Template talk:Redirect for discussion/Archive 2

Redirects to categories
When a redirect to a category is nominated at RfD, it adds the redirect to the target category and doesn't display the target. See this example. Adding a : before the category name works as expected (see the following revision), and when not nominated a redirect with a leading colon still works as a redirect to the category, e.g. User:Thryduulf/redirect to a category.

Is there any way the desired outcome can be achieved without manually adding a : before the category redirect? Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * it looks like the reason you had to add a colon to that redirect is because it didn't have one in the first place. Check the . Just to see what happens, I added this template to your redirect with, and the target was displayed normally. As you know, the leading colon is an absolute necessity if it is undesirable to have the redirect actually populate the target category. The colon should not be omitted as it had been by another editor in your example.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  12:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Guess I didn't really answer your question. Just not sure there is any answer other than "no". I'm sure you're well aware that when a category is added to any page in the "normal" way,, the category does not appear on the page where it is placed in the code – the category will only appear at the very bottom with the rest of the categories (and that includes redirect pages). Only if there is a leading colon,  does the category appear where it's placed in the code. So if an editor previously omits the leading colon, then it must be added manually. It's kind of like an rcat titled R from misspeeling – the only way to fix it is to go in manually and change the second "e" to an "l" to get R from misspelling. Fortunately, such errors as omitting the leading colon are nearly nonexistent, or at least few and far between. If I missed something and my response reveals that I didn't understand your question, then please do elaborate. I'm not always the sharpest tack on the bulletin board.   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  02:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That all makes sense. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Linking to older discussions
Sometimes it is desirable to add related redirects to discussions that were opened other than on the current day. Currently the only way I can find to get the tags on the redirect pages to link to the correct day is to subst this template as normal then edit the page again to adjust the link. Is there a better way? If not, can there please be one - e.g. something similar to the "days" parameter at ? Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, Thryduulf, I think I've found a way to easily add related redirects to older discussions. I used as an example. To do this I used wikimarkup in {{subst:Rfd/t}}, which essentially does the same thing as {{subst:Rfd}} with two exceptions. 1) Rfd/t has a days parameter that works just like the one in {{subst:RFDNote}}, and 2) it uses Rfd/core, which I have temporarily reinstated and modified, and in which I have disabled the category by commenting it out so your category redirect doesn't populate . So that category will need to be re-enabled when you start using Rfd/t.
 * The new template failed the test a few minutes ago when the day changed from the 23rd to the 24th. The #time function wasn't substituted, so I went back in and safesubst:'d everything. I'll keep an eye on it when the day changes again.
 * Then all I'll have to do is learn how to incorporate this into the module. Maybe Jack M. or Mr. S. will happen along to guide me, as I am truly a novice when it comes to Lua. Hope all this helps for now, and I'll let you know how the Lua thing goes, because when it's implemented, the Rfd/t template will need to be deleted, and I'll return the /core template back to its historic status. Best to you!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  00:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for working on this, it sounds more complicated than I initially thought it would be! Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , implemented in module. Stackoverflow always a help :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, that edit to Module:RfD passes the tests. Thank you for coming along when you did and for helping with this! It would have taken me much longer to figure it out. The template subpage, Rfd/t has been blanked for speedy deletion, the core template has been returned to its historic status and Thryduulf's category redirect is back to normal and removed from discussion categories. Thanks again for the great job you have done, Galobtter!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  01:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Is the group nomination advice necessary?
The template documentation advises adding a parameter with the header of a group nomination to redirects that form part of such a nomination. For example, I've just tagged MLive with  rather than   in order to go to the MLive.com header. But if I don't tag it as such, the link still leads me to the same section (strictly speaking, it leads me to a line or two below the section header), via (I presume) an anchor in the rfd2 template: see Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 22. (I don't know if this anchor is something new.) Does the template documentation then need to include the section on group nominations, when the all-purpose advice above works just as well? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

should show required parameter
Copied from Requested templates/Archive 16 &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC) If I enter Rfd on a page, it tells me to Subst: it, and shows

However, it is not obvious to all editors that this means we have to add.

It would be helpful if the module could be amended to explain clearly the specific code required. At present, an editor unfamiliar with the template has to open it in a separate window to see what is required. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted RfDs - updating link to the current discussion
There is an edge case when a relisted discussion is in a different month than when the RfD was initially started. In those cases, if the template is updated to point to the latest discussion, the wrong hidden category "Category:Redirects for discussion from Mmm YYYY" gets added to the page. Ideally this monthly category should be populated based on the timestamp parameter (which does not change) and not the month and year parameters (month – as well as day but potentially year as well if this happens in late December/early January – needs to change so as to point to the newest discussion in this edge case).Is there a technical reason for this limitation?

For an example of this problem, see this diff at Pro-American. The original category was Category:Redirects for discussion from April 2019, as the RfD started on April 30, but now it is listed in Category:Redirects for discussion from May 2019, as the latest RfD is on May 8.

Another example (before making any changes to point to the new discussion) could be Away team (Star Trek term), whose original RfD was on April 24 but is now listed on May 9. If one were to update that RfD template to May9 (from April24), the category would similarly change from April 2019 to May 2019.

In both cases the timestamp parameter remains unchanged and would be the "safer" place to pull the needed Month and Year information to populate the correct hidden "RfD from" category. Does this make sense? Am I missing something/misunderstading the meaning of "from" in the hidden category? I understand this is exceedingly trivial, but if we can account for the edge case without too much hassle, why not do it? Thanks for reading and I'm sorry if this is unclear, it is a fairly esoteric situation. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 15:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment. The module could be updated to categorize by timestamp instead of using the top discussion, but it would need to process and decode the timestamp date instead of the from date; that probably won't be too difficult to change.
 * Regarding your question about what "from" in the category name means, my understanding of the purpose of date categories is to note how long something has been under discussion, so it doesn't make sense for the date category to update simply because the discussion has been bumped. eπi  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 16:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is my understanding as well. What would be the next step here? editprotected? - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 15:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed reply. I was hesitant to do an edit request earlier because, as the notice below states:
 * In this discussion, we only had a general outline of what the problem was, but no specific actionable change. Over the last few hours, I've acquainted myself with MediaWiki Lua so I could design a fix myself. eπi  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries on the "delayed" reply. I simply wanted to know what the next logical step was, but you went ahead and fixed it! Thanks. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 19:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries on the "delayed" reply. I simply wanted to know what the next logical step was, but you went ahead and fixed it! Thanks. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 19:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Could the changes from Module:RfD/sandbox be merged into Module:RfD to fix the bug brought up in the discussion above? you might be interested in this, since you've edited this module in the past.

Oh, and I did test this fix, though you'll need to turn on hidden categories to verify it. Note my test page has the correct category date of April 2019, while the actual redirect has a date of May 2019. eπi ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request 4 May 2020
The name of the notification template has changed from Template:RfDNote to Template:Rfd notice. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 13:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Uanfala (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 January 2021
messageOnTransclusions should be changed to allow a type parameter to be set to inline, tiny, sidebar, or disabled to match similar outputs to tfd. See Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 16 which breaks many pages that transclude p &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know how this would be done since it uses lua, but it really should be done. The current set-up pretty much can break any template redirect. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest asking someone who does, perhaps at WT:Lua. Edit requests are to be ready to implement, not to get someone to do the work for you. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 17:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit request at Module:RfD
"that has been proposed for deletion" should be replaced by "that has been nominated for discussion". I noticed this after my nomination at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 4, which clearly does not intend deletion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thank you very much!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 01:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Handling of soft redirects
As of the time of this typing, the template (actually the module) does not detect soft redirects. The module should be modified so it doesn't display an error if a soft redirect template is passed as a parameter. Recently such a redirect was listed at RfD. JsfasdF252 (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Template causes MediaWiki to not realise that the page is a redirect
I'm working through a database query to find pages that aren't on Wikidata. It excludes redirects ('page_is_redirect' is 0 in the 'page' database table), however pages like South Africaà are still getting through as MediaWiki does not think that the page is a redirect. I think this must be due to this template being substituted on the redirect page. Is there a way of fixing this template so that the MediaWiki database still records that the page is a redirect, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the page is not a redirect, because the redirect code is not the first thing on the page - there is nothing special about the RfD template, and there is no way to adjust this template that will make it a redirect other than placing it after the redirect code rather than before it. For the purposes of RfD the page not functioning as a redirect is intentional because we want people using the redirect to know that it is being discussed, so you will not get consensus to actually make the page work as a redirect. The only options to do what you want would be to modify your query or modify MediaWiki. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've subsequently modified my code to avoid pages that are affected by this issue, so there's no problem from my side if this situation continues. However, I don't think that it is a good idea to deliberately break MediaWiki, there are better ways to indicate that a redirect is being discussed - e.g., posting notices on the talk pages of affected articles. Or at least using a transcluded template on the redirects rather than requiring substitution. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Talk pages of targets will only reach a small subset of the people using the redirect (the same reason we tag articles not article talk pages when nominated for AfD). Transcluded vs substituted templates is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is whether there is any text before the redirect code - see User:Thryduulf/R sandbox (transcluded template) and user:Thryduulf/R sandbox 2 (plain text) for examples. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Such notices would reach more people than those that would just click on the redirect link during the duration of the discussion, though. I'm talking about the talk pages of articles that link to the redirect, not just the redirect talk page. If a template was transcluded, then I could just check for the use of that template rather than parsing the whole page text for "#redirect" as I am now doing. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Talk pages of targets are currently tagged by some tools (Twinkle, probably) but the reason we stop the redirects working silently is that we want 100% of people using the redirect to be aware of the discussion as they are the ones who know whether it is taking them to where they want to go and have other valuable insights that others do not. I'm no template expert, but I believe that some of the functionality of the template needs substitution to work (linking to the date of nomination, not the current date for example). I don't know how much work would be involved in adjusting the template but the last major change to the template was a significant effort. I'm very sceptical that any change or disruption to RfD workflow would be justified just to make running a script easier, so be prepared to explain to whoever can do anything to the template why they should. Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There may be alternative ways of displaying the RfD notice, but not displaying it – and so letting the redirect continue functioning as a redirect – is not an option. If there is one set of people that particularly need to be aware of a redirect's deletion proposal, that is the set of people who use that redirect. Notifying other groups of people may also on occasion be helpful – Twinkle, for example, already notifies the target's talk page, and editors are also encouraged to leave wikiproject notices if they see fit. Notifying articles that link to a redirect isn't going to make much of a difference as the types of redirects that normally get nominated at RfD tend not to have any incoming links. – Uanfala (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Simply using a template rather than substituting the code and directly calling a module would have been simpler from my point of view, but I've worked around this issue for my purposes anyway now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 4 February 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Redirect for discussion  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Rfd → Template:RfD – The process is properly referred to as RfD, and the Lua module used is named Module:RfD, not Module:Rfd. The template should be renamed for consistency. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 23:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you verified that this will not break anything? Thryduulf (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not carried out the move - so I cannot be sure - but I don't see how it would, assuming this stays behind as a redirect. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 12:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Move to Template:Redirects for discussion and likewise move the Module to Module:Redirects for discussion. From WP:TMPG: "Template function should be clear from the template name, but redirects can be created to assist everyday use of very popular templates." The longer name makes it clear that this template belongs to the Redirects for discussion process. -- Netoholic @ 20:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with, except that "Redirects" should be singular, as in Redirect for discussion, for consistency with Article for deletion and Template for discussion. See also: Cfd, Ffd, Mfd...  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 13:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect for discussion sounds good to me. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the singular since we have precedent. -- Netoholic @ 14:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a move to Redirect for discussion, too, if that is what is preferred. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 06:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support move to Template:Redirect for discussion and Module:Redirect for discussion for consistency and clarity. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Have you verified that this will not break anything? – you foretold the future (though strictly speaking, your question was about the template, not the module). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think at least the module should just be moved back: a Lua module is the backroom of the backroom, its name has no bearing on what readers or editors do, but a lot of bearing on whether templates, scripts and other tools can continue to work. Moving a module doesn't leave a redirect behind (because there can't be redirects in the module namespace), so anything that uses it will break (though I guess you could think up ways to fix it, like recreating a module at the old title that only invokes the moved module, it's not probably worth the added complexity). And even if XFDcloser is updated so that this immediate issue doesn't arise again, there are problems that can't be fixed: the RfD tags in historic revisions of pages, for example, are now completely broken. – Uanfala (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Another issue: the article alerts no longer recognise the date of RfDs – see for example the RfD section of WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts. I've just reverted the edit that I believe caused all these issues   . – Uanfala (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And I've updated the 270 or so redirects currently up for discussion, so the XfD issue shouldn't arise any more. Hopefully, there shouldn't be any more problems from now on, but we're left in the unusual situation where Module:Redirect for discussion consistently refers to itself as Module:RfD, and it is always invoked via that other module. That's not a big thing, but it's really confusing and there's no reason for this added complexity. I think the module should just be moved back., would you have any objections? If not, then I'll ask an admin to perform the move. – Uanfala (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have no objection. I did not move the module and my close did not call for moving it. I think it would take a separate discussion. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah..hmm... oops! My bad, I had assumed the move of the module was somehow tied to the close of this RM. Well, now that I look again, it isn't. I'll sort out the move back tomorrow – when I'll be around for some time afterwards, to notice if anything breaks. – Uanfala (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Matching module to Template:Template for discussion/dated
Is there any objection if we make Module:Redirect for discussion more similar to Template:Template for discussion/dated by adding a type parameter? This is some code that shows what it may look like. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No objections after two weeks...? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For those of us who don't read lua, what will be the difference for end users? Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The difference is that when template redirects are listed at RfD it becomes possible to display the notice that appears on pages transcluding the template in a way more tailored to their usage than the current system of either no notice at all or a large one. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Rework of the template to make display more friendly
After seeing some concerns raised at RfD about the impact this process can have on popular redirects (readers being confused by the ugly banner and not understanding how to get to the redirect's target), I've drafted a modification of the template/module to try to improve the situation. It can currently be seen at Module:RfD/sandbox and I've given an example at User:Elli/RfD rework/1 - an additional mbox that clearly identifies the current target and explains the situation. If no target can be found, I've removed the ugly error text and replaced it with a similar mbox - this was previously an additional pain point with the module dealing with soft redirects. This can be seen at User:Elli/RfD rework/2. I'd like to get some input before implementing these changes fully. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 21:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As this has not gotten any comments yet, I'm going to wait for another day and if no one has opposition, go ahead and implement this. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've implemented this, please let me know if there are any concerns and feel free to revert if this breaks something (but I don't think it will). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Wording
Hello! So the template says please see the link below for the redirect discussion, however the link is actually above the text that says this making it incorrect. Not sure how easily it could be changed but I think this should at least be changed. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Where are you seeing this? At e.g. Nervous puncture, the link says "Click on the link below to go to the current destination page.", and that link is below. The link to the deletion discussion is titled "this redirect's entry" and not referenced as above or below. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Foreman Spike is where I"m seeing this. There's a chance it might just be due to my screen size. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="position:relative;right:22q">Blaze Wolf#6545 13:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't replicate either. Could you post a screenshot? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Screenshot of Foreman Spike at RfD.png
 * For reference, here is a screenshot of Foreman Spike as I currently see it. The only use of "below" clearly refers to the current destination page. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

TPE code review request
So, I have the technical ability to make this change myself, and TPECON-wise I think it's a reasonable one to make without discussion, but this is my first substantial contribution to a module, and I was hoping to get some code review from a template editor more familiar with Lua than I. You can merge it in the end, or I can; I just want to know that I'm not about to break the wiki.

The issue arises from br, currently at RfD but not yet tagged. See the "live" version at Template:Redirect for discussion/testcases to see what it would look like to tag that and set. Far too unwieldy for a template that's normally invisible. So I took a page from TfD and created a "tiny" mode, also visible on the testcases page. (This is done through Template:Redirect for discussion/testcases/test redirect (live) and Template:Redirect for discussion/testcases/test redirect (sandbox).) I've also made a few changes to the standard message to make it a bit less clunky.

So, if someone could take a look at Module:RfD/sandbox ( diff with live version ) and let me know if I have, say, fundamentally misunderstood Lua and am about to cause something terrible to happen, I would appreciate that. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 09:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Tamzin! Glad to see br is getting cleaned up. And I like the idea of a tiny mode like this, I hope it gets reviewed and approved.  Please don't use it in the br case however.  for which this is not tiny enough :)  A br-space-template is often used in cases where space is at a premium (like captions, infoboxes, table cells, etc), where whitespace is invisible, and the more natural interpretation of such a message would be to apply to the text before the whitespace.  That would be extra confusing for readers, and it's not worth confusing a million people to ping a dozen who might understand what's at stake, care, and come comment.  Esp when there is reasonable consensus around the outcome... – SJ +  18:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The code looks fine to me. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 19:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, y'all. I've merged the changes, and have tagged br with the tagless version . I will leave it to other participants at the RfD to decide whether to flip it to .  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 21:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit request edit notice
Please change This is mentioned at the end of the lead of WP:RFD, but not everyone notices it. Me, for example. :P <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">Paradoctor (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * to
 * For future reference, use Edit template-protected / TPER to request an edit to a template-protected page.  This seems reasonable to me. Putting this  briefly, though, while I update  to account for the variance in message. (It does a regex comparison against the template's outputted markup, rather than parsing the wikitext, to avoid accidentally filtering out errors of one sort or another.)  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 22:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Let's see if that breaks the bot... --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 22:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)