Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Redirects for discussion page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:RFD

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16: 60 days

Deletion (defunct)

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Deletion, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.DeletionWikipedia:WikiProject DeletionTemplate:WikiProject DeletionDeletion articles

Redirect

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Redirect, a collaborative effort to improve the standard of redirects and their categorization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Note: This banner should be placed on the talk pages of project, template and category pages that exist and operate to maintain redirects.
This banner is not designed to be placed on the talk pages of most redirects and almost never on the talk pages of mainspace redirects. For more information see the template documentation.RedirectWikipedia:WikiProject RedirectTemplate:WikiProject Redirectredirect pages

"How to table..." unreadable in dark mode

Having the cell colour of the How to list a redirect for discussion table hard coded to be white causes most of the text to be unreadable in dark mode, as the font colour is changed to a light grey. Dark mode is still in beta, and you can switch back to standard mode to make it readable, but thought it worth highlighting. Little pob (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have since been fixed, but I'm still having dark mode problems for some archived discussions. For example, the text "Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:" is black text on black background on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 20#Chinese Transliteration Redirects to Korean People. After poking at this a bit, I'm still not sure what wikicode is generating that. -- Beland (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That text is generated by {{Old RfD list}}. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, the CSS for that template was setting the background color without setting the text color; I fixed it. Thanks for the pointer! -- Beland (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Village pump regarding issues with older daily subpage transclusions

I recently opened up a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Last few sections at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion appear as links instead regarding the older daily subpages' transclusions appearing as links instead of transclusions. The issue seems to stem from the current setup of Template:Rfd2. Participants of RfD are welcome to participate in the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure [keep/retarget]

I find the phrase "Closure [keep/retarget]" in the heading of a section confusing, and wonder if it could be removed, changed, or hidden until there is actually a closure of some sort.

I was looking at one discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 10 and almost didn't comment, because I saw what at first glance appeared to be a closed discussion; it was marked, "Closure [keep/retarget]". My first glance impression was, "Oh, this is already closed as 'keep and retarget'", but then it registered that "closure" is not "closed" and I wondered if that was relevant, so I scrolled around the page, and realized that every discussion had that phrase on it, so maybe none of them were actually closed yet, so I went ahead and commented.

Can we maybe change it to "Closure [ ]" while it is still active, and then update it later when it actually closes? Mathglot (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot those links are for enacting the closure, so hiding them until the discussion is closed would defeat the entire point of them. See, e.g. this revision to see the contrast between open and closed discussions. If others are finding the "Closure" wording confusing then I guess it could be changed to "close as" or something like that, but the current wording has been in place since 4 August 2011 and this is the first time (that I am aware of) that anyone has raised an issue with it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merger of Template:Rfd-NPF

Template:Rfd-NPF has been nominated for merging with Template:Redirect for discussion. Watchers of this page are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to simplify

This page is WAY too complicated. Example: Trial (TV Series) is a BBC show from 1971. It has nothing at all to do with Goliath (TV Series). But, it redirects there. Why? Who knows. Can the redirect be removed? Maybe. Step 1: Spend the next two years of your life parsing through pages and pages and pages of instructions, most of which contradict with one another, to see if it is possible to put in a request to have the redirect removed. Step 2: You did it wrong. Try again. Step 3: You did it wrong. Give up. What should happen is Step 1: Easily state in one location that there is an invalid redirect. Done. No more work. Is that possible or is the primary purpose of this complicated mess to keep people from making requests? 12.116.29.106 (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, perhaps the steps required to create a nomination could be simplified in the future, but at the moment the easiest solution to your problem would be to create an account and use the Twinkle gadget, which semi-automatically takes care of the back-end steps. You can ask at the Teahouse if you have any other questions about that, and an experienced editor will be able to help you out. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]