Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect

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

Rethinking "R to project namespace" & "R to subpage"[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussions elsewhere.

Please see Template talk:R to project namespace#Let's stop pointlessly adding redundant rcats (which I suppose in theory could apply to some other namespace-related rcat templates, though that one in particular seems to be the biggest problem).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

PS: In a similar vein, I've WP:BOLDly narrowed the scope of {{R to subpage}} a bit [1], because I keep seeing it used in ways that don't do anything useful for us.

PPS: Some of these rcat templates are at "Redirect to/from" names and some at "R to/from" names; we should probably normalize them to the more explanatory names, and have redirs from the shorthand versions.

 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi,  SMcCandlish – I'm really not sure what you mean by saying that tagging a WP: redirect that targets a WP: project page with {{R to project namespace}}, which sorts redirects to Category:Redirects to Wikipedia project pages, as "redundant" or "pointless". As you know, if the target is not in project namespace, then the redirect would be automatically sorted to a different category, Category:Redirects to project space. Not trying to be confrontational here, as I came along after these were created and just went along with the flow. Of the eight namespace rcats, three of them have the ability to automatically split the sorts between cross-namespace and same-namespace categories – these three are {{R to project namespace}}, {{R to help namespace}} and {{R to portal namespace}}. The other five rcats are not allowed to be used to sort to the same namespace. There must have been a good reason for this, at least back when they were created. After all these years are we to consider all the category sorts of redirects that go to the same namespace to be pointless and redundant?
When I have more time I'll give your {{R to subpage/doc}} changes a closer look. Right off the top of my head, your header-level changes from === → == should either be reverted, or all the other rcat-documentation headers should be altered from === to == for consistency.
Some time back, I think it was Martin who changed some of the rcats from "R from/to/with" to "Redirect from/to/with", and another editor challenged the changes. IIRC, either an informal discussion or an RfC resulted in the modified rcats to be changed back to "R from/to/with", which I would have to agree are more desirable. The only templates I know of that use the full name, "Redirect..." are either not rcats or they are recent creations by at least two other editors. For example, one editor has disagreed with {{Redirect from abbreviation}} being redirected to {{R from initialism}} (in the same manner as {{R from abbreviation}} still is), and so has started building the separate rcat. That has been discussed here; however, thus far no revert has been made as suggested. Others appear to be a project of Rich Farmbrough's, such as {{Redirect from alternative language category}}, who might shed some light on that.  Stick to sources! Paine  11:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
As far as personal names are concerned, one of the poorly documented, and in some cases poorly researched, facets is which of several (in some cases many) appellations are of which character. Since I have been working on pseudonyms I have often distinguished between pen-names and stage names, and used a variety of other {{Redirect from..}} or {{Redirect to..}} templates. These are redirects to existing "R from ..." and "R to ..." templates and do not, at present, do anything new about categorization.
I'm not sure exactly the value of any redirect cats. I do think they help prevent reckless redirect deletion somewhat. While they are potentially of use if someone is doing "reverse research" - using "what redirects here" - anything meant for public consumption should be in the article text. Indeed the "alternative names" part of {{Person data}} was a potentially useful piece of metadata that could have had more value as an editorial tool. I'm not sure that Wikidata will be updated by as many editors as might have been willing to maintain that field.
As to the {{Redirect from alternative language category}}, this is quick creation short-cut used to document about half-a-dozen of the 260 sub categories of Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms.
The main point about using "R" or "Redirect" in template or category names: I wholeheartedly prefer and recommend using "Redirect" as the canonical version. By all means let people use short-cut templates, but let's encourage, gently, the wiki code to be more readable.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC).
To Rich Farmbrough: I do understand better now the need for readability as a tool for newer users. In this case, however, the R to/from/with rcats are generally first found when the reader/editor-wannabe happens upon a redirect, so they are found even by new users "in context", which should make it obvious that "R" stands for "redirect". Nothing cryptic in that, really, don't you think?  Stick to sources! Paine  08:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
It's hard to say. I do remember a little of when categories, disambiguations, templates and redirects were all new to me, relatively impenetrable and best left alone. It seems pretty easy, though, to use the more explicit version, or at least "gently encourage" its use. Certainly I can understand why people who work a lot on redirects want to use the shorter form for the templates, and I don't want to discourage or slow them down.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC).
This was a pointer to a pre-existing thread for a reason, so as not to fork it. Recap version (I don't think it introduces any new issues): A redir in the "Wikipedia talk:", "Help:", or other namespace that redirects to "Wikipedia:Something", would need Template:R to project namespace and the categorization it provides, so that we can keep track of redirects into the project namespace. There is no purpose at all to tracking "Wikipedia:Whatever" (a.k.a. "WP:Whatever") redirects to "Wikipedia:Something". It is redundant and pointless, since all such "Wikipedia:"/"WP:" redirects have such corresponding "Wikipedia:" targets by default. We need to categorize unexpected redirects into the "Wikipedia:" names and out of it (or its "WP:" alias) to other namespaces. Templating and categorizing "Wikipedia:"/"WP:"-to-"Wikipedia:" redirects is essentially the same thing as creating categories like "Category:People with eyes", or "Category:Heavy metal albums that feature electric guitar", "Category:Animals that are not venomous", or "Category:Birds that can fly". We don't; we would only categorize the exceptions. Because the categorization of the default behavior is unnecessary and tedious, virtually no one does it; even without redundancy pruners like me actively removing the redundant categorization/templating when we run across it, Category:Redirects to Wikipedia project pages would never be anywhere near complete if we actually expected it to include "WP:"/"Wikipedia:" redirects to other pages in the same NS, so it's just pointless to encourage it, and we should directly advise against it. What is practical is to track down the redirs to and from this namespace and tag those. Same goes for all other namespaces and Rcats for them. Don't tag redirs that do the default thing we already expect.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, this may be a very good catch by you, SMcCandlish. However, the fact that the "redundant/pointless" part of this affects three rcats instead of just one should mean that it must be discussed in a more generalized venue, such as this talk page. I have left a pointer to this discussion at WT:CAT-R and, hopefully, will draw the interest of other talk-page watchers to come and help us out. I've never hesitated to install the three rcats on same-namespace redirects, partly because that is half of their function; however, I've never questioned whether or not that part of their function is still needed. It is good to question things that seem pointless and redundant when we come across them.  Stick to sources! Paine  09:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what the current situation is, but I would recommend a {{Cross namespace redirect}} template that auto-categorises into "Cat:Cross namespace redirects from foo" and "Cat:Cross namespace redirects to bar" (and potentially "Cat:Cross namespace redirects from foo to bar") if these cats are seen as useful. It might also have a tracking cat for non-XNRs incorrectly tagged.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC).
Been pretty busy offline, so I'll try to briefly bring all who read this up to snuff on the current situation with these categories before I have to go off. As you may remember, CNRs at one time were placed in one category, Cross-namespace redirects, and that category is now a container that should only be populated by subcategories. In that category are currently listed the eight subcategories that are now populated by all CNRs:
  • Redirects to project space‎
  • Redirects to help namespace‎
  • Redirects to portal space
  • Redirects to category space‎
  • Redirects to the main namespace‎
  • Redirects to talk pages‎
  • Redirects to template from non-template namespace‎
  • Redirects to user namespace‎
The rcats that populate the first three above categories also populate three same-namespace categories:
  • Redirects to Wikipedia project pages
  • Redirects to help pages
  • Redirects to portals
So one of the questions asked in this discussion is whether or not we should continue to populate Category:Redirects to Wikipedia project pages (as well as the other two same-namespace categories) or to discontinue that practice as pointless and redundant. If a good reason is found to continue to add rcats to redirects that will populate the same-namespace categories, then nothing more will need to be done. If we decide not to continue to populate the same-namespace categories, then the three rcats that do so will need to be modified to sort redirects in the same way that the other five rcats sort redirects, that is, only cross-namespace redirects, and the three same-namespace categories may then be deleted. Hope this helps.  Stick to sources! Paine  12:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
We should continue to populate these categories, but only with unexpected instances. E.g. the redirect WP:BREEDCAPS (technically, Wikipedia:BREEDCAPS) is actually a shortcut out of "Wikipedia:" namespace to "User:" namespace, as are various essay shortcuts. WP:BIRDCON is redir out of "Wikipedia:" namespace to "Wikipedia talk:" namespace. And so on. Various "Help:"-namespace pages have "Wikipedia:"/"WP:" redirects (at this point a good argument could actually be made for merging the "Help:" namespace into the "Wikipedia:" one, but that's another discussion for another time), and there are some that go vice-versa, from "Help:" names to actual "Wikipedia:" pages. We just don't need WP:MOSCAPS tagged with {{R to project namespace}} since its target of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters is already what we'd expect, and we have no maintenance reason to tag/cat. it. We arguably also do not need to tag MOS:CAPS, since all "MOS:" pseudo-namespace redirs go to "Wikipedia:" targets. Adding these categorization rcats to all "MOS:" redirs is just obsessive, omphaloskeptical "documentation of documentation of documentation" for no reason, a drain on editorial productivity.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

R from name with title[edit]

Hello. Is there a template or category for redirects such as "President John Doe" -> "John Doe"? I can't see one but this seems such an obvious category that I'm sure it must be in there somewhere. In the unlikely event that it's not been thought of many times before, would it be a useful addition? Certes (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps on the surface this may seem like a good idea; however, honorifics can change. Should the "President John Doe" redirect be deleted when John Doe is no longer "president"? I do see problems with this.  Stick to sources! Paine  20:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Paine, that's a good answer to the question I should have asked first, so I suppose there are two issues here:
  • should such redirects exist?
  • where they do, should they be marked as such?
I think they are plausible search terms because there will be text around referring to "President John Doe" even after he leaves office, but if there's a consensus against them then I'm happy to follow it. If they are deprecated then perhaps that makes it even more important to mark them for possible attention. But I'm no expert so I'm here to ask advice rather than push my view. Certes (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
You raise good points, and I don't know how many of these there are, but just a cursory check finds President Eisenhower, President Clinton and President Bill Clinton, none of which has been categorized. It might be a good idea after all to put these in a maintenance category. I'd like to see what other members/editors think about it.  Stick to sources! Paine  17:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Not sure about a template, but an rcat such as R from honorific title or some such might fit. olderwiser 17:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Please help and advise[edit]

A recently created article (currently at AfD) has been redirected twice but the redirect keeps getting reverted without any real rationale given. The article in question is Murder of Ingrid Lyne. Because murder has not been proven but death has, it seems to me that 'murder' is not only inaccurate but inappropriate, POV, and a possible case of libel in regard to the suspect. The article could be changed to 'Death of Ingrid Lyne'. Originally (from what I saw) it was just 'Ingrid Lyne'. Can someone please help and advise on this? -- WV 21:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

To WV: This seems to have been resolved with this edit (note the edit summary). I have categorized the redirect as an unsuitable article title, at least for now.  Stick to sources! Paine  18:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, resolved and I like the redirect categorization you did. Thanks,-- WV 18:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Pleasure! Paine  

Page mover user right proposal[edit]

Information.svg

A proposed user right, Wikipedia:Page mover, would expand the ability to move pages without leaving a redirect behind to non-administrators. Interested editors can express their opinion at Wikipedia talk:Page mover#RFC - Proposed: "Page mover" permission to be created.Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:R from abbreviation[edit]

This presently displays as "a redirect: From an initialism", which is both wrong an confusing. Cases such as Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. and Proc Natl Acad Sci are numerous, and they should not be showing this message, while PNAS should. I'd suggest that a separate template message is needed for redirects from abbreviations. Indeed, replacement with {{R from ISO 4}} might be better for many of these. It's worth pointing out that most articles in wp:WikiProject Academic Journals have this as parameter |abbreviation= in {{Infobox journal}} LeadSongDog come howl! 19:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see Category:Redirects from abbreviations for more information. We can see that another editor, Largoplazo, seems to agree with you, and has turned the {{Redirect from abbreviation}} redirect into an rcat. Back in 2011, the Template:R from abbreviation rcat was moved to {{R from initialism}}, and if I recall correctly it was because there was so much confusion and disagreement about what is an "abbreviation", vs. what is an "initialism" or an "acronym", "systematic abbreviation" and so on. The category became a container and was emptied. It's going to take some work to set all this right.  Stick to sources! Paine  17:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Arghh, it's worse than I thought. As shown in Citing Medicine, the abbreviations are per ISO 4 but omit all diacritics and punctuation, while the official List of Title Word Abbreviation for the ISO 4 includes periods after each abbreviated word. Hence we need both N Engl J Med (NLM style, mis-named as ISO 4 style) and N. Engl. J. Med. (ISO 4 style) to redirect to The New England Journal of Medicine. On top of this, there's the journal's self-defined style NEJM and the sans-definite-article New England Journal of Medicine. Should we not have four distinct rcats for each of these? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I can easily believe there was confusion, but the response went in the wrong direction. Initialisms are, semantically, a subcategory of abbreviations, not the reverse. If the consensus was that it was futile to separate initialisms into a separate category from abbreviations, then the initialisms should have have been moved into the abbreviations category (because all initialisms are abbreviations) rather than the reverse (because many, if not most, abbreviations are not initialisms). —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
"Abbreviation" means "shortened form". This isn't even a technical term: "abbreviate" is a generic verb meaning "shortened"—simply, "to make brief", for that matter cognate with "brief", Latin brevis = "short". It means the same thing whether it refers to an incubation period, a term of military service, or a manner of writing something. It isn't restricted to a particular type of shortening. An initialism is a means of shortening by taking the initial letters of the words in a phrase. An acronym is an initialism pronounced as though its letters spelled a word. {abbreviations} ⊃ {initialisms} ⊃ {acronyms} Were there people who disagreed? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, but arggghhhh. I missed that {{Redirect from abbreviation}} and {{R from abbreviation}} should be kept in lockstep. I edited the former, but the latter is locked. What now? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Confusion and disagreement seemed to arise due to the very description you have given for "abbreviation". Should it apply to every "short"ened form of an article title? or only for those that actually are initialisms? I think finally hands were thrown up and the argument put to rest by making the category a container for subcategories and redirecting R from abbreviation and Redirect from abbreviation to R from initialism, which now contains everything from soup to nuts (12,788 entries). As I said, it will take a lot of work to untangle the mess. For now, I would suggest converting your new rcat back to a redirect until a consensus or two is formed by way of RfC at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects.  Stick to sources! Paine  19:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Potential {{Rcat}}; or not[edit]

Considering how US government sources often list personnel as Surname, Given name, as here for example, is there any merit for hosting redirects in this form on Wikipedia? Is it enough to warrant the creation of a whole class of redirect? I apologize if this has been previously asked. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If I'm understanding you correctly, we already have an rcat of that type: {{R from sort name}}. Yes, I do think they're helpful, and I create some from time to time. -- Tavix (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Tavix. That's just what I needed.--John Cline (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments[edit]

An editor has asked for comments regarding a proposed change to the {{rfd2}} template, which affects this WikiProject. Users participating in the project may be interested in the request for comments. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Last two letters transposed --> redirect?[edit]

Hey people, Would it make sense if for a wikipedia search over a certain number of characters, the search yields no article but it would if the last two letters were reversed, it should be redirected? Cheeseinacan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Allow non-admin delete closures?[edit]

Wondering if there's appetite to explore allowing non-admins to close a redirect discussion (for example, this one) which are obvious delete results. Currently, per WP:BADNAC, non-admins are not allowed to close discussions where they can't carry out the result. My thinking is a non-admin user could close such a discussion as "consensus to delete (nac)" and then tag the redirect WP:G6, referring to the discussion. This will help with the backlog by allowing more of the obvious result threads to be closed without waiting for a patrolling admin. There's of course some risk that a user could abuse this to get a redirect deleted out of process, but redirects are cheap and that kind of thing would get noticed and repaired pretty quickly if it resulted in significant disruption. A while back they tried this at WP:TfD and it seems to be working just fine.

I do have some ideas for conditions in mind, but don't want to waste time on it if there's just no interest in talking about it at all. What do you think? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I like the idea in theory, but.... There are often discussions that have lingered open recently solely because BDD or Dereck Chan (and especially if both) have participated in them. When personally looking for discussions in need of a close, there are often discussions that have clear consensus to delete, that I don't close because it isn't allowed if you lack the ability to fulfill the outcome (as you state above). However, all that being said: I'd rather see a few RfD regulars make a request for the mop, and subsequently start closing said discussions (if we allow this sort of clause, it will weaken the ability of regular participants here to demonstrate a need for adminship). We aren't even close to being in as bad of a state as TfD was backlog wise.Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I think that weakening participants' ability to demonstrate a need for adminship is a poor reason not to do this. We're not all hat collectors, some of us just want the forum to function smoothly. Also, I disagree that it weakens anyone's ability to demonstrate need; if anything, a glut of non-admins closing discussions where they need an admin to push buttons shows that more admins are needed in this area, and also demonstrates that the users doing the closing know what they're doing, and you can highlight that experience in an RfA if you choose to do so. But you're right about current admins, I guess I hadn't really noticed that BDD and Deryck Chan (and JohnCD) are really the only admins patrolling this area regularly. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I remain very supportive of allowing such NACs. The fact that an actual admin needs to do the deletion is a huge check against abuse. There's another precedent for NACs that need admin intervention to complete, over at WP:RM, where non-admin closers put speedy deletion tags on redirects that hold up page moves after a closure. I would also like to see more editors step up at RfA, and more current admins getting involved.
My personal life is pretty busy right now, and I'm not able to adjudicate at RfD as much as I have in the past. I'm sure this has been noted. RfD also seems more active than in the past, which generally gladdens me, but definitely makes us understaffed, especially when I or another closer becomes involved in a discussion.
All this said, I believe Steel1943 pushed for this sort of thing in the past and was rebuffed. But of course, WP:CCC. --BDD (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@BDD: That sounds like "the me of the past", but I cannot recall what specific plan or suggestion I had in mind. If I would suggest/support anything of the such these days, it would be ... to allow non-admins to close discussions to delete if a backlog in any WP:XFD forum (with the exceptions of WP:AFD and WP:TFD ... and maybe WP:MFD) is a certain amount of days backlogged. I mean, look at WP:FFD's current backlog ... it goes back to March 18 right now ... Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@BDD: Yeah, that's what I suggested ... an "AHOD" option in certain scenarios of WP:XFD backlogs. I don't remember where I posted the suggestion though. Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I think a broader proposal for XFD's would be the way to go down this road if desired, instead of having it vary at different deletion forums.Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, just because I've seen proposals like this fail in the past. I would rather see certain venues, such as RfD, serve as "laboratories of democracy" (or, umm, "laboratories of consensus") with an eye to making such a proposal in the future, where we can say, "Look, this works!" --BDD (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually I was one of the people who pushed for the clause "[NAC is inappropriate if the] result will require action by an administrator" a few years ago, because it wouldn't reduce the amount of work that needs to be done by admins. But I made that argument in the context of AfD. I'm now open to the idea after reading the argument here, noting that the problem we have is we have very few regular closing admins, so an effective stall would happen if all admin regulars opined in a discussion. Maybe non-admin "delete" closures will even attract admins to take an interest in RfD. tl;dr: Let's experiment. Deryck C. 22:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'll strongly recommend non-admins to close RfDs that do not require the delete button, and for RfD regulars to run for WP:RFA. Deryck C. 10:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
This is actually a little more subtle. Some closes require spending time, but little judgement. These would be unexceptional NAC. What we want to avoid is the situation where a NAC occurs, and an admin implements it, and ructions ensue either because it's a bad close, or because someone is looking for any means to overturn the close. The question therefore arises whether an admin should review the close before implementing it. In practical terms this itself is a judgement call - if someone has been making good NACs for some time, an admin may reasonably assume that they know what they are doing.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC).
I don't spend much time around RfD, but I can speak to the TfD experience with this process - it has indeed been very successful at reducing the backlog, and in fact most TfDs are now closed by a few experienced non-admins, with very little work left for me :) I think I've seen most if not all of the disputed NACs that have come up in the last year - that would be less than a dozen substantive disputes, and about five DRVs, so overall there has been very little friction and very few poor calls. It's true that some of the original arguments in favor were specific to TfD: first, there's sometimes a lot of work to do between closing the discussion and actually deleting the template, and that orphaning work has always been mostly done by non-admins; and second, some discussions are best evaluated by people who are experienced template editors, and the number of admins who are in that category and care to monitor TfD is not large. But I think the success in that relatively limited context is a very good sign for expanding the NAC scope elsewhere. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
There was a time when non-admins were able to close deletion discussions at RFD by interpreting that they did have the power to do so simply by getting an admin to aid the process. Guess that's not the case anymore, which seems rather arbitrary to me. One thing though, if we go back to nacs, then it should be made clear that the assisting admins are not the ones responsible for the close. Admins should be able to assist in the procedure without having to recheck everything, nor should there be any reprisals against the admins who aid a nac closer. It's the closer who should shoulder all the responsibility of the nac. The nac closer might get under the gun; however, only the nac closer should come under the gun, not the assisting admin.  Stick to sources! Paine  20:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Default behaviour of Template:Redirect category[edit]

I'm planning to make {{Redirect category}} not place every category in the top-level Category:All redirect categories, as it does at present. If anyone thinks it might be a bad idea, please comment at Category talk:All redirect categories#Too many subcategories. Thanks. Uanfala (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


Moderator proposal[edit]

A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new user group with an abbreviated set of administrator user-rights, as an option for editors to request instead of requesting the entire sysop user-right package. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 21:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Neelix redirects[edit]

Information.svg

A proposal to summarily delete a large amount of redirects created by Neelix after a short period of time has been suggested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Neelix redirects. Interested editors are welcome. Thank you.Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)