Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 8

Tagging as R from non-neutral name, only just found this, can we make synonym redirects for it please
Hi all,

I only just found (via a search which brought up WP:Template_messages/Redirect_pages, but even then it was for ).

I should like to create, and  as redirects to this template. Of course, I could just create them, but would like to have consensus before I did so, as I don't want needlessly to multiply these redirects when editors "should" know, on the other hand the template's name is a bit long-winded and also it is common with others to have both "to" and "from" forms.

I should appreciate your views. Si Trew (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * R from neutral? Ideally, we shouldn't have those, because the titles themselves should be neutral... --BDD (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Already created the other two; it's standard operating procedure to have "R from not-x" alternatives of "R to x" and vice versa. Agreed with BDD that "R from neutral" shouldn't exist, since we would not redir from a neutral name to a PoV-pushing one on purpose. The only way that would happen would be on a WP:COMMONNAME-worshipping basis, employing a faulty analysis that ignored more important factors, like WP:NPOV, a core content policy. I.e., it would be an error to correct, not something to catalogue with an rcat template.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * but WP:RNEUTRAL is the fellow you want there, which suggests that more leeway is given to redirects than at WP:NEUTRAL for article content. Of course it is one of the core policies to be neutral, but also it is one of the less-than-core policies to allow people to find the information they are looking for, so if they search in a non-neutral way to end up at a neutral article, that's fine, and we should not hinder that. By tagging things as R from non-neutral (etc) and I am a great fan of tagging redirects, as I think is BDD, then we categorise them such and gaying into my WP:CRYSTALBALL they can then more easily decide what to do with them en masse some time in the future... thanks for creating the redirects. Si Trew (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess the reason we have "to" and "from" forms is that it depends on whether one is taking the stance from the target ("it was redirected from here") or the redirect itself ("it redirects to here"). Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I think since we're tagging the redirects, we have to be thinking from their perspective. --BDD (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Except it doesn't redirect to the redirect itself. That doesn't make any sense. Best to avoid confusion. older ≠ wiser 00:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * True. We have, for example, and  as →, which all have the perspective of the redirect, and  as  → ), similarly (but not, perhaps surprisingly, . One could argue that the redirects  and  and  (among others) don't fit that pattern, but since "other" doesn't imply one is "better" than the other, one could equally argue that they do. It's not important, really, is it... it would only matter if they went into different redirect categories, which they don't (and that I am forever trying to use the nonexistent , but Ï must be the only one, or it would have been created already). Si Trew (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Stats tool is not case-sensitive
Something I didn't know: the external stats tool does not recognize case; I thought it did. The implication for us is when we're considering alternate-case redirects, such as Revolutionary war vs. Revolutionary War, the stats tool for both links will show the combined view stats for both pages. Something to keep in mind. Or maybe you knew that already and I'm just clueless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I knew that. I thought it was common knowledge. But can we fix it? Si Trew (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * WMF Labs has a better stats view tool that is case-sensitive, though I can't find it just now. We could tinker with the RfD templates to use a different site. stats.grok.se is so good, though, despite being a "beta", and for the majority of our discussions, case sensitivity isn't very important. --BDD (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hyphens (dashes)
Here's a new one on me. The search add-in (for Mozilla Firefox, 64-bit Windows 7, at least) will replace the hyphen (U+002D HYPHEN-MINUS) with a space when searching. If you search for "blue-orange" for example it goes via the R at to the article at Blue/Orange (which was not helpful for me). Similarly my somewhat random search for "brinks-matt" goes via to Brink's-MAT robbery (which was helpful for me). That might affect our decisions with regard to hyphenated Rs. As usual, if the hyphenated form explicitly exists, it prefers that. It doesn't do this for en and em dashes, though. Si Trew (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I say kill them all, and let God sort them out. --BDD (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

When does WP:TITLE apply to redirects?
I can put this, I hope, succinctly:
 * 1) Some believe, whatever the wording, that WP:TITLE only ever applies to article titles.
 * 2) Some believe, whatever the wording, tghat they apply to all titles.
 * 3) Some believe, they sometimes do and sometimes don't, depending on their fancy.

I propose a fairly good standard and a fairly good rule and exception:
 * A redirect title should conform to WP:TITLE, unless
 * The title varies from that policy in a way that is obvious from a template under Category:Redirect templates.
 * If it varies thus, it would be good were it marked thus, but this guideline should be though of as if it were there.

If something is an, whether rcatted or not, I should say that it is an acceptable title under the guidelines at WP:RFOREIGN. That does not mean it is OK; if it is a misspelling from a foreign language, well, that's a bit dubious. But if it were marked also as or, less worrisome to some,, it gives knowledge to other editors that someone has considered why the R exists.

I realise I have not put this well, but at RfD proper in individual discussions I have put it worse. I don't intend this to be policy, but a working guideline, somehow. WP:RSAYWHY perhaps (R WP:RSAYWHYNOT). Si Trew (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

,
 * My immediate reaction is that TITLE should never be directly applied at RfD. That is to say, a redirect's degree of compliance with naming conventions is irrelevant. In a bit of that old RfD zen, I would say it's good for someone creating a redirect to consider making it as compliant as possible. But redirects are primarily search aids, and they should serve readers unfamiliar with our naming conventions—perhaps even more so than veteran editors.
 * I certainly may be overlooking something here, and I'm open to changing my mind, but that's my first reaction. --BDD (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Problem editing ...
There's a problem editing (!voting on) each entry now, as the December 4 entries don't show up as individually editable. I don't know what happened, something perhaps with the coding of something added in the past 15 or less hours. Could someone analyze and fix this? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: It was 's incorrect closing coding, which Lenticel has now fixed. Softlavender (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Ion Pop
Ion Pop - should be deleted, the redirect is an error or something !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:RFD for instructions on how to nominate a redirect for deletion at Redirects for Discussion. This is the page for discussing that Wikipedia page/process, not the forum for discussing the merits of individual redirects. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not have time, I do not how to do it, can you do it for me please ? Thank you very much !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hans:
Where do we stand on redirects such as this: Hans:, a soft redirect to the main page of the Chinese wikipedia? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Inter-language soft redirects are generally considered to be unhelpful. Here's a semi-recent discussion that discussed the matter in depth. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Side effect of nominations for RfDs
While a redirect is in discussion after being  nominated for deletion it is no longer serving as a redirect for readers who get to see an ugly tagged page instead. This leads to other editors removing the link from pages that point to the redirect. See for example: Talk:Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign,_2016. So: Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
 * Is anyone restoring the removals of wiki-links if the result is a keep?
 * Can we at least remove the ugly page from the view of readers who are not logged in and allow the page to redirect as the intention is?
 * No and no. For your first question, we lack a Special:Whatusedtolinkhere tool. For the second: if there is a problem with a redirect, that fact should not be hidden from not-logged in users (who are also able and allowed to comment at RFD). —Kusma (t·c) 22:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You're fixing the wrong problem. A redirect that's under discussion is merely that - under discussion.  Editors should not be removing links pointing to the redirect until the discussion is complete.  Well, unless they would have removed the link regardless of the RfD discussion.  Normal editing on those source pages should continue.  Rossami (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hans:
Where do we stand on redirects such as this: Hans:, a soft redirect to the main page of the Chinese wikipedia? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Inter-language soft redirects are generally considered to be unhelpful. Here's a semi-recent discussion that discussed the matter in depth. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Side effect of nominations for RfDs
While a redirect is in discussion after being  nominated for deletion it is no longer serving as a redirect for readers who get to see an ugly tagged page instead. This leads to other editors removing the link from pages that point to the redirect. See for example: Talk:Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign,_2016. So: Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
 * Is anyone restoring the removals of wiki-links if the result is a keep?
 * Can we at least remove the ugly page from the view of readers who are not logged in and allow the page to redirect as the intention is?
 * No and no. For your first question, we lack a Special:Whatusedtolinkhere tool. For the second: if there is a problem with a redirect, that fact should not be hidden from not-logged in users (who are also able and allowed to comment at RFD). —Kusma (t·c) 22:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You're fixing the wrong problem. A redirect that's under discussion is merely that - under discussion.  Editors should not be removing links pointing to the redirect until the discussion is complete.  Well, unless they would have removed the link regardless of the RfD discussion.  Normal editing on those source pages should continue.  Rossami (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Move Requests -- close as move request?
Over the last few days we've had a few listings that amounted to move requests – a couple by myself.

While these have been closed as a procedural close, I think it's useful if we closed them as move request (or procedural close as move request), and the closer should actually start the move request, if that is the consensus, either:


 * 1) That there has been no comment but the request is blatantly a move request that can't be handled as a bold move (which I believe is always the case if the R is at RfD, because it has history); a kinda speedy close'
 * 2) That there has been discussion, and consensus is to move.

The second is the more complicated case. As it stands, we have either the option of:
 * waiting until the RfD finishes then opening the move request, which makes the process slower, and essentially regurgitates some of the previous RfD discussion. People who may be interested in the targets might not be aware of the discussion at RfD.
 * Running the two concurrently and cross-referring them, which can seem like predicting the outcome of the RfD (which might not, after all, go move).

While I don't see a perfect solution, I think that:
 * when someone suggests a move over redirect, the source and target of that moved should be informed of the RfD discussion on that talk page. I usually try to remember to do this.
 * if a redirect is procedurally closed as a move, the closer should start the move request, referring back to the discussion. If a move request was already in place, the closer should add a link back to the RfD discussion if there is not one already.

This does not seem overly onerous. While it adds a little work for the closer, this is no more than for a delete result, and I think would help editors who have just stumbled into the wrong forum. What do others think? It doesn't require a change in any policy, just a kinda "best practice". Si Trew (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * An RfD which is clearly a move request is easy to spot and unambiguous: it has a nomination comment like "need to delete this redirect so the article can be renamed". That's a discussion we should not entertain at RfD - it's really not about the redirect, it's about the article, and WP:RM directs that those discussions should happen on the article's talk page. Unless they're clearly uncontroversial, in which case it's still not our venue. So I think a speedy procedural close explaining what to do with move requests is appropriate.
 * I mentioned to the other day that I normally don't create move requests for users who list them at RfD unless they specifically ask - better that they learn how to do it themselves (someone else said that to me once, but I don't remember who) and better that they provide their own rationale for the move than me trying to come up with one. Of course, if they do ask, I'm happy to create a move request for them, but I've only rarely been asked. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with completely. I was hesitant at first about not creating move requests for someone, but I appreciate how smoothly the last one was handled. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 20:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think the courtesy offer of help that Ivanvector put on the last one was very good. I must admit, in retrospect, the "speedy close as RM" case is very different from the other, I should have kept that separate.

In the first case, you're probably right, that closing as a procedural close with an offer to help is the best thing.

But take the second case, where something has been brought to RfD and the nominator has suggested deletion. Consensus emerges to move an article over the redirect (and maybe do some other tidying up). (In the limiting case, that's reversing the redirect.) The RfD discussion is procedurally closed as a move request. But who actually creates the move request? In your (Tavix' and Ivanvector's) statements above, you say that it's not the job of the closer. But it's unlikely to be done by the nominator either, because they didn't suggest a move – leaving bad faith aside, they probably just feel that it's RfD's job, because the RM is on behalf of the Wikipedia community who participated in the RfD.

So we end up in the situation that we have consensus to move but don't follow through with it – a common outcome at other XfD's, I believe. Just as a closer deletes (or requests delete of) a redirect for which consensus is delete, or retargets an article for which there is consensus to retarget, the closer should do the boilerplate of a redirect for which consensus is to move something over it. As for coming up with a rationale for such a move, the RfD consensus is the rationale, there's no need to invent one.

This should not, or course, be seen as an attempt to make the move request a kangaroo court; more of an appeals court, really. The default is for the move to happen if there is no further discussion, so there's little question of it getting stuck one stage further down the pipeline.

Here's another thing: if the closer does it, the move request can be linked in the closing notes (and thus explicitly or by reference in the tag on the R's talk page). The move request should, of course, likewise link back to the RfD discussion (do we have a more-general kind of ?). Si Trew (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

link to stats.grok.se
Now that we have the new Wikimedia-based stats tool, do we need to change the link to stats.grok.se in section WP:RFD? grok.se is still live. Si Trew (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Menotti
Apparently this was a redirect to the composer Gian Carlo Menotti, Italian-American composer and librettist. However there are at least 3 people and a draft being written to whom this could apply. It's not that I want to delete the redirect - I've boldly turned it into a disambiguation but I am not sure where/how I should have discussed it first - if it was causing errors in redirects it shouldn't go back to the composer only but I also didn't want to leave it blank...

What should I do/have done?  &#127866;  Antiqueight  chat 16:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You can go to Special:WhatLinksHere/Menotti and change all of the links that obviously should point to the composer. The change was correct, I would say, and shouldn't require discussion anywhere (though you could start a section on RfD I suppose if you wanted to get second eyes in a more controversial case) Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 8
I noticed that the discussions for February 8, 2016 are no longer appearing in the complete list at WP:RfD, and I'm worried that this discussion may have slipped through the cracks. If there are any uninvolved admins watching this page, can you please close or realist this discussion? Thanks in advance for your help. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want, you could try WP:ANRFC. Not many admins watch this page, but several watch that one. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for the suggestion; I posted a request at WP:ANRFC. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Rudolf and company
While I have deleted redirects which were absurd (e.g. Neelix) there are a number at CSD currently. See Rudolf Francis Ferdinand Hoess as an example. There are currently 14 in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as implausible redirects.

Could someone with more experience in this are opine on whether these qualify as CSD? Should they be declined as CSD, and nominated as RfD?

While there is no rush, they have been sitting most of the day, and my guess is no one feels confident enough to pull the trigger.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There is not, there is one. The rest got deleted. And the point is? Why could you not say it at RfD. Perhaps I am being so very 'meta' but RfD Talk is to complain about RfD itself, not about individual redirects. You can do that at, er, WP:RFD like normal people do. What you have done, unintentionally I imagine, is rather than having an open discussion having a sneaky private one. Of course that is not your intention but it looks like that who in the world watches this page? I don't and I'm a reg. Si Trew (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments
An editor has asked for comments regarding a proposed change to the rfd2 template. Users watching this page may be interested in the request for comments. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Splitting daily log page
All redirects listed on a given day are discussed within sections of a single page. With the current volume of redirects getting listed here, this leads to some inconvenience for people like me who only comment on occasional redirects. I'd normally want them to be on my watchlist so I can keep an eye for others' opinions, but if I add them, my watchlist feed gets inundated with edits about all the redirects that are on the same page. I'm wondering if there couldn't be an AfD-like system where each discussion would be on its own page and they would all then just get transcluded on the daily log. Would that be more trouble than it's worth? Uanfala (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It probably would be more trouble than it's worth since it would require a new way for a bot to handle the pages. Also, the operator of DumbBOT, the bot that currently handles RfD, hasn't been really active on Wikipedia lately, so any request to change the automatic way this page is handled could take months to happen. Steel1943  (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition, most of the templates that are currently used on RFD would either need to be updated or even new templates created. And then, the archiving system for the pages would need to be updated. There are probably some more things that would need to happen that I'm currently not thinking about right now, but that's part of it. Steel1943  (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a tweak that may or may not be feasible: could we collapse sections of closed discussions? When a long day is in the backlog because of one or two open discussions, could we hide the closed ones on the main page? Certainly it could be done manually on a daily page, but that seems like a hassle. Maybe it's not feasible... --BDD (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The answer to that depends on if section redirects still function if their anchors are hidden. I think the fact that they didn't changed recently. I'll probably test this in a little while (unless someone else does and beats me to it.) Steel1943  (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, if it's just the main page, that may be feasible it it can be done in a fashion similar to how it's done on WP:MFD. I'll look into it... Steel1943  (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be great. Thanks! --BDD (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I found a way to make this work, but ... yes, there is a huge "but" ... Rfd top would have to be changed in a way that might actually make it a bit different and possibly more difficult for closers to close discussions. First, Rfd top would have to be placed above the section header instead of directly below it (as it currently is); I could see this causing problems with closers erroneously placing Rfd bottom below the Rfd top of the discussion directly after it. Second, Rfd top would need to have the closer manually input another parameter to have text display when the section is collapsed (in the event that it needs to be customized [I'll explain that in a minute]). For example, if the redirect's name is Fgzdabby, then instead of using Rfd top by itself, the closer would need to use . The alternative to having a manually inputted option in Rfd top would be to have the same text appear in all collapsed discussions, such as "Closed discussion" or maybe even "Closed discussion: see (direct link to daily subpage)" (I think this option is possible). I hope I explained this well enough without getting technical to a point where I am not being clear. Feel free to contact me with questions. Steel1943  (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yikes. That's too big a "but" for me, but it's something I can get used to if others want it. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The alternative would be to collapse the discussion, but not hide the discussion's section header. If that is okay, then everything I just stated can be disregarded.  Steel1943  (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh. That doesn't sound so bad. So what would that look like? --BDD (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See this page, specifically section "January 2", for how these changes would appear. (I'm actually not the biggest fan of the color I chose, but I'm not an expert with 3-digit color codes, so I tried my best for the moment.) Steel1943  (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that looks good. Agreed about the color, but that's a minor detail. And this wouldn't require changes to how discussions are closed, or how they appear on a daily page? --BDD (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussions will be closed the same way they are now and the changes will in no way affect how the discussions are displayed on their daily subpages. In fact, look at the page I "tested" this on: Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 2. On that page, the closed discussion should appear as normal. Steel1943  (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Let's do it! Much more drastic changes than this have been implemented boldly. --BDD (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Steel1943  (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, when I was doing all of these changes, I accidentally found out that these closed discussions can be forced to appear at the very bottom of the Redirects for discussion page but still appear correctly on their daily subpages. However, in effect, the discussion would still appear in the table of contents under its daily subpage, but would forward the reader to the bottom of the page when clicked from the table of contents. Does this sound like something we should consider? Steel1943  (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Disregard that. I did some more testing, and apparently if that is done, it completely breaks the bottom of the page. Steel1943  (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've thought about the idea of a subpage per discussion for some time. It would greatly improve the ease in which discussions can be tracked. Though sometimes, misoneism gets the better of me, so I'm currently at neutral. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 06:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey. I saw the change to Rfd top using Rfd top collapse. Good job. I've got a recommended change though - can we transclude the result of the debate into RfD top collapse so readers can still see the result of a debate in collapsed mode?
 * Required changes to Rfd top collapse:

Closed discussion, click "show" to expand.
 * Required changes to Rfd top:


 * Deryck C. 22:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I brought up a concern earlier in this discussion that conflicts with your suggestion: The need for adding an additional parameter in Rfd top that needs to be manually inputted by the closer when closing discussions. (Above, I called this "".) Though it requires a tiny bit more effort by the discussion closer, your suggestion makes more sense than my idea in my aforementioned comment regarding "". My only concern with this is how large that field could get in the event of grouped nominations that turn into WP:TRAINWRECKs. I have a few ideas on how to make those suggestions a bit more user-friendly, (such as just leaving the suggested new " " parameter named " " instead so that closers don't need to use  but instead can use  ), but I need to spend a bit more time thinking about this. For example, should Rfd top return an Error if the proposed " " field is empty? Etc... (I'll ping BDD here to see if they have any opinions on this as well.)  Steel1943  (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's okay to paste the entire closing rationale onto the collapse box. It's gonna be something between 1 word and 1 paragraph. I usually put my closing rationale inside the template but yes we will be introducing a breaking change to closers who put the rationale outside the template, so we need to get everyone on board. Deryck C. 23:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do put my closing rationale outside the template, but that seems like a small adjustment to make for this sort of improvement. --BDD (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I realised it isn't even a breaking change. We can have the line "Result was:" only if the closer has put their rationale inside Rfd top. That way we'll introduce additional functionality for closers who put their statements inside the template, without breaking anything. Deryck C. 15:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, after thinking about it for a few hours, I arrived at the same conclusion. If the  parameter is left optional, closers can still use Rfd top in the current fashion. I'm going to attempt to figure this out here in the next few hours, most likely basing the changes off the code provided above.  Steel1943  (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems that the code you suggested is exactly what I probably would have done to accomplish your suggestion. Since you suggested the code, feel free to WP:BOLDly add it. Steel1943  (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. I think I'll leave two issues open:
 * Further cosmetic edits to rfd top collapse
 * What goes inside the collapse box? I recommend result. [Optional short comment] [Optional long comment] ~
 * Deryck C. 18:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as the collapse box, I think that's a good recommendation. It's what I usually do, with one exception when I accidently signed within the template. I kind of like how it looks though, someone can see who closed it and what time without uncollapsing... -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Coming late to this. What is the functional difference between rfd top and rfd top collapse? I just used the first one and the discussion is collapsed, but my reason didn't get picked up in the collapse box. I tried with the collapse template and got the same result. Is specifying  required? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok I see the difference between the two templates, never mind that part. I still can't get the reason to show up in the collapse box header though, with the parameter or without it. I'm working on Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 5 and I specified  both with and without "reason=". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I definitely support dedicated pages for special discussions, and special discussions includes any discussion that can lead to deletions. The main reason has to do with watchlisting.  If a page exists only for the discussion, by watchlisting you can monitor contributions, and the close, and any odd actions.  If there are several other discussions intermixed in the history, watchlist following is nearly useless.
 * Dedicated discussion pages are the norm for AfD and MfD. The bots, their management, archiving, etc, work fine.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I strongly oppose separate pages for discussions. It's a solution in search of a problem and having a daily log is very convenient when bundling related redirects, as well as being able to comment on several discussions with one edit and it makes closing discussion easy. I've seen other editors get involved in unrelated discussions within a daily log that might not otherwise do so if the pages were separated. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also opposed to this idea - it makes anonymous users not be able to make the nominations properly (I once had to do the nomination for an anon at MfD). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

RfD template merge discussion
Comments will be welcome at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_11 —PC-XT+ 03:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Neelix redirects
A proposal to summarily delete a large amount of redirects created by after a short period of time has been suggested at Administrators' noticeboard. Interested editors are welcome. Thank you. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 17:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)