Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia talk:RFA reform

Requested move 22 December 2024

– Combining all the old RFA review pages into one, to simplify browsing the archives for any future readers. I was initially very confused by all the past RfA reviews, and especially confused by how searching "RFA Review" redirected me to a 2007 page that seemed to have nothing to do with the most recent discussion (the 2024 review). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we moving them to WP: talk space? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I derped the move. Fixed, I think. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:RFA reform should go to WP:RfA review because the scope of the page is beyond what the word 'review' would suggest. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 09:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that makes sense—we can leave that one out. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support your suggestion to bring all these proposals together as subpages of a single parent. However, I cannot agree on moving them as subpages of WP:RfA review if that is to remain a redlink (or even a redirect). —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 18:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we could:
  1. Split RFA reform into two pages (one at RFA review, and one for whatever you think shouldn't be at RFA review)
  2. Move everything to subpages of RFA reform
  3. Just retitle RFA reform to RFA review, even if a bit of the content doesn't quite fit the title—that can be reclassified into a "See also" section.
– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I moved some of the previous proposals for administrator recall processes to make way for the current process, I had to examine each individual link (both to the specific pages and the redirect links) to consider which destination best fit the original intent. Most of the time the intent was to link to the corresponding proposal page, but sometimes the intent was to link to the general concept, so linking to the current process is appropriate. Making the change was only feasible due to a relatively small number of links to the proposals. I'm wary of trying to move so many proposals considerably after the fact. Getting the appropriate destination right for every use is an arduous task. isaacl (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikipedia:RfA Review and WT:RFA/R are the only pages with ambiguous titles (which would require checking). All the others have unambiguous names that include the year. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated, it's the uses that need to be checked, to figure out what was the intent: to link to a specific discussion/proposal at the time, or a more general concept. isaacl (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:RFA_reform