP:UAA (I had thought about it in the past but didn't really do much about it until now) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Blaze Wolf for starting this. I support per WP:UAA/I. --Ferien (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the idea. Patch submitted for approval. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to handle less serious username violations[edit]

Sorry if this is off-topic for Twinkle, but is there any advice anywhere on how to handle usernames which fall short of "blatant and serious violations of the username policy requiring an immediate block"? For example, what should I do with User:AmalgamatedWidgets? Certes (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The little known noticeboard WP:RFC/NAME exists for reporting more complex cases of violation of the username policy. Usually that's where experienced users get dragged to. Not sure if that helps with new, promotional usernames but figured I'd mention it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the reason why most people don't go there with experienced users is because usually if they're experienced and have the username, there are likely no issues with it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'll add that link to the toolbox. Certes (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Custom welcomes vs Default welcomes and signatures[edit]

For the default welcomes just the template is posted but for custom welcomes an extra signature is added. I thought I had reported before last time "W-graphical" was removed but I can't find it so maybe I forgot :/

As most welcome templates have a signature imbedded this just look odd — example.

By default I think the behaviour of default vs custom should be the same, although ideally an optional to add a signature or not on customs would be the best solution. Thoughts? KylieTastic (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can visit WP:TW/PREF#welcome to tweak this. The preference is called "Automatically sign custom welcome templates". Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stub tags[edit]

What happened to the option of adding stub tags to article in Twinkle? It used to be there but hasn't been for many years it seems (I haven't seen it at all since I started using this account, I only vaguely remember it with my previous account from 2017). Taking Out The Trash (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure of the history, but the stub user script I like to use nowadays is User:SD0001/StubSorter. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twinkle is free sofwre?[edit]

Hello, I am asking if Twinkle is free sofware since I can't find its source code on GitHub. Machibito21 (A question?) 19:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's linked on WP:TW, but for your reference https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/twinkle is the link. Primefac (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, is that I want to make a version for Wikipedia in Spanish. Machibito21 (A question?) 22:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey @Machibito21. Please check out https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/twinkle-starter, which is a fork of Twinkle specifically designed for use by other wikis. cc SD0001. There's also documentation at Wikipedia:Twinkle#Use on other wikis and Wikipedia:Twinkle/Localisation. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Twinkle is a free open-source software. You can localize Twinkle on Spanish Wikipedia by doing this instruction: Wikipedia:Twinkle/Localisation, or make a repository from twinkle-starter template (if you know TypeScript). This is quite a difficult task. Plantaest (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination for merger of Template:IPvandal[edit]

Template:IPvandal has been nominated for merging with Template:Vandal. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 21:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding rcat shell[edit]

Edit summary[edit]

In an edit like this, Twinkle just adds the rcat shell, with the summary "Addingrcat [sic] shell to redirect". Something like "Adding {{Redirect category shell}} to redirect" would be better.
To reproduce: use Twinkle's tag function on a redirect. Just pressing 'done' gives an error, but it works if you select the rcats that are already on the redirect, to tag it with. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patch submitted for approval. Thanks for the idea. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add rcat shell more easily[edit]

I have wondered if there was a way to add the rcat shell without adding a rcat. Could there be an option in the RCAT menu to just add it, so you wouldn't have go to the trouble of selecting an existing rcat? Alternatively, would it be better just to have a bot add this in the background to all redirects where it is missing? MB 14:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've created a ticket to track and discuss this issue. We'd need to decide on a plan of action, then write a patch for it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been using the workaround described above, but that doesn't quite do the job. For example, if the redirect has a tag "r from misspelling" and you select the same tag in Twinkle hoping to add the rcat shell, Twinkle adds the shell and "R from misspelling" - you get two tags due to the different capitalization. So it would be best to have an option to specifically add the rcat shell. I think this would be as simple as another choice in the tag list that said "{{Rcat shell}}: add Rcat shell to existing tags". Twinkle would just have to check that 1) the shell wasn't already present and 2) there are existing tags. If both conditions are met, add it. MB 05:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created a ticket for the case insensitive thing. I agree with both these ticket ideas. Just need a volunteer to carve out time to write a patch, and possibly rewrite the old redirect detection code, which I hear is in bad shape. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was just an example. The same thing happens with redirect rcats, like {{r from alternate name}} and {{r from alternative name}}. If the ability to add the shell is added, there would be no reason to select existing rcats and this whole issue of similar templates can just be avoided. This would only be an issue if you selected an existing one by mistake and the actual existing template was not exactly the same. I would think that would be so rare that it could be left to the user to just removed the dup manually. Definitely very low priority. MB 01:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification of "no bot" message in documentation[edit]

@MB, it says in the documentation it shouldn't be applied by a bot. Perhaps @Paine Ellsworth knows why? — Qwerfjkltalk 18:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is an explanation in the documentation both at the TOP and at Template:Rcat shell#When used alone. If the shell is added by a bot or by any automatic process without any parameters, the Miscellaneous redirects category would be saturated overnight by thousands and thousands of redirects, which would defeat its purpose. It's purpose is to help editors learn how to categorize redirects. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 20:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth, we are not talking about adding to all redirects (those without parameters). This is about adding when it is missing, i.e. there is one or more rcats already there but they are not wrapped in the shell. MB 20:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding the shell to a redirect that already has rcat templates in order to wrap those rcat templates within the Rcat shell sounds okay to me. We just don't want to have a bot add this in the background to all redirects where it is missing, nor use a bot or other automated process to add the rcat shell without adding a rcat if the shell has no rcat templates to begin with. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 20:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dependabot patches[edit]

How safe is it to +2 the dependabot patches such as [1]? I notice that all the dependencies are "dev dependencies", so in theory it should be pretty safe. But we have no end to end tests so want to double check first. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Default preferences[edit]

Hello! So I was recently made aware that the default Twinkle preferences are to not notify the user upon speedying a redirect for R3. Why? This makes absolutely no sense. You should always notify the user when speedying anything except for maybe G5. I think this should be changed so that the default is to notify the user automatically. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went through this myself a few months ago. Why is R3 not included? MB 15:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, even I don't understand the rationale for it. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 18:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Patch submitted for approval. Thanks for the idea. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Video tutorial[edit]

The link to the video tutorial is dead. Anyone know of a live URL for it?
Pinging @Ijon who maintains https://videotutorials.toolforge.org/Twinkle. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, FormalDude. I have restored the service. Do note that it's been unmaintained since 2013, and is no doubt quite out of date. Ijon (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

uw-ewpblock[edit]

I just changed a parameter for {{Uw-ewpblock}} from |area= to |page= so that it matches the /doc (which is widely used). If someone could please make sure either a) I haven't broken anything, or b) update Twinkle, that would be fab. Primefac (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Primefac. Thanks for the notice. Is this a good idea? Template:Uw-pblock and Template:Uw-pblockindef both use area. Wouldn't it be better to keep them aligned? I think the idea behind "area" instead of "page" is that you can also block namespaces. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cannot change the documentation because it is used in 77 other locations, and the /doc says to use |page=. I totally get your logic, but when I go to a template and need to customise it, I shouldn't have to look at its code to know why putting |page= (as the /doc tells me) doesn't work. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, if I just ignore that and create new documentation... Primefac (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another idea might be to code the template to accept both page and area. Perhaps this is easiest. Then we dont have to change Twinkle nor the documentation. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I'm probably the only person to have manually used the template; will leave be now that there's a new /doc. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Notify page creator if possible"[edit]

The other day I tagged an empty category for deletion (C1). I distinctly remember seeing "Notify page creator if possible" box was checked in the pop-up before applying the tag. Soon after, I got this message from an admin. I did a dry run test to confirm the box in the TW pop-up window was being ticked. Then I went into my Twinkle settings and discovered that notify creator for C1 was unchecked for some reason. I updated my settings and hopefully that fixes the problem.

The hover-over explanation in the pop-up window reads A notification template will be placed on the talk page of the creator, IF you have a notification enabled for the criterion you choose AND this box is checked. This is unexpected behavior.

Instead, the box in the pop-up should match your settings. In other words, if notify for C1 is disabled in settings, then the pop-up box should start out unticked. Then if the user ticks the notify user box to override their settings, Twinkle interprets this as the user wishes to override their settings and TW notifies the creator. Wouldn't this be more helpful and make more sense?

Also, why was notify for C1 disabled in my settings in this first place? I don't remember ever changing it. Shouldn't the default be to always notify the creator for any deletion nomination? --DB1729talk 13:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there. Thanks for the ideas. This is actually two issues. Issue #1 is the unintuitive check box behavior. I agree that should be fixed and just now I made a ticket for that. Issue #2 is CSD C1 defaulting to not notify. I wrote a patch for that one and submitted it for approval. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. After posting the above, I noticed the section Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Default preferences. (The recent multiple complaints makes me wonder if something changed lately?) The op states You should always notify the user when speedying anything except for maybe G5. I agree with that and also add as an exception U1. There is no need to notify yourself. DB1729talk 13:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Striking my comment after viewing the ticket. You suggested changing C1 only, which is perfect:) DB1729talk 14:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:) –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Advice of non-breaking changes to Uw-copyright-new[edit]

A new version of Template:Uw-copyright-new (as mentioned in the discussion above) with non-breaking changes has just been released. No changes should be required to the Twinkle installation, but if you wish to take advantage of the new features, please see the /doc page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twinkle links category without suppression on user talk page[edit]

In this COI notice[2] Twinkle linked a category on the user's talk page. This categorized the page, contrary to WP:USERNOCAT. Twinkle should automatically disable the category function on any category links by adding a leading colon, like I did manually here.[3] --DB1729talk 02:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For clarity, since I just made the mistake, I believe this is referring to the page in question being Category:The Legend of King Kong (Documentary), which was placed without the necessary : and thus causing categorisation instead of linking. It might make sense to just put one in for all links? Primefac (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like some warning templates add a colon and some do not. Because some warning templates do add a colon, having Twinkle add a colon risks a double colon situation where this incorrect output is given: Hello, I'm Novem Linguae. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to [[::Test]] have been undone because they did not appear constructive. Anyway, I think it'd be best to fix these template-by-template. I'll put in an edit request at {{Uw-coi}}. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it possible and/or advisable to add speedy deletion templates below #REDIRECT?[edit]

On redirect pages, is it possible and/or advisable to add speedy deletion templates below the #REDIRECT instead of above them? Putting the CSD templates above the #REDIRECT line breaks the redirect and causes the pages to show up in various error reports and categories that they should not appear in. Please see Template talk:Db-meta#Request for more information. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My first impression is that putting CSD and RFD templates above REDIRECT is preferrable, because we want them to be broken. If a page is up for CSD or RFD, we probably want editors to see this, rather than just being passed through to the target page. I'm open to being convinced otherwise though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Breaking the redirect is preferable, it saves a few clicks when working through CAT:CSD. —Kusma (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What works best for our readers? Probably a working redirect. On the other hand, if a redirect really deserves deletion, there may be no readers. Certes (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But it is quite intentional that a redirect be "broken". The template displays a message asking for input on the discussion. And it gives a link to click on if the reader does not want to participate and just continue to the existing target. If there is really any serious thought about changing this, there should be a discussion, probably at WT:RFD, not here. MB 18:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that this discussion largely stems from the db-meta discussion; since this section seems to be moving towards a consensus against change it probably makes sense to move back to the db discussion. Primefac (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]