Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi! Not structuring this in any formal way as it's a discussion that may or may not lead to an RfC. If the format needs tweaking for ease of editing, feel free.

Coming here at @Usedtobecool's suggestion following the Nth discussion about what action should be taken by patrolling administrators as far as removing links when closing an AfD. It's a broader discussion than Liz or I (and I'm sure every admin who closes discussions has had their action queried or reverted) so bringing it somewhere more central.

As I said on Liz's page, it's because there doesn't appear to be community consensus on what is generally right. There are cases where there is:

• Copyright / Ad, those particular articles are problematic but there could be an article on X topic, so leave it linked.
• AfD has closed as Subject Y isn't notable/it's not a case of Too Soon and they're mentioned in text, un link.

Where the biggest confusion I've seen is if the person (generally) is mentioned in a list. If it's blue links only, they should be removed. But if it's comprehensive, they should remain? Is there clear guidance here? Is there a solution. Thoughts?

Courtesy @FkpCascais and Clarityfiend: who are in the current. I'm dropping the link on Liz's for her convenience. Star Mississippi 15:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My knee-jerk reaction is to wonder why an admin cannot take a minute or two to evaluate whether these links should be delinked or removed. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)Two possible reasons: not enough admins doing deletion, automated tools that can't evaluate case by case. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rush to get through as many deletion discussions as quickly as possible, so your first point is somewhat irrelevant. Second, if I remember correctly XFDC does provide the option between unlinking and removal, as does Twinkle. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is relevant to CSD and PROD as well. Not sure if that would change the math somewhat. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle deletes first and then offers the option to unlink, so speed for those is also not really a factor. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's all I got.

I think "you should take the time" is the ideal case and can be said about almost any question, while not as often being exactly practical. So, to give an answer for the "general" case, I lean towards unlinking per WP:REDNO (except where there was consensus the topic is notable). That's as far as admins need go, while they are performing another administrative task. You can leave the rest to editors of that article. If they want to link it somewhere else or even redlink it, they can. If it happens to be a bluelinks only list, editors there are free to remove the entry. If they have questions, they can ask the admin. If they revert the admin, the admin can just ignore it. These controversies will arise, if infrequently, even when you take the time like Primefac advises. The solution is the same: answer queries, ignore reverts. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is 100% valid @Primefac. The broader issue I have run into is editors have opinions that may differ from that of the admin.

I've run into this with athletes. Following the 2022? change, these athletes are no longer deemed notable but editors still want to preserve the lists and links out of a hope consensus will go back.

XFDC makes it easy to make the choice, but not necessarily know what the correct one is. I'm not a high volume discussion closer so I run into it less, but I'd like to action it correctly and not run into it at all. Star Mississippi 17:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, there will always be someone who complains about certain edits, and we all make mistakes. I certainly don't expect an admin dealing with XFD closures to be right 100% of the time, nor do I think there is one "right way" to do it. I just think that if admins are taking the time to consider what they're doing, they will make fewer "mistakes".

As far as the original question goes, I think there are general guidelines for removal, namely "is on a list of Notable things" means removal, "this is a list of every thing ever" would not. Dabs fall into the former category, as do alumni (and likely most groups of individuals/people). But, there are always going to exceptions and local consensus for certain pages to keep redlinked entries; I don't really know if we would be able to get a policy passed on the matter. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only policy we could apply universally would be cases where the AfD closed as delete (not redirect or merge) for lack of notability (not copyright, TNT, etc) and the list explicitly disallows redlinks. In these cases, remove the entry unless it can be adjusted/reworded to link to a relevant extant article without duplicating another entry (for disambiguation pages, see WP:DABMENTION).

In all other cases, judgement needs to be used. Don't remove the entry unless that would be an unambiguous improvement, consider noting the matter on the article talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) § Bump XfD heading sizes about potentially increasing the header size of XfD discussions. Primefac (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Non-administrators closing discussions" says: Non-admin closers should indicate their non-admin status with the {{nac}} ("non-admin closure") template in the comment for the closure. In this sentence, does "closure" include relisting a deletion discussion?

Currently, it doesn't seem that disclosing one's non-admin status when relisting a deletion discussion is common practice, even though such a disclosure could be included within the relisting comment. I figure that if a non-admin parameter were added to {{XfD relist}} and used by scripts such as XFDcloser, such disclosures would be much more common than they are now. PleaseStand (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would disclosure of non-admin status when relisting convey any benefit? Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think so; relisting just moves the tiles around on the board, so it doesn't really matter who does it. Primefac (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for posting here, but after CfD and RfD is backlogged since my last revisit, and to prevent any more controversies and former actions, am I fitted to perform the non admin closures. I've involuntarily opted out from XfD closures a week ago but regained my experience. I will abide with WP:NACD and prevent any other WP:BADNAC. I wanted to grow my experience more. Toadette^Edit! 22:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin closures are permitted. Given some of the concerns that have been raised recently, I suggest starting with the most obvious/clear cases for closure for now. If you're not sure about a close, I highly recommend asking an admin for their opinion on the matter (though make sure it's an admin that regularly works that area). Primefac (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{Deletionlist}}, which is transcluded by all deletion sorting categories says You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to [topic].. However, this is rarely done, mostly because editors don't know about it. So, we should add instructions to do it to the other venues. Here's potential wording, based on AfD's instructions:

(you can transclude all venues with WP:SELTRANS. No need for special instructions. Nickps (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)) MfD should instead copy AfD's instructions exactly, since transcluding individual nominations is possible for that venue. I see no reason not to do this, especially since this was clearly always intended. Some sorting pages even have separate sections for each venue. Nickps (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the words category/categories in that paragraph at Afd to list/lists, as it was confusing to refer to categories.

The paragraph below it "Notifying WikiProjects" explains the modern system of Article Alerts, which are automated. Deletion sorting is an older mechanism which I view as largely superseded by Alerts. – Fayenatic London 06:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While you may view deletion sorting as superseded, that doesn't change the fact that it's still widely used in AfD. Looking at today's AfD submissions almost all of them are listed in at least one deletion sorting list. So, other editors seem to disagree with your view that deletion sorting is superseded by Alerts and prefer to use both. Since that is the case, I think that the other venues should follow the example AfD sets and use deletion sorting more widely as well. Nickps (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question is... DOES this work on other XfD pages? I spend my time mostly on the RfD page, and unlike on AfD (where EVERY submission gets tagged for deletion sorting), I haven't seen anyone use it in RfD in my time as an editor. If it does, indeed, work, then yes indeed instructions to do so SHOULD be added to RfD and other XfD pages-- I don't see why, for example, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#LGBT rights in Zealand shouldn't be sorted under the "Denmark", "Politics", and "Sexuality and Gender" topics. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lunamann Well, WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Denmark has a dedicated section for redirects, so it works. The other two don't at the moment but I don't think there is a technical reason for that. It's more that no one has added them yet. Nickps (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes nothing. Nickps (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm immediately noticing that, while there's a link to the RfD page on all three, it's not actually transcluded on the page the way the AfD discussions are. Is that simply a technical limitation, or something else at play? (And further-- the page notes that a bot will automatically remove AfD discussions from the lists once they're closed. I'm... guessing it won't do that for other XfD discussions, like this RfD discussion...) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lunamann: No, I just forgot that WP:SELTRANS exists. All three are transclusions now. You're probably right about the bot though. Nickps (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no need for special instructions

...Maybe it's just me, but I'd still appreciate them? ...I've never sorted things on AfD and WP:SELTRANS flies over my head lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lunamann: (Let me know if I don't need to ping you) Yes, you're right. Turns out it's actually really complicated to get it working (mostly because every venue does things slightly differently). So, I made a template for it at {{User:Nickps/Xfd transcluder}}. I don't really know how to write templates so it's really jank but it works. If you want to test it, you might need to purgerefresh the page after saving your edit to see the transclusion. That happens even if you use #section-h directly, it's not something my template causes.

So, the instructions can look like (bolded part is my addition, the rest is from WP:AFDHOWTO):

If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". To transclude the discussion to the deletion sorting list use the following syntax {{User:Nickps/Xfd transcluder|rfd|2=[page name]|3=[date of nomination]}}. Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.

changed how the template works Nickps (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replace "rfd" as appropriate. Obviously the template will have to be moved to Template space first, which I will do as soon as someone comes up with a good name for it. I'd also really appreciate a code review. Nickps (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will give it a test run later on, will be doing a couple things IRL, but this looks good! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nickps: Gave it a test run, seems to work flawlessly at least for RfD. Not sure about its functionality on other venues. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, I moved the template to {{Transclude Xfd}}. If no one objects, I'll start adding instructions to the XfD venue pages in, say, a week from now. Nickps (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely have my vote. Thank you so much! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, there is a small problem with the template (more accurately, with section transclusion in general) for RfD. The [ Closure: keep/retarget ] links that appear next to the nominated page are not disabled at deletion sorting. If someone attempts to use these links to close an RfD from the deletion sorting page, it not work correctly. I'll have to ask for a change at Template talk:rfd2 first. Nickps (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Odd. RfD shouldn't have too many issues with transclusion in and of itself-- after all, the RfD page itself is one giant transclusion zone for literally all active RfDs (which are actually hosted, as far as I can tell, on the daily log pages). Wonder what's going on here...

I will note that I have no clue how transclusion works under the hood so I'm partially talking out my ass x3 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, the code responsible for those links checks if the page name is equal to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and if it is, it displays the text "@subpage". Otherwise, it displays the links like normal. This worked before since no one transcluded RfD pages except for the transclusion zone in RfD itself. Since I've broken this assumption by transcluding the RfDs to the deletion sorting pages, the code has to be updated to take that into account. Nickps (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh, now I get it. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been fixed and as a bonus, @subpage is gone. That means there should be no more things that need fixing (famous last words). I'll start editing the XfD pages later because it's 2am where I am and there's no rush anyway. Nickps (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly done. I didn't add instructions to CfD because I didn't quite know where they would fit and I didn't touch FfD and DRV either because I've never edited there and I don't want my first edit to be telling the experienced editors how to do things. If someone else wants to, you can finish the job. Nickps (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I come from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of doctors working in the British media, where I noticed that turning a list into a category isn't a common outcome. I !voted with an ad hoc 'category-ify' option, and the other editor !voted in a similar way. I haven't found anything like this in the archives. Listify is used to turn categories into lists, but there isn't an option to do the opposite. Is 'categoryify' or 'catify' a common enough outcome to be included in the common outcomes table? I was going to be bold and add it to the table, but it felt a bit too bold to edit a guideline page. Svampesky (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky I don't think it is a common outcome at all, nor would I expect it to be because of the relationship between categories and lists.

As Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates explains, lists and categories are not inherently in conflict with each other. But at Wikipedia:Overcategorization, the explanation of categories reveals that they have a narrower scope by definition: A category groups articles by defining characteristics, not mere intersection. It's often the case that CfD discussions result in an outcome of "Listify", because if a category is created that isn't a defining characteristic of the member articles, then that isn't an appropriate categorization, and the grouping should just be a list.

But it's hard to imagine the list that isn't appropriate to be a list, but should be a category. If something isn't important/notable enough to be a list, it's hard to see how it could possibly qualify to be a category. A list topic may become a category also, but it's unlikely it would become a category instead. So, deleting a list only to create a category with the same parameters would almost certainly just be creating a category that's going to end up at CfD in short order. FeRDNYC (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]