Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion

Crossnamespace

Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Mr. Mime a proper redirect? Web-julio (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey Web-julio, cross-namespace redirects are typically considered problematic if they go from article space to somewhere else and not necessarily the other way around. If you'd like the community to discuss this you can make a nomination for a full RfD. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Y Closed WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16#Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur as Keep. Jay 💬 10:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Date redirects to portals?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Date redirects to portals?. Cremastra (u — c) 01:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Baton Zabërgja

please looking for ridirect wikipedia this professional football player and so much news in references Alkid2023 (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

We do not have enough content on Baton Zabërgja to create a redirect. He has played for different clubs, hence creating the redirect to any one club is not feasible. When you feel there is a good target, you may use this wizard to make a request: WP:Article wizard/Redirects. Jay 💬 07:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay , how can chance to recovery back again normal i have some references put. Alkid2023 (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If you are referring to the deleted article, it will not be restored as it was created by a user who was blocked (WP:G5). If you have content to write up a draft, you can request restoration of the draft from 2022 - Draft:Baton Zabergja. Jay 💬 19:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Use of library

Explain Ict application to render services in library and information centers 197.211.61.117 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

TeapotsOfDoom and IP 35....

User:TeapotsOfDoom (ToD) has been blocked as a sock of a blocked user. ToD has recently raised a significant number of RfDs, apparently without notifying the creators of the redirects. An IP, obviously also a sock of ToD, starting with 35.... (35) has !voted and commented extensively on the RfDs. I have raised a sock investigation on the IP. I have removed those that I could on 20th November with no significant discussion attached. I have struck through comments by either account on 20th Nov, where I could. I can at the moment do no more. We should however:

1. Strike or remove comments or !votes by either account in any active discussion.
2. Remove any RfDs with no significant discussion.
3. Notify the creators of the redirects for any remaining ToD RfDs. Delay the closing of these to allow time to comment by the creators, and for the comment to be digested by the community.
4. Possibly remove other active RfDs by ToD, according to editors' good judgement.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC).

• Significa liberdade relisted a large number to the November 24th page. Do we treat those as nominations in good faith, and go by the discussions, or close them procedurally without prejudice to have them renominated. Some of them (and one relisted by Explicit) had just one comment. Jay 💬 07:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Titles with en dash - I might have stuffed up

Hi, I just moved Northwestern Syria campaign (October 2017–February 2018) and Northwestern Syria offensive (December 2019–March 2020) to have a spaced dash per MOS:RANGE. My understanding (per WP:AT) is that a redirect has to be created for the title using the hyphen instead of the dash because of keyboard accessibility for the en dash. I did this at this page. The link is a circular redirect and both articles seem to reach the target when using the hyphen. Looks like I stuffed up. Could somebody please have a look please. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Is RFD a valid forum to discuss cases of PTOPIC disambiguation pages?

Note: By PTOPIC dismabiguation pages, I'm referring to only those disambiguation pages that do not have "(dismabiguation)" in their titles.

So, recently I nominated Frank Mrvan (disambiguation page) to RFD to turn it into a redirect, but that was speedy closed. Few editors said that it should have been nominated to AFD instead, but I have a number of concerns about it and believe that RFD is a process better suited in these cases of PTOPIC than AFD is. Here are the reasons:

• Firstly and most importantly, Articles are very different from Disambiguations, but are closer to redirects. Had there not been two or more people/things/concepts with similar names, a PTOPIC dab would definitely have been a redirect.
• AFD usually determines whether an article should exist based on content guidelines such as GNG, BLPVIO, HOAX, SPAM, COI, etc. These content guidelines are usually not applicable to Disambiguation pages.
• AFD does not usually deal with questions on WP:PTOPIC (WP:Long-term significance, pageviews, clickstream, etc.), but RFD does. This makes RFD participants more likely to be good at determining outcomes of PTOPIC.
• RFDs regularly lead to the drafting of PTOPIC disambiguation pages, but AFDs usually do not lead to new disambiguations. Undoing the same in the light of recent evidence should not require a different forum, and must be decided at the same place.
• AFD (Articles for deletion) primarily exist for deletions. While they may lead to moves, mergers and redirections, it is only a tangential outcome, such discussions are usually outsourced to RMs, merger discussions and RFCs. Whether or not a dab should be redirected has nothing to do with deletions.
• Having an entire extra page to determine whether a disambiguation with 2 entries should exist or not seems like an overkill.

I am not suggesting to eliminate the nominations of dabs to AFDs completely. I'm only suggesting that in certain cases, it makes more sense to nominate PTOPIC dabs to RFDs than AFDs. What are your opinions? Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Also see failed proposal WP:Disambiguations for discussion. Jay 💬 15:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves is the place where these matters are usually decided for extant articles, including for disambiguation pages. For the example provided, someone would propose the move from Frank Mrvan to Frank Mrvan (disambiguation) (along with any other related page moves), with the rationale for why, along with what they think should happen to any redirects left behind. Iffy★Chat -- 15:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

In this particular case Frank Mrvan (disambiguation) need not exist, as per WP:ONEOTHER. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

In that case, unless you wanted to WP:BOLDly make the redirect yourself, the only thing you're proposing is an article deletion, so AFD is the place to discuss that. Iffy★Chat -- 17:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

But it is not an article. It has no inherent value for an encyclopedia unlike articles and exists solely to help with navigation to an article with similar title. "Disambiguation" might as well have been a separate namespace with appropriate redirects to it. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of disambiguation pages is regularly and routinely handled at AfD (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts) without an issue and I'm not aware of this causing any issues, nor why this disambiguation page would be any different? Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Crazy idea for a template

Sometimes, discussions get to a point where there is a rough or even pretty clear consensus that a DAB page ought to be drafted, and then everyone sits around looking at each other awkwardly for one to appear.

I mostly enjoy drafting DAB pages, and I sometimes look for where they are needed. I'm sure others do, too.

This is why I mocked up a template, {{User:Cremastra/template}}, that gives better visibility for these requests and even puts the RfD log page into a category where they can all be seen in one place. When someone finishes drafting the DAB, they just need to remember to add |d to the end of the template to close the request. This should (if I did it right) change the appearance of the template and remove the category.

What do you think? Cremastra ‹ u — c › 12:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It is a good idea. Disambig pages are easier to draft. Set index pages are harder. So may be that can also be covered. Jay 💬 10:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't see why we can't also have one for set indexes.

The main problem is that if the template is deployed, people need to actually use it, otherwise it will moulder away somewhere. I'm hoping enough RfD regulars monitor this talk page. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 13:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I like this idea and will try to remember the template when the situation comes up. Good thinking! BugGhost 🦗👻 15:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jay @Bugghost Editors can now use {{DABr}} and {{Setr}} to request. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 17:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Can't subscribe

Editors can't use the new discussion tools and subscribe to be notified of additional discussion in conversations they've participated in – the Subscribe with a bell link you see at the top right of each discussion on this page, for example. I suspect this is because the Redirects for discussion are in the Wikipedia space rather than Wikipedia talk namespace. Keeping track of these discussions has always required extra effort and this is not helping. ~Kvng (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kvng: The technical reason RfD threads can't be subscribed to is because they're under fourth-level headers (==== Like this ====), not second-level headers like on this talk page. This is a limitation of DiscussionTools, the extension that controls subscription notifications. If I remember correctly, the editing team has suggested this might be supported in the future as part of the talk pages project, but I don't remember any recent changes related to this issue. We'll need a different solution at RfD for now. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

What links here

In discussions of changing a redirect, I think it is very useful know what links to the existing redirect before deciding to change it. Perhaps editors should be advised to look at "what links here" in the tools menu of a redirect page. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Which is why the nominated entry has incoming links as one of the 4 links in brackets that follow it - (talk · links · history · stats). Jay 💬 17:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It may be that some editors are not aware of that. Admittedly I was one. Also for example, in this discussion [1] of WP:PCR, the editor proposing the change seemed to be unaware when they wrote, "In my experience I've often seen this initialism used to refer to the pending changes reviewer user group, and absolutely never for this essay section." In looking at the list of links, it appears to be much, much more like the opposite. So I think some advice to check the links would be worth mentioning. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)