This script has a documentation page at User:Evad37/XFDcloser

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 3000 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 400 sections are present.

Adding the RfD template to a redirect causes the redirect to be categorized as an article. Recently, ((Rfd)) was updated to add Category:Temporary maintenance holdings to fix this incorrect categorization. After I closed Augusta Ubiorum, I noticed that the category is still there even though XFDC has removed the Rfd template. Can XFDC be updated to remove the category after a close? Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix:  Done - Evad37 [talk] 01:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Evad37 § XfD closer feature

 – - Evad37 [talk] 00:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how easy this would be to implement, but as redirect and full protect is becoming a more common alternative to deletion these days, might it be possible to incorporate that as a closing option? Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, just out of curiosity (I don't do much in AFD space), is it a general trend amongst multiple closers, or just a small minority? I ask only because I know of two or three admins who refuse to delete pages if there is even a remote chance of a redirect.

Don't take this as me opposing the suggestion, mostly out of curiosity.

From a "feedback" perspective, I think merging in page protection into the script would make it unnecessarily complicated. I have a hard enough time dealing with Twinkle's half-dozen dropdown boxes when protecting a page (it's about the only thing I don't use it for). Also, it seems odd to pre-emptively protect a page just because it was deleted/redirected at AFD. Shouldn't we be waiting until someone throws a hissy fit and edit-wars to try and resurrect the article before protecting? Primefac (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

Primefac, its becoming a trend among closers from what I've seen to the point where I went ahead and updated WP:SALT to include it. Its certainly not the most common close, but its used enough that I felt it should probably be documented rather than continue to be an IAR move.

To your latter question, no, it should only be used when disruption is clear (in line with the rest of the protection policy). This first time I came across it was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick cheese (NSFW picture if you follow the redirect). It was basically a page that was constantly being vandalized, so full protecting the redirect to prevent it made sense. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SportsEngine was the one today that made me think of it: an example of page that was repeatedly redirected and unredirected before I sent it to AfD after FIM asked me about it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Name of the Catholic Church was a part of the longest running naming dispute on Wikipedia, where there are constantly attempts to change articles, etc. to one's preferred version, so protection being used was to prevent another fork in that dispute. I know I've seen more, but these are the ones that have popped into my head at first because I was involved with them.

Re, complicating the script, I'm not a tech person, but I was thinking something as simple as a checkbox at the bottom like we have for "delete and redirect". Just add's "full protect after redirect". TonyBallioni (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want to be rewriting Twinkle's PP module. But if its just indefinite full protection with a standard "per [link to AFD]" reason, then that should be feasible. On the other hand, its not exactly difficult to add the protection afterwards (either manually or using Twinkle). Pinging closing admins @Jo-Jo Eumerus and Sandstein for their thoughts. - Evad37 [talk] 00:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing involving redoing the Twinkle module, just a checkbox that autoadds the link I think would be useful. I always personally forget to update the Twinkle protection log reason (in general, not here), and I think having it automated could be helpful in these cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have only sporadically done "redirect and protect" closes, but it could be useful. Not having "unlink" as the default option would be my biggest wish however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the result of an AFD is to move it to draftspace, would it be possible for the script to automatically disable the categories with a colon to follow WP:DRAFTNOCAT? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that "move" is not one of the options given by the code, how would it know that draftification is the required step? The closer will have to move the page manually anyway, so they might as well notcat the page as well.

I do see what you're getting at, though, as it would save a step (which is the whole point of the script). I guess it just depends on if Evad37 feels that another checkbox is necessary. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, didn't realize that draftifying wasn't an option. Doing searches for variations of 104 for "draftify" 89 for "move to draft", 42 for "move to draft space", 18 for "move to draftspace", 14 for "draftified" 8 for "draft", 2 for "drafted", gives an estimate of 277 times draftifying was the result. That means that since the RFC four years ago, which means that draftifying happens about 70 times a year. Moving as a result has happened 493 times, so assuming that the range begins in the 2004 with the move from VFD to AFD, and discounting the draftifying moves above, that's 344 over 13 years, or about 26.5 times a year. Combining the two would give roughly just under 100 move outcomes per year. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stats (genuinely, I like such things). I suppose my point was that no AFD-close-script (that I know of) has ever moved the page automatically, and any "move" close would still have to be implemented manually. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was just figuring out how frequent this was and to see if it was worth adding a move function. I'm no programmer, but it seems like if the script can use the "Delete" function and fill in the rationale for the deletion log, it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to use the "Move" function and filling in the target field. I did a test with Draft:Draft test page, and one possible workaround, if needed would be just adding "Draft:" in front of the title and submitting the move request without changing the designated namespace.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Patar knight, for what it's worth, you can use Evad's MoveToDraft to do the draftify after a manual close—it comments out the categories, etc. czar 19:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I finally had the opportunity to test out the new "disambiguate" option at WP:RFD with a fully drafted disambiguation under the redirect. Even though ((Disambiguation)) already existed on the page, the script added the dab clean-up template. Additionally, the script did not remove Category:Temporary maintenance holdings. Could you check out Ocho and see if you could fix these bugs? Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed, trying it out with the same wikitext now gives this diff - Evad37 [talk] 02:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might like to see this, Evad. I found Phra ram long song listed at WP:BADAFD. The article had been moved during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Praramlongsong. Should be fixed now, but better double check me. Courtesy ping (Ammarpad—Paul 012—Spartaz). Sam Sailor 12:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: The author created it in 3 different places;two in draft one in main space. They all now redirect to the article you also now redirected! To simply fix it here are permalinks of all creations, so now you have to redirect them all to where you redirected that one now. Article, Draft, Draft. I hope you get me, the thing is bit confusing. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor, Ammarpad, and Spartaz: AFDs where the nominated page becomes a redirect are tricky to handle, as the script can't tell why the page is a redirect. For simple page moves, such as correcting punctuation, the result (keep, delete, etc) should be applied to the redirect's target. But if it was an "out of process" redirection to another article, then applying the result to the target would be quite harmful, particularly if the result is delete and the wrong article gets deleted. I can't see any way to handle this situation other than what the script currently does, which is to ask the closer whether to apply the result to the redirect's target or to the redirect itself. - Evad37 [talk] 17:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for clarifying. Evad37. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]