Template talk:Old RfD

"Nominated for discussion"

I reverted this edit, because saying that something was "nominated for discussion" doesn't make sense to me at all. Redirects are nominated for deletion, even though the name of the page where this is done happens to be Redirects for discussion. Saying that the redirect was "nominated for discussion" sounds like there was a vote on whether to discuss the redirect or something, not what actually happens (a discussion on whether to delete the redirect). Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Most but not all redirects are nominated for deletion. The general scope of Rfd is 'problematic' redirects and some are brought up for discussion to have the target changed, so the name is not coincidence but analogous to CfD. The restored wording is therefore wrong in some cases. If you find the alternative awkward, we could consider a solution analogous to {{Oldcfdfull}} with a nominated action defaulting to 'delete'.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize that not all RfDs are about deletion... It's a good idea to use a similar solution as {{oldcfdfull}}. I've added a parameter that indicates whether the nomination was for deletion or retargetting. Would that do the trick? Jafeluv (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for implementing that right away. Looks fine to me at first sight, although 'retargetting' will look strange to many. But that isn't a problem of the template.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm, sorry, made the change I just did before quite noticing this. However, I made the change as the template was very confusing on a few pages, as if you follow the link to the discussion you end up going "Wait what? This isn't a nomination for deletion...". The term "discussion" seems to cover all instances and avoid confusion. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As I changed this originally I am fine with 'discussion' as i would understand 'nominate' in the sense of bringing it up for discussion. The other template is more specific and reflects an understanding of 'nominating' to get a specific result but has the disadvantage that past discussions need to be fixed on a case by case basis.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)