This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Redirects for discussion page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 60Β daysΒ |
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Following this edit by C. A. Russell, the guiding principles of RfD now states in relation to the default outcome:
I'm now wondering why the default outcome is restricted to deletion? If a nomination unambiguously proposes retargetting and gets no comments, why should the default outcome not be to treat it as uncontroversial and retarget as suggested? I suggest rewording the bullet to something like:
I nearly made the change boldly, but figure (a) discussion can't hurt, and (b) my proposal probably benefit from wordsmithing. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
{{subst:
redirect for discussion}}
, and the false perception of a public mandateβprimarily from the types of people who trawl RFD submissions and aren't particularly equipped to contribute meaningfully to the discussion anyway, rather than folks with subject matter interest. --Β
C.Β A.Β RussellΒ (
talk) 04:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I note that there has now been some back-and-forth between C.A.Russell and Hey man im josh about the edit. Contrary to the latter, I do think that it is beneficial to make it it explicit that a default outcome of delete only applies when the nomination is clearly seeking deletion - this is redirects for discussion not redirects for deletion. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
This does not apply is the nominator has proposed an alternative to deletion."? This may however end up being entirely moot if your above proposal is implemented, which I'm about to reply to and support. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
This page already gets very large and is very difficult to scroll and navigate, especially on lower end devices like phones. I think we should maybe take the approach that is done at AfD and only list all of the nominations on subpages. We can have a bot update the counters for the number of open RfDs on a given day. I did some stuff in user space and found that we could reduce the post expand include size from about 1,000,000 to just above 100,000 (about ten times) if we just linked to each RfD nomination rather than transcluding them. Awesome Aasim 17:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I have long had the impression that this page and related pages contain too much of an emphasis on deletion of redirects, as contrasted with discussion of them. The 'D' in "RfD" is for discussion, not deletion. I suggest that the introductory sentence of the daily log pages be changed from
to
Note also that I also changed the wording to reflect that this is not just a list of redirects, but rather a list of discussions.
ββ ββ
BarrelProof (
talk) 21:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § RfC: enacting X3. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 17:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Wikipedia:RFDd10 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 11 § Wikipedia:RFDd10 until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 05:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Redirects for discussion page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 60Β daysΒ |
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Following this edit by C. A. Russell, the guiding principles of RfD now states in relation to the default outcome:
I'm now wondering why the default outcome is restricted to deletion? If a nomination unambiguously proposes retargetting and gets no comments, why should the default outcome not be to treat it as uncontroversial and retarget as suggested? I suggest rewording the bullet to something like:
I nearly made the change boldly, but figure (a) discussion can't hurt, and (b) my proposal probably benefit from wordsmithing. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
{{subst:
redirect for discussion}}
, and the false perception of a public mandateβprimarily from the types of people who trawl RFD submissions and aren't particularly equipped to contribute meaningfully to the discussion anyway, rather than folks with subject matter interest. --Β
C.Β A.Β RussellΒ (
talk) 04:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I note that there has now been some back-and-forth between C.A.Russell and Hey man im josh about the edit. Contrary to the latter, I do think that it is beneficial to make it it explicit that a default outcome of delete only applies when the nomination is clearly seeking deletion - this is redirects for discussion not redirects for deletion. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
This does not apply is the nominator has proposed an alternative to deletion."? This may however end up being entirely moot if your above proposal is implemented, which I'm about to reply to and support. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
This page already gets very large and is very difficult to scroll and navigate, especially on lower end devices like phones. I think we should maybe take the approach that is done at AfD and only list all of the nominations on subpages. We can have a bot update the counters for the number of open RfDs on a given day. I did some stuff in user space and found that we could reduce the post expand include size from about 1,000,000 to just above 100,000 (about ten times) if we just linked to each RfD nomination rather than transcluding them. Awesome Aasim 17:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I have long had the impression that this page and related pages contain too much of an emphasis on deletion of redirects, as contrasted with discussion of them. The 'D' in "RfD" is for discussion, not deletion. I suggest that the introductory sentence of the daily log pages be changed from
to
Note also that I also changed the wording to reflect that this is not just a list of redirects, but rather a list of discussions.
ββ ββ
BarrelProof (
talk) 21:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § RfC: enacting X3. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 17:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Wikipedia:RFDd10 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 11 § Wikipedia:RFDd10 until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 05:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)