![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Perhaps this is answered somewhere, but is there an easy way to do mass nominations? I want to nominate all the names of deputies that redirect to Gabonese Democratic Party (listed in the second section here) as they ought to be redlinks per WP:POLITICIAN, but I can't think of a way to do it that wouldn't require me to individually tag each article (which even using Twinkle would take forever, and I don't know if Twinkle can do tagging without creating an accompanying discussion) and add the relevant code to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 19:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
rfd2}}
has been revised a bit to help out, {{
rfd2m}}
was merged into it, to make multi listing easier, but Twinkle etc. are still woefully ignorant and I agree it is a pain in the arse to do the multilisting. What I do is let Twinkle do the first, then do the others manually, but in the alternative do the whole lot with twinkle then make an anchor or edit the notification header on the R so it goes to the right section. Anyway, the notification is to a section header and not to the persistent link, but that's another problem... so once it disappears from the current discussions, the link will be invalid (I think: @
Thryduulf: you tend to know more about this kind of thing) so I tend to link directly to the /Log/ pages that are persistent rather than trying to hit a moving target.{{
rfd2}}
Can we add a "Search" link for {{
rfd2}}
which invokes
Special:Search with the name of the redirect? That would make it easier to search for where the term is used on WP. One can't use many of the easy-access search tools because they just jump through the redirect to its current target.
I suppose I should put this suggestion at WT:rfd2 but I think it is more visible here. Si Trew ( talk) 05:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
page-multi}}
template. I was going to put the request there, to add a new link code to do this (in tracking through to here there was somewhere a specific comment about adding something to support Rfd2, but I can't find it now). However I did not put in the request because I couldn't get Wikipedia to form the correct Special:Search link that would need to be added. Do you know how that would look? You need essentially something that would produce "
Search" (http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=Search&search=male+diplodocus Search) for "
male diplodocus"; but I couldn't get {{
fullurl}}
etc to do that properly. I'd like to go with a properly-formed example of what I'd expect. Then of course we'd add that link code to the instantiation in Rfd2. Agree?
Si Trew (
talk) 07:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Surely there is some way we can ease the task of listing on RfD? It is far to easy to get this wrong, requires too many steps, and is needlessly complicated. Is there no way to automate this? Why isn't there a field you paste the redirect title into and another with the reason and you're done? No, an external tool is not a solution, I'm not going to download some equally abusive system to fix a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 13:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Following on from Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 6#Trivia: Longest ever stretch of no nominations we racked up only 150 days of consecutive nominations, as nobody found anything worth discussing yesterday (25 March 2015). The record stands at 555 days, to beat that we need consecutive nominations until at least Sunday 2 October 2016. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
"Not mentioned at target'" (or "no info at target", etc) is an argument that comes up a lot at RfD (e.g. User:Lenticel's comment for User:Tavix' nomination of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_1. I am not at all pointing fingers here, but I believe the consensus is that we delete redirects where there is no info at the target: if it's been removed or never created in the first place.
But we don't have any specific guideline about this. I tend to argue WP:RFD#D2 confusion instead, since it is at least a WP:SURPRISE to put in a specific term (and another editor has a habit of saying "no reason has been given" even when reasons have been given, which is why I got in the habit of explicitly stating the reason). But I think this has so much consensus now, that we could do with either adding a criterion to WP:RFD#DELETE (not my favoured option), or adding to WP:RFD#D2 explictly "The target does not mention this", or something like that (I'm not sure what I would do for the exact wording: "mention" I am not sure of, for starters: "describe"?). What do others think? Si Trew ( talk) 04:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Could anybody please help me with how to deal with a plain wrong redirect? See Talk:Chief_architect. -- MartinThoma ( talk) 04:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 18#Ideas toward a guideline on emoji page titles on how to deal with certain unclear emoji redirect pages, such as some of the ones that have come up here in the last few weeks. If you would like to comment on what to do with these sorts of redirects generally (and not on the individual redirects themselves) then please head over there and share your thoughts. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 23:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Should we upgrade Redirects are cheap from "essay" status to "guideline" status? It is used as one of the "guiding principles of RfD" after all. Der yck C. 12:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Do we really need the three "Note:"s in the lede at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header? I don't mean do we need the notes – patently we need those – but I don't see why we need to prefix them with Note:". That's just clutter; delete 'em. Si Trew ( talk) 09:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
No it's not. It's a list of redirects that have been proposed on August 5, 2015 for deletion or other action. Or, a list of redirect that on August 5, 2015 have been proposed for deletion or other action.
It is not the deletion, but the proposal, that happens on August 5, 2015. Can we change the boilerplate here? If so, where does it live? Si Trew ( talk) 16:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
An RfC has been opened to see if WP:NOTFAQ and WP:NOTHOWTO should or should not apply to redirects. For the discussion, see WT:NOT#RfC: Should we add a footnote to WP:NOTHOWTO/WP:NOTFAQ stating that it does not apply to redirects? -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 04:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I saw this statement made in a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Redirect_problem.21 by user:Ivanvector. I am wondering if this also applies in cases where the redirect was the result of an wp:AFD as in Linda Pinizzotto. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech ( talk) 22:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The stats link has it seems been changed from displaying the previous month's figures to the last 60 days' worth of figures. This is misleading as, starting the day after the nomination, the last 60 days figures include the hits generated by its listing on RfD and so are not a useful guide to anything. I would simply revert this, as I've been unable to find any discussion about the change, but I'm also unable to find where the change was made. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
(Copy-paste move from WT:NOT#RfC: Should we add a footnote to WP:NOTHOWTO/WP:NOTFAQ stating that it does not apply to redirects? with this edit)
Thryduulf's search results for "Which countries are in the EU?"
|
---|
|
Ivanvector's search results for "Which countries are in the EU?"
|
---|
|
A title like AJAR (African journal) should be avoided if at all possible. If the acronym and the full name are both in common use, both pages should exist, with one redirecting to the other (or as a disambiguation page).I've used that as a rationale for deletion at RfD before, and I interpret its principles to apply to the redirect namespace (meaning that titles like "AJAR (African journal)" shouldn't generally exist even as a redirect). Naming conventions shouldn't be abandoned within this extension (i.e. the redirect namespace) of, if not part of, the article namespace.— Godsy( TALK CONT) 01:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
{{ recap}} is nominated for deletion. This is an ancillary deletion template for processing long deletion discussions -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 04:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
After reading the instructions, it is not clear to me whether I will get bitten for requesting the delete of a redirect that is unused and clearly a typo, in this case Christ Harper-Mercer. His name was Christopher or Chris, never Christ. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm hosting a session, "Let's discuss Redirects for Discussion", at the unconference portion of WikiConference USA tomorrow. I'm intending to give a quick introduction to RfD, including WP:RFD#DELETE, WP:RFD#KEEP, and WP:RFDO. The idea is also to get people commenting on discussions, so anyone who's watching, it's probably not meatpuppetry if a group of people all show up and comment at once. Also, what are some things you think I should cover or emphasize in the session? Pinging some of the "regulars": Champion, CoffeeWithMarkets, Godsy, Ivanvector, Lenticel, Neelix, Oiyarbepsy, Rubbish computer, SimonTrew, SMcCandlish, Steel1943, Tavix, Thryduulf, WilyD. And of course, if you're at WikiConference USA, please do stop by and say hello. -- BDD ( talk) 19:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I guess we can just have the unconference here on the talk page. :-) I agree that "redirects are for the reader" should be a point to emphasize. This frequently seems to get lost at RfD. I see this happen most often in one of two ways (occasionally both at the same time):
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@ SimonTrew: and I have been reverting/partially reverting each other on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header (which uses this page as its talk page), so it's time we took this to talk.
The situation in question is if you want to delete a redirect to a template, and the template is still in use. Suppose our template,
Template:ExampleGoodName says example {{{1}}}
, and we have a redirect,
Template:ExampleBadName that says #REDIRECT [[Template:ExampleGoodName]]
. We want to delete the redirect (thus taking it to RfD), but the template's in use.
If we put a normal {{
rfd}} on the template in question, it'll now read {{rfd}}#REDIRECT [[Template:ExampleGoodName]]
. This will cause any page that includes the template to contain the literal text "#REDIRECT
Template:ExampleGoodName" on the page (or perhaps "1. REDIRECT
Template:ExampleGoodName" if the #
happens to end up at the start of a line), rather than the template content that people were expecting. Additionaly, the {{
rfd}} notice itself will be transcluded onto the page, meaning that the page will have a scary box on it saying that it's a redirect that was nominated for deletion. This obviously isn't very good for the encyclopedia; it'll have random markup interspersed into the page rather than a useful template with an RfD notice. The RfD process would thus break pages for about a week, which would be problematic (especially if the template doesn't end up being deleted).
The fix to this is to change the redirect in question (
Template:ExampleBadName in this example) to use {{
rfd-t}} and a copy of the template (i.e. make it a copy rather than a redirect), i.e. {{rfd-t}}example {{{1}}}
in this case. This gives a nice small message on pages that include it explaining the situation (because those pages would potentially be broken if the redirect were deleted; {{
tfd}} serves the same process for templates that aren't redirects), and means that the template itself continues working. Thus, I described the process on the page as "change the page's content to
".
{{
rfd-t}}
and a copy of that template's wikitext (so that existing transclusions of the template continue working but show the RfD notice)
SimonTrew has reverted this wording to "change the page's content to
". I corrected this wording because it doesn't make sense; it wouldn't make sense to copy a template to serve as a redirect target when the original target exists, and if the page's content is "{{
rfd-t}}
and redirect it temporarily to a copy of that template. Doing so ensures that the template continues to work when transcluded, while it is under discussion.{{
rfd-t}}
", it isn't a redirect. (And if you put {{
rfd-t}}
above the #REDIRECT
, you'd get the same problem as plain {{
rfd}}
; and if you put {{
rfd-t}}
below the #REDIRECT
, the redirect notice wouldn't show anywhere other than if you visited the redirect itself using redirect=no, and thus basically nobody but RfD regulars would see the nominations, meaning that users of the template name in question wouldn't be notified, unfairly biasing the dicussion towards a delete outcome.)
SimonTrew, can you explain your change? I intend to revert back if I don't get an explanation relatively soon. -- ais523 20:18, 14 October 2015 ( U T C)
<include>
and <noinclude>
sections so that they should work properly when transcluded. If they don't, the solution is to fix the templates, not to fix the instructions at RfD. An editor transcluding a redirect to a template that is under discussion, I think we agree, should not end up with some jumble of text in the middle of their article. A reader even less should get such a
WP:SURPRISE.{{
rfd-t}}
at all since it is perfectly covered by the usual templates which work for every other namespace. In short, I think both the template and the advice can be deleted. That's my starting point. Can you explain to me why we need a special template for redirects in template namespace (I realise this may sound confusing as we have a template for redirects to templates, but I am pretty sure you know what I mean there...)The problem is basically that you want the RfD notice to show to people who use the redirect. In most namespaces, users of a redirect find it via following a link to the name of the redirect, or via entering the name of the redirect in the search box. The {{ rfd}} tag works just fine in those cases; a user who reaches the redirect page via clicking on a link to it or via entering the name of the page will get taken to the redirect page itself (because {{ rfd}} breaks its behaviour as a redirect), and will then be able to see the tag.
However, in the case of a template redirect, there's another way to use the redirect: transcluding its name. (Technically you could do this with any sort of page, but in practice it only happens with templates.) If the redirect page stays with redirect-like markup (#REDIRECT
and all that), then there are only two options: either the page is (technically) a redirect, in which case transcluding it will be identical to transcluding the target page (the important thing here being that the RfD notice won't show to the users of the redirect); or the page isn't technically a redirect, in which case the transclusion will fail to serve its purpose as a transclusion (you'll get literal redirect markup on the target page).
Thus the only option, to RfD a template redirect name that's in use as a template, is to copy the markup from the target page onto the redirect page. (We're not making a copy anywhere else; we're putting the copy on the redirect page itself, i.e. copying the template as an alternative to redirecting to it, in order to have somewhere to put the {{ rfd-t}} notice.) This is the easiest way to keep the template working with parameters and the like. (The alternative would be to convert the template redirect name to a wrapper, but doing that requires figuring out all the parameters that might potentially be used, which is considerably more complex for no benefit.)
I should also mention that the includeonly/noinclude in {{ rfd}} have nothing to do with making {{ rfd}} work correctly on template redirects. Their purpose is to prevent the page Template:rfd itself appearing in Category:Redirects for discussion. {{ rfd}} doesn't work correctly on templates, and never has done.
The problem here seems to be that although the instructions that you need to carry out (change the #REDIRECT [[Template:]]
markup into a copy of the template redirected to, so that there is somewhere to put the {{
rfd-t}} tag without interfering with articles using the template) are reasonably simple to carry out, explaining them concisely is somewhat more difficult. Ideally, something that as many people as possible will interpret correctly first time; my language is clearly suboptimal for that purpose, because it's already been misinterpreted once (and your changes basically look like an attempt to make the misinterpretation clearer, which inadvertently makes things worse). Do you have suggestions? --
ais523 06:20, 15 October 2015 (
U
T
C)
{{
rfd-t}}
" and leave it at that? Since they're not just in editor space but kinda soopa-doopa-editor space, editors who know about templates and how to construct them, then a pointer like that would seem enough rather than clutter the RfD header with all that. It still seems rather long-winded to me and I wish there were an easier way, but it is what it is.
Si Trew (
talk) 06:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
convert}}
is now a Lua module, for example, and redirects to that, I am not sure if they were tagged how that would work, might have a punt to see what happens if I try to tag one of the Rs to it. I am not sure you're right the intention of the <noinclude>
etc: you're right it prevents inadvertent categorisation, but also in some circumstances — and I am not sure if this is intentional or not — it means that the redirect behaves just as a click-through without the RfD banner being displayed, so that to get to the R page one has explicitly to go to the R page not the target. I thought that was the intention but maybe not; so I think there is somne confusion on how these should be applied even in article space. I guess that different tools apply the {{
rfd}}
template a little differently?
Si Trew (
talk) 06:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
#REDIRECT
is the first thing on the page (click-through) or not the first thing on the page (no click-through). You could put anything you like after that line (even ridiculous things, like a copy of the Main Page), and you'd still get the click-through behaviour.#REDIRECT: [[Whatever]]
but the hash (pound sign if you are American) is not necessary I think these days, but yes, as long as it is the first line then with our without the hash or colon it will go.Are we allowed to nominate for deletion/discussion redirects caused as a result of a page being moved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.78.246 ( talk) 23:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Draft:
namespace) are usually honoured, but if they're not I then list at
WP:RFD, which is the right place.
Si Trew (
talk) 02:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Category:Printworthy redirects and Category:Unprintworthy redirects have been nominated for deletion. As RfD sometimes tags redirects a unprintworthy, this may affect deletion discussions.
I would assume that {{ printworthy redirect}} and {{ unprintworthy redirect}} are also affected
-- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 06:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what to say about Special:Contributions/TX6785 but there are hundreds of redirects that have been created. I realize that redirects are cheap but this is over-the-top. Can they be mass-deleted? Liz Read! Talk! 19:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Perhaps this is answered somewhere, but is there an easy way to do mass nominations? I want to nominate all the names of deputies that redirect to Gabonese Democratic Party (listed in the second section here) as they ought to be redlinks per WP:POLITICIAN, but I can't think of a way to do it that wouldn't require me to individually tag each article (which even using Twinkle would take forever, and I don't know if Twinkle can do tagging without creating an accompanying discussion) and add the relevant code to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 19:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
rfd2}}
has been revised a bit to help out, {{
rfd2m}}
was merged into it, to make multi listing easier, but Twinkle etc. are still woefully ignorant and I agree it is a pain in the arse to do the multilisting. What I do is let Twinkle do the first, then do the others manually, but in the alternative do the whole lot with twinkle then make an anchor or edit the notification header on the R so it goes to the right section. Anyway, the notification is to a section header and not to the persistent link, but that's another problem... so once it disappears from the current discussions, the link will be invalid (I think: @
Thryduulf: you tend to know more about this kind of thing) so I tend to link directly to the /Log/ pages that are persistent rather than trying to hit a moving target.{{
rfd2}}
Can we add a "Search" link for {{
rfd2}}
which invokes
Special:Search with the name of the redirect? That would make it easier to search for where the term is used on WP. One can't use many of the easy-access search tools because they just jump through the redirect to its current target.
I suppose I should put this suggestion at WT:rfd2 but I think it is more visible here. Si Trew ( talk) 05:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
page-multi}}
template. I was going to put the request there, to add a new link code to do this (in tracking through to here there was somewhere a specific comment about adding something to support Rfd2, but I can't find it now). However I did not put in the request because I couldn't get Wikipedia to form the correct Special:Search link that would need to be added. Do you know how that would look? You need essentially something that would produce "
Search" (http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=Search&search=male+diplodocus Search) for "
male diplodocus"; but I couldn't get {{
fullurl}}
etc to do that properly. I'd like to go with a properly-formed example of what I'd expect. Then of course we'd add that link code to the instantiation in Rfd2. Agree?
Si Trew (
talk) 07:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Surely there is some way we can ease the task of listing on RfD? It is far to easy to get this wrong, requires too many steps, and is needlessly complicated. Is there no way to automate this? Why isn't there a field you paste the redirect title into and another with the reason and you're done? No, an external tool is not a solution, I'm not going to download some equally abusive system to fix a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 13:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Following on from Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 6#Trivia: Longest ever stretch of no nominations we racked up only 150 days of consecutive nominations, as nobody found anything worth discussing yesterday (25 March 2015). The record stands at 555 days, to beat that we need consecutive nominations until at least Sunday 2 October 2016. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
"Not mentioned at target'" (or "no info at target", etc) is an argument that comes up a lot at RfD (e.g. User:Lenticel's comment for User:Tavix' nomination of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_1. I am not at all pointing fingers here, but I believe the consensus is that we delete redirects where there is no info at the target: if it's been removed or never created in the first place.
But we don't have any specific guideline about this. I tend to argue WP:RFD#D2 confusion instead, since it is at least a WP:SURPRISE to put in a specific term (and another editor has a habit of saying "no reason has been given" even when reasons have been given, which is why I got in the habit of explicitly stating the reason). But I think this has so much consensus now, that we could do with either adding a criterion to WP:RFD#DELETE (not my favoured option), or adding to WP:RFD#D2 explictly "The target does not mention this", or something like that (I'm not sure what I would do for the exact wording: "mention" I am not sure of, for starters: "describe"?). What do others think? Si Trew ( talk) 04:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Could anybody please help me with how to deal with a plain wrong redirect? See Talk:Chief_architect. -- MartinThoma ( talk) 04:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 18#Ideas toward a guideline on emoji page titles on how to deal with certain unclear emoji redirect pages, such as some of the ones that have come up here in the last few weeks. If you would like to comment on what to do with these sorts of redirects generally (and not on the individual redirects themselves) then please head over there and share your thoughts. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 23:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Should we upgrade Redirects are cheap from "essay" status to "guideline" status? It is used as one of the "guiding principles of RfD" after all. Der yck C. 12:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Do we really need the three "Note:"s in the lede at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header? I don't mean do we need the notes – patently we need those – but I don't see why we need to prefix them with Note:". That's just clutter; delete 'em. Si Trew ( talk) 09:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
No it's not. It's a list of redirects that have been proposed on August 5, 2015 for deletion or other action. Or, a list of redirect that on August 5, 2015 have been proposed for deletion or other action.
It is not the deletion, but the proposal, that happens on August 5, 2015. Can we change the boilerplate here? If so, where does it live? Si Trew ( talk) 16:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
An RfC has been opened to see if WP:NOTFAQ and WP:NOTHOWTO should or should not apply to redirects. For the discussion, see WT:NOT#RfC: Should we add a footnote to WP:NOTHOWTO/WP:NOTFAQ stating that it does not apply to redirects? -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 04:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I saw this statement made in a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Redirect_problem.21 by user:Ivanvector. I am wondering if this also applies in cases where the redirect was the result of an wp:AFD as in Linda Pinizzotto. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech ( talk) 22:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The stats link has it seems been changed from displaying the previous month's figures to the last 60 days' worth of figures. This is misleading as, starting the day after the nomination, the last 60 days figures include the hits generated by its listing on RfD and so are not a useful guide to anything. I would simply revert this, as I've been unable to find any discussion about the change, but I'm also unable to find where the change was made. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
(Copy-paste move from WT:NOT#RfC: Should we add a footnote to WP:NOTHOWTO/WP:NOTFAQ stating that it does not apply to redirects? with this edit)
Thryduulf's search results for "Which countries are in the EU?"
|
---|
|
Ivanvector's search results for "Which countries are in the EU?"
|
---|
|
A title like AJAR (African journal) should be avoided if at all possible. If the acronym and the full name are both in common use, both pages should exist, with one redirecting to the other (or as a disambiguation page).I've used that as a rationale for deletion at RfD before, and I interpret its principles to apply to the redirect namespace (meaning that titles like "AJAR (African journal)" shouldn't generally exist even as a redirect). Naming conventions shouldn't be abandoned within this extension (i.e. the redirect namespace) of, if not part of, the article namespace.— Godsy( TALK CONT) 01:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
{{ recap}} is nominated for deletion. This is an ancillary deletion template for processing long deletion discussions -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 04:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
After reading the instructions, it is not clear to me whether I will get bitten for requesting the delete of a redirect that is unused and clearly a typo, in this case Christ Harper-Mercer. His name was Christopher or Chris, never Christ. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm hosting a session, "Let's discuss Redirects for Discussion", at the unconference portion of WikiConference USA tomorrow. I'm intending to give a quick introduction to RfD, including WP:RFD#DELETE, WP:RFD#KEEP, and WP:RFDO. The idea is also to get people commenting on discussions, so anyone who's watching, it's probably not meatpuppetry if a group of people all show up and comment at once. Also, what are some things you think I should cover or emphasize in the session? Pinging some of the "regulars": Champion, CoffeeWithMarkets, Godsy, Ivanvector, Lenticel, Neelix, Oiyarbepsy, Rubbish computer, SimonTrew, SMcCandlish, Steel1943, Tavix, Thryduulf, WilyD. And of course, if you're at WikiConference USA, please do stop by and say hello. -- BDD ( talk) 19:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I guess we can just have the unconference here on the talk page. :-) I agree that "redirects are for the reader" should be a point to emphasize. This frequently seems to get lost at RfD. I see this happen most often in one of two ways (occasionally both at the same time):
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@ SimonTrew: and I have been reverting/partially reverting each other on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header (which uses this page as its talk page), so it's time we took this to talk.
The situation in question is if you want to delete a redirect to a template, and the template is still in use. Suppose our template,
Template:ExampleGoodName says example {{{1}}}
, and we have a redirect,
Template:ExampleBadName that says #REDIRECT [[Template:ExampleGoodName]]
. We want to delete the redirect (thus taking it to RfD), but the template's in use.
If we put a normal {{
rfd}} on the template in question, it'll now read {{rfd}}#REDIRECT [[Template:ExampleGoodName]]
. This will cause any page that includes the template to contain the literal text "#REDIRECT
Template:ExampleGoodName" on the page (or perhaps "1. REDIRECT
Template:ExampleGoodName" if the #
happens to end up at the start of a line), rather than the template content that people were expecting. Additionaly, the {{
rfd}} notice itself will be transcluded onto the page, meaning that the page will have a scary box on it saying that it's a redirect that was nominated for deletion. This obviously isn't very good for the encyclopedia; it'll have random markup interspersed into the page rather than a useful template with an RfD notice. The RfD process would thus break pages for about a week, which would be problematic (especially if the template doesn't end up being deleted).
The fix to this is to change the redirect in question (
Template:ExampleBadName in this example) to use {{
rfd-t}} and a copy of the template (i.e. make it a copy rather than a redirect), i.e. {{rfd-t}}example {{{1}}}
in this case. This gives a nice small message on pages that include it explaining the situation (because those pages would potentially be broken if the redirect were deleted; {{
tfd}} serves the same process for templates that aren't redirects), and means that the template itself continues working. Thus, I described the process on the page as "change the page's content to
".
{{
rfd-t}}
and a copy of that template's wikitext (so that existing transclusions of the template continue working but show the RfD notice)
SimonTrew has reverted this wording to "change the page's content to
". I corrected this wording because it doesn't make sense; it wouldn't make sense to copy a template to serve as a redirect target when the original target exists, and if the page's content is "{{
rfd-t}}
and redirect it temporarily to a copy of that template. Doing so ensures that the template continues to work when transcluded, while it is under discussion.{{
rfd-t}}
", it isn't a redirect. (And if you put {{
rfd-t}}
above the #REDIRECT
, you'd get the same problem as plain {{
rfd}}
; and if you put {{
rfd-t}}
below the #REDIRECT
, the redirect notice wouldn't show anywhere other than if you visited the redirect itself using redirect=no, and thus basically nobody but RfD regulars would see the nominations, meaning that users of the template name in question wouldn't be notified, unfairly biasing the dicussion towards a delete outcome.)
SimonTrew, can you explain your change? I intend to revert back if I don't get an explanation relatively soon. -- ais523 20:18, 14 October 2015 ( U T C)
<include>
and <noinclude>
sections so that they should work properly when transcluded. If they don't, the solution is to fix the templates, not to fix the instructions at RfD. An editor transcluding a redirect to a template that is under discussion, I think we agree, should not end up with some jumble of text in the middle of their article. A reader even less should get such a
WP:SURPRISE.{{
rfd-t}}
at all since it is perfectly covered by the usual templates which work for every other namespace. In short, I think both the template and the advice can be deleted. That's my starting point. Can you explain to me why we need a special template for redirects in template namespace (I realise this may sound confusing as we have a template for redirects to templates, but I am pretty sure you know what I mean there...)The problem is basically that you want the RfD notice to show to people who use the redirect. In most namespaces, users of a redirect find it via following a link to the name of the redirect, or via entering the name of the redirect in the search box. The {{ rfd}} tag works just fine in those cases; a user who reaches the redirect page via clicking on a link to it or via entering the name of the page will get taken to the redirect page itself (because {{ rfd}} breaks its behaviour as a redirect), and will then be able to see the tag.
However, in the case of a template redirect, there's another way to use the redirect: transcluding its name. (Technically you could do this with any sort of page, but in practice it only happens with templates.) If the redirect page stays with redirect-like markup (#REDIRECT
and all that), then there are only two options: either the page is (technically) a redirect, in which case transcluding it will be identical to transcluding the target page (the important thing here being that the RfD notice won't show to the users of the redirect); or the page isn't technically a redirect, in which case the transclusion will fail to serve its purpose as a transclusion (you'll get literal redirect markup on the target page).
Thus the only option, to RfD a template redirect name that's in use as a template, is to copy the markup from the target page onto the redirect page. (We're not making a copy anywhere else; we're putting the copy on the redirect page itself, i.e. copying the template as an alternative to redirecting to it, in order to have somewhere to put the {{ rfd-t}} notice.) This is the easiest way to keep the template working with parameters and the like. (The alternative would be to convert the template redirect name to a wrapper, but doing that requires figuring out all the parameters that might potentially be used, which is considerably more complex for no benefit.)
I should also mention that the includeonly/noinclude in {{ rfd}} have nothing to do with making {{ rfd}} work correctly on template redirects. Their purpose is to prevent the page Template:rfd itself appearing in Category:Redirects for discussion. {{ rfd}} doesn't work correctly on templates, and never has done.
The problem here seems to be that although the instructions that you need to carry out (change the #REDIRECT [[Template:]]
markup into a copy of the template redirected to, so that there is somewhere to put the {{
rfd-t}} tag without interfering with articles using the template) are reasonably simple to carry out, explaining them concisely is somewhat more difficult. Ideally, something that as many people as possible will interpret correctly first time; my language is clearly suboptimal for that purpose, because it's already been misinterpreted once (and your changes basically look like an attempt to make the misinterpretation clearer, which inadvertently makes things worse). Do you have suggestions? --
ais523 06:20, 15 October 2015 (
U
T
C)
{{
rfd-t}}
" and leave it at that? Since they're not just in editor space but kinda soopa-doopa-editor space, editors who know about templates and how to construct them, then a pointer like that would seem enough rather than clutter the RfD header with all that. It still seems rather long-winded to me and I wish there were an easier way, but it is what it is.
Si Trew (
talk) 06:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
convert}}
is now a Lua module, for example, and redirects to that, I am not sure if they were tagged how that would work, might have a punt to see what happens if I try to tag one of the Rs to it. I am not sure you're right the intention of the <noinclude>
etc: you're right it prevents inadvertent categorisation, but also in some circumstances — and I am not sure if this is intentional or not — it means that the redirect behaves just as a click-through without the RfD banner being displayed, so that to get to the R page one has explicitly to go to the R page not the target. I thought that was the intention but maybe not; so I think there is somne confusion on how these should be applied even in article space. I guess that different tools apply the {{
rfd}}
template a little differently?
Si Trew (
talk) 06:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
#REDIRECT
is the first thing on the page (click-through) or not the first thing on the page (no click-through). You could put anything you like after that line (even ridiculous things, like a copy of the Main Page), and you'd still get the click-through behaviour.#REDIRECT: [[Whatever]]
but the hash (pound sign if you are American) is not necessary I think these days, but yes, as long as it is the first line then with our without the hash or colon it will go.Are we allowed to nominate for deletion/discussion redirects caused as a result of a page being moved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.78.246 ( talk) 23:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Draft:
namespace) are usually honoured, but if they're not I then list at
WP:RFD, which is the right place.
Si Trew (
talk) 02:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Category:Printworthy redirects and Category:Unprintworthy redirects have been nominated for deletion. As RfD sometimes tags redirects a unprintworthy, this may affect deletion discussions.
I would assume that {{ printworthy redirect}} and {{ unprintworthy redirect}} are also affected
-- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 06:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what to say about Special:Contributions/TX6785 but there are hundreds of redirects that have been created. I realize that redirects are cheap but this is over-the-top. Can they be mass-deleted? Liz Read! Talk! 19:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)