Wikipedia talk:DAILYMAIL
 | This project page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Redirects at WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:Dailymail
editIn this RfD:
The consensus of the Wikipedia community was to redirect
to
Some editors have attempted to change the redirect to
going against the consensus in the RfD. Please don't do that.
The many editors who have used this redirect (see the "what links here" page for each redirect) have pretty much all attempted to send readers at the Daily Mail RfC, not the perennial sources page (they tend to use WP:RSP when they want to send readers to that page) Many editors have written things like
- "Per WP:DAILYMAIL, we don't consider that a reliable source."
or
- "Daily Mail is not a RS as per WP:DAILYMAIL"
-- clearly wishing the reader to go to the page where it was decided, not to an explanatory supplement.
Please abide by the decision of the community and refrain from changing the redirects at WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:Dailymail.
Anyone reading this is free to post a new RfD if they think the community made the wrong decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: Looks like that's exactly what ended up happening, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 3#Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL. Nathan2055talk - contribs 22:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Retargeting existing WP:DAILYMAIL links
editThanks for volunteering to help retarget the existing WP:DAILYMAIL links in the recent RfD discussion, Guy Macon and Nathan2055. If you're still interested, I've created the WP:DAILYMAIL1 redirect to go to the first Daily Mail RfC, which might make the retargeting a bit easier. (WP:DAILYMAIL2 already redirected to the second RfC, and I've also added WP:DAILYMAIL3 to redirect to the third one.) — Newslinger talk 05:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- The most minimal method to retarget these links is to replace
[[WP:DAILYMAIL]]with[[WP:DAILYMAIL1|WP:DAILYMAIL]](example) and[[WP:DAILYMAIL|with[[WP:DAILYMAIL1|(example). If this looks like an acceptable strategy to you, we can get started right away. — Newslinger talk 05:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)- That looks like a good method. as to when and where to apply it, I am thinking that most uses in talk page comments should go to the RfC, because that's where the link went when they wrote the comment and we don't want to change the meaning of a signed comment. Most uses in articles, help pages, policies, etc. should go to the RSNB (which is what happens if we do nothing), because that was the consensus of the RfC. The exception is when a page clearly meant to talk about the RfC specifically. Things like "[[WP:DAILYMAIL]] contained X kilobytes of discussion" should still go to the RfC. -Guy Macon (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Retargeting most links in talk pages (talk namespaces and noticeboards) while evaluating the links on non-talk pages for context sounds like a good plan to me. — Newslinger talk 06:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed uses in talk page comments should go to the RfC, you would be violating WP:TALKO if you modified talk page comments by another editor if there is objection, and I object. As for other changes of archived discussions, Newslinger asked in May and clearly some editors disliked that though they didn't point to specific policy violations. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Peter Gulutzan: To be fair, though, this is literally listed in WP:TALKO as an example of a valid modification of another user's comments:
Fixing links: if the linked-to page has moved, a talk page section has been archived, the link is simply broken by a typographical error, or it unintentionally points to a disambiguation page etc. Do not change links in others' posts to go to entirely different pages. If in doubt, ask the editor in question to update their own post, or add a follow-up comment of your own suggesting the alternative link. Only fix a link to a template that has been replaced or deprecated if the effect of the new template is essentially the same as what the poster used (otherwise, simply allow the post to red link to the old template, as a broken post is preferable to one with altered meaning). Internal links made using full URLs may be converted to wikilinks or protocol-relative URLs (by dropping the part before the "//"), so that they will work across protocols (http:// vs. https://) and between our desktop and mobile sites.
- I don't think anyone has ever complained about ClueBot III (talk · contribs) fixing links to talk page sections that have been archived; in my view this is basically the same thing, just with a bit more controversy behind how it ended up happening. Nathan2055talk - contribs 17:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- That doesn't apply. The linked-to page has not moved. The link was already to the archived page. There was no typographical error. It is not a disambiguation page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Correcting my initial response ... If what you mean is "it is okay to replace WP:DAILYMAIL with WP:DAILYMAIL1 in another user's talk page post", then that would be compatible with what was said earlier: uses in talk page comments should go to the RfC. If so, then I do not think we have a quarrel. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- That doesn't apply. The linked-to page has not moved. The link was already to the archived page. There was no typographical error. It is not a disambiguation page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- That looks like a good method. as to when and where to apply it, I am thinking that most uses in talk page comments should go to the RfC, because that's where the link went when they wrote the comment and we don't want to change the meaning of a signed comment. Most uses in articles, help pages, policies, etc. should go to the RSNB (which is what happens if we do nothing), because that was the consensus of the RfC. The exception is when a page clearly meant to talk about the RfC specifically. Things like "[[WP:DAILYMAIL]] contained X kilobytes of discussion" should still go to the RfC. -Guy Macon (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)