Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

RfC: Time to redesign RfD?

[edit]

This has been brought up from time to time at WP:RFD in the past few years, so here's the respective discussion and question: Should the main RfD be redesigned to hide older active nominations from directly appearing on the main RfD page? Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's time. After a few years of continuous issues with expensive template and module calls messing up the page and trying to adjust templates and initiating several discussions to make improvements to the page, this is the sole XfD forum that transcludes every active nomination page. It's just ... time for change. However, with that being said, I oppose each nomination getting its own subpage; rather, RfD should be updated to work its nomination pages in a similar fashion as WP:CFD, WP:FFD and/or WP:TFD to retain all nominations being posted directly on a daily subpage. Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the alternative model? Transcluding 7 days of discussions on the main page, and transcluding older discussions on a different page? Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical oppose – I oppose on technical grounds, as the stated proposal/question is equivalent to removing the existing structure while proposing no clear alternative that is an improvement. (I believe this is equivalent to Thryduulf's comment, except couched in the context of a no-vote.) If you come up with a proposal to replace the current situation with, I will be happy to strike my vote and reevaluate my response (please ping if you do). That said, can you describe the pain points you find objectionable in the current setup, and have you looked at how SPI does it? Mathglot (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the definition to analyze? 2600:8801:B800:9AC0:1194:D6A4:1A2E:248C (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is going after older discussions likely to change much? If we were to just limit to the past seven calendar days being transcluded, I am unsure if the performance benefit would be that great. A vast majority of discussions are in that date. This does beg a notable question, are the links to closed discussions particularly performance intense? If they are not, as I am figuring, then I do not think the performance benefit will be large or necessarily even noticeable when seven full days of discussion are transcluded anyways. Casablanca 🪨(T) 17:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ 2600:8801:B800:9AC0:1194:D6A4:1A2E:248C (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, @Steel1943: The page breaking near the bottom makes RfD unworkable. I agree with your assessment. It's unfortunate that this talk page is not visited much, but yeah WP:EXPENSIVE is a severe technical limitation that we should actively seek to find a solution that works for the participants.
At this point, if we want to see change to RfD, I think it would be useful to come up with a trial-version replacement that we could test, for a period of time, communicated in advance. As an example, maybe between October 20th through the 26th, we could trial a RfD layout where only the first 8 days are transcluded on the main RfD page, and all other older dates are transcluded on an "/Old discussions" subpage, with the subpage linked in the Header (which will need a draft probably). (Btw, the reason I say "8 days" instead of 7 days, is because RfD discussions should generally be kept open for 7 days at minimum. But, because RfD discussions can be nominated at all hours of the day and are all listed on the same log date, transcluding 8 days means that discussions will be guaranteed visible on RfD-proper for everything between 7 days and 1 minute, to 7 days and 23 hours).
With this setup, the trial will have a week-long expiration date, we could gauge the reception and shortcomings, and see how things go. At the moment, someone who wants to read the RfD log for 23 September 2025, legit cannot do so because it is exceeding the transclusion limit. An "/Old discussions" subpage is imo better than the status quo, because then the 23 September 2025 page can at least be transcluded and seen somewhere, but that's just my perspective. I think a trial would be good and if people aren't into it, at least we attempted something new, imo. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to be bold and create the "/Old discussions" page as a placeholder. Can be reverted if we want to do something else instead, but I think this is a suitable idea in the meantime. We won't have to transclude anything onto it, until a statement is made that "old pages will (temporarily) be transcluded onto a separate subpage, to alleviate WP:EXPENSIVE parser function calls affecting the main RfD page and visibility of old log dates". Utopes (talk / cont) 03:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing old logs

[edit]

@Utopes: Relisting discussions is for further opinions / for achieving consensus. Doing it to clear old logs is counter productive. See /Archive 15#Involved relisting to clear old log days (which was for involved relisting, but is still applicable). We have WP:Closure requests for older logs. Jay 💬 07:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: Hi, apologies for the delayed response. When I said "relisting to clear the log date" in the discussions here, RfD was having PEIS issues, and clearing the date was done in order to reduce the amount of text that had to be transcluded, in order to show more dates on the main RfD page. An example of what I mean, this discussion was just relisted for a 5th time by Steel1943, in order to clear the September 15th log date and allow more dates to be on the main page. As for the verbiage of "clearing the old date", this was pretty close to what Tavix said when relisting Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 29#Wikipedia:RESULT. (BDD pre-emptively closed that log date because the transclusions were breaking, if I remember correctly.) Apologies if the message wasn't detailed enough. In the future, I can give the full WP:PEIS reasoning like Steel1943 has been doing, to make sure it's clear whenever I make a relist like that.
With that all said, honestly we really should implement something to fix the constant WP:EXPENSIVE issues. Several ideas have been had I'm sure. I think having the main RfD page contain the latest 7-8 days could work, with a secondary subpage called "old discussions" for anything older than 7-8 days. This splits the transclusions across two pages instead of one. But yeah, having the oldest days be unreadable is an issue that we should try to find a more permanent solution for soon, rather than having to continuously relist the oldest discussions to prevent RfD from breaking at the bottom of the page. Utopes (talk / cont) 10:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of these concerns are why I started the discussion located at #RfC: Time to redesign RfD?, but that discussion went absolutely nowhere. Steel1943 (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only most recent 4 days transcluded to main page?

[edit]

Maybe I'm being obtuse, but for me, on multiple devices/browsers, signed-in or not, I am only seeing the 4 most recent days of RfD discussions transcluded on the RfD page. Templates for older days are just piled on to the bottom without appearing. Anyone have an idea what's going on? Mdewman6 (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it has to do with WP:PEIS. The current one for this page is 2,097,151/2,097,152 bytes, and the expensive parser function count is literally over the roof 1,075/500. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question for redirects

[edit]

I saw this redirect discussion Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh_redirects_listed_at_Redirects_for_discussion and was looking into the target page and saw that it has 100+ redirects (look at last 100+ here) using various combinations of words (not sure if some are encyclopedia worthy terms) added by the same user who has done this nomination. Is this something that this encyclopedia allows? Asteramellus (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for the future of the WP:X3 speedy deletion criterion

[edit]

Just wanted to note for participants at RFD that I have initiated an RFC to determine the fate of the X3 speedy deletion criterion. At this point, it seems most, if not all, applicable titles have been deleted. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#Time to promote or repeal WP:X3?. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

A little idea – add a link to Special:Search/"REDIRECTNAME", with the quotation marks, at the top of each RfD. Thoughts? We should avoid crowding that toolbar, but personally I'd use it way more than the talk page or even the WhatLinksHere and pageviews links. J947 ‡ edits 03:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]