Template talk:Rfd2/Archive 1

Untitled
Was it OK to "be bold" here? This way the redirect can be clicked to actually go to the redirect so its talkpage can be viewed —Random832 2007-01-24T02:38:57UTC(01/23 21:38EST)
 * I much rather prefer an internal link. It allows old discussions to be traced through the "what links here" feature. Also makes it much easier to see what is deleted and what isn't deleted. It's just one extra click to get to the redirect=no page. --- RockMFR 21:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to add a link to the talk page of the redirect? Getting a talk namespace link seems like it should be simple, but I've seen it requested elsewhere and no-one's been able to come up with it —Random832 2007-01-26 14:05 UTC (01/26 09:05 EST)
 * Yes, a link to the talk page should be easy. afd2 does it and that can be copied. But should we bother? I can see having the history and links as useful sometimes, but I'm not sure it's worth the extra clutter. -- JLaTondre 04:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Unicode arrow breaks in Firefox
The Unicode arrow between the redirect and target is a RTL character, and it messes up things in Firefox; (which is Firefox's problem). The older form doesn't seem to make the problem; can we switch back to that? I'll do it in a few days if there are no objections. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not happening here (Firefox 2 & 3 on Windows). That's just a note, not an objection. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Change not coming through
I've added a URL for Google "links:" to show what links directly to the redirect, but there might be some cache problem - my testing isn't showing it, but it's turning up on the template page. Feel free to revert me if I've broken anything. Josh Parris 11:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed, then reverted due to a bug & negligible value-added. —Zach425 talk / contribs 13:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

span id
Any reason for the &lt;span id=...&gt; section in the header here? It looks to me like it's out of place, and it makes the wiki text look more complicated than it needs to be. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is what allows you to click on a rfd tag and be taken directly to the entry on the WP:RFD page. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's unnecessary - the header already serves this purpose. The link to the discussion is merely a link to Redirects for discussion ; we don't need to put in a &lt;span id=title&gt; for this - the header ==== title ==== should be enough. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The header cannot be counted upon. As an example, for a consolidated discussion of multiple redirects, there will be only a single header. This happens quite frequently. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The &lt;span id=...&gt I'm talking about is in the header, and identical to the header. The link Redirects for discussion is works based on a different template, and should be irrelevant for this discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the same span I'm talking about. It is only identical unless someone edits it which dies happen (like in cases of multiple redirects as I mentioned). -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Stats link not working properly
The stats link should be linking to the stats for the previous month (presently December 2010) but it's actually linking to December 2011 - for which there are obviously no stats yet. I don't understand the syntax being used to fix this myself. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what I'm doing either, but have changed it so it works for now. Though it will need changing again at the start of February (and again next year...). If someone could fix it properly that would be great. Mhiji (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Google link search
At Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_13, very helpfully pointed out that Google has a 'link' search which can be used to find incoming links. I see the 'may have links from other websites' argument crop up from time to time. I think it would be useful add google link search to this template like: 'links: internal [//google.com/search?q=link:x  external]'. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This change received a +1 over at Village pump (policy). I'll implement it tomorrow unless there are objections. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * While digging around the history, I found this removal of google links: by user:Zach425. Hopefully xe can provide some context and advice here. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm unable to add anything to the discussion - I can't recall the circumstances surrounding the removal. Based on my edit summary, my best guess is that there were issues with the wiki-Google interface at the time. It seems that no such issues currently exist, though. —Zach425 talk / contribs 13:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

To help with this (and the new stats tool), I merged the page links of Rfd2 into rfd2m, and have started work on Module:PageLinks. However I notice that the subst:ing of Rfd2 isnt working. Feel free to revert my changes to Rfd2 if this is a problem. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is causing problems with the automatic edit summaries, so I'll revert your changes to this template for now. If you can solve the problem then feel free to reinclude your additions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

New stats tool
this tool does everything that stats.grok.se did, and more, and is documented at w:de:Wikipedia:Wiki ViewStats/API. I suggest we move to it. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed centralising discussion of templates Rfd2 and Rfd2m
This template and template:Rfd2m are very closely linked, and all discussions affecting both templates seem to happen here - indeed Template talk:Rfd2m contains only a single comment from 2009 (it will shortly also contain my notice of this proposal).

Accordingly, I'm proposing to formally centralise discussion about both templates here, redirecting that talk page to this one. Per WP:TALKCENT this requires consensus. In this case we also need to decide what to do with the other talk page - moving it to Template talk:Rfd2m/Archive would be simple but possibly overkill? Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be overkill; it can be redirected - this discussion will serve as a reminder that there was only one comment there dated 2009-08-05T12:13:52‎ by JHunterJ section title "No links?" and comment "This does not seem to provide the "links to redirect" link, as the documentation indicates.". Done ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 03:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Almost a year after proposing this (I think that's long enough to allow objections!), I've now gone ahead and redirected that talk page here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

redirects to sections not preserved
When a redirect targets a section, e.g. → 3 (disambiguation), the section link is stripped by both this template and, e.g. |target=3 (disambiguation)#Film}} gives: Ideally it should give (note that this redirect is used just for the purposes of example, I'm not nominating it). Thryduulf (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 3 (film) → 3 (disambiguation) (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3_(film)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * 3 (film) → 3 (disambiguation) (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3_(film)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * As I stated in the section below ("Improving functionality"), the template functions as you desire when used manually (per the instructions on WP:RFD), but not when the template is placed by Twinkle. Since the template is functioning as you ask but Twinkle is not working to accomplish this task, your concern would probably be better brought up on Wikipedia talk:Twinkle so that Twinkle's programmers can know of the issue and attempt to resolve. Steel1943  (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The merge
Si Trew, Thryduulf, and anyone else who may be interested in the status of the merging of Rfd2 and Rfd2m, I plan on working and completing the merge within 2 days of this comment, provided no unexpected real life commitments happen during that time. Steel1943 (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Si Trew and Thryduulf, I have now completed the merge. Please look at Template:Rfd2/doc to see how this template's functionality has changed to accommodate multiple nominations, as well as a new option to add a custom header. Steel1943  (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm going to ping an editor I know who is knowledgeable with Twinkle, Jackmcbarn, to see if they may be able to verify that the changes I have made to the template should not affect Twinkle in any way. (I don't believe that it should, given that the values that the template returns should remain the same as it did before the customer parameters were added, as well as it seeming that Twinkle is currently not set up to do multiple nominations, but it couldn't hurt to have a second set of eyes verify my belief on this.) Steel1943  (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Can I help at all with any gnoming? Eds etc to the docs are minor and I'd rather wait until after the merge closes, to avoid any confusion. I'll add the Wikidata metadata for them, for example. (I go WP:OWNFEET, which I co-wrote: so you can imagine my opinion there!) Si Trew (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Si Trew, the merge discussion closed a few hours ago, and I carried out the merge. At this point, I believe I did all the necessary gnoming, including substituting all transcluded instances of Rfd2m before I carried out the merge, as well as updating the instructions at Redirects for discussion/Header. The only gnoming task I can think of is possibly copy editing Template:Rfd2/doc, in case the new instructions can be any clearer than the edits I already did to it. Steel1943  (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, I already had a look at that and will do so once I have taken a deep breath. Template docs have always been very poor on WP (except mine of course!). Nice job there old bean, thanks very much for doing it. Si Trew (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * can you point me to the merge discussion closure? I've lost it and would be good to have on record here at this talk page. Si Trew (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind, found it: Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_2 (can't link to section well but it's topmost there). Si Trew (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * TfD closes (actually, all XfD closed) should always be noted at the top of the talkpage (or when it will be deleted or merged on the template page itself). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Improving functionality
There are three things on my wishlist that would make this template more useful than it already is (and it is very useful already, no doubt): These are roughly ranked in order of importance to me. Any editor who can implement these changes will have my gratitude, and a barnstar for his or her troubles. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Full display of section redirects (see Thryduulf's explanation above)
 * 2) An option to retarget, along with keeping and deleting. Something as simple as "Redirects for discussion/Log/YYYY Month DD closed as retarget" would be great, and a closer could optionally (and ideally) complete the edit summary with the new target in question
 * 3) For all closing options on batch discussions, canned edit summaries with links to the specific section. Right now, if I nominated Foo, then added Bar, the pre-made edit summary for Foo would look like Redirects for discussion/Log/YYYY Month DD, but for Bar, it would just look like Redirects for discussion/Log/YYYY Month DD. Similarly, if these edit summaries could be automatically updated when a discussion is relisted, that would be helpful, though maybe that's more a job for the relister to perform manually. (We could codify that pretty easily at rfd relisted, actually.)
 * I've also posted this on the Reward Board at Reward board. If two or more of these edits are made within a week, I'll also make a modest donation to the WMF in your honor. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Item #3 was resolved a while back when I merged Rfd2m with Rfd2 back in January: Closing the discussion for "Bar" should now result in a link to Redirects for discussion/Log/YYYY Month DD in the edit summary. (I just read this section for the first time.) Steel1943  (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction: I resolved the first part of the request: Updating the date in the event of a relist should probably be listed as a separate entry. Steel1943  (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, with this edit, #3 is now complete. Steel1943  (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And, with this edit, #2 is done. Steel1943  (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ...And, lasts but not least, apparently, I have resolved #1 with this edit. (I'm honestly not sure how it works, but I tested it, and it does.) Steel1943  (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I just tested using a manual substitution of Rfd2 and a substitution of Rfd2 that is automatically generated when using Twinkle, and when it comes to section redirects for the redirect's target displaying properly, here are the results:"1) When manually substituting Rfd2, the section redirect appears in the nomination (as seen here).""2) When using Twinkle to place a nomination, the section redirect does not display on the nomination page (as seen here)."In other words, the template is functioning properly to display the section redirect, but it seems that using Twinkle does not display the section redirect on the nomination page. As this is an issue with Twinkle, this may need to be brought up at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. Steel1943  (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Stats link broken for multi-word redirects
The link to stats.grok.se is broken for redirects that have more than one word in their title. This is because it loads the stats.grok.se page for "mutli+word" rather than the correct "multi_word" - i.e. words are joined with a plus character not an underscore character. I can't work out where this is coming from to fix it myself. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's coming from the StatsGrokSeURL function within Module:PageLinks, but that's as far as I've got. I can't edit any of these templates/modules anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is apparently mw.uri.encode in Module:PageLinks. Or in using a module at all instead of la or similar templates based on parser function urlencode: with space encoding style "WIKI". ;-) -edit conflict confirming the report- –Be..anyone (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I posted a request on the module talk page and it seems to have been fixed now. Old instances won't be fixed since the templates are substituted, but new ones should work fine. Ivanvector (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 August 2015
Instead of using ifeq, put the "keep/retarget/delete" part within noinclude tags, and the "@subpage" part within includeonly tags.

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Working... I'm not 100% sure that will work since this template is substituted. Checking... Steel1943  (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see why I cannot do it now. ❌ since there are already "noinclude" tags in the template to display the word "Example" in certain instances when the "redirect" parameter is empty (there would be two "noinclude" tags that appear in sequence before a "/noinclude" tag appears, and that doesn't work.) Steel1943  (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Stats 30 days from day before nomination?
With the stats.grok.se tool, the only options for time windows to view stats for were the current month, previous month, or a certain number of days before the current date (currently the template uses 60 days of history). Now that stats.grok.se is not functioning, I have modified page-multi to use Toollabs:musikanimal/pageviews, which provides more options. If you provide a date parameter to page-multi, the page view stats will be for the 30 days prior to that date. Is there consensus to subst the nomination date into that parameter so that the link will show stats for the 30 days prior to the nomination? I have mocked it up in the sandbox here. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 19:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC) PAGE''' ]]) 19:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * pinging those involved in the discussion at Template_talk:Page-multi. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

PAGE''' ]]) 21:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support obviously since I basically suggested it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments last time there was a discussion about this I participated in. Ideally it should be the 30 days ending the day before the nomination, but the day of the nomination is OK if that's all we can do easily. Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks as though Ahecht resolved your concern with this edit. Steel1943  (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, shouldn't the start date now be 31 days before the nomination instead of 30 with the "-1 end date" change? Steel1943  (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the chart includes both the start date and the end date, thanks to the fencepost error, the current implementation gives you 30 days of data (e.g. if you post it on January 31st, it will give you data for January 1st-January 30th). --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

PAGE''' ]]) 14:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, since it now seems technically possible. Steel1943  (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

Template produces hopeless technobabble
I did a multipage nomination at Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 8 where Twinkle substed the RfD2 template for me. I then gave a separate list of all the pages nominated, and User:SimonTrew asked me to put the RfD tags on top to show they have separate targets. I didn't do that intentionally, since substing the template produces this:

* Cetraria nivalis → Parmeliaceae (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cetraria_nivalis&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-04-08&end=2016-05-07&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Cetraria_nivalis stats])     [ Closure:  ]

What should be a very simple task of copy, paste, change names, becomes daunting. The resulting wikicode from this template needs to be way simpler and clearer than this resulting gobbledygook. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I also use Twinkle and developed a technique for mass listing redirects. Nom the first one with your rational, notifying Neelix as normal. Next Twinkle to RfD the next ones with no explanation and unchecking the 'notify creator' button. Finally edit the whole RfD page deleting all the titles between == and the signatures at the end of each section, which you can select together. Leave the top heading and the bottom explanation and signature. With a little practice you can go quickly. Legacypac (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC) ===Redirect===
 * I appreciate the effort you put into this, but it seems we need a very different concept. The whole point of templates is to hide the complexity from those that don't really need it. I think we need the subst template to include a second transcluded template. So, after substing, the resulting wikicode would look like this:

Reason this redirect should be deleted is... This would make it easy for any editor to copy and paste to add a second article, even one with a different target. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Why substitute to an unsubstituted copy? Why not just not substitute in the first place?
 * Something that did strike me as inefficient, is that to make a multi-submission, one needs to add multiple singles; it would make more sense to enter all the values to one template   02:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not an transcluded copy - it would be a separate template that would contain all the links. That's where most of the complexity is. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well of course yes, that's possible, although the date would also need to be carried over into the new call. I'll build it, but it'd be considered nontrivial a change to implement without consensus, so it'll need to be discussed.
 * I just made to handle multi requests (basics, untested), which might be handy.  08:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I made use the newly created, and the substituted output follows:

Foo
Mwahahaha!
 * What do you reckon? 09:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Exactly what I'm thinking. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Cutting & pasting the code to produce the header is indeed daunting, but rfd2 already handles this function, you just need to add the  parameter. produces:


 * Foo → Bar (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foo&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-04-10&end=2016-05-09&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Foo stats])     [ Closure:  ]

Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you've misunderstood 's post here.
 * @Oiyarbepsy: If that looks good, all that's needed is consensus; probably best to outline the proposed change in a new section, referencing this discussion if necessary.
 * I'll flesh out, test and add the existence of rfd2 multi to rfd2's docs later. Then if it gets implied consensus, post to Twinkle about using it for multis instead of multiple singles. 20:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * maybe so. Is the intent just to hide the Rfd header code behind a template? If so, nice work. My only concern is that the potential for abuse is high, as is the risk of breaking old discussions due to good-faith future changes to your template, if it's used in every Rfd thread from now on. I suppose I'm suggesting that if it's going to be used in Rfd (and I'm not against it) then it should be preemptively template-protected as a high-transclusion template. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Oiyarbepsy wants (and I understand why) to clean up the raw text that results from substing, and via the code currently in  does that; it's not about hiding the heading.
 * As for protecting, agreed; not substing leads to possible foul-ups. 21:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just to be clear, that's what I meant by hiding the rfd2 code behind a template. Not hiding the header, that's silly. I see how I phrased that poorly, but yeah we're all on the same page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as vandal-proofing, would it be possible to automatically subst the rfd2links template only after the discussion is closed? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was wondering that too. Maybe a bot could subst: instances of rfd2links if they're older than, say, 7 days? 10 days? I'm not overly concerned about relisting, for RfD relisted threads are cut & pasted en masse anyway, if the template has already been subst'd it's no big deal. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed update to current code
I propose that whilst the RfC above runs its course, we can update the code to that of rfd2/sandbox with a minor alteration - that is to substitute rfd links (which won't happen if the RfC above ends in support).

The sandboxed code is cleaner, having a few bits of unnecessary remanent garbage removed, and almost fully expands on substitution. The resulting raw text is arguably less appealing to the eye, but contains less code to be expanded on the fly, and arguably makes more sense to the less technically proficient.

This is not a proposal to sneakily implement the proposal above, but simply to use the improvements already established during its course.

Although this proposed update is in itself not really controversial, it could appear so whilst there's an RfC in discussion about the code that in large part will be used, so out of respect, I am proposing the change rather than making it. And it would somewhat significantly change the raw output, which some may find disagreeable.

The raw current output of rfd2
From

==== Foo ====
 * Foo → Bar &amp;nbsp; (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foo&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-04-16&end=2016-05-15&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Foo stats]) &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; [ &amp;nbsp;Closure:&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;] &amp;nbsp;

Because I feel like it!

The proposed raw output
From  with the proposed modification to subst.

====Foo====
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foo&redirect=no Foo] → Bar &amp;nbsp; (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foo&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-04-16&end=2016-05-15&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Foo stats]) &amp;#91; Closure:  &amp;#93;

Because I feel like it!

09:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Fred Gandt, if you are truly convinced that this proposal is aligned with the instructions at WP:RFC, then I'm with you. Stick to sources!  Paine   15:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It's precisely because of "Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. ..." that I've posted this. I think this suggestion/proposal fundamentally has no effect on the RfC. It's just cherry picking from work done because of it. The functionality remains identical and the only noticeable (unless you read teh codez) difference is the greater expansion of the raw markup outlined above. The length of time I've been sat at my desk is kicking in, and I need a break before I start talking twaddle.
 * Maybe it's best to wait? I dunno My back hurts .  15:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah, I see nothing controversial in your cleanup updates and yeah, my back hurts, too, also my feet . Stick to sources!  Paine   16:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

A step further
Human readable output: ====Foo====
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foo&redirect=no Foo] → Bar &amp;nbsp; (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foo&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-04-19&end=2016-05-18&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Foo stats]) [ Closure:  ]

Because I feel like it! Or a step too far? 02:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)