Talk:Megathread

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as having no substantive content, because WP:SOFTREDIRECT permits soft redirects to Wiktionary and is not a valid reason for deletion.

See also the discussion at User talk:Rosguill. --Doug Mehus T · C  23:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment See also WP:SOFTREDIRECT, which says that CSD criteria to A10 does not cover redirects, including soft redirects. --Doug Mehus T · C  23:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

XFDCloser
Thank you for fixing this redirect alongside googlewhore and I just work here. I was using WP:XFDC and unaware that the interwiki was malformed (XFDC wouldn't have picked it up because it wasn't a syntax error)! Deryck C. 13:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , No problem. Interestingly, XFDCloser doesn't recognize Wiktionary soft redirects for nomination at RfD. Well, it does, but it can't recognize the dates or generate a link to the log page because it's not a redirect. So, I suspect that's why it was originally nominated at MfD despite RfD being the correct venue. So, it seems that we have to add a hard-coded #REDIRECT to megathread above the Wiktionary coding in order to get it to nominate at RfD successfully. I'm not sure if this bug has been tracked in Phabricator...assuming Phabricator is for tracking bugs to Gadgets? Doug Mehus T · C  14:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd ask the curators of the deletion discussion gadgets first. Any thoughts about whether / how we should change XFDCloser to cope with soft redirects? Deryck C. 15:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for pinging for me. I saw recently they has become more active recently since XFDCloser was made a Gadget, so perhaps will notice this thread soon enough. Doug Mehus  T · C  15:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Doug Mehus T · C  15:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This actually looks like a problem with Twinkle, which was used to make the nomination, and the nomination template, which shows an error if it doesn't see #REDIRECT (but tells you to ignore the error message for soft redirects). The part XFDcloser played was removing the wikitext generated by the nomination template - which should, for a "keep" close, be all that is needed to restore a redirect or soft redirect if the instructions are followed. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I submitted a bug report for Twinkle: https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle/issues/861 - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks to for the report, this was indeed a Twinkle bug, from a newish change, affecting nominations of soft redirects.  I've just pushed a fix, so this (and another bug!) should be taken care of.  Let me know if there are any further issues. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 02:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for following through the tool trail and fixing this on Twinkle. It's conceptually ambiguous whether centralised discussions about soft redirects ought to happen at MFD or RFD, but I've always advocated that RFD shouldn't refuse jurisdiction of anything that feels like or involves a redirect (unless there is a due process issue of not notifying a higher forum, e.g. deleting a redirect that is formerly an article that stands a chance of surviving AFD). If MFD has decided that soft redirects should go to RFD then the best course of action is indeed to make Twinkle send their discussions to RFD. What algorithm does Twinkle use to detect soft redirects? Deryck C. 12:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Twinkle has sent soft redirects to RfD for quite some time; the issue here was an attempt to avoid relying on the user's clock, preferring the server, but that did not account for softredirects. MfD was just used to get around that now-fixed bug.  Twinkle checks wgIsRedirect first, then looks at  . There's an issue, of course, with detecting soft redirects on when not on the page content tab but rather the history tab; Twinkle will just halt in those cases, but I've already proposed adding a note in those cases. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 12:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)