Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion

Menotti

Apparently this was a redirect to the composer Gian Carlo Menotti, Italian-American composer and librettist. However there are at least 3 people and a draft being written to whom this could apply. It's not that I want to delete the redirect - I've boldly turned it into a disambiguation but I am not sure where/how I should have discussed it first - if it was causing errors in redirects it shouldn't go back to the composer only but I also didn't want to leave it blank...

What should I do/have done? 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 16:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You can go to Special:WhatLinksHere/Menotti and change all of the links that obviously should point to the composer. The change was correct, I would say, and shouldn't require discussion anywhere (though you could start a section on RfD I suppose if you wanted to get second eyes in a more controversial case) Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 8#The fiftieth day

I noticed that the discussions for February 8, 2016 are no longer appearing in the complete list at WP:RfD, and I'm worried that this discussion may have slipped through the cracks. If there are any uninvolved admins watching this page, can you please close or realist this discussion? Thanks in advance for your help. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Notecardforfree: If you want, you could try WP:ANRFC. Not many admins watch this page, but several watch that one. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tavix: thanks for the suggestion; I posted a request at WP:ANRFC. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Rudolf and company

While I have deleted redirects which were absurd (e.g. Neelix) there are a number at CSD currently. See Rudolf Francis Ferdinand Hoess as an example. There are currently 14 in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as implausible redirects.

Could someone with more experience in this are opine on whether these qualify as CSD? Should they be declined as CSD, and nominated as RfD?

While there is no rush, they have been sitting most of the day, and my guess is no one feels confident enough to pull the trigger.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There is not, there is one. The rest got deleted. And the point is? Why could you not say it at RfD. Perhaps I am being so very 'meta' but RfD Talk is to complain about RfD itself, not about individual redirects. You can do that at, er, WP:RFD like normal people do. What you have done, unintentionally I imagine, is rather than having an open discussion having a sneaky private one. Of course that is not your intention but it looks like that who in the world watches this page? I don't and I'm a reg. Si Trew (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments

An editor has asked for comments regarding a proposed change to the {{rfd2}} template. Users watching this page may be interested in the request for comments. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Allow non-admin delete closures?

Original discussion for delete NACs

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect#Allow non-admin delete closures?

Wondering if there's appetite to explore allowing non-admins to close a redirect discussion (for example, this one) which are obvious delete results. Currently, per WP:BADNAC, non-admins are not allowed to close discussions where they can't carry out the result. My thinking is a non-admin user could close such a discussion as "consensus to delete (nac)" and then tag the redirect WP:G6, referring to the discussion. This will help with the backlog by allowing more of the obvious result threads to be closed without waiting for a patrolling admin. There's of course some risk that a user could abuse this to get a redirect deleted out of process, but redirects are cheap and that kind of thing would get noticed and repaired pretty quickly if it resulted in significant disruption. A while back they tried this at WP:TfD and it seems to be working just fine.

I do have some ideas for conditions in mind, but don't want to waste time on it if there's just no interest in talking about it at all. What do you think? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• I like the idea in theory, but.... There are often discussions that have lingered open recently solely because BDD or Dereck Chan (and especially if both) have participated in them. When personally looking for discussions in need of a close, there are often discussions that have clear consensus to delete, that I don't close because it isn't allowed if you lack the ability to fulfill the outcome (as you state above). However, all that being said: I'd rather see a few RfD regulars make a request for the mop, and subsequently start closing said discussions (if we allow this sort of clause, it will weaken the ability of regular participants here to demonstrate a need for adminship). We aren't even close to being in as bad of a state as TfD was backlog wise.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think that weakening participants' ability to demonstrate a need for adminship is a poor reason not to do this. We're not all hat collectors, some of us just want the forum to function smoothly. Also, I disagree that it weakens anyone's ability to demonstrate need; if anything, a glut of non-admins closing discussions where they need an admin to push buttons shows that more admins are needed in this area, and also demonstrates that the users doing the closing know what they're doing, and you can highlight that experience in an RfA if you choose to do so. But you're right about current admins, I guess I hadn't really noticed that BDD and Deryck Chan (and JohnCD) are really the only admins patrolling this area regularly. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• I remain very supportive of allowing such NACs. The fact that an actual admin needs to do the deletion is a huge check against abuse. There's another precedent for NACs that need admin intervention to complete, over at WP:RM, where non-admin closers put speedy deletion tags on redirects that hold up page moves after a closure. I would also like to see more editors step up at RfA, and more current admins getting involved.

My personal life is pretty busy right now, and I'm not able to adjudicate at RfD as much as I have in the past. I'm sure this has been noted. RfD also seems more active than in the past, which generally gladdens me, but definitely makes us understaffed, especially when I or another closer becomes involved in a discussion.

All this said, I believe Steel1943 pushed for this sort of thing in the past and was rebuffed. But of course, WP:CCC. --BDD (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@BDD: That sounds like "the me of the past", but I cannot recall what specific plan or suggestion I had in mind. If I would suggest/support anything of the such these days, it would be ... to allow non-admins to close discussions to delete if a backlog in any WP:XFD forum (with the exceptions of WP:AFD and WP:TFD ... and maybe WP:MFD) is a certain amount of days backlogged. I mean, look at WP:FFD's current backlog ... it goes back to March 18 right now ... Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@BDD: Yeah, that's what I suggested ... an "AHOD" option in certain scenarios of WP:XFD backlogs. I don't remember where I posted the suggestion though. Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I think a broader proposal for XFD's would be the way to go down this road if desired, instead of having it vary at different deletion forums.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, just because I've seen proposals like this fail in the past. I would rather see certain venues, such as RfD, serve as "laboratories of democracy" (or, umm, "laboratories of consensus") with an eye to making such a proposal in the future, where we can say, "Look, this works!" --BDD (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually I was one of the people who pushed for the clause "[NAC is inappropriate if the] result will require action by an administrator" a few years ago, because it wouldn't reduce the amount of work that needs to be done by admins. But I made that argument in the context of AfD. I'm now open to the idea after reading the argument here, noting that the problem we have is we have very few regular closing admins, so an effective stall would happen if all admin regulars opined in a discussion. Maybe non-admin "delete" closures will even attract admins to take an interest in RfD. tl;dr: Let's experiment. Deryck C. 22:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'll strongly recommend non-admins to close RfDs that do not require the delete button, and for RfD regulars to run for WP:RFA. Deryck C. 10:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This is actually a little more subtle. Some closes require spending time, but little judgement. These would be unexceptional NAC. What we want to avoid is the situation where a NAC occurs, and an admin implements it, and ructions ensue either because it's a bad close, or because someone is looking for any means to overturn the close. The question therefore arises whether an admin should review the close before implementing it. In practical terms this itself is a judgement call - if someone has been making good NACs for some time, an admin may reasonably assume that they know what they are doing.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC).

I don't spend much time around RfD, but I can speak to the TfD experience with this process - it has indeed been very successful at reducing the backlog, and in fact most TfDs are now closed by a few experienced non-admins, with very little work left for me :) I think I've seen most if not all of the disputed NACs that have come up in the last year - that would be less than a dozen substantive disputes, and about five DRVs, so overall there has been very little friction and very few poor calls. It's true that some of the original arguments in favor were specific to TfD: first, there's sometimes a lot of work to do between closing the discussion and actually deleting the template, and that orphaning work has always been mostly done by non-admins; and second, some discussions are best evaluated by people who are experienced template editors, and the number of admins who are in that category and care to monitor TfD is not large. But I think the success in that relatively limited context is a very good sign for expanding the NAC scope elsewhere. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

There was a time when non-admins were able to close deletion discussions at RFD by interpreting that they did have the power to do so simply by getting an admin to aid the process. Guess that's not the case anymore, which seems rather arbitrary to me. One thing though, if we go back to nacs, then it should be made clear that the assisting admins are not the ones responsible for the close. Admins should be able to assist in the procedure without having to recheck everything, nor should there be any reprisals against the admins who aid a nac closer. It's the closer who should shoulder all the responsibility of the nac. The nac closer might get under the gun; however, only the nac closer should come under the gun, not the assisting admin.  Stick to sources! Paine  20:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Allow non-admins to close RfD discussions to "delete"?

Should non-administrators be permitted to perform non-admin closes on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion that result in a "delete" consensus? Steel1943 (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Support (Non-admin delete closes)

1. Strong support Works fine at WP:RM, will work here, especially as participation grows faster than the stock of available admins. All we need is something like WP:RMNAC written up. We can recommend {{db-xfd}} or create a more specific version. --BDD (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support - I suppose I am the proposer, or one of them anyway. I want to emphasize that the potential for lasting harm from this small change in just this forum is quite minor: abuse is likely to be detected, and redirects are cheap. Non-admins won't actually be deleting anything, simply moving processes along to their logical conclusions. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Support - I suppose someone who is not competent to close RfDs will do so, they will simply have to be told. Apart from that, no issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC).
   
4. Support, but we need a way to make sure something closed as delete actually gets deleted. I'd hate to see a discussion closed as delete, not get deleted, and then get archived. I didn't see the speedy G6 on the first read through, that works.Tazerdadog (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Conditional support on the condition that we mandate another RfC to review the decision to allow NAC delete closures a fixed period of time - 6 months of 12 months - from the enactment of this new experiment. Deryck C. 22:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

   Support the condition put forth by Deryck Chan.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

   This is a good condition, and should be adopted. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

6. Support - looks like a good idea. I would also like to see the removal of the NAC tagging requirement for closes that do not require sysop tools. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
7. Support works just fine at TfD where the cost of a mistake is higher. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
8. Support no harms associated with discussion closure in itself, and redirects still require an actual admin to delete them, who will presumably also check the discussion. A good proposal. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
9. Weak support, While I don't think there's a huge chance of misuse, I would like to see a restriction of this feature to certain usergroups. I also like Deryck Chan's idea above. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
10. Strong support. I've done several of these in the past without incident. It's important, though, that if the community decides to allow experienced non-admins to close discussions, then the closer should take full responsibility for the decision just as if an admin had closed the discussion. To be clear, if the closer needs the service of an admin to actually finish the close, the admin should not be expected to have to check the details and take any responsibility for the closer's decision. If the close comes under the gun, then it's the non-admin closer, and only the non-admin closer, who must shoulder any fallout from their decision.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  16:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
11. Support. I think this is a great idea in principle, though I raised some questions in the discussion section below that we may want to consider if this is ultimately implemented. I am also open to the idea of holding an additional RfC in 6 or 12 months to reassess how things are going. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
12. Support. Sure, why not. This may make RfAs even more difficult though, as it means another reason to gain the sysop tools gone. SSTflyer 01:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

    What opposers fail to realize is that redirects, like templates, need to be orphaned prior to deletion, so it's not as simple as letting the admin close the discussion like AfD. SSTflyer 01:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

13. Support per BDD. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
14. Support No extra work at all. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
15. Support – The goal of the proposal, as I'm reading it, is not solely to "lighten the load" on administrators, but to improve the efficiency of the redirect deletion process as a whole. As always per WP:NACD, close calls and controversial decisions are better left to administrators – that principle should not change if this proposal passes. Even if an administrator has to check the validity of the closure (which shouldn't take too long since many RfDs are near-unanimous), the benefit is that the deletion would happen more efficiently, as more administrators patrol CSD than RFD. Mz7 (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
16. Support: Yes, a admin should detete it when closed by a non-admin. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 02:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
17. Qualified support per a) BDD's pair of "these need to be done" caveats; b) Deryck Chan's 6–12-month review RfC; and c) Mz7's, concern (we should explicitly include a reminder that that provision of NACD still applies). I agree with the gist above that this will be an efficiency boon for little cost, and I generally favor "unbundling" (i.e., delegating) approaches, as WP enters a new, more mature phase of the organizational lifecycle.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

    PS: Concerns that a) the ability to make delete non-admin RfD closes should not be available to newbie or trouble-maker editors, and b) it would still create work for (some) admins to have non-admins do closes that admins still had to execute, could both be obviated by limiting these delete non-admin closes to editors with the page-mover user right, as detailed in the discussion section below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

18. Support. Closing discussions per the consensus of the discussion seems well appreciated by admins. Yes, create more specific versions of {{db-xfd}}, which will enable admins to run cursory checks within specific areas and to do the deletions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

    On the question of responsibility, where some note that the deleting admin still has to take responsibility for the use of the delete button: True, but reviewing a close can far easier than doing the close, and if the non-admin wants to volunteer their time and effort in this way, then good. But there is an implied fear of non-admin closer irresponsibility. To address that, I suggest that any admin for forbid, subject to consensus in a later discussion, a poor closer from closing any more discussions. I don't think this will be called for very often. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

19. Support as nearly routine maintenance, with the option of a review some months down the road, though I don't think it will be needed. First Light (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
20. Supported at TFD, will support here too. The optimal solution would be to fix RFA, but seeing as that doesn't look like happening soon this is a decent stop gap. Jenks24 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
21. Support. It works well at TFD and will work equally well in this case. Deli nk (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

    Weak support after reading Deryck Chan's response to Fieari here. I never thought of "it" that way until now, and that statement makes complete sense to me. Steel1943 (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

    ...And downgrading my support to "weak" after reading some of the recent opposes. I'm sort of reminded of part of the reason I was originally "neutral", as referenced in my struck comment in the discussion section. Steel1943 (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

    ...And now, I "oppose". Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

22. Support on the understanding that non-admin closures are restricted to experienced editors who understand the RFD policies, that non-admins avoid close calls and controversial decisions, and that administrators review the speedy deletion request as they would any other speedy deletion request (in other words, the non-admin will effectively recommend deletion and the admin will review and make the final decision). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
23. Support as a step towards unbundling, although we will probably have to visit the question of eligibility requirements down the road. Carrite (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
24. Support While on the one hand an admin has to do the deletion anyhow, as a practical matter this seems like it would help get the work get done much faster. Nwlaw63 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
25. Support with Deryck Chan's review option. If there are discussions long outstanding that need an admin to close, please feel free to ping me. I'll try and get here more often in any case. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
26. Support. The amount of admins who can close RfD discussions are only those familiar with redirect policies; a choice few. The amount of admins who can delete as per WP:G6 is all admins, and whether the closure was correct can be handled by WP:Deletion review if necessary. This isn't just moving a backlog from one place to another. This is greatly increasing both the number of potential closers and the number of admins who know enough to press the delete button. This has successfully worked at WP:TfD and WP:CfD, where I used consensus to allow non-admins to close as delete to eliminate large backlogs (2 months in the former case, 200 discussions in the latter). A backlog at CSD hasn't been an issue, even when I've listed 400 categories as G6 in one night. Why wouldn't we apply this highly successful strategy for backlog reduction to RfD? ~ Rob^Talk 17:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
27. Support Good idea, I like it. This should help with massive backlog on most of the delete lists. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:15 on June 24, 2016 (UTC)
28. Weak Support If it is obvious that consensus is "Delete", i.e. WP:SNOW, non-admins should be able to close as delete and put a speedy tag on the article Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
29. Support Provided that the same caveats that apply to RM apply here.PaleAqua (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose (Non-admin delete closes)

1. Oppose - the decision of deletion will ultimately fall on an admin; since this admin will need to decide for himself/herself that deletion is appropriate, (s)he should be the closer of the discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

   Absolutely -- I second עוד מישהו Od Mishehu's comments. Quis separabit? 14:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose The admin who will consider the deletion will have to review the close anyway, as he or she is accountable for the administrative action. I think this might even create more work, as someone will have to seek out an administrator to delete the page. (Or wait for an admin to come by who would just close it anyways.) I'm not quite sure what benefit this would serve. Mike V • Talk 22:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

   The admin doing the deletion in this way does not have to do more than sanity check the closer. If the admin clicks the link in the template, they just have to glance at the discussion for maybe 10 seconds. The things the closing admin needs to ensure are the right page is being deleted, the close was sane, and the close is not being contested. They don't have to go wade into the substance of the arguments. That's the job of the non-admin closer, and that's who is ultimately responsible for making the deletion call. If you want to argue that a non-admin closer should not be given the responsibility to close the discussions, that's one thing. However, this is not going to make more work for an admin. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

   But that's the thing, the closing admin doesn't have the ability to glance at the discussion for 10 seconds. If they were to enact the closing non-admin's deletion and they were wrong, the admin would be responsible for not doing their due diligence. It's similar to other admin actions. A user might request a block for edit warring, protecting a page from vandalism, or making an interface edit, but ultimately the admin must be able to justify why the action was (or wasn't) taken. Mike V • Talk 16:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

   But see, that's only true if we want it to be. And the point of this is to designate these closes as not admin actions. If a user is disruptively abusing this power, closing discussions as delete when everyone says keep—sure, chide the admin for running without his or her brain on. (The bigger problem there, though, is the abusive user.) If it's more of a judgment call, if it's taken to DRV, it's still the closer's judgment that really needs to be discussed. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

   I've deleted hundreds of templates under G6 after NACs of TfDs. The argument that NACs take more time because the admin has to review the discussion has that tempting scent of truthiness, but in practice isn't true. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

   [Extended discussion between SMcCandlish and Mdrnpndr has been refactored to the section for that, below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)]

3. Oppose per Od Mishehu. Non-admins aren't supposed to close discussions resulting in deletion because they don't have the authority to delete content. We have RfA's to gauge worthiness to this task and allowing non-admins is antithetical to the process. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

   And the backlogs and dwindling number of both admins and adminship candidates, despite major attempts to reform RfA, demonstrate the the "organizational lifecycle stage 1" solution that RfA is has not been working, for quite some time. We have to augment Ye Olde Ways with new approaches, if we're not going to try something completely new.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

4. Strong oppose and I am surprised that this is even up for debate. All of the admin noticeboards are perpetually backlogged as it is, and there is no reasonable question that this would add to the overall admin workload (if only because of more contested closes). Mdrnpndr (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

   I was under the impression, when I put my name under "Support", that this is not entirely unprecedented. A couple editors and administrators mentioned above that a similar idea was put in place at TfD, and it worked fine. WP:NACD advises non-administrators to avoid controversial decisions – that principle will remain even after this proposal is enacted. Mz7 (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

5. Oppose - It makes no sense to me why you would even want this. A non-admin can't perform the final deletion action necessary. Closing the discussion and performing the deletion should be simultaneous. Thus, no. Fieari (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

   I'm an admin and I used to have this view until I began participating in RfD regularly. In a deletion forum with ≤5 admin regulars (such as RfD), we regularly run into a situation where there is a consensus to delete but it stays in the backlog for weeks just because all the admin regulars have taken part in the discussion. NAC-delete gives us an way out without creating additional workload in such situations. (By "regular" I mean "comes around to close or participate in discussions every few days or more frequently over a long time.") Der yck C. 15:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

   Absolutely -- I second Der yck C.'s comments. Quis separabit? 14:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

6. Oppose per Od Mishehu. The deleting admin bears responsibility for the deletion, so they need to satisfy themselves that the consensus of the discussion is to delete. Since they have to do that, they might as well close it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

   Absolutely -- I second @BrownHairedGirl's comments. Quis separabit? 14:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

7. Oppose per User:Od Mishehu, User:BrownHairedGirl et al. If the admin is going to have to assess the discussion anyway, how is this not just "look at me, I closed a discussion - um, now let me find an admin to reclose it and implement." Complete waste of time better spent doing something else. - jc37 10:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
8. Oppose Responsibility is key in these situations. I want deletions to be approved by admins who represent Wikipedia, not agenda-warriors. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
9. Oppose It is pointless for someone without the ability to decide on a delete when the delete cannot be performed unless an admin takes responsibility for it. Ultimately it is the admin who is responsible for the deletion, so they should make the decision to delete. Admins are picked for their ability to use their tools correctly, this includes deleting stuff. I will not be putting my name in any deletion log unless I took at least the same amount of effort I would take to do the actual closure. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 13:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
10. Oppose strongly: As a non-admin I instinctively oppose this proposal as a lowering of standards in the interest and name of pragmatism. Practicality is fine and everyone would like shorter waiting periods to close out pending AFDs, etc. but this is a bridge too far. We may live in a world of low and lowered standards (just take a look at the two main presumptive POTUS candidates) but this is a reality for Wikipedia to record, not emulate. Quis separabit? 12:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

    In case my overly cautious and politically correct opinion (directly above) did not make it clear -- I do not believe non-admins (and I know most are well-intentioned) can or should be trusted and relied upon in AFD cases with apparent delete consensuses. The confusion and appeals that would likely ensue would make any quantitative savings (of time and energy) too minimal to be of value. If the XfDs are so backlogged, why not declare a moratorium until things can be straightened out, and perhaps a daily limit on all XfDs, as well? Quis separabit? 14:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

    @Rms125a@hotmail.com: I can't help but feel that your oppose (along with a few others in this section) seems like an oppose against non-admin closures as a general concept, rather than this narrow proposal to allow them to close redirect deletion discussions as delete. If allowing non-administrators to close discussions will waste enough time to make this proposal "not worth it", shouldn't we already have evidence to demonstrate that? Why would adding "delete" as an option necessarily lead to an influx of incompetent closers? Non-admin closures are designed for when the consensus is so clear that an administrator would undoubtedly close it in the same way. That is a longstanding principle and it doesn't change with this proposal. Mz7 (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

11. Oppose. I roam many XfD pages on occasion, I am not a regular at any. I often do a short run at Speedy Deletion as a way to (1) help out a little (2) while not requiring too much of my time. If I wanted to assess template deletion's, or redirects, or..., I would go there and do it. Sure, probably all such closes I saw are clear and did'n take long to re-review; still a "delete" non-admin closure involves the exact same steps than a admin close, plus tagging as G6 and reassessing by the deleting admin. Overall that is *more* work to process the same ammount of discussions, in the long run I doubt it is any improvement. Much better is that editors wanting to decide on deletion to become admins. I understand, (un)becoming an admin probably should be easier than it currently is, but circumventing the process of acknowledging some level of community trust is not the solution - Nabla (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
12. Oppose A non-admin can't delete anyway. We make admins for a reason, non-admins should not be closing as delete. -DJSasso (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
13. Tries to solve a problem that does not exist. Admins do not need someone to put a set of tags around a nomination telling them that the outcome is obvious. What they do need (or at least, did, as of the last time I was active here) is/was to be made to exercise maximum restraint in the highly contentious closes. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

    It's a bit galling to see someone who doesn't participate in RfD waltz in here and declare that the backlogs we've dealt with for years are a nonexistent problem. Gee, what have I been wasting my time on? --BDD (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

    The backlogs are not a problem. I do come to RfD from time to time. Most redirects are not any problem if they stay a few days over the seven days deadline. Or a month. The ones that could be a problem most likely get more attention and get closed sooner. Also, I doubt making the process longer (one extra G6 tagging plus one extra quick-sanity-check by the deleting admin) will make it faster. Unless there are many more non-admins closing. In which case, why do not some of them become admins? - Nabla (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

14. Weak Oppose - Some of the opposing rationales have swayed me to a point where I can't lend my support to this proposal. I've seen many more closes that I disagree with in some aspect, but aren't quite egregious enough for the time and effort it takes for a discussion with the editor and a potential DRV (unless it becomes a pattern), performed by non-administrators than administrators. Administrators are expected to know what they're doing and have been entrusted by the community to act appropriately. We shouldn't ask them to burden themselves with entries in the deletion log that aren't based soley on their own assessment of consensus (additionally: if we require them to vet the close, then work is being done twice, which is pointless).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
15. Oppose: per BrownHairedGirl and others. Given that only an admin can actually do the deletion and is responsible for their use of the tool, they have to do more than rubber stamp a close. I am also concerned that the current climate is too quick to delete as it is; I find that too many articles are AfD nominated when a merge with redirect or other less drastic method of trimming could be used. Montanabw^(talk) 05:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
16. Oppose  As pointed out above, why do admins need help with obvious closes; and if the close is not obvious, why is the non-admin closing?  Unscintillating (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
17. Oppose. I wanted to get a little experience on the admin side of the fence before I weighed in, thinking that it would influence my views. It has, from neutral (largely in line with Steel1943's original train of thought) to here. Closing an RFD discussion as delete is extremely simple if you have access to the delete button. After the discussion is closed, all that needs to happen is a push of the delete button, and that's it (with a couple rare-ish exceptions). If a non-admin were to close the discussion, s/he would need to tag it, wait a bit for a CSD admin to come around, who would then need to confirm that the closure is correct, and then after all that is completed, s/he would then delete it. That is so much more work, spread out amongst multiple people, for a problem that really doesn't exist right now. Since Patar knight and I have started closing discussions towards the end of May, we've been flirting with no backlog ever since. It shows that the real problem isn't the fact that non-admins can't close as delete, but that RFD was slightly understaffed. I can name at least three RFD non-admin regulars that I'd personally nominate for admin if they want to get more involved (you probably know who you are, send me a message if you want to run and I'll gladly nominate you). Sending more RFD regulars to RFA would solve the problem a lot more than this band-aid would, as I have hopefully shown, and I want to encourage that over bothering the already-thin CSD admins. Instead, I'd like to support the "all hands on deck" suggestion that came up earlier. If the backlog ever gets too long, then I would definitely support allowing non-admins to work on the backlog in the name of WP:IAR, although I don't think that needs to be codified. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

    I think you're right. But it depends on those RfD's non-admin regulars (ahem ahem) to offer themselves up for an RfA. Deryck C. 19:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

18. Weak oppose. After reading some more of the more recent comments here (as well as considering my original thoughts), at least on RfD, I now think that anyone who closes a discussion to "delete" should have access to the delete function. And yes, as stated above, I would support an "All Hands On Deck" option as I referenced in the original section of this discussion above the RfC. Steel1943 (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
19. Oppose The idea of someone reaching a closure decision that they can't actually implement doesn't make a lot of sense. An admin is still going to have to review it and do the deletion, so all it does is add an extra step to the process. The rules at NAC say not to make a closure that you lack the power to implement. Changing that rule won't solve any problem, and will create new ones. --MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
20. Oppose per Nabla. Instead of moving the backlog from here to CAT:CSD, we should promote more admins. —Kusma (t·c) 12:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
21. Oppose per policy administrators are responsible for the actions they take with their administrative tools and can be held accountable for them. If anyone disputes the correctness of a deletion based on a non-admin close then the deleting admin will be obliged to defend it and could face consequences if it is deemed to be incorrect. This means admins effectively have to endorse any non-admin delete closures anyway. As an admin I would not feel comfortable performing one of these deletions without reading the original discussion as if I was closing it and satisfying myself that the close was correct, and at that point I might as well have closed it myself. Hut 8.5 22:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

    But I think the relevant question is would you have closed the discussion if the non-administrator hadn't brought it to your attention at CSD? My understanding is that few administrators actively seek out and close RfDs relative to those who patrol CAT:CSD. If you have to spend an extensive amount of time thinking whether a non-admin closure was appropriate – then the non-admin closure was not appropriate. The goal with this is to speed up the process by bringing obvious closes to the attention of administrators. Even if administrators have to check the closure as if they closed the discussion, the benefit is that the closing process happens more quickly, making the deletion process as a whole more efficient. Mz7 (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

22. Oppose Separating the closer from the action is a really bad idea. Miniapolis 00:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
23. Oppose As a non-admin cannot delete an article, a non-admin shouldn't close a deletion request as "delete". It's common sense. KoshVorlon 11:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
24. Oppose - As Kosh Vorlon says, if you can't enforce it, you shouldn't close it. BMK (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
25. Oppose. Per Mike V, an admin is going to have to review before actually deleting anyway, so there shouldn't be two steps to the process. That's why we elect admins, to make those decisions and then carry them out. Softlavender (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
26. Oppose per Tavix, Mike V. RfD needs more admins, and this proposal would just add more steps (CSD tag+admin review of the discussion). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion (Non-admin delete closes)

Pinging participants in origins discussion to inform them that this has been converted to an official RfC: Ivanvector, Godsy, BDD, Deryck Chan, Rich Farmbrough, Opabinia regalis & Paine Ellsworth. Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• There was a similar RfC somewhat recently at VPP (November 2015). There's a pretty significant difference between them in that the other discussion was about RfD and AfD. I feel like there may have been another similar thread, too, but I can't remember where. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
• This proposal raises some interesting practical questions that I think we may want to consider if this proposal is ultimately implemented:

1. To what extent should the deleting admin give deference to the closing non-admin's interpretation of consensus? Should the deleting admin conduct a de novo review of the discussion or should they defer to the closing non-admin unless the closing non-admin's interpretation was clearly in error (i.e. a clear abuse of discretion)? I personally prefer the latter approach.
2. Will there be any formal procedures in place to limit the kinds of non-admin editors that can close discussions as delete? Is there any practical way to limit this power to editors who have, for example, 1,000 edits or editors who have "extended confirmed" privileges?
3. I remember seeing past RfD closures where a closing admin will apply the decision of that discussion to closely related redirects that were not included in the original discussion. Will non-admins have discretion to do so as well?

I don't think any of these issues are serious obstacles to the implementation of non-admin delete closures, but these are issues that I think we should keep in the back of our minds if the system is ultimately implemented. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with all three points. See comment below about the page-mover right.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'd like this more if this the proposal was actually for a userright to delete (just) redirects as well as close – I've got to think such a thing is technically possible. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The simplest approach would be to limit this to editors who have the page-mover right. This would both provide a minimum (and non-trivial) hurdle of community trust to make such closures, and provide a means of going through with them that does not add to admin workload: The closer would very briefly move the target page over the redirect, and then move it back without leaving a redirect again (or adapt the instructions at WP:PAGEMOVER relating to preserving redirs that have edit history worth saving, in the unusual case that concern arises).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    • What? That's not a simple approach at all. Closing redirect discussions has nothing at all to do with moving pages. If you mean that it would be "simple" to allow pagemovers (or any non-admin user of any existing or new usergroup) to delete redirects, that is technically improbable: redirects can be in any namespace, so you would have to give those users universal delete rights for that to work at all. And that won't fly, I pretty much guarantee it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• I thought I should state that even though I started this RfC, I'm neutral on the proposal. My support for this proposal matches BDD's reasoning, but it doesn't overshadow the fact that I think that such a proposal undermines the role and value of administrators. I mean, yes, in theory, this proposal is geared to make it so the administrator who deletes such redirects as a result of RfD's should be absolved of any responsibility related to the deletion of the redirect(s) in question, but on the flip side, this may potentially reduce the amount or need for WP:RFAs. If a non-admin can close these discussions to "delete" but having access to the "delete" function would be one of their eventual tasks as an administrator, granting permission to close discussions to "delete" without having the actual ability to delete the page reduces the need to have the delete function. And, on the flip side (again), the English Wikipedia may never run out of administrators to perform the deletions since the English Wikipeda currently has over 1000 administrators, but however, non-admins having the allowance to close these discussions to "delete" could further prove that they could become a good administrator. So ... there's good and bad on both sides, and I can't place myself in either camp. Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

  Moving my opinion to "Support". Steel1943 (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  ...And now, moved to "oppose". Steel1943 (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  I'm somewhere in the middle on the effect of proposals like this with regard to RfA. I don't really believe that this is taking away a reason to apply for adminship, on the balance. In theory, any competent editor can evaluate any discussion for consensus and produce a reasoned argument; the judgement of administrators is not meant to be automatically superior to that of mere lowly users. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal. A proposal like this one allows more community-level control over content, I think, and with respect to RfD makes admins mere button-pushers, which is what they're supposed to be. If you want to be someone who pushes the button, you run for RfA. If you want to evaluate discussions as to what gets kept and what doesn't, you don't need to be an administrator to do that. Of course, someone with little experience or demonstrably poor judgement shouldn't be closing complex discussions, but RfA is not our control on that. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• [This comment and some responses to it have been refactored into this section, out of the !vote section, above.] Mike V, see also WP:RMT; if an allegedly non-controversial move actually turns out to be controversial after the fact, RM admins are not blamed, the user who wrongly listed the the move at RMT get the eggs and tomatoes thrown at them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

  User:SMcCandlish, I think you're missing the chasm of a difference between making a request and closing a discussion. Reversing one of those has far stronger implications than reversing the other. Mdrnpndr (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

  To whom? We have similar processes for both, DRV and MR. Both action types can take some effort to undo, both can raise disproportionate ire, and both scenarios are caused by the exact same chain of events (non-admin comes to a conclusion about consensus, and asserts an admin should act on it, and after a perfunctory sanity check, assumes good faith and takes the action, only to find out after the fact that people actually are prepared to object strenuously). I tend to agree with BDD's take that the one becomes a bigger deal than the other "only if we want it to". WP:DRAMA arises because people make it happen, not because it's innately a part of WP functionalities and processes. Most of it arises from personality disputes, and I've learned from long experience here that the personalities that generate such conflict will generate it about whatever is at hand, the actual severity of the matter not being really relevant. I see way more drama about article moves than I do about redirects being deleted. (That said, I am not an admin, and do not have to deal with uniquely admin drama, so there may be some RfD-related pit full of radioactive, flame-spitting alligators I'm just not aware of.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

  User:SMcCandlish, if any discussion is closed as requiring admin action (outright deletion, moving over a redirect with useless history, etc.) and an admin comes along and disagrees, this has huge potential to cause problems. Sure, in many cases the users involved will just shrug and move on, but imagine if this is a highly contentious debate we're talking about, perhaps even one that has been relisted numerous times. We're talking WP:AN at the very least, and likely outright WP:ARBCOM involvement. None of this is the case when an admin simply rejects a request posted by a user (where other users have not demonstrated consensus support for the proposal), nor is it the case when closing a discussion without required admin action, as the entire burden of any potential review then falls upon that non-admin user. Mdrnpndr (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

  @Mdrnpndr: I still don't see it. If an admin objects because the closer's policy and procedures interpretation were incorrect, that would be exactly like an admin refusing to carry out an alleged non-controversial move at WP:RMT, or an admin refusing to [un]protect a page at WP:RFPP, or an admin [dis]agreeing with an editor's unblock request; in all such cases, another admin is unlikely to personally challenge this decision, and the acting [or refusing-to-act] admin who made it effectively trumps non-admin opinion (subject to community review at AN, ANI, etc.). Rewinding, if a non-admin closes an RfD as delete and an admin objects because they want to add a pro or con argument to the discussion about it, that's an editorial opinion not an administrative one, and so has no administrative weight. Regardless, the DRV process would remain, to handle any disputes arising. So, there does not appear to be room for this "huge potential to cause problems" to actually arise. It sounds like "terriblizing", imagining the worst vaguely possible outcome instead of expecting the probable one. WP works on a WP:COMMONSENSE basis, and is not apt to let an insane pattern arise, especially when we already have mechanisms in place and norms of decision-making behavior (and review thereof) that actively prevent this, generally and site-wide, in all the directly analogous situations. Have some faith that the community will opt for, and optimize for, sensible results not unworkable ones.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• For those who may be interested, the discussion on allowing non-admin closes at Templates for discussion is archived here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
• Regarding Notecardforfree's points above:

1. Admin responsibility: I personally agree with the latter approach; so long as the non-admin closer's action is not clearly erroneous, the deleting admin is viewed as simply executing the discussion's result. And I suggest we create a new R-series criterion for just these cases. If anyone objects to the deletion (very rare for redirects) then they can follow the usual process at deletion review.
2. Who can close as delete?: I don't think we can formally restrict this; except maybe for topic bans, any editor can close a discussion. Editors who repeatedly close discussions incorrectly can be asked to stop, or formally banned from doing so by usual processes (WP:ANI, most likely). And technically restricting it means making some users not able to participate in discussions at all, which I'm sure most people would agree is a bad thing.
3. Discretion to delete related?: I think no. The criterion (whether it's new or not) is going to say something like "a redirect where the discussion closed as delete", and if a closer is reviewing a discussion and finds related redirects which weren't discussed, I think it's better (and undoubtedly less drama) if they either ignore them or list them as new discussions, rather than tagging for deletion. The deleting admin might decide to do so anyway.

And as for the suggestion that if we do this we should review how it's working after some period of time, I fully support that. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

At the moment, I would agree that we don't need to set formal restrictions on who can close. The idea of a non-admin closure is not new: right now, anyone (except IPs) can close discussions as keep and no consensus. If we need formal restrictions, we should already have evidence to demonstrate that need based on current practice. I understand that deletion is more destructive than keeping or retargeting, but I'm not sure if expanding a non-admin's repertoire will bring a sudden influx of incompetent closers. Mz7 (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. @Ivanvector adds the rider so long as the non-admin closer's action is not clearly erroneous ... so the admin implementing it does need to review the close. Possibly to a lighter level of scrutiny than if they were closing themselves, but possibly not, because admins need to be careful not to act irresponsibly.
So, regardless of the level of incompetence among closers, admins stil need to do as nearly much work as if they were they closers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

That's really not what I'm suggesting at all. I expect that the deleting administrator's review will be limited to checking that there actually was a discussion and it actually closed as delete, not going so far as to review and evaluate the close itself. By "clearly erroneous" I mean the closer used an invalid criteria, or the discussion is actually still open, or it's clearly vandalism; a blatant and obvious error, not just that they interpreted consensus incorrectly. If there is an issue with a closure of any result, it's not up to a passing administrator to correct it, that is the purview of a closure review. I've seen exactly two of those in the couple years that I've been hanging around RfD, and they were both for the same redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I commented early on in this discussion and haven't followed it since, but I see there's been a significant amount of opposition building up on the basis that "admins will still have to review closures so it won't be any faster/will be too risky". Based on the experience accumulated from NAC closures at TfD, this claim is in fact false. I wrote the original TfD RfC and monitored the process there for a long time after it was implemented. I probably hold the record on number of NAC-as-delete G6s. It could be true that Tavix's observations are correct, RfD works differently, and NACs wouldn't help here - though I'd add from the TfD experience that a consistent throughput time maintained by experienced regulars is much superior to accumulating large backlogs and then occasionally running an "all hands on deck" effort to catch up. But as this is moving toward closing time, I have to emphasize that a number of the oppose votes here appear to be based on speculation rather than evidence. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

30 days

The 30-day period runs in about 24 hours. I'll go post a notice over at WP:ANRFC and WP:AN asking for 3 closers, and let it run until we get 3 or a week goes by. If we get 3, great. If we get 1 or 2, I'll probably ask them a couple of questions. If we get 2, I'll probably offer to join them. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Splitting daily log page

All redirects listed on a given day are discussed within sections of a single page. With the current volume of redirects getting listed here, this leads to some inconvenience for people like me who only comment on occasional redirects. I'd normally want them to be on my watchlist so I can keep an eye for others' opinions, but if I add them, my watchlist feed gets inundated with edits about all the redirects that are on the same page. I'm wondering if there couldn't be an AfD-like system where each discussion would be on its own page and they would all then just get transcluded on the daily log. Would that be more trouble than it's worth? Uanfala (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Uanfala: It probably would be more trouble than it's worth since it would require a new way for a bot to handle the pages. Also, the operator of DumbBOT, the bot that currently handles RfD, hasn't been really active on Wikipedia lately, so any request to change the automatic way this page is handled could take months to happen. Steel1943 (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

In addition, most of the templates that are currently used on RFD would either need to be updated or even new templates created. And then, the archiving system for the pages would need to be updated. There are probably some more things that would need to happen that I'm currently not thinking about right now, but that's part of it. Steel1943 (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a tweak that may or may not be feasible: could we collapse sections of closed discussions? When a long day is in the backlog because of one or two open discussions, could we hide the closed ones on the main page? Certainly it could be done manually on a daily page, but that seems like a hassle. Maybe it's not feasible... --BDD (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@BDD: The answer to that depends on if section redirects still function if their anchors are hidden. I think the fact that they didn't changed recently. I'll probably test this in a little while (unless someone else does and beats me to it.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, if it's just the main page, that may be feasible it it can be done in a fashion similar to how it's done on WP:MFD. I'll look into it... Steel1943 (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

That would be great. Thanks! --BDD (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BDD: Okay, I found a way to make this work, but ... yes, there is a huge "but" ... {{Rfd top}} would have to be changed in a way that might actually make it a bit different and possibly more difficult for closers to close discussions. First, {{Rfd top}} would have to be placed above the section header instead of directly below it (as it currently is); I could see this causing problems with closers erroneously placing {{Rfd bottom}} below the {{Rfd top}} of the discussion directly after it. Second, {{Rfd top}} would need to have the closer manually input another parameter to have text display when the section is collapsed (in the event that it needs to be customized [I'll explain that in a minute]). For example, if the redirect's name is Fgzdabby, then instead of using {{Rfd top}} by itself, the closer would need to use {{Rfd top|Fgzdabby}}. The alternative to having a manually inputted option in {{Rfd top}} would be to have the same text appear in all collapsed discussions, such as "Closed discussion" or maybe even "Closed discussion: see (direct link to daily subpage)" (I think this option is possible). I hope I explained this well enough without getting technical to a point where I am not being clear. Feel free to contact me with questions. Steel1943 (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Yikes. That's too big a "but" for me, but it's something I can get used to if others want it. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@BDD: The alternative would be to collapse the discussion, but not hide the discussion's section header. If that is okay, then everything I just stated can be disregarded. Steel1943 (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Huh. That doesn't sound so bad. So what would that look like? --BDD (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@BDD: See this page, specifically section "January 2", for how these changes would appear. (I'm actually not the biggest fan of the color I chose, but I'm not an expert with 3-digit color codes, so I tried my best for the moment.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks good. Agreed about the color, but that's a minor detail. And this wouldn't require changes to how discussions are closed, or how they appear on a daily page? --BDD (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussions will be closed the same way they are now and the changes will in no way affect how the discussions are displayed on their daily subpages. In fact, look at the page I "tested" this on: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 2. On that page, the closed discussion should appear as normal. Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. Let's do it! Much more drastic changes than this have been implemented boldly. --BDD (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@BDD: Done Steel1943 (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@BDD: Also, when I was doing all of these changes, I accidentally found out that these closed discussions can be forced to appear at the very bottom of the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion page but still appear correctly on their daily subpages. However, in effect, the discussion would still appear in the table of contents under its daily subpage, but would forward the reader to the bottom of the page when clicked from the table of contents. Does this sound like something we should consider? Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Disregard that. I did some more testing, and apparently if that is done, it completely breaks the bottom of the page. Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• I've thought about the idea of a subpage per discussion for some time. It would greatly improve the ease in which discussions can be tracked. Though sometimes, misoneism gets the better of me, so I'm currently at neutral.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Hey. I saw the change to {{Rfd top}} using {{Rfd top collapse}}. Good job. I've got a recommended change though - can we transclude the result of the debate into {{RfD top collapse}} so readers can still see the result of a debate in collapsed mode?

Required changes to {{Rfd top collapse}}:

''Closed discussion, click ''"show"'' to expand.'' {{#if:{{{1}}}|Result was: {{{1}}}|}}

Required changes to {{Rfd top}}:

{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|{{Rfd top collapse|{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}}}|}}

Deryck C. 22:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: I brought up a concern earlier in this discussion that conflicts with your suggestion: The need for adding an additional parameter in {{Rfd top}} that needs to be manually inputted by the closer when closing discussions. (Above, I called this "{{Rfd top|Fgzdabby}}".) Though it requires a tiny bit more effort by the discussion closer, your suggestion makes more sense than my idea in my aforementioned comment regarding "{{Rfd top|Fgzdabby}}". My only concern with this is how large that field could get in the event of grouped nominations that turn into WP:TRAINWRECKs. I have a few ideas on how to make those suggestions a bit more user-friendly, (such as just leaving the suggested new "reason" parameter named "1" instead so that closers don't need to use {{Rfd top|reason=result}} but instead can use {{Rfd top|result}}), but I need to spend a bit more time thinking about this. For example, should {{Rfd top}} return an {{Error}} if the proposed "reason" field is empty? Etc... (I'll ping BDD here to see if they have any opinions on this as well.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think it's okay to paste the entire closing rationale onto the collapse box. It's gonna be something between 1 word and 1 paragraph. I usually put my closing rationale inside the template but yes we will be introducing a breaking change to closers who put the rationale outside the template, so we need to get everyone on board. Deryck C. 23:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I do put my closing rationale outside the template, but that seems like a small adjustment to make for this sort of improvement. --BDD (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually I realised it isn't even a breaking change. We can have the line "Result was:" only if the closer has put their rationale inside {{Rfd top}}. That way we'll introduce additional functionality for closers who put their statements inside the template, without breaking anything. Deryck C. 15:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Right, after thinking about it for a few hours, I arrived at the same conclusion. If the reason= parameter is left optional, closers can still use {{Rfd top}} in the current fashion. I'm going to attempt to figure this out here in the next few hours, most likely basing the changes off the code provided above. Steel1943 (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: It seems that the code you suggested is exactly what I probably would have done to accomplish your suggestion. Since you suggested the code, feel free to WP:BOLDly add it. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. I think I'll leave two issues open:

• Further cosmetic edits to {{rfd top collapse}}
• What goes inside the collapse box? I recommend {{subst:rfdt|'''result'''. [Optional short comment]}} [Optional long comment] ~~~~

Deryck C. 18:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as the collapse box, I think that's a good recommendation. It's what I usually do, with one exception when I accidently signed within the template. I kind of like how it looks though, someone can see who closed it and what time without uncollapsing... -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Coming late to this. What is the functional difference between {{rfd top}} and {{rfd top collapse}}? I just used the first one and the discussion is collapsed, but my reason didn't get picked up in the collapse box. I tried with the collapse template and got the same result. Is specifying reason= required? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok I see the difference between the two templates, never mind that part. I still can't get the reason to show up in the collapse box header though, with the parameter or without it. I'm working on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 5#Facks and I specified {{subst:rfd top|reason='''result''' etc.}} both with and without "reason=". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• I definitely support dedicated pages for special discussions, and special discussions includes any discussion that can lead to deletions. The main reason has to do with watchlisting. If a page exists only for the discussion, by watchlisting you can monitor contributions, and the close, and any odd actions. If there are several other discussions intermixed in the history, watchlist following is nearly useless.

Dedicated discussion pages are the norm for AfD and MfD. The bots, their management, archiving, etc, work fine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW, I strongly oppose separate pages for discussions. It's a solution in search of a problem and having a daily log is very convenient when bundling related redirects, as well as being able to comment on several discussions with one edit and it makes closing discussion easy. I've seen other editors get involved in unrelated discussions within a daily log that might not otherwise do so if the pages were separated. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• I'm also opposed to this idea - it makes anonymous users not be able to make the nominations properly (I once had to do the nomination for an anon at MfD). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)