Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 15

Post-move discussion for St John the Baptist Church, Toodyay (1963- )
User:Gnangarra your closing comments baffle me. Perhaps that is what you meant by "idiocracy", you meant that RfD is ruled by idiots? And the statement in the closing remarks of "lack of Si Trew (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * after visiting the location the original article title St John the Baptist Church, Toodyay (1963- ) (this is the way its referred to on heritage register) was the QRcode link, when the redirect was deleted the link broke, I restore the 2 links noting that one of them was linked externally to an outreach project and that it would take time to check. Yet it was renominated without first discussing it with me directly this whole discussion was unnecessary. I noted that I would take time off work to go check the links out and I did that, i also noted that it cost me to do this both in lost time and actual costs for the trip. the response was a very pointy tough your a volunteer you chose to do this wheres the AGF on that?. The process and the way its been handled has lacked WP:AGF in my reasonings for restoring i noted I would clean up the redirects when I had confirmed the correct one, given the way this discussion has taken place there is no point in the plaque remaining in place because some other editor will no doubt decide again that the redirect had no value and delete it yet again breaking the link and we'll be back here.  Finally it gets suggest that maybe the article should note that its a qrpedia link, this article did the redirect did on the talk page but niether was taken any notice of. Most individuals did act reasonably some didnt but the simplest outcome is to remove the plaque and incur the costs to replace it.  That replacement wont happen because the standard naming for buildings has always been building(dab) not building, dab and this isnt the only building by that name in Toodyay so even where it sits now after 2 moves still isnt appropriate but thats a discussion for elsewhere. Welcome to the Idiocracy, where the process matters more than the cost to the volunteers.  Gnangarra 14:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

So you closed it witht your rationale "given idiocracy of the discussion and the lack of WP:AGF the decision was taken to delete both redirects and remove the QRpedia plaque because this discussion will only be repeated again" with. The decision was taken by you'. Not by anyone else. There's a discussion open and nobody had made a decision, except you. So don't hide behind an impersonal pronoun, you made that decision and you are accountable for it. I am fed up with this business of using the passive tense to masquerade that somehow it is a community decision when it is anything other. You prematurely closed the discussion and deleted the redirects, without consensus, on the grounds that it will "only be repeated again". Despite the tautology ("repeated again"), I am not sure how you have a WP:CRYSTALBALL to know that it will be repeated, once or again. I would imagine if the discussion were left open and ran to the usual WP:CONSENSUS then it may not be "repeated again", but I'm just assuming good faith there. Si Trew (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Gnangarra, thank you for the real-world legwork you put in for the project here. I sincerely do appreciate that and the dedication it shows. But I must agree with Simon's criticism of the tone of your close. That's not the sort of conduct I want to see from any editor, let alone an admin, let alone one closing a discussion. Please don't denigrate other editors like that. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * agree broadly with that, and that such an experienced admin ought to know not to close a discussion they participated in or to delete items they have been discussing. This is not ok. Beeblebrox (talk)
 * in response to my suggestion about a template on the redirect page saying "this page is the target of a QR code, please don't delete it" you said here that "the talk pages were tagged ... we arent allowed to put such comments on the article page itself", which is similar to your comment at WT:WA. As I clarified at WT:WA my proposal was a template on the redirect page, not the article page, as we already do for R from move. Is there a policy or discussion (and if so, where) that says "we arent allowed to put such comments" on the redirect page?
 * Does anyone else there is merit in a such a template, and perhaps a note in WP:RFD saying something like "if the redirect is target of a QR code, add the template this-redirect-is-QR-code-target to the redirect page (not the redirect's talk page)". Mitch Ames (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the tone of my closing comment, it wasnt intended as a reflection on individuals but rather the absolutely unnecessary process as I have always stated the restoration of the two redirects was a temporary measure until I had had the opportunity to do the necessary leg work after which I'd cleanup the redirects and have now done. Its always been totally implausible for both redirects to be linked from the QRcode, it was only ever a matter of checking which one if any was necessary. Gnangarra 23:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The barcode
So... what target does the QR code actually link to? Deryck C. 11:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Steel1943's response

 * (This is not a response to Deryck C.'s inquiry, but rather my two cents on a follow up for the response to my "delete" comment.) First off, since I now better understand how the "QR" system works after doing a bit of research, thanks for any work that goes into maintaining the functionality of the QR system, since I can only imagine how complicated and time-consuming that must be. Anyways, with that being said ... Even though you have deleted the redirects, I still stick by my "delete" vote regardless, but I have a reason which I hope you can understand and/or appreciate, just as I now appreciate the QR system. In a nutshell, IMO, external links to a redirect in the article space, even by a tool as helpful as the QR system, should never be a reason to keep a redirect that is confusing and unlikely to be searched by readers who use either the main web version, mobile version, or app version of Wikipedia. What I'm getting at is this: If these redirect were to be kept due to the external links, who's not to say that any random redirect should be kept just because it represents a QR code? For example, image that a redirect titled Ghzhnxdhbbhgsr should be kept just for the fact alone that it is a redirect that targets George Washington and it happens to be the title that the QR system uses to redirect users of the QR system to that article. Basically, it's nonsense. I don't know how involved you are with the QR program, but I have a couple of suggestions to better improve the compatibility of the QR system, assuming neither one of these options has been considered already:
 * Proposing a new namespace be created exclusively for redirects which utilize the QR system, or
 * Finding some way to integrate the QR system into Wikidata.
 * Gnangarra, I assume that the "Wikidata" may have already been considered in the past, or maybe is already active since that would probably be the first option I would consider. Anyways, I hope that this clarifies what I meant in my "delete" comment and hopefully helps the QR program somehow. (...Considering that I have absolutely no idea how to even start a consensus-based discussion to implement either one of my suggestions since I don't know what's going on behind-the-scenes with QR that I done even know about.) Anyways, cheers! Steel1943  (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)