This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've boldly redirected both to Fireproof (disambiguation), which hopefully solves this dilemma. Dolovis (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What's the procedure if someone thinks a uncontroversial move over redirect is not? walk victor falk talk 11:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(({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)|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)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)) ))
#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)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)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)
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)
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)
This is based on Δίκαιο RFD. Should we keep misspelled native language redirects? --Lenticel (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
((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)@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)
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)
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)
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)
Could someone delete this from my userspace: Tharthan/Mailbox/
I accidentally created that, then created:
User talk:Tharthan/Mailbox/
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)
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)