Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion

"How to table..." unreadable in dark mode

Having the cell colour of the How to list a redirect for discussion table hard coded to be white causes most of the text to be unreadable in dark mode, as the font colour is changed to a light grey. Dark mode is still in beta, and you can switch back to standard mode to make it readable, but thought it worth highlighting. Little pob (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This seems to have since been fixed, but I'm still having dark mode problems for some archived discussions. For example, the text "Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:" is black text on black background on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 20#Chinese Transliteration Redirects to Korean People. After poking at this a bit, I'm still not sure what wikicode is generating that. -- Beland (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

That text is generated by {{Old RfD list}}. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Aha, the CSS for that template was setting the background color without setting the text color; I fixed it. Thanks for the pointer! -- Beland (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Closure [keep/retarget]

I find the phrase "Closure [keep/retarget]" in the heading of a section confusing, and wonder if it could be removed, changed, or hidden until there is actually a closure of some sort.

I was looking at one discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 10 and almost didn't comment, because I saw what at first glance appeared to be a closed discussion; it was marked, "Closure [keep/retarget]". My first glance impression was, "Oh, this is already closed as 'keep and retarget'", but then it registered that "closure" is not "closed" and I wondered if that was relevant, so I scrolled around the page, and realized that every discussion had that phrase on it, so maybe none of them were actually closed yet, so I went ahead and commented.

Can we maybe change it to "Closure [   ]" while it is still active, and then update it later when it actually closes? Mathglot (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot those links are for enacting the closure, so hiding them until the discussion is closed would defeat the entire point of them. See, e.g. this revision to see the contrast between open and closed discussions. If others are finding the "Closure" wording confusing then I guess it could be changed to "close as" or something like that, but the current wording has been in place since 4 August 2011 and this is the first time (that I am aware of) that anyone has raised an issue with it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

How to simplify

This page is WAY too complicated. Example: Trial (TV Series) is a BBC show from 1971. It has nothing at all to do with Goliath (TV Series). But, it redirects there. Why? Who knows. Can the redirect be removed? Maybe. Step 1: Spend the next two years of your life parsing through pages and pages and pages of instructions, most of which contradict with one another, to see if it is possible to put in a request to have the redirect removed. Step 2: You did it wrong. Try again. Step 3: You did it wrong. Give up. What should happen is Step 1: Easily state in one location that there is an invalid redirect. Done. No more work. Is that possible or is the primary purpose of this complicated mess to keep people from making requests? 12.116.29.106 (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, perhaps the steps required to create a nomination could be simplified in the future, but at the moment the easiest solution to your problem would be to create an account and use the Twinkle gadget, which semi-automatically takes care of the back-end steps. You can ask at the Teahouse if you have any other questions about that, and an experienced editor will be able to help you out. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Crossnamespace

Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Mr. Mime a proper redirect? Web-julio (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey Web-julio, cross-namespace redirects are typically considered problematic if they go from article space to somewhere else and not necessarily the other way around. If you'd like the community to discuss this you can make a nomination for a full RfD. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Y Closed WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16#Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur as Keep. Jay 💬 10:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10 § Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/ until a consensus is reached. cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Lint errors

The process is creating lint errors. The reason is that there is a <includeonly></div></includeonly> included when you close discussion. But there is already a close div at the end of the discussion.

See this diff for an example manual fix. (IN this case the lint errors appeared in the "yesterday" page, where the page in question is transcluded today..)

I'd fix it myself, but I spend too much time chasing up things that people just wanna delete. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC).

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Date redirects to portals?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Date redirects to portals?. Cremastra (u — c) 01:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Baton Zabërgja

please looking for ridirect wikipedia this professional football player and so much news in references Alkid2023 (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

We do not have enough content on Baton Zabërgja to create a redirect. He has played for different clubs, hence creating the redirect to any one club is not feasible. When you feel there is a good target, you may use this wizard to make a request: WP:Article wizard/Redirects. Jay 💬 07:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay , how can chance to recovery back again normal i have some references put. Alkid2023 (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If you are referring to the deleted article, it will not be restored as it was created by a user who was blocked (WP:G5). If you have content to write up a draft, you can request restoration of the draft from 2022 - Draft:Baton Zabergja. Jay 💬 19:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Use of library

Explain Ict application to render services in library and information centers 197.211.61.117 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

TeapotsOfDoom and IP 35....

User:TeapotsOfDoom (ToD) has been blocked as a sock of a blocked user. ToD has recently raised a significant number of RfDs, apparently without notifying the creators of the redirects. An IP, obviously also a sock of ToD, starting with 35.... (35) has !voted and commented extensively on the RfDs. I have raised a sock investigation on the IP. I have removed those that I could on 20th November with no significant discussion attached. I have struck through comments by either account on 20th Nov, where I could. I can at the moment do no more. We should however:

1. Strike or remove comments or !votes by either account in any active discussion.
2. Remove any RfDs with no significant discussion.
3. Notify the creators of the redirects for any remaining ToD RfDs. Delay the closing of these to allow time to comment by the creators, and for the comment to be digested by the community.
4. Possibly remove other active RfDs by ToD, according to editors' good judgement.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC).

• Significa liberdade relisted a large number to the November 24th page. Do we treat those as nominations in good faith, and go by the discussions, or close them procedurally without prejudice to have them renominated. Some of them (and one relisted by Explicit) had just one comment. Jay 💬 07:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)