:User talk:Primefac#Afsaneh Salari

Thank you in advance

i know you're a dog (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:If {{u|Iknowyoureadog|you}} think that their AFC helper status needs to be looked at, WT:AFC is the place to raise that as an issue; I know they're on probationary status and any admin can unilaterally remove them, but from a cleanup perspective it's better to get more eyes on the situation, especially when it doesn't look like any of their acceptances have raised flags. If you're concerned about AFD as well, then ANI might be the place to go, but I would make sure you have a solid case against them; it's less about blowback (as Graham was mentioning) but more that ANI tends to not take any action where the outcome is somewhat vague (it usually gets bogged down in side discussions). Happy to answer any other questions you may have. Primefac (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, I will post at WT:AFC. i know you're a dog 03:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I've posted here. Thanks for the guidance and explanation about ANI vs WT:AFC.

:::i know you're a dog 04:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

If you need to replace these, it should be with the {{t|tlit}} abbreviation, if anything. –jacobolus (t) 04:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:According to {{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_12#translation_redirects}}, there is a consensus to delete this redirect, which means replacing it with its target. Primefac (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Did you read the discussion at all? There are a wide range of long established editors arguing that these redirects should not be deleted (except for the names with periods at the end, for which there's a split in preference between deletion vs. retargeting, and not very strong opinions involved), and then the one closer improperly substituted their own personal preference to make a decision. Nowhere is there any support evidenced for universally replacing the name {{t|transl}} with {{t|Transliteration}}; there are however several people who argue that if any replacement is made it must be with an abbreviation such as {{t|tlit}}. –jacobolus (t) 12:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Replacing a deleted redirect with its canonical target is the normal process here. "tlit" is obscure and jargony, not helpful to regular editors, which is why the template guidelines say that template functions should be clear from their names. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Replacing a deliberately chosen abbreviation with a much longer full name is trampling on the intentions of the original editors of every page where the replacement is performed, does not reflect any kind of community consensus (again, please read the discussion!), and is substantially a disruptive waste of attention, both immediately and into the future when people have to skim past excessively distracting templates peppered liberally in running prose. The creators/frequent users of the transliteration template intentionally created the "tlit" abbreviation as a better alternative to the "transl" (which was the template's original title, later moved to "Transliteration") due to the perceived confusion of "transl" (vs. the translation template), and the concision of a 4-letter shortcut.

::::Notice that Wiktionary calls common running-prose templates names like "t", "l", "m". Why? Because long template names in running prose destroy the readability of the text markup and making editing a painful slog. (The same concerns do not apply to sparingly used template names appearing outside running prose; it's fine to use long explicit names for those.) –jacobolus (t) 17:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Nobody should stop you from using {{tl|tlit}}, just as nobody should stop me from using {{tl|tl}} in this response, but that is different from carrying out the normal process of replacing a deleted template or redirect per standard procedures and the template guidelines. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The "normal process" is leading to significantly worse (more cumbersome and distracting) markup across a vast number of pages. I don't agree with you that your bot action is a the inevitable way of resolving this, or that the appropriate action should be personally decided by one or two people with no community input or consensus. I would instead urge you to pause the bot and ask for community feedback to see if it's possible to reconcile various editors' preferences.

::::::{{tq|i=yes|Nobody should stop you from using {{t|tlit}} }} – Are you suggesting that I could make a bot that aggressively changes every instance of {{t|Transliteration}}" to "{{t|tlit}}"? Otherwise, if you mean I can take particular cases manually one example at a time, then you are completely missing the problem. –jacobolus (t) 20:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It's not my bot. I'm just a talk page watcher who has been an active TFD participant for the past five years or so, describing what normally happens. I'm not suggesting any new, innovative mass action on anyone's part; I'm merely saying that if you use {{tl|tlit}} in your editing, nobody should object or go around changing it. Did Primefac's bot change any instances of {{tl|tlit}}? (P.S. If you think that the standard procedure of replacing deleted redirects with their canonical templates needs changing, Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion is probably a good venue for that. If you think that the closure was incorrect, I think that Wikipedia:Deletion review is the correct venue.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::To respond to various points, in no particular order... no, I did not read the discussion, I follow the directive of the closer (because they put in the effort to read it). The discussion was closed almost a month ago, so any concerns or complaints about the close could have easily been made in that time period (though I do recognise that post-close most of the notices disappear and it's not until someone like me starts implementing it do people notice/complain). No, going through and replacing all of the full-name transclusions with shortcuts would not be appropriate, because you do not have consensus and AWB (which I assume you would use) does not allow this sort of mass-change (noting of course that my bot has approval to implement discussions where such changes were deemed appropriate). And, as Jonesey says, there is nothing stopping users from using other extant shortcuts going forward. I will say that I considered replacing the to-be-deleted redirect with another short one, but I honestly didn't know if that redirect would be nominated for deletion in the future so I figured I would err on the side of caution (and to be slightly cynical, I'm sure someone would complain I was using "the wrong shortcut" anyway). If you have any other questions please let me know. Primefac (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{tq|i=yes|"I follow the directive of the closer"}} – Leaving aside that I believe this discussion was improperly closed and not following community consensus, I don't see any directive about mass replacing {{t|transl}} with {{t|Transliteration}} in the closing message. So really "following the directives" is more like "interpreting however I feel like at the time"; this change seems even less supported by any community consensus than the deletion of the transl shortcut, which already seems quite controversial and unsupported by the community. {{tq|i=yes|" closed almost a month ago [...] any concerns or complaints about the close could have easily been made in that time period"}} – This is false. It was closed barely a week ago (18:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)). I was traveling until the past few days and not paying attention to Wikipedia, and am making my complaint at the earliest possible time (for me). –jacobolus (t) 23:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::To your last point... my apologies, I was looking at the nomination date and not the closing date. As far as the interpretation goes, "delete all" for redirects still means "replace it with something", with that something being a request to replace with the target template. Primefac (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I didn't know about these requests. Fair enough; I guess the blame belongs entirely to User:DMacks then. This is now basically impossible to undo (cf. WP:FAIT), and we're permanently sticking vast numbers of pages with a cumbersome and distracting markup based on the preference of a few people, over the objections of a majority who never asked for such a change. –jacobolus (t) 23:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::And now that you have just deleted the template redirect, all of the historical revisions going back years of many, many (tens of thousands?) of pages are permanently broken. Sigh. I guess nobody on Wikipedia cares about legible permalinks or supporting Wikipedia's advice to external authors to cite specific revisions because they "won't change". –jacobolus (t) 23:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: {{tq|i=yes|"If you think that the standard procedure of replacing deleted redirects with their canonical templates needs changing," }} – Yes, this should not be a "standard procedure" but should involve some amount of thought and consideration on a case-by-case basis, and deletion closers should try to adopt a remedy that is supported by community consensus rather than a one-size-fits-all bureaucratic rule. What should be done with a deleted template depends on the context and the reason for the deletion. Most templates are used sparingly and outside of running prose (e.g. as invisible directives, top-of-page banners, wrappers around blocks of content, etc.), and often not even in article pages. For these, there's really no particular legibility advantage for a shortcut name. If it were e.g. decided to change the title of {{t|reflist}} to a longer name like {{t|reference list}} and change every instance of the former name to the latter, it would be fine as far as markup legibility is concerned, indeed probably an improvement: this is a template that appears precisely once on a page, is not interfering with running text, and indicates a large block of content, so there would be a benefit for being explicit with a name that is easy to immediately understand, for no particular long-term cost. Other templates are intended to be used liberally within running text, and for these there is a strong advantage to using a shortcut, because shorter template names improve the legibility of the markup. For instance {{t|r}}, {{t|sfn}}, {{t|pgs}}, {{t|tmath}} or {{t|tlit}} are shortcut names for which brevity is a fundamental goal, and using names like "reference by name", "shortened footnote", "page numbers", "latex math formula", or "transliteration" is dramatically inferior. –jacobolus (t) 23:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

File:ANEWSicon.png

File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg Administrator changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Rusalkii

:File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg {{hlist|class=inline

|Master Jay

|Orderinchaos

|Roger Davies

|Tinucherian

}}

File:Wikipedia Interface administrator.svg Interface administrator changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Galobtter

File:Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, administrator elections were permanently authorized on a five-month schedule. The next election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for more information. This is an alternate process to the RfA process and does not replace the latter.
• An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{t|sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
• An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.

File:Info Simple bw.svg Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

----

{{center|{{flatlist|

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

}}}}{{center|1=Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)}}

:Always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)