User talk:Kephir/archive/2014/09

The following is an archive of Kephir's talkpage for September 2014. Please do not edit this page. You may browse archives or start a new discussion on the current talk page.

Hi! There is a typo in User:Kephir/gadgets/rater/projects.js that you could fix in less than five seconds. See my message on the appropriate talk page. Please just do it, your script looks great and I'd love to use it for computer science related articles ! Thank you a lot ! Pintoch (talk) 07:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pintoch: Done. For some reason, I never noticed that message. Thanks for the heads-up. (And no, that script looks awful. Both code and user-facing parts.) — Keφr 16:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, it works ! − Pintoch (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recently discovered this and am finding it helpful in assessing articles. While marked unstable, I haven't yet found any showstopper bugs. Nice work! --Mark viking (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The present target of this redirect seems to violate criteria 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8 of WP:RFD#DELETE. Is there any chance that I could persuade you that it should point at Wikipedia:Notability (law)#Lawyers, which is plausible and inoffensive? James500 (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are 1143 backlinks to this quite old (created 2006) redirect, which invalidates #8 (not novel or obscure); the abbreviation, though non-trivial, does make sense, which invalidates #5. I am not sure what #2 is about, but I think the two concepts are hard to confuse in a way in which the criterion mentions. #1 can be always resolved by a disambiguation hatnote as well.

Keeping criterion #4 suggests to keep redirects which are widely used, which this one is. Also, shortcuts exist so that frequently mentioned pages can be conveniently linked to. I fail to see a reason why someone would link to that failed proposal now, so this line of reasoning also favours the current target.

It seems you are engaging in some sort of twisted legalistic over-interpretation of a vague and non-exhaustive deletion (small-g) guideline's wording to suit your needs. If only there were a catchy name for it… — Keφr 10:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Failed notability proposals are invoked at AfD from time to time, in the same way as essays. (WP:NJOURNALS was a failed proposal that ended up being extensively cited at AfD). NLAW is cited from time to time. In any event, this proposal is in the process of being rewritten so that it can be proposed again (or perhaps turned into an essay). The section on lawyers certainly can't be failed because it has only just been added.

I appreciate that there are a number of links from archives, but in twenty years no one is likely care what those archives say.

You haven't addressed deletion criteria 3. The present target of this redirect is analogous to redirecting Lawyer to Troll.

If you don't like the proposed target, how about pointing the redirect at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law? James500 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not just in archives. The link at WT:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for example was added in July this year, which is quite recent; people still use the shortcut and expect it not to suddenly break. If the redirect is changed, at least a hatnote about that would be warranted, which you failed to add. I fail to see the analogy: "lawyer" is not an abbreviation of "troll" (in fact, it is one letter longer). Also, I want to see your time machine.

If you wish to change the redirect, take it to RFD. — Keφr 11:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]