Wikipedia talk:Kaffeeklatsch

This page was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 2015 February 12. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

This orphaned talk page, subpage, image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia.
If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.

Soft redirect?

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: About what should display temporarily, during the RFD, now closed

(relating to RFD: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_12#Wikipedia:Kaffeeklatsch )

Ed note: I have moved this conversation here from my talk page as it concerns this redirect. Please continue the discussion here. Ivanvector (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ed note 2: I have retitled the section because the link to my talk page is doing strange things in my watchlist. Ivanvector (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(begin moved conversation) Hi, i just explicitly requested to you, within the ongoing RFD about wp:KAFFEEKLATSCH redirects, that you remove the tag(s) you added to the wp:kaffeeklatsch redirect. It's bringing the RFD off-topic, if it has to be discussed more, so I'll try here. Seriously, i do appreciate your adding the soft redirect to the top of the RFD, and your trying to help. But, it is undermining the usefulness of the soft redirect example, if it is tagged. It makes it look bad and does not show what users would see if the soft redirect is kept. It is actually interfering with the RFD, imo, though I assume you do not intend that. I'll watch here, hope to keep this side discussion out of the RFD itself as much as possible. I hope you could just remove the tag and briefly indicate you've done so at the RFD, in response to my request. sincerely --do ncr am 04:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing it. Mousing over it, I now see exactly: "Kaffeeklatsch: a user-space place for women to get together, hear, and support each other. This is a soft redirect. This is a redirect from a page outside the user namespace to a user" and then it is cut off. I gather from your statements that you see "nothing" or something different. Perhaps your settings are different than mine. Anyhow, thanks for allowing me and probably others to see the intended message again now. --do ncr am 15:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I don't often get edit conflicts on my own talk page. The template should be there, because it's proper procedure to notify editors who come across the redirect that it's being discussed, and there are templates and scripts that depend on it. Popups ignores the template (and other Xfd templates) and previews the page below the code. It's not showing what you think it should because soft redirects are not interpreted as redirects by the script, and it can't load the target page to preview. But I have removed it anyway so you can see what it looks like. I'm still not sure what the other error is caused by, you don't need any special permissions to create redirects.

(comments moved here without my permission removed) Please follow WP:Talkpage guidelines [1]

Please see my comment directly below - you've already added the Rfd template back and I'm not going to revert. The {{R to user namespace}} template has nothing to do with project pages. It only indicates that the redirect goes to a page in user space from a redirect that is not in user space (i.e. categorizing cross-namespace redirects). Ivanvector (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, the instructions for the rcat template say not to use it on soft redirects. I had missed that. I have removed the template. Ivanvector (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for what you see now, maybe we are using different popup scripts, or maybe it works differently in different browsers. I see just the title of the page, and some stats. Normal redirects usually show the title of the redirect, followed by "redirects to" and then the title and content from the target. Anyway I won't add the template back, but someone else might. Ivanvector (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(end moved conversation)

From our sharing notes, it is clear there are differences in what's seen, depending possibly on our Wikipedia preference settings for wp:popups and other, and also possibly on our browsers and/or operating systems. I am using Google Chrome in Windows 7 right now, by the way. I gather wp:popups are not necessarily enabled for editors, but I have them enabled. --do ncr am 16:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, that's exactly the setup I'm using. Gah, I blame the gremlins. Ivanvector (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for discussing here! This doesn't need to be part of the RFD discussion itself, please let's continue here as necessary.

Yes, technically the wp:kaffeeklatsch redirect is under discussion, as explicitly stated by me (approximately: "don't have a cow, anyone"..."if the RFD ends delete, then of course this redirect gets deleted too") and as indicated by it being included in the top of the RFD. There is NO disputing by anyone that it is under discussion and is subject to deletion. But it is an EXAMPLE, for the purpose of furthering the RFD, so it should be kept in working form, please! And the RFD will be over soon.
About it being misleading somehow to users coming across it, I cannot imagine anyone coming across it, besides from the RFD. What links here only shows the RFD and our related user talk page discussions, besides a mention in an archived Village Pump discussion where editor Voceditenore talked about (and against) the possibility of the KaffeeKlatsch being moved to mainspace.
About the "hidden category that refers to project pages", that went away when Ivanvector removed the rcat, which apparently should not be placed on soft redirects.
What else could be done to make this work for you?
- About your suggesting it is interfering with editors working on maintenance categories, can you or I place a notice somewhere to inform those editors about this temporary situation?
- How about a big notice within a hidden comment, addressed to any maintenance editor or anyone else who starts to edit the page, that this is a redirect under discussion? (I'll add such a comment now, please feel free to revise it.)

--do ncr am 16:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the tag back in place, put back by E and with rcat removed by I, what shows in the mouseover for me is somewhat garbled:

%5b%5bWikipedia%3aRedirects+for+disc / a user-space place for women to get together, hear, and support each other. This is a soft redirect.

in which the "/" indicates there's a linebreak and what's displayed is cut off.

Removing the RFD discussion tag would show, for me, instead exactly:

Kaffeeklatsch: a user-space place for women to get together, hear, and support each other. This is a soft redirect.

And, at the soft redirect itself, it shows the RFD notice which displays, unhelpfully "Error: Unable to determine the redirect's target. If this page is a soft redirect, then this error can be ignored. Otherwise, please make sure that the instruction ... ". That looks bad, and is possibly confusing to RFD participants, as it suggests there is some error now and that maybe the soft redirect cannot be done without causing/showing some error. It undermines the example.

Because of these reasons, I'd like to re-remove the RFD tag, but will pause at least briefly? --do ncr am 17:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's unfortunately no way around that error, which is why the template says "if this page is a soft redirect, then this error can be ignored". The template can't determine what the target is for soft redirects, hence the error, but the template is correct nevertheless. I don't recall why the template needs to determine the target - that may be an issue to take up at Template talk:Rfd with people who know what they're doing.

In any case, the popup for me displays the same regardless of whether the template is in place or not. It looks like this. It looks like this whenever I mouse-over a link to a soft redirect. Hard redirects show me content from the target below the redirect stats. Maybe my script is broken. Ivanvector (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting that image. Call that display "A", the brief version. I get display "A" just like that when I mouse-over Wikipedia:Kaffeeklatsch or wp:KAFFEEKLATSCH, but when I mouse-over wp:kaffeeklatsch i get that display PLUS another separate display "B" with message. Maybe "B" is a navigation popup? It provides an article preview, anyhow.

Maybe our difference is about Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups vs. some other kind of popups? I have enabled, by a check mark, "Navigation popups, article previews and editing functions popup when hovering over links", in my preferences under "Gadgets" in the "Browsing" section.

The Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups page has an an image showing a navigation popup that is not exactly what i see when I hover over Wikipedia. The popup displayed there seems to be a joining together of types "A" and "B". It notes that the image is what is seen using the skin Monobook. Hmm, that image is from 2007.

Please verify if enabling navigation popups is what's needed. It would be useful to report on this to the RFD, if/when we figure out what editors need to be able to see the soft redirect message as a navigation popup, type "B". And it would help to know what's the proper name for the "A" kind of popup, and link to whereever it is described. --do ncr am 17:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this has to do with a different helper script that I am using, which I'm not sure how to uninstall. I'll take what you see as authoritative and assume that there's something wrong on my end. I don't see a type "B" when I hover over wp:kaffeeklatsch, instead I see the type "A" view of Wikipedia:Kaffeeklatsch. For Wikipedia I think I get the same result as you - type "A" plus a short preview of the page content, which is what I assume you meant by type "B". Ivanvector (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in "B" i mean you get to see the preview, the first words in the article. For Wikipedia, i only see that, not the "A" type. There are more settings for Navigation popups, according to wp:Navigation popups that more finely control when it is displayed, whether just a "SimplePopup" is displayed, and more. You might change these in your Javascript settings? At the Preferences / Gadgets menu, those fine tunings are not offered. If you know what you're doing, I expect you could see/copy my exact Javascript settings. --do ncr am 22:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So when will this get decided? I kinda liked this version:[2]. Lightbreather (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can definitely decide anything here until the Rfd concludes. Normally they stay open for 7 days, so probably not until late next week. Ivanvector (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just restored it to the version that serves best as an example, of what it would look like, to inform the RFD in progress. I created this to serve as an example during the RFD. And Ivanvector was willing to restore it (and did), and I assume Lightbreather supports that, while EChastain was pinged but hasn't commented, and another person edited at the page to remove the displayed message but did not comment here, may not even be aware of the RFD. So I think this is good enough for now, for the duration of the RFD itself. About permanent wording to be displayed, if a soft redirect is kept, that can be discussed in the RFD, and/or here after the RFD is concluded. This is just an example of how it works, how it can look. --do ncr am 22:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All-caps variant

I closed the RFD just a few minutes ago, and as part of that, I restored the redirect on WP:KAFFEEKLATSCH simply to remove the RFD tag. But I see that this page (normal capitalization) has gone ahead with the soft redirect. Whether regular redirect or soft redirect prevails on this page, make sure it is done consistently between Wikipedia:Kaffeeklatsch and Wikipedia:KAFFEEKLATSCH. Harej (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanbks. Okay,

Done, I made the wp:KAFFEEKLATSCH to be identical to here. And I redirected its Wikipedia Talk page to this Talk page for central discussion of any changes. --do ncr am 02:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post-RFD discussion, if necessary, about template "R to user namespace"

The two redirects are now identical, with same hidden comment, same one category, and same text and appearance presented. I removed the {{R to user namespace}} because it messes up what is displayed. It displays irrelevant stuff, rambling on and on, stuff that is for administrators or technical editors perhaps that should not be displayed for regular users. The unncessary text removed is:

This is a redirect from a page outside the user namespace to a user page (not to a user talk page). This redirect page must be outside the user namespace. For more information follow the category link.

Remember that user talk pages are not in the "user" namespace, they are in a talk namespace. This rcat should never be used to tag redirects to user talk pages – use {{R to talk page}} instead.

Note: If this page is in the user namespace, then it will populate Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace instead.

except that in the display some of the above words or phrases are wikilinks. (Feel free to improve the represnentation.) There remaains display in small font that "This is a soft redirect", which is okay I guess but plenty. Further, I will "complain" about the display at Template Talk page for {{R to user namespace}}, which I think should be changed. As that works now, I prefer for it not to be here, and I'll just manually add the two hidden categories that the template would apply (Category:Redirects to user namespace and Category:Unprintworthy redirects). Also I manually add Category:Noindexed pages. --do ncr am 03:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Opened discussion at Template talk:R to user namespace#Change of text display suggested. Maybe it should be at RFD instead, i dunno. --do ncr am 03:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any comments on what the template should or shouldn't display. Just noting that the directions in the template say not to use it on soft redirects. As for being unprintworthy, pages outside of mainspace are automatically not printworthy, so I'm not sure that template is necessary. It's probably not hurting anything though. Ivanvector (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just in support of the above, the Printworthy redirects and Unprintworthy redirects categories are only used in mainspace, for it is only those encyclopedic articles/redirects that would be considered either suitable or unsuitable for any type of printable version of Wikipedia. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 19:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, Ivanvector and Paine Ellsworth! I just revised Wikipedia:Soft_redirect#Categories_to_add_for_cross-namespace_soft_redirects (a section which I recently developed) to reflect that. --do ncr am 05:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure! and thank you for your revision to clarify all this as an aid to other editors! – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 10:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]