Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

The process for nominating redirects isn't user-friendly at all

The suggested process for listing redirects isn't user-friendly. It involves manually copying and pasting templates into multiple articles, which seems quite cumbersome. Is there any easier way to list a redirect for discussion (that doesn't involve copying and pasting text into multiple articles)? I wish users weren't required to perform such a cumbersome series of steps in order to perform a routine task like this. There should be some kind of automated method for performing these steps. Jarble (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no way around the requirement to edit three pages - the redirect itself (to nominate it), the relevant day's discussion page (to explain the nomination and start the discussion), and the creator's user talk page (to notify them of the discussion). There are tools that can help you with this, WP:Twinkle is one I believe and there may be others. I don't use those tools myself so I don't know details of how they work. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the rules on English Wikipedia, so I hope someone else will fix this.

I'm active on the Finnish Wikipedia and know the rules there. Hopefully someone can nominate this redirect Disability swimming --> Paralympic swimming. They are two different things and disability swimmming (which sounds a bit funny in my Finnish ears, btw :) would deserve its own article. Memasa (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The paralympians are disabled, for sure. But disability swimming is a much wider term. Disability swimming is not just a paralympic sport, but is being practiced on an amateur level as well as on national, European and world level.

After the deletion of disability swimming redirect, it should be added to requested articles. Memasa (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Premature archive?

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_27 contains a discussion for Super Mario Universe that is apparently still active, can anyone deal with it please? Cheers, Яehevkor ✉ 19:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about this one

I don't know if I should list this for deletion or not because I'm not sure if any of the criteria apply. The redirect I'm querying is for Australasian Wrestling Federation to Greg Bownds. Now here's the issue. The article where the redirect has been placed was deleted via AfD sometime ago and has been redeleted twice under G4 since, so in a way the recreation may be in defiance of said AfD especially given that the history indicates a recreation before the decision to redirect. On the other hand, the redirect goes to the owner of the deleted promotion - although his notability appears to rely on his work in Japan rather than Australia on a brief perusal. So I don't know. Instinct says delete the redirect, but the criteria doesn't seem to fit this. Thoughts? 58.164.105.136 (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts on adding "Current time banner" on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Yesterday, I was looking at the slight backlog of the RfD discussions, and realized an addition to the page that may be helpful for RfD closers: adding {{Time-UTC-Banner}} somewhere on the page. This banner is current used on the bottom of the Wikipedia:Requested moves page to display the time. If this banner were at the bottom of the page, it would help discussion closers know when "7 days" has completely passed to avoid closing discussions too early (as it its function on WP:RM.) If this may be a good idea to consider, I also ask this question: if this banner is added, will it disrupt any bots? Steel1943 (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The bot is not posting the new subpages for the new dates on WP:RFD

Just wanted to post this note here stating this issue. I have brought this issue up to the bot's owner Tizio. I had to add the last two dates (November 24 & November 25) manually. Steel1943 (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional note: It also looks like the future pages are not being created either. In case this issue does not get resolved in a timely manner, I have already went ahead and created the pages up until December 1. Steel1943 (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This has happened before a few times but the bot owner (can't remember if it was Tizio back then or not) has been pretty prompt about sorting it once notified. If it isn't fixed in a few days put a note at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

 Already done. Thryduulf, I'm going to send you a message to your talk page about the specifics. Steel1943 (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note: this issue has been reported on Tizio's talk page, as well as Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. Until the bot gets fixed, it may be necessary to manually create and transclude future days' RfD pages (since the bit isn't creating the new daily pages, nor transcluding them on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"Really, really long" list not transcluding

The log for December 4 is not transcluded onto the RfD page, at least when I look at it. I suspect this may be because of a "really, really long" list of redirects with the letter m following the page name. Is there some kind of work-around for this, like maybe moving the list to a subpage or something? Cnilep (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification template not linking correctly

I just happened to notice that this notification does not link to the specific discussion making it less likely that interested parties will participate. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sloggerbum Stale Drafts

In case anyone is interested, there is ann MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Sloggerbum Stale Drafts that contains a number of redirects. I thought about listing just the redirects here, but instead decided to keep the discussion in one place. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

2014 NBA Finals

Can this redirect be deleted? There will definitely be a 2014 NBA Finals and there are realiable sources to prove that. Robert (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

When there is sufficient content for a standalone article, the 2014 NBA Finals redirect can simply be overwritten with that content. This does not require deletion, but if you do still want it deleted then you can nominate it per the procedure on the main page. However, it is unlikely to gain support as until there is an article, readers are best served by a redirect to the information we do have. Thryduulf (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Notifying current targets

I think it would be good practice to require (or at lest recommend) that those watching talk page of the target article/page are made aware that a redirect pointing to that page has been nominated here.

If others agree, then it will probably be simplest to design a template that can be placed rather than requiring everyone to craft an adhoc notice each time. My initial thought is that the main text should be "[redirect], which currently redirects to [target|this page] has been nominated ([for deletion|retargetting]) at Redirects for Discussion. The discussion is located at [page]." or something along those lines (the option "target" as being different to the current page is to allow for notifications to wikiprojects, etc), but it's only a first draft.

Again, assuming agreement, this will need to be added to the instructions section of this page. I don't have a good suggestion for the wording for this currently. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. This appears to be a solution looking for a problem. We don't need to complicate processes and increase bureaucracy simply for its own sake. I can see adding a statement along the line of "If you are unsure why a redirect exists, consider asking at the target's talk page prior to nominating it for deletion." However, the above proposal is excessive. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

@Thryduulf:, I'm not sure whether this is appropriate in all cases, but there are some situations where it would be helpful, especially redirects where the target is not in mainspace. I think it should be very small (height-wise), so as to not annoy people too much. I think we should create it, with a case statement in the template logic so it doesnt appear in namespace 0 (at least initially), and also document that it is 100% optional to use. It may only be used infrequently, or even not at all. Best way to find out is to add it to the toolchest. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd say notifying the creator should be strongly recommended in almost all cases, as it's very little overhead, and certainly when either the redirect or target is in userspace and the user isn't blocked I cannot see any reason not to notify them. Why do you suggest excluding ns0? Redirects to articles are just as, if not more, important than project space etc. In any case I don't have the skills to do the template work. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree re notifying users, but that seems to be orthogonal to this proposal. Excluding ns0 initially is to avoid someone getting their knickers in a knot when they see it in mainspace and proposing deletion. If the concept is accepted in other spaces, we can consider whether it is desirable in mainspace also. I can create the template, but I would like some more opinions before proceeding. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Having re-read this it seems I wasn't quite awake when I wrote my previous comment - sorry! I think we can get around ns0 issues by placing the template on the talk page. For example if the target was Mercedes we would place the template at talk:Mercedes. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Likewise. I didnt see your initial proposal was to put only a note on the talk page. I was thinking of putting a banner on the target itself, for non-mainspace targets. Talk page is much simpler and less controversial (and can be used on mainspace talk pages if appropriate. I'll do up a template now. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done I have added a 'target' parameter to the existing {{rfdnote}}. If the note is dropped on the talk page of the target, the notice is worded slightly differently. You can see the result here: Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Welcome to Llwybrau Byw! - Living Paths!. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move and retargeting of Chancery Court

See Talk:Chancery Court#Recommend moving to Chancery Court of York and making this a redirect to Court of Chancery (disambiguation). Note that this is currently a full-fledged article. The proposal would have it be a redirect to Court of Chancery (disambiguation). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Discussion can be found here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Redirects cause by fixed page moves to the wrong namespace

I've just closed three RfDs where the redirects were from the Wikipedia namespace to the article namespace that were created when fixing a page moved to the wrong namespace. Such redirects come under the "pages created in the wrong namespace" portion of Speedy deletion criterion G6 - a few months back this was explicitly endorsed on the CSD talk page, but my request to explicitly add it to the G6 explanatory text did not gain consensus.

I have just now thought it would be of benefit to make note of this somewhere in the RfD instructions, but I'd rather get consensus for the text and position before adding it.

To be clear, this explicitly is not about CNRs in general, or R#Delete point 6. It refers only to pages incorrectly moved to the wrong namespace and redirects left behind when correcting that. Thryduulf (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with adding it to the instructions, except that usually if I do a page move I use CSD G7 (author requests deletion) since the trail of detritus tends to be mostly unwanted redirect pages created in my name. I've never had one declined, so a strong "suggestion"/"reminder" of how to go about these uncontroversial housekeeping page moves is more than welcome from at least one editor. Si Trew (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

G6 or G7 is fine if you make the error yourself, but if the move was by someone else (which isn't uncommon at all) then only G6 applies. This is the wrong venue for guidance about preventing the incorrect page moves in the first place, but I don't know where is. The most common cases are drafts being moved to article space incorrectly ending up in the Wikipedia: namespace, and it seems to trip up very new and very experienced editors as well as those between the extremes.

Do you have a suggestion for the wording here? Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Redirect documentation

See Draft talk:Template:Redirect documentation for a discussion about having documentation on some redirects that are not obvious as to why the exist, where such documentation should occur, how it should appear. As non-obvious redirects come up at RfD for deletion and are then kept, I thought I'd let you know about this. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Increase in nominations?

Has there been an increase in the number of nominations? If so what is the rationale, or is it an uncoordinated increase? Thanks in advance. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• We have had some busy days in the past month or so. It seems that John Vandenberg has identified a large number of cross-namespace redirects that he believes should be deleted, and has been nominating these (spread out so as not to overwhelm any single day, which is good). The rest I think is just random variation, but I'm willing to be corrected if anyone knows any different. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

  Hi, yea, I have been a bit focused on WP:CNR in mainspace, with a reasonably high level of delete/retarget rate, but the majority of those I feel are problematic have been nominated for discussion, so that is winding down. I've started looking at the {{soft redirect}}s in mainspace, the WP: shortcuts, and non-mainspace CNR, but I dont expect they will be as voluminous for various reasons, mostly that the problematic ones are far-er between. I expect 'the holidays' is part of the reason for any increase - people now have more time to take on cleanup tasks. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

First Battle of Picardy/Race to the Sea

First Battle of Picardy redirects to Race to the Sea. I'm working on an adaptation of the Race to the Sea page to be a hub for a group of pages User talk:Keith-264/sandbox3 here, so want to use First Battle of Picardy as a link to a seperate page, although there aren't enough sources in English to begin a new page immediately. Can the redirect be suppressed to enable this? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Far better that that would be to write some content about the battle, even if it is just a couple of sentences and mark it as requiring expansion. The redirect would continue to point to the place where we have information (even if it isn't much). [1] would seem to offer sufficient information to do that, but if you make the WP:MILHIST project aware of the need then it's not unlikely someone will step forward. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Should this be deleted?

I just made a change to the target of redirect Regina george, but then it occurred to me that we don't usually have redirects for this kind of case difference, do we? Doesn't Wikipedia automatically take care of it? Maybe the redirect should just be deleted? 86.160.220.209 (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes we do have these kinds of redirects because some methods of searching and browsing Wikipedia (including linking) are case sensitive. I've tagged it as {{R from incorrect capitalisation}}. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Fire resistant and Fire-resistant

These two very similar redirects Fire resistant and Fire-resistant (hyphenated) go to related but different pages.

No hypen leads to Fireproofing (mostly about building materials), while a hypen leads to Fire-resistant#Fire retardant materials used in clothing, which is just a list of fabrics such as nomex.

These two terms should really lead to the same page, but I am unsure where that is. Perhaps the two target pages ahould be merged?

This didn't seem to be the short of thing discussed on the Redirects for discussion page, but if it should go there anyone is free to move it. 220 of ^Borg 07:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Y I've boldly redirected both to Fireproof (disambiguation), which hopefully solves this dilemma. Dolovis (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• • I have reverted this, as the disambiguation page is primarily about media named Fireproof (films, songs, albums), and the concepts addressing fire resistance are not unrelated, per WP:DABCONCEPT. I have instead pointed both links to Fireproofing, as any list of things that have been made fireproof will be a subtopic of that. Please note that we try as hard as possible to avoid redirects to disambiguation pages unless the redirect is a spelling variation of the ambiguous term, in order to avoid WP:DABCONCEPT violations. bd2412 T 19:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Delete redirect for 2014 NBA Playoffs

This redirect should be deleted. Every other year's NBA's playoffs has their own page. Please write on my talk page if it does get deleted. Thanks Robert4565 (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal needing input

User:AnomieBOT III will currently convert attempted interwiki redirects into soft redirects. It has been proposed that the bot also apply {{prod}} to such redirects in article space, as WP:Soft redirect discourages these. Please comment at WP:VPR#Proposal to automatically ProD redirects to other language versions of wikipedia, instead of turhing them into soft redirects. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Foreign language redirects

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages#Guideline? about raising the advice regarding foreign-language redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages (WP:FORRED) from an essay to a guideline. Your comments in the discussion would be most welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Doubled listing

Next Hungarian parliamentary election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has two listings, one on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 22 and one on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 24. I'm not entirely sure what to do about that. --NYKevin 20:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed. @NYKevin: The issue seemed to have been caused when the good faith editor was trying to have the redirect in the {{Rfd}} tag on the redirect target the correct location. Instead of changing the date in the template, the editor created a new entry. It has now been resolved after I fixed the date in the Rfd tag. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Patronising replies

I was scanning back to see what happened to some of the things I commented on in April. Three have the reponse, all from different nonce editors, "did you look at the target?" or words to that effect. What do they think I do, just cast my opinion to the world like Zeus? Of course I look at the article. I also usually do follow-up checks and trace links and check states before coming to an opinion, and even then others have better advice or opinions and that is how we achieve consensus, isn't it? A bit fed up with the assumption I, or other editors, lay down the law without doing homework. But I got told off for being abusive by a user for telling them to do their homework before coming to XfD. I hope I am never abusive – longwinded certainly but not abusive – but one must present one's case properly. Like in real life, it is all in the preparation. As Pierre de Coubertin said, "It is not the winning but the taking part, just as in life it is not the triumph but the struggle". I think Leviticus says "Man is born to struggle as the sparks fly upward". You don't have to be the best, you just have to be better. Si Trew (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Contested move over redirect

What's the procedure if someone thinks a uncontroversial move over redirect is not? ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Victor falk: I don't know if there is one as such, but revert it per WP:BRD, discuss it on the talk page, and if you have no luck, take it to WP:RFD (it will be a redirect at that point so it is the right forum). I'm not suggesting this as a kinda sneaky way to get it into RFD, that seems to be me right thing to do. You did right to bring it to discussion here. Which article are you referring to? Si Trew (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

What's the point of proposing a redirect be turned into an article? One could just, er, create the article.

I haven't keep a regular eye on RfD (or anything) lately, but it seems to me that it has become far more frequent for someone to propose that a redirect is turned into an article. All very well, but I notice that the proposers never themselves offer to do so.

It seems to me that it is idle to suggest this course of action since we can't leave an RfD open indefinitely until someone creates an article (at which point the RfD is redundant; I've done this before by translating an article from FR:WP that was a redirect at WP:RfD and so the RfD went speedy close). Neither can we in conscience close the RfD with a "create" result when the article is not in fact created.

Presumably if someone wanted to create an article they would have, er, created the article – if an editor were new to WP editing and just presumed the title was "taken" they'd likely create the article at another title, and presumably it would come to RfD sooner or later anyway. There is also WP:Requested articles, so one could always propose adding to the list there (implying deletion of the redirect).

So, what am I missing that other editors think will happen when they propose that a redirect be turned into an article? Si Trew (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that what you are missing is the same thing that I am missing in AFDs where people propose "merge". In my experience, in 90% of cases where an AFD closes as "merge", the merge never gets done. Editors who passionately argue in favour of merging in the discussion are not interested enough to bother to actually perform the merge. Somehow, if one proposes something in an xFD discussion that involves actually doing some writing, the mere fact of having suggested doing it is expected to magically cause it to happen effortlessly. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:@SimonTrew: It was my understanding that when wp:AfDs end with a merge decision the closing admin ensures that the article is not deleted until such time that its contents are merged? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Not just "until such time that its contents are merged": when a discussion results in a "merge" decision, the article should never be deleted, because the editing history needs to be kept. What should happen is that someone merges the content, and then the article is replaced by a redirect, but not deleted. What all too often happens in practice, though, is that the article is left as it is, unmerged. I have seen many articles which still exist years after there was an agreement to merge them, because nobody ever bothers to do the merging. The result of this is that very often, in fact I think it may well be more often than not, the practical effect of a "merge" decision is that an article is kept, despite the fact that there was a clear consensus that it shouldn't be kept. Unlike a "deletion", anyone can perform a merge-and-redirect, not just an administrator, so usually the closing admin just closes the discussion and goes away and forgets it, leaving one of the editors who said they wanted a merge to carry it out. However, there is no guarantee that any of them will ever even come back to the deletion discussion and see that there is a "merge" decision, let alone actually take the effort of doing the merge. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well this is just my opinion of course, but I think it is just a bit too easy to use automated tools to propose something at an XfD and then forget about it, and the automated tools these days make it easier (see other discussions here ad nauseam), then nobody bothers to do the manual work of actually doing the merge, creating the article stub. translating it from another WP, or similar.

I am guilty of this myself but I try to compensate by actually making new content sometimes in the hope it may be useful to other readers. My goal here is simply to make Wikipedia a little bit better, recognising it is not perfect and not finished and WP:there is no deadline. I quite understand other editors may disagree with an opinion at a talk or discussion page, but with the automated tools one rarely gets any discussion at all these days. O tempora O mores! Si Trew (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The other thing is that being able to see that there is a need for an article doesn't necessarily translate into being able to create that article themselves, right now. Competence and simply having the time to do so are required. Mangoe (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That's true. I have plenty of time but no competence: I rely on making a stub or something and other editors sweeping up my mess afterwards. But perhaps we should more often suggest referring to WP:Requested Articles? Si Trew (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

New page

I created Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes as a parallel to the AfD "Common outcomes" page. You're welcome to help build it. See also my comments on the talk page. --BDD (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 8

Can someone fix Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ? There are some weird nominations on this page. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

XFDs for category redirects

When a category redirect is proposed for deletion, should the discussion be held at RFD or CFD? I'm not sure, so I've made a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 113#Deletion of category redirects. Your participation would be appreciated. Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hide closed discussions from transcluded pages

I drafted modifications for {{rfd top}} (sandbox) and {{rfd bottom}} (sandbox) that would hide the closed discussions from this page (only the resolutions would be shown), while keeping them visible of the daily pages. See testcase for daily page and testcase for this page for details. This change would make this page easier to navigate, potentially increasing the amount of views for each discussion. Note: if this proposal gets community approval, administrator instructions should probably be changed to request placing closing admins' signatures inside the {{rfd top}} template. Opinions? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Implementing in the lack of opposition. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Armbrust: I've noticed you've reverted my edit to {{rfd bottom}}. Do you object to the idea of hiding closed discussions from WP:RFD, or to particular implementation? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

  I don't see any reason why they should be hidden on the RfD page. IMO hiding them can be confusing (at least I was confused). BTW just made a script to hide closed RfDs: User:Armbrust/hideClosedRFD.js. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

  The main idea was to make older discussions more visible. RfD page is currently hude enough to make it unreasonably difficult to locate the tail of the backlog. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

  Locating the backlog could be better achieved by adding an additional header (like "Old discussions"). Of course that would need a modification in DumbBOT's task. (All other XfDs have a similar section: "Old discussions" for AfD, FfD & TfD, "Old business" for MfD, "Holding cell" for PUF, "Discussions awaiting closure" for CfD and "Recent discussions" for DRV). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

  Additional header won't make these discussions stand out among "wall of text" of closed discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

  The closed discussions already stand out of the "wall of text" with a distinct background colour. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

  Not when they are so numerous, and more so when the page contains so much text. The only way to locate open discussions right now is to scroll, and it is unreasonably difficult to spot remaining discussions among huge amount of closed discussions, color-coded or not. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Change to how the Rfd template works

I've rewritten Template:Rfd (and Template:Rfd/core) in Lua. This allows template redirects with this tag to still work when transcluded, but also stop the redirect when the page is visited. I can't implement this yet, though, as it requires a change in how the Rfd template is placed (which also means a change to Twinkle). For example, to tag this redirect:

#REDIRECT [[Template:Foo]]
{{R from move}}

the old way to tag it would result in this:

{{subst:rfd}}
#REDIRECT [[Template:Foo]]
{{R from move}}

The new way would result in this instead:

{{subst:rfd|
#REDIRECT [[Template:Foo]]
{{R from move}}
}}

With a mass nomination, the old way looks like this:

{{subst:rfd|Whatever name they're listed under}}
#REDIRECT [[Template:Foo]]
{{R from move}}

The new way looks like this:

{{subst:rfd|name=Whatever name they're listed under|
#REDIRECT [[Template:Foo]]
{{R from move}}
}}

I've manually converted a single template redirect under discussion, Template:Lede, to use the new style. If there are no objections, then I'll implement the change and work with Twinkle to get it supported there as well. @Steel1943: @Codename Lisa: ping. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that I've updated the current Template:Rfd (and Template:Rfd/core) to support both the old and new style to make the transition easier. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Jackmcbarn, I'm neutral about this right now. Part of me says that changing the way such a core template works is going to be a bad thing, the other part says this is progress. The templateFu part of me is wondering however, why we need to change the parameters to do this. Can't the implicit {{{1}}} parameter retain its current function and just add the change as a new parameter name? So, {{{1}}} would be "Whatever name they're listed under" and there would always be a {{{contents}}} parameter with the page's current contents. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought of that, but there's a slight difference between named and numbered parameters that makes it too complicated. And how is this "such a core template"? Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• A potential problem I see is that since pagenames can include the = symbol itself, it would be required to use |1=whatever and make the page name explicit in the call anyways. This defeats the benefits, as I recall, of using implicit parameter numbers. I count almost 1,100 links. I'd say that makes it fairly core. Rfd doesn't work without it... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not the case, since the target would be wrapped inside of a wikilink, which "hides" the = from the template. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

With a mass nomination, the old way looks like this:

{{subst:rfd|Whatever name they're listed under}}
#REDIRECT [[Template:Foo]]
== Redirect from alternate name ==
{{R from alt}}

The new way looks like this:

{{subst:rfd|name=Whatever name they're listed under|
#REDIRECT [[Template:Foo]]
== Redirect from alternate name ==
{{R from alt}}
}}

• Such a use case would fail. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen a redirect with a heading in it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Jackmcbarn: I can provide you an example that I have seen on a few occasions where a redirect will have a section header. Let's say a redirect is nominated for WP:RFD, and during the course of the RFD, the redirect is determined to be ambiguous. In cases like these, before the discussion is closed, one of the editors involved in the discussion may boldly create a draft of a disambiguation page directly below the redirect scripting on the page. Usually in these cases, the section that would be on the draft is a "See also" section. (I had to play devil's advocate here; section headers could happen). Steel1943 (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• I know I've seen them before. I'm currently doing an AWB DB scan for #REDIRECT ?\[\[(.*?)\]\] redirects and then I'll filter that to see which ones also have [=\|] in them as well. I'll post the report here when I'm done (I've done the scan once, but I filtered them wrong causing me to only come up with one page title that is s redirect with a = in it and have to do it again). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: @Steel1943: Okay, parameter 1 is the name again (like it is now), and there's a "content" parameter for the content now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems like excessive complexity for very little gain. Template redirects are seldom seen at RFD and if they are sent there, it makes sense just to put the {{rfd}} tag below the redirect on template pages. (Not sure if Twinkle does this, but it should be made to do it if it doesn't already.) — This, that and the other (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: What's the excessive complexity? With the change I just made, the only difference between the current way and the new way is that the existing content of the page goes inside the RfD template. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support proposed change: RfD notice instead of content causes confusion. FWIW this fix will fail with some templates (eg. Template:GERB/meta/color), but the old way performed no better for such cases, so I don't see this issue as a blocker. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

How would it fail with that? Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• That's great that you can see it will fail Czarkoff. Would you mind detailing how that failure would happen so we can try and fix it? Thanks, greatly appreciated. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • This particular template is only a color definition, it is used in constructs like style="background-color: {{GERB/meta/color}}" (eg. as seen here). I don't think this issue may be avoided. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It should still work even then. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I misinterpreted the code. Sorry for noise. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Since there's no longer a BC break, and there doesn't seem to be any remaining objections, I'm going to implement the module now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn I do not think this was well advertised. You should post to Village pump first. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think enough people would care about how the internals of {{rfd}} would work for that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

New instructions on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header for the new Template:Rfd function

I'm starting this discussion in regards to the instructions changes that were recently made by Jackmcbarn due to their recent updates to {{Rfd}}. First off, I want to make clear that this discussion is in no way any quarrel with the recent changes to {{Rfd}}: I support the changes, mainly due to editors needing an option if the redirect has transclusions to ensure that the Rfd template doesn't get transcluded when the redirect is transcluded. However, the issue with the "new way" to place the {{Rfd}} template is that it complicates the Rfd tagging process since the editor, per the instructions, would need to encapsulate the entire text of the redirect in the substituted {{Rfd}} template prior to saving. The "old method" just requires placing the tag at the top of the page without any additional steps. An example that I can provide that was recently nominated for discussion where the nominated used the "old" method of tagging the redirect is Wikipedia:Deletion is not clean up; in this example, the nominator placed the {{subst:Rfd}} at the top of the page without encapsulating the rest of the text; anyone searching with this redirect is still stopped before reaching the target, as it did before. In conclusion, I believe that it would be wise for both versions of how to post the Rfd tagging template in the instructions, but specify that the "new" method is only truly necessary if the redirect is transcluded. (This usually redirects in the Template: namespace.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Most people post RfD with Twinkle. Also, there are a few non-templates that have transclusions, and that isn't obvious unless you go out of your way to check. There's also no downside to doing it the new way, so I don't see why it's necessary to mention the old way anymore. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Wanting a redirect deleted, but not sure if that is possible

I found a redirect (Bowery Street) that I feel should be deleted because it leads to another article (Coney Island) that has no mentioning about this non-notable street at all, but I am not sure if I can start a discussion here because it was originally a redirect, then turned into an article, then deleted via AfD. Then a few months later, it was recreated as another redirect, turned into an article again, then redirected again via another AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.210.109 (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 Nominated for discussion. Please, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 25#Bowery Street. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Misspelled native language redirects

This is based on Δίκαιο RFD. Should we keep misspelled native language redirects? --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if it's a plausible search term (for native or non-native speakers) or it has incomming (external) links, etc. No, if it is implausible, unlinked and not getting any traffic. i.e. each should be assessed on their own merits as other redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisting

The relisting instructions used to be much simpler but they changed in 2012, making it more difficult and onerous. As a result, fewer discussions are relisted and that means that the backlog is now so massive that the page exceeds the template inclusion limit and the last few translusions on the page are not expanded. Instead, they appear as links. The process for relisting should be the same as AfD: just cut the discussion from the previous page and paste it to the new one. DrKiernan (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• very strong oppose. At AfD the primary link is to the individual discussion page, and that is easy to find by various means. At RfD the primary link is to the day's nomination page, with links to individual discussions on user talk pages, WikiProject pages and elsewhere frequently being of the form, e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 15#Virginia Panhandle. If the discussion just vanishes from the page then people cannot find the discussion at all which is the antithesis of the transparency with which deletion discussions must occur. What needs to happen is the backlog should be fixed, as that is the cause of the problem, rather than the symptom. I am slowly working though it as I get time, but I don't have much of that currently. If you can find a way to simplify the relisting instructions without removing the link from the old to new locations then that is something we should do, but the current proposal is a non-starter. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

very strong oppose for all the reasons Thry has stated. Si Trew (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary (policy request)

Morning all.

I've created a thread at WT:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_translation_dictionary. about these stacks of redirects we get from foreign languages. I hope you may contribute their views. Since they come up so regularly, a policy or guideline for them might be useful. I have drafted a short para, that no doubt can be tightened up. I've cross reffed that to here, too. Si Trew (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Move a nomination from the October 19 page?

Since it's not tomorrow yet, should Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 19#Android L be moved back to the 18th? (I would have WP:BOLDly done it myself but I broke something when I tried and only the "Preview" button saved me from public embarassment). Cheers, 61.10.165.33 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Steel1943 (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Boilerplate notice at Template:RfD - add possible search?

I don't know about you, but I find it harder and harder to search from within Wikipedia to find articles containing the terms mentioned in an RfD etc. The topbar and sidebar (on Firefox, at least), and the Firefox tool itself, all will whizz you through the R to the article. I have to deliberately type "Special:Search" into the search box to get the search box up. I have the Good Old URL Bar so I can type the addresses manually, but that is hassle with terms with reserved characers in URLs.

I was wondering if on the boilerplate at {{RfD}} we could add a small link 'Look up "Special:Search?search={{{#PAGENAME}}} on Wikipedia' or whatever the right syntax would be, to allow a quick lookup of other pages that contained the text of the article title. So if the R under discussion was "Simon is an idiot" that would be the search term (Special:Search?search=Simon+is+an+idiot). In that way, I feel it would be quicker to find possible related retargets or DABs.

Any views? Si Trew (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

PS I should add, I really enjoy contributing to RfD and the diverse stuff I do because of what I see at it – translating or augmenting articles or adding refs or just tying things up better. A good bunch of clever people thou art. Si Trew (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn? See above. Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

IMO, such a link would be better suited to Template:Rfd2 than Template:Rfd. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this would be useful and also that it would be most useful at Template:Rfd2 (the listing on the RfD page) rather than Template:RfD (the template on the redirect page). Perhaps not to everyone's taste, but the distinction between Go and Search still exists using the monobook skin, with one button for each. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that I better understand this idea (rather then just blindly pinging the creator of Module:RfD to essentially see how it could be technically implemented), yes, it would be better if that functionality was put into Template:Rfd2 instead. Steel1943 (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Trivia: Longest ever stretch of no nominations

There were no nominations yesterday, 27 October 2014, the first occasion this has happened since 1 May 2012. The 908 consecutive days with one or more redirects nominated is by far the longest in the history of RfD. If it is to be beaten then there will need to be nominations every day until at least 24 April 2017. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I recall closing at least one day in 2013 that had no nominations, but I just cannot remember what day. I think the day was in March. Steel1943 (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• I just found the day; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 19. Steel1943 (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, I was going on pages not existing in the listing (empty log pages are normally deleted), but it's still been a while! Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That makes it 555 days. The next day this can happen is 5 May 2016, or to be beaten, the day after. Si Trew (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Rewording of WP:RFD#DELETE #8 - replace "not be created" with "be deleted"

It seems lately that consensus has changed so that a foreign-language redirect with no "affinity" for the topic (i.e. not related to the culture or subject of the foreign language) is often deleted. Per [[WP:RFD#DELETE] #8:

In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created.

(The words "no affinity to [language]" and "not related to [language]" are often used in discussions as shorthand for this.)

Often an argument against deletion of a foreign-language redirect is per WP:RFD#HARMFUL, that although it maybe should not have been created, it is harmless once it exists. But I think consensus now is roughly "it can be harmful: we are not a translation dictionary, let alone a Babel fish, and readers are more likely to look at, and better served by, the foreign-language Wikipedia. Unless there is an affinity with the target page, we will delete it, even if it's not recently created."

So I think we should replace "should generally not be created" in reason #8 with "should generally be deleted".

#8 seems the only part of #DELETE that is defined in terms of the act of creation (rather than existence) — and even then only in the sentence regarding foreign-language redirects, not those about synonyms, misspellings and typos. This wording sets a higher bar to deletion than almost anything else in #DELETE.

WP:FORRED and WP:RFD/Common outcomes#Foreign-languages discuss the matter, but neither is a policy or guideline. Both imply, but don't state, that it's OK to delete a redirect that should never have been created.

I can add examples of discussions, but those at WP:FORRED seem instructive enough.

Si Trew (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• oppose Although the larger proportion of foreign-language redirects nominated are deleted, there are still enough dissenting voices and non-delete outcomes that there is not a general consensus that they should be deleted - particularly as what constitutes an "affinity" between a subject and a language is often debated and the potential harm caused by a foreign language redirect varies massively (ranging from none to very significant). "Should generally not be created" however does represent the consensus - the majority of the nominated redirects have been in existence a good number of years, so (whether to do with this advice or another reason) I'm not seeing any need for it to be stronger to discourage the creation of the redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes

There is a discussion about non-admins closing discussions as "delete" at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes. See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#So, this is the question we're asking, where the opening poster wrote, "Should non-adminstrators be allowed to close deletion discussions as delete?" Cunard (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Rfd2m nominated for merging into Template:Rfd2 at WP:TFD

For those who watch this page, I would like to inform you that I have listed {{Rfd2m}} for merging into {{Rfd2}}. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 2#Template:Rfd2m. Also, side note, from what I see, Twinkle only utilizes {{Rfd2}} and not {{Rfd2m}}, so that gadget should be unaffected if this merge occurs per my nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Boilerplate

Can we move the boilerplate, that is, sections 1 to 5 of the page, into a sub-page (.e.g. WP:Redirects for discussion/Boilerplate) that is then transcluded? The reason I ask is that often I want to refer to the specific wording of one of the WP:RFD#DELETE or WP:RFD#KEEP sections and of course have to load the entire ][WP:RFD]] page - which can be somewhat lengthy because of the transclusions. There's also the minor reason that, because the main page changes daily for the addition of new days and the deletion of old ones, it's harder to spot a sneaky change to the boilerplate (though I don't think that has happened in all the time I have been at RfD).

A similar thing was done at WP:Pages needing translation into English (WP:PNT) after a brief disucssion in 2010, although PNT discussions are different (some might say the inverse) in that they go on at thE main PNT page itself, rather than being on dated sub-pages, so moving the boilerplate meant editors' edit windows weren't always cluttered with it. Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I've got no objections to that. If you do it though please either ping me or just add the new page directly to user:Thryduulf/RfD watchlist. Thryduulf (talk)

@Thryduulf: I'll shove the boilerplate into WP:Redirects for discussion/Boilerplate (this is red now, if it is blue I have done so). I am quite happy to do the tying-up for the transclusion, but I think best left to you or another admin. Si Trew (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Its my mistake. It's already essentially there at WP:RFD/Header, split out. ({{RFD header}}). The question is should the Rs for WP:RFD#D1 etc. then refer to the header page or the main RfD, by transclusion? I use a great bigdesktop of ancient (5 years) heritage that runs like shit off a shovel, but for others onmobil etc. to load that whole page and read it, would it be better to redirect the D1, D2, K1 etc just to /header? I can see both sides of both sides there. Si Trew (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

PS I just saw Wikipedia on mobile today. I usually program the back endm(not MediaWiki but just generally when I write software), so it's the first time I saw it. Very impressive, the simplicity of the site's layout makes it so. My mobile phone, er, just makes and receives calls, which is how I like it. (Actually I prefer one tethered to the house with a bit of black and tan so it can't escape, but those days are gone, sadly. I held out until 2007.) I hate them. Si Trew (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a case of my wanting to change Wikipedia to suit myself, not quite an WP:IDONTLIKEIT but it can't be better than it is, so nothing should be changed. Si Trew (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Not worried about it, but technically isn't it wrong to close one's own nomination?

@Oiyarbepsy: closed the discussion for Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_9#Philology_of_the_Soviet_Union as a non-admin closure after converting it to an article. I've no problem with that, Oiyarbepsy took the time and trouble to convert it to an article (all to the good), but technically isn't it a bit iffy to close one's own nomination? Nothing to do with admin or non-admin but I usually expect someone else to close mine even if I say "procedural close, please" or "withdrawn".

I'm not hung up about this, but should I save closing admins the trouble and just do non-admin close myself when I convert to article or change my mind and withdraw the nomination? This is not in the least sarcastic or rhetorical question, have I been wasting admins' time when I should have just closed it myelf? Si Trew (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Generally it is best to avoid closing your own discussions, but there are exceptions. Certainly closing a nomination when you have withdrawn it and your opinion had no other supporters and/or it was WP:SNOWing is fine. Procedural closes when you're taking it to a different venue, again there is no problem with that. When you are converting it to an article, I'd prefer it were left to someone else to close but if nobody has after say 12-24 hours then go ahead and do it yourself. You really shouldn't be closing your own nominations as anything non-procedural/not-withdrawn except in exceptional circumstances (see WP:INVOLVED) - about 2ish years ago I guess I did close a discussion I had been involved in (I think as no consensus), but it was a complicated one that had been open for a good 2 months or more and repeated requests for someone else to close it had gone unanswered. On that occasion I did explicitly flag it as an involved closure in the page and in the edit summary. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Displaying section links

Currently {{rfd2}} does not preserve sections when listed as the target (e.g. target=3 (disambiguation)#Film displays just 3 (disambiguation)). I've asked for this to be corrected at template talk:rfd2. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I grumbled about his a few days ago. Didn't User:Steel1943 put into it? Si Trew (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Si Trew, I may give it a look after {{Rfd2m}}'s merge request is closed. Steel1943 (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Steel1943, aye, best to wait. Si Trew (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Redr

What's with all the glitz introduced (with page protection) at {{Redr}} in the last couple of months (without much publicity)? Now when I look at a redirect with {{multiple issues}} (redr.), apart from having to wear sunglasses I have to expand a collapsible box to see what the hell is going on. {{Multiple issues}} in reader space doesn't do that so I see no need for it being done in editor space. It's not as if it saves the hidden stuff being downloaded.

I added my six penn'orth at Template_talk:This_is_a_redirect#Visually_confusing. I hope you may contribute, the usual bun (sic) to those who agree with me. Si Trew (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice: Template:Rfd2m merged and redirected Template:Rfd2

This is a notice in regards to the fact that Template:Rfd2m has now been merged into Template:Rfd2 (per the merge discussion), and the former is now a redirect to the latter. When nominating multiple redirects in one nomination, please see the documentation at Template:Rfd2/doc or Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#How to list a redirect for discussion for the new method to list multiple redirects in one nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me...

Could someone delete this from my userspace: Tharthan/Mailbox/

I accidentally created that, then created:

Which was also incorrect.

What I actually wanted was User talk:Tharthan/Mailbox, which is where all of those redirect to now.

Can someone delete Tharthan/Mailbox/ and User talk:Tharthan/Mailbox/. They are both errors for the correct intended page of User talk:Tharthan/Mailbox. They are cluttering up my userspace list.

Thanks! Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This system sucks

I never thought of myself as a complete idiot, but apparently I am. That's because I've attempted to list a single entry on RfD and completely failed. I had to try several edits to the original article, failed to complete, and now when I try again I see it still didn't work in spite of my edits that looked correct. Why do I have to do all this? Surely a robot can do all of this in a single click? Why do we put users through this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Maury Markowitz: if you have WP:TWINKLE, you can do it in just a few clicks. Si Trew (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)