Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive
Archives

Renamed Redirects for discussion about this time

Contents

[edit] Capitalization

People are voting to delete redirects on the grounds that the search box compensates for capitalization.
Except, I don't use the search bar to navigate, I type article titles directly into my browser's address bar, and I'm willing to bet I'm not the only one. Capitalization redirects are very helpful. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
You're far from the only one. I find it fairly maddening trying to navigage the search engine. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
What about all these very common typo with a capitale at the last letter of words? I wanted to propose AlchemY but maybe these type of redirect aren't a problem. --Alink 21:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headers

It would be easier to use headers in {{rfd2}}. This would bring it in line with other *fd pages and be easier to use scripts on it. Sceptre (Talk) 10:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

While that may or may not be a good idea, I don't think it was wise to change the existing ones you closed without first discussing it. Also, when you closed in that manner, you messed up a couple of the previous ones that had been closed (Gori (city in Georgia) and Allied atrocities). I have fixed those. I have mixed reactions to your new format so I'll hold off commenting on that for the moment. -- JLaTondre 11:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for information (why no cross-namespace redirects?).

Could someone please explain the rationale behind the policy of deleting cross-space redirects? Such redirects have been very useful to me. An excellent example of this is 3RR*, which I intuitively expected to point to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. What harm comes from the existence of such entries? Folajimi 14:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

(*Actually, I had typed '3rr' in the search dialog box; nevertheless, the system took me to the valid entry.)

We want to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references and compartmentalise the encyclopaedia space from policy/whatever else space. Johnleemk | Talk 14:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the timely reply. The information you provided is quite an excellent resource. FWIW, I adhere to the guidelines outlined by that resource; in other words, I am loathe to participate in any incestuous activity. However, what I should have done a better job of pointing out is the efficacy of having redirects a particular group of articles within the "project space." Specifically, pages which contain information on procedures, tools, and other resources which undeniably help improve the work done in the so-called "Main space." The aforementioned 3RR is a great example of this.
Today, I decided to call for the community's attention to the (quasi) edit war which is ongoing with an article entitled "Catboy." The phrase "3RR" sprung to mind as being the equivalent to dialing 911. If that page wasn't there, I would have had a harder time finding what I was looking for. I would rather spend time contributing new articles, than squabble over entries which fail to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements.
Another example relates to my search for the synopsis of the {{otheruses}} family of tags. I figured that what ever came up from the search engine would be helpful; unfortunately, there had been some sort of discussion underway about the raison d'être of the article in main space. Ergo, more time was wasted searching for information on how the tag operates — time that could have been spent working in the "main space."
I hope that my response sheds some light on the point I am trying to make. Folajimi 15:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
This isn't a major problem; we already have shortcuts so we don't have to type in the whole page title, such as WP:3RR. Johnleemk | Talk 15:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was aware of that too (rather nifty, if I may say so.) Still, what harm can come from having redirects for the class of entries I am referring to?
Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that the 3RR redirect needs to be done away with for a entry in the "main space" which is valid. What would be wrong with taking a nonsense-like approach? You get a win-win situation — the main space entry is created, but the target page of the redirect is still being pointed to.
Besides, if a contribution fails to meet notability as in the article which was mentioned earlier, a revert can still be performed, right? Folajimi 16:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything Folajimi has stated above, and was about to post this exact same type of question when I found this. I took the liberty to expand the title of this section a bit to hopefully better get the attention of someone who might be able to answer our questions. I have already inquired about it on the main page under the 3RR and Mediation Cabal sections. The only arguments for deleting cross namespace redirects seem to amount to "we should keep namespaces separate in order to keep namespaces separate". Having all of the admin stuff under its own namespace seems fine, but I don't understand what's wrong with having a cross-namespace redirect. After all, theoretically aren't the topics of "three revert rule" and "Mediation Cabal" (and any other Wiki issue) legitimate topics within some other hypothetical non-Wikipedia enyclopedia? For example, an article entitled Three Revert Rule in the John Doe encyclopedia might say, "The Three Revert Rule is a Wikipedia rule that ..." If it's a legitimate topic for some other encyclopedia (hypothetical or not), why not for our own? And within our own, it only makes sense for it to point directly to the page on that topic within the admin namespace. What's the problem? --Serge 16:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Avoid self-references article linked above explains that things which are legitimate encyclopedic topics - such as Wikipedia - can have their own articles. As Wikipedia isn't just a collection of facts, I don't think 3RR would be considered notable here, let alone in another encyclopedia.
Part of the principle of Wikipedia is that the articles can be distributed under the GFDL. If some articles are redirects to a different namespace, it makes that much harder. It is no good for a mirror site to have a redirect to a namespace that doesn't exist as far as it's concerned.
"WP:" is only three characters to type, and the Wikipedia namespace can be searched just like the main namespace. —Whouk (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The issue isn't about having to type three characters, it's about having to know about those three characters to get to the wanted information. Believe me when I say, it's not intuitive at all. Do you have any examples of sites that mirror the main namespace, but not the WP namespace? --Serge 18:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that cross-namespace redirects should generally be deleted unless they are a very common term. Redirects to user pages are obviously unbeneficial to Wikipedia, but some cases, such as the 3rr one that this appears to have stemmed from, help a wide audience - especially newer users of Wikipedia who are unfamiliar with putting WP in front of terms. The cause of this argument, however, also appears to involve the fact that people using the redirect are not aware that they are entering Wiki namespace. I would suggest that cross-namespace redirects that are beneficial to a wide audience be soft-redirected, making it perfectly clear that the space is outside of the main article namespace. Cowman109Talk 19:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
It's only unintuitive when you're new. It isn't hard to get used to shortcuts at all, and the excess trouble caused to our mirrors because of self-references doesn't seem to be worth it, IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 02:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there a criteria for what is regarded as "new" in reference to contributors? Although I have been a regular contributor over the last seven months or so, I still have trouble finding the information I need. The remarks from Serge on this matter are excellent; the unintuitive nature of the current infrastructure is the reason this discussion is even taking place.
Point of Information: Could you please explain the lack of any results from the following queries using the "Search in namespaces" dialog: "wp:3rr", "wp:deletion", "wp:delete", "wp:project space", "wp:arb com", "wp:arb", "wp:dispute", "wp:vandal", "wp:error", "wp:afd"? (Notice that some seem to point to specific links — a connection which the query failed to make.)
Hopefully, this helps elaborate on Cowman109's point about specific redirects which are invaluable to users. Of course, any attempts to use this as a tool for vainglorious purposes should be throttled immediately. As for whether or not the redirects cause undue hardship on the mirrors, it might be helpful to have an objective cost-benefit analysis on this matter; does the hardship on the mirrors nullify the benefit obtained by users of the redirect? --Folajimi 09:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Going by your argument, it would be best to conflate all the other namespaces with article space, would it not? After all, many newbies end up linking to Johnleemk instead of User:Johnleemk. Many search for 3RR instead of WP:3RR. It may not be initially intuitive to prefix Wikipedia-specific acronyms with WP:, but once you get used to it, it's no big deal. (The definition of a "new" user is a red herring; obviously my meaning was "any user not experienced enough to know that we have shortcuts like [[WP:3RR]".) I don't see the point in conflating namespaces just so a few newbies don't get confused. It doesn't seem worth it to me. Your issue with the search engine is not relevant here, since we are discussing the conflation of namespaces, not problems with the search engine. I don't think there is much benefit to be gained from permitting cross-namespace redirects, since only newbies use them; pretty much everyone else uses the WP: shortcut standard. And in any case, a decent web browser lets you highlight a particular phrase and then Google it, so the problem of locating policy pages is rather easy to ameliorate. I hardly ever use the internal search engine Wikipedia has (probably out of habit since I can still remember the time when the load it put on the servers prevented anyone from using it). Johnleemk | Talk 11:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like we have a communication problem here.
First, I reiterated Cowman109's sentiment about having redirects for a specific set of pages. Speaking of red herrings, the username analogy is out of the scope of this discussion; I call your attention again to the reason this discussion is taking place. A possible exception would be Jimbo Wales, but I digress...
Second, you mentioned the issue of conflating namespaces; I had hoped you would get the hint from most of the wikified text used in my earlier replies. Based on your reasoning, all cross-namespace redirects should be the target of immediate revert action because they fail to meet any notability guidelines for contributions.
You also said that the search engine issue is irrelevant; notice how my initial post mentioned the use of the search engine to obtain information on 3rr? Well, that was how I reached the redirect page. When I searched using '3rr' as a keyword, I knew exactly what I was looking for — information within the "project space."
Finally, you mentioned the use of an external search engine. If that is such a good idea, why not give the internal search engine the deep-six? If it as harmful to the system as you say it is, why bother having it? (BTW, I prefer the backup search interface which features "yahoogle") Folajimi 14:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
(deindent) The username analogy is not out of place; the crux of your argument is that cross-namespace redirects are perfectly acceptable because they prevent inexperienced editors from making mistakes. Believe me, it is far from uncommon to see editors typing Johnleemk instead of User:Johnleemk. And my reasoning WRT cross-namespace redirects is perfectly valid; I don't see what's the problem. And I don't see the point you're trying to make with "I knew exactly what I was looking for". You do know how to limit the internal search engine to particular namespaces, right? And the question of the search engine's preservation is irrelevant in this case; I never said it was harmful -- just that I personally prefer Google. Johnleemk | Talk 11:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
You keep using the userspace analogy, which is not the crux of my argument. Now, I could be wrong about this, but I suspect that the rule about cross-directs came into existence because of redirects from [non-talk] pages in main space to content that happens to be in userspace.
(There is probably a witty catchphrase in the project space about how having userspace pages double as pages for websites is frowned upon, but I digress...)
Let me reiterate that I am only interested in creating redirects for a select group of articles within project space. It would be nigh impossible to justify redirects to user space; one would have to argue that the community at large stands to benefit from having that kind of access to the content which is solely available at the redirect's target. (Again, Jimbo Wales may be the exception here; I suspect most will fail to meet notability requirements.)
However, I will confess that I am one of the editors who have issued queries with usernames as keywords; more often than not, no results are returned. Nevertheless, I am unfazed by such outcomes which seem reasonable.
The question about the search engine was based on your closing remarks from an earlier reply; it sounded to me like you reconditioned yourself to avoid using the search engine because of your past experiences:
"...probably out of habit since I can still remember the time when the load it put on the servers prevented anyone from using it..."'
From what I gather, Wikipedia draws an immense amount of traffic; at a rate which will probably increase with time. I would argue that — for the sake of productivity — any component of the system which places an undue burden on others should either be improved or given the deep-six. --Folajimi 14:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Reposted here upon request. This is absolutely stupid. The only acceptable cross namespace redirects in mainspace begin with WP:, period. This is merely a matter of convenience. And guess what, there already is a WP:UBX. It's simple common sense; we have to keep the encyclopedic content and the non-encyclopedic project content separate. --Cyde Weys 20:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's my issues:

  1. Possible confusion with new users thinking the 3RR article would be in the main namespace as opposed to the Wikipedia namespace.
  2. Other websites which copy the Wikipedia main namespace would also copy these redirects, and break them.
  3. People know that "WP:" means something precisely because it's universally used that way. If we start making shortcuts without that prefix, eventually all such redirects will be copied to the main namespace and "WP:" will be useless.
  4. Potential conflicts with actual articles about deletion, arbitration etc. Will we have to disambiguate these when actual articles are created?

I'm sure there are more. Fagstein 22:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC) All of the arguments put forward to support this policy seem to be mere technicalities or simply irrelevant. I don't see redirects as "self-reference" at all as they don't discuss anthing. They are simply a search engine device. The loss of user-friendliness for non-insiders from this terrible policy is colossal and does great harm to Wikipedia, as it is immensely complex and very hard to get to grips with. This policy needs to be reversed right now. Chicheley 00:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To subst or not to subst

I entered {{subst:rfd1}} above the #REDIRECT as recommended at How to list a redirect for deletion. But the expanded text says, “Please do not subst this template. Using {{rfd}} rather than {{subst:rfd}} provides a convenient default reason summary for the deleting administrator.” Which is right, Redirects for deletion or Template:rfd? --teb728 06:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The directions and the template are consistent. Please check (i.e. Redirects for deletion#How to list a redirect for deletion) again. I'm not sure where you got {{subst:rfd1}} as the directions say to use {{rfd}}. They haven't been changed lately either. Short-term deletion templates should not be subst per the explanation at Wikipedia:Template substitution. -- JLaTondre 12:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually Freakofnurture made the change in Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Header this morning. “{{subst:rfd1}}” had been in Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Header#How to list a redirect for deletion since the section was created 11:00, 21 December 2005. (Until I discovered that the header is in a subpage, I thought I was going crazy, not being able to find any history of what I knew I saw just last night.) --teb728 20:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You're right. I didn't realize that's a subpage either. Sorry for the confusion... -- JLaTondre 21:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm sure if I ask someone here you'll be like

"junk it" like that lady in mystery men but: where can I find out more about conventions regarding redirects like say "steve mcqueen" (last name uncapped)? I'm sure it depends somewhat on the prominence of the person. I kinda thought martin king should obviously exist at first. then I noticed it doesn't. can anyone tell me where people debate this kind of thing if not here? thanks, Kɔffeedrinksyou 17:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Martin King exists as soon as you redirect it. However, the name "Martin Luther King" is worldwide recognized, which might not be the case of "Martin King". Tazmaniacs 17:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biodiesel redirects

There are several pages that have a RfD tag on them, but aren't listed here. Some of them even have deletion debate that should probably be moved. They are Bio-diesel, Bio-power, BioDeisel, BioDiesel, and Biodeisel. Ardric47 05:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Teutonic Order

When you go to the Grand Masters of the Teutonic Order, there was no info on lots of them. Someone redirected some of the Grand Masters back to the Teutonic Order. This is a circle. There was no info and someone redirected them back to square 1. This is the list of the Grand Masters that need to have the redirects deleted: -Konrad Zöllner von Rotenstein -Michael Küchmeister von Sternberg -Paul von Rusdorf -Konrad von Erlichshausen -Ludwig von Erlichshausen

Because of these bad redirections, I am unable to add any information about the above Grand Masters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Norum (talk • contribs) .

This is a little confusing, but I think you want to create articles for those five folks? If so, simply edit their pages and create them. Since they currently don't have articles, the redirects should remain until articles are created. If you are having trouble editing the redirects, simple go their page (ex. Konrad Zöllner von Rotenstein) and when it takes you to the Teutonic Knights page, you'll see a "(Redirected from Konrad Zöllner von Rotenstein))" at the top. Click on the "Konrad Zöllner von Rotenstein" link and it will take you to the redirect instead of following it. Please also sign your posts (see Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages). Let us know if you have more questions. -- JLaTondre 22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

They all don't have the articles, but someone created a link directly to the Teutonic Knights. I can not write an article about these Grand Masters, because whenever I click on one of them, I get re-directed to the Teutonic Knights. Konrad Zöllner von Rotenstein has been taken care of. I changed it to Konrad III Zöllner von Rotenstein and it's all good, but I can not do it with the other Grand Masters. I just followed your info and I see how to fix it. Thank you. Norum, 14:05 EST, 6.6.06.

I have made many of the redirects from the name to the TO article, in order to "catch" different spelling start a "network" that connects other mentions in articles about battles, treaties etc. That Norum wants to replace them with proper articles is good, that he simply deleted the redirects first is not (blanking, vandalism). Also, I suggest to remove the numbers and use the most simple name, eg. Konrad Zöllner von Rotenstein instead of Konrad III Zöllner von Rotenstein.--Matthead 21:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Note

Recently User:JHFTC has created a number of cross-namespace redirects from articlespace to the Wikipedia namespace. Timrem 22:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nearly all of them were reposts, so they were deleted. --Rory096 03:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-namespace

There seem to be a lot of cross-namespace redirects out there, which are discouraged. Can they be speedied? SCHZMO ✍ 20:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, unfortunately. There are several problems that could arise, such as numerous redlinks that may have been overlooked if the page is speedied that could lead to further trouble, for example. There are also several arguments that deleting a redirect and orphaning it when it has many links may cause more server load than if it was left alone. See the precedents list for examples of those that were kept. Lately, however, it seems the community is taking a stronger stance on deleting cross-namespace redirects. While they are discouraged, there is no official policy that allows for the deletion of cross-namespace redirects either. WP:SELF is a style guide, and WP:RFD states that you 'may' want to delete a redirect if it is crossnamespace, but does not say must. There are sometimes exceptions, as explained, as well. Cowman109Talk 20:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Note that the precedents list doesn't actually mean anything, the community is free to decide to delete something after a keep consensus earlier. Wikipedia:No binding decisions. --Rory096 03:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
True, but they at least serve as a reminder that sometimes it takes more than a simple speedy deletion of a redirect, as there may be broken redlinks to deal with. Cowman109Talk 02:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
What's with the crossnamespace deletionism? There are many redirects that couldn't possibly be confused with anything in the real world, I've seen them deleted when no real consensus was reached (like a tied 4-4 vote, after just a few days) Deleting them makes this thing less user friendly and harms the project. Not everyone spends hours of their days here... Tell me to get back to work! 08:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSD R2

A recent edit to CSD R2 has changed it so that instead of applying to redirects from article space to user space, it applies to all redirects out of article space. If this change does not reflect RfD consensus, it should be reverted. Spacepotato 20:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been reverted. Spacepotato 21:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-space redirects to Help pages

Are they deprecated? SCHZMO ✍ 19:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-namespace redirect are a good thing

The policy against cross-namespace redirects seems to be totally pointless and harmful. I'm an experienced user and I use them, but how are novice users supposed to guess that they should put "Wikipedia:" in front. Osomec 16:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your re-opening of Articles for deletion. You should not re-open a closed debate - that's especially true in this case as the redirect has already been deleted and replaced with a {{deletedpage}}. If you do not agree with the deletion, you should take it to deletion review.
With respect to your comment, how are novice users supposed to guess the terms in the first place? They learn them from the help pages and by seeing them use. If they see them used with "Wikipedia:" or "WP:", then they'll know that's what they are supposed to use. We should be making life easier on our readers. Cross namespace redirects can confuse them when they are looking for article content and get policy content instead. -- JLaTondre 17:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Would this reasoning not also apply to cross-namespace links? In MartinRe's boilerplate, WP: content is considered "pipework" and not the "building" (encyclopedia). Yet if we go to an article like Redirect we have a prominent link to project space. It seems to me that in some cases, redirects to project space should be replaced by a short article with a prominent WP:link, both to aid novice users and to avoid breaking existing links (keep criteria #4). Gimmetrow 04:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, links are a compromise. While they do mix the "pipework" and the "building", they are clearly identified as "pipework" and not the "building". A user looking for article content will not unexpectedly find themselves in Wikipedia: space. It's clearly marked that they are clicking on a "pipework" link. If there is legititmate content for an article, then there should be one. If the result is just a "soft" redirect, then I don't see the point. Internal links can easily be fixed and I doubt there are external links to most cross-namespace redirects. -- JLaTondre 13:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This campaign is ridiculous. First time I wanted to find out how to get a category deleted did I type "Wikipedia:Categories for deletion?" Of course not! Chicheley 23:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It may not be a term exclusively used by Wikipedia. Secondly, even if the redirect is gone, the desired page (the Wikipedia:categories for deletion page in this example) will still be at the top of the search results. Likewise for all the other deletion discussions. See search results for categories for deletion, articles for deletion, deleting stubs. Even searching for portals for deletion will get you to the correct place - MfD [1]. All the "* for deletion" redirects are potentially confusing and should be deleted. Kimchi.sg 01:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adverse impact of deleting cross-namespace redirects

I have two concerns:

  1. Page histories are being lost where there has been a cut-and-paste move or merge.
  2. Huge numbers of red links (like this one) are being created

Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense is an example of both. It is clear that the trend in consensus is to delete all such redirects. But we are storing up major problems if such deletions take place without a robot cleaning of existing incoming links and to avoid breeching the GFDL administrator merges of page histories. --Henrygb 17:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right in that these are both important issues, however, they are things that the closing admin should already bear in mind when performing the deletion. The GFDL requirement is easy to fix — just move the redirect, with its history, to somewhere in the correct namespace (e.g. Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/old) before deleting the redirect (now with no history) from the main namespace. The problem of redlinks has a simple solution too (i.e. fix the links), although this is easier said than done if there are hundreds, and would probably be botwork. Anyway, neither of these are reasons to keep XNS redirects. — sjorford++
RfD says to avoid deleting redirects if "you risk breaking external or internal links by deleting the redirect." (criteria #4) That would seem to be a reason to keep some XNS redirects. Gimmetrow 04:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
As Sjorford says "The problem of redlinks has a simple solution too (i.e. fix the links)." As for external links, as I said above, I doubt there are links to most cross-namespace redirects. And for those that are, I'm not sure of the value of maintaining them. Avoiding losing links to article content is important, but Wikipedia: content is primarily for the participants and not the external readers. The criteria on the main page is a guide and not a hard and fast rule. Consensus is what drives the decisions. -- JLaTondre 13:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
There definitely are external links to some cross-namespace redirects. Many of our original policy pages were written before the creation of a separate Wikipedia namespace. Writers on the topic of social software such as Carl Shirkey have referenced those policy pages in articles and academic papers. In fact, I first found Wikipedia while following such a link to the page that is now Wikipedia:Replies. There is great value in retaining those links in my opinion. On the other hand, there is little or no upside that I can see to taking the time to delete these redirects. Rossami (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
There are advantages and benefits that have been repeatedly been pointed out; that you insist on ignoring them does not mean that there is "little or no upside". --Cyde↔Weys 00:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not ignoring what you have said. I am, however, continuing to disagree with your claims and consider them to have been either discredited or out of balance with the costs (which you have apparently continued to ignore). Rossami (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-namespce forever

Perhaps there's some bot or SQL script out there that could help list all the current cross-namespace redrects? It would help flush them out (at once), and save a constant stream of them here on RfD?? Thanks/wangi 23:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing Closure Formatting

Currently when a nomination is closed, the closure heading is being put before the nomination title. Example:

 {{subst:rt}} Result. --~~~~
 ====[[redirect]] → [[target]]====
 The discussion...
 {{subst:rend}}

This means that if you edit a nomination prior to the closed one, the heading for the closed tag is at the very end of that section. Quite a few people don't notice this and put their comment (or ending closure tag) at the very end. This results in it improperly showing up inside the closure for the next nomination. I've been fixing quite a bit of these lately.

I'd recommend we switch to the way that WP:CSD does it. This would result in the closure heading being placed after the nomination title. Example:

 ====[[redirect]] → [[target]]====
 {{subst:rt}} Result. --~~~~
 The discussion...
 {{subst:rend}}

The Talk:STS-51-L nomination was recently closed in this manner so you can also refer to it as an example.

While encompassing the nomination heading looks better to me, I think the CSD format is preferable to reduce errors.

Thoughts?

-- JLaTondre 15:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. The current version confused me, that's how {{Rfd bottom}} made it on WP:HIDE. -- Omniplex 13:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King's Highway (Ontario)

Could somebody kindly explain to me how it's either "misguided" or "bad faith" for this to have been nominated for deletion? It was a misguided/bad faith creation. Bearcat 18:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm somewhat surprised too, even bad faith noms are normally left to run if other editors vote delete (as per WP:SK). I've added a note to that effect on the orignal DRV debate (which is still ongoing). I've not personal opinion either way on the redirect, but I do feel it that neither the speedy reversal nor the subsequent rfd should have been done until after the DRV finished. Regards, MartinRe 19:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It was already being discussed at DRV prior to its nomination here. Since it's a debate of a previous deletion decision, it belongs at DRV and not here. While I wouldn't have described it the way Freakofnurture did, closing it as "this discussion does not belong here" is quite reasonable. That's no different than a non-article showing up at AFD, getting a couple of delete votes, and then being closed as "belongs at [R|T|M]FD". -- JLaTondre 01:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's quite different. The redirect was tagged as a speedy, and the speedy delete was contested by taking it to drv (quite correct). Before that review had finished, the redirect was restored (so the drv is now reviewing a decision that had already been reversed, which is not so correct, in my view). However, even if a redirect is not a valid CSD, it can still be sent to to rfd, which is what happened, and that corresponding rfd was closed early as "bad faith". To put it into article context, it's like tagging an article as {{db-a7}}, the admin saying "not a valid speedy, there is a claim of notability", and the editor then sending it to afd, This happens all the time, I see many edit summaries of "not a CSD, take it to afd if you wish", I would not expect a comment of "not a CSD, if you take it to afd, it will be speedily closed as a keep even if people vote delete there". Would you? So why should it be any different for a redirect, just beacuse it's not eligible for speedy delete should not mean it's immune from rfd. Regards, MartinRe 18:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I disagree. The DRV could result in the CSD being upheld and it being re-deleted (unlikely given the current comments, but technically a possibility). The fact that it was restored means that it falls in the disputed deletions area for which DRV is designed. As such, the DRV shouldn't come to an end and it's not productive to have a deletion debate be conducted in two separate places. Your analogy is broken in that it has the discussion cut-off in both places. The discussion is still going on at DRV. The suggestion that any admin can trump DRV by simply restoring the page seems counter productive to me. -- JLaTondre 20:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
        • In most cases, when a deletion decision is sent to DRV, the status quo is retained until the review decides to overturn it. I believe this is a good idea, as it stops confusion exactly like what occurred here. Having two deletion discussion ongoing at the same time is not a good idea, so one should have been closed, and I believe it should have been the DRV review of the speedy, as all that review should do is say whether or not the speedy was valid. Even if a drv says "speedy invalid, restore", it can sill be brought to the relevant *fd, as the criteria for deletion per CSD and *fd are quite different. However, closing the rfd while the drv of the speedy was active was an alternative, but it should have been closed as "pending drv review", not as bad faith. Regards, MartinRe 13:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Whether it was the DRV or RFD closed, that seems six of one, a half dozen of the other. As for the last part, isn't that what I said originally :-) ? -- JLaTondre 16:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
            • It's not quite 6 v 6 as there are cases that rfd can deal with and drv can't. For example, if the redirect was deletable, but not a CSD canditate, DRV could not give the appropiate result, but rfd could. On the other hand, There are no cases I can think of that DRV could deal with that rfd could not, which is why I'd have perfered the rfd to continue, and not the drv. And, yep, the last part is what would said originally - no one said I had to disagree about everything :) Regards, MartinRe 16:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] impasse on CNR

So we appear to be quickly reaching an impasse on the cross-namespace redirects. Several editors are including boilerplate answers, which is a sure sign that we've gotten past the "useful discussion" stage and now we're just running numbers for the most part. Is it possible to include this on Centralized discussion or something so that we can get a broader perspective on the thousands of CNRs that we're talking about deleting, instead of doing them piecemeal? -- nae'blis (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call it an impasse; we have a few stubborn people who are trying to hold out in the face of WP:ASR, but the outcome is pretty inevitable. All of the admins I know well are against XNRs, they just haven't gotten involved yet because the decisions being made are the correct ones. --Cyde↔Weys 02:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained deleted text

It happened that a user added a new section to the current list, but there was a problem with the deletion of some text by accident that the user perhaps did not, in this edit. Actually, in addition, I found that the deletion of these characters were replaced with spaces. I've done fixing them. -- ADNghiem501 03:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page header discussion

Recently, the header for this page at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Header was modified to indicate that discussions would be closed after two rather than seven days. Since I was unable to find any indication that this change was discussed in advance (and it contradicted other statements in the header) I have restored the opening paragraph to its original version. Interested parties are invited to participate in what appears to be an ongiong discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#RfD_discussion_time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archives?

Where can I find RFD discussions that are too old to still be on the project page? I've been following some RFDs that I commented on and I wanted to see what the result was. BigNate37T·C 09:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Redirect Archives. --TheParanoidOne 10:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. BigNate37T·C 10:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CNR proposal

I believe I have a solution to the dispute concerning cross-namespace redirects. Please review it/leave comments at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. Thanks. --Zoz (t) 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Per-day listings

I suggest we change this to a per-day listing format like DRV or CFD. That way, rather than all of the content being directly on the page, it will be on subpages on a per-day basis. It makes archiving them a lot easier. If there are no objections I will start us off and we will phase out the old system by starting the new days on a per-page basis. --Cyde↔Weys 17:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. -- JLaTondre 18:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Its current format encourages participation moreso, that is to say I'm less likely to weigh in on topics where I feel I have valid insight if I have to browse through five different pages twice a day rather than just one. Of course, the watchlist would track each day seperately so that would be a benefit of the proposed change. Not that I am dead set against a per day listing, just stating my preference. BigNate37T·C 18:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
No no no, I'm not sure you understand. Go look at WP:CFD and WP:DRV. All of the current discussions are still displayed on the same page (through transclusion), it's just that each day's discussions are split off onto a separate page. --Cyde↔Weys 18:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
On second reading that still didn't make a lot of sense. Just go look at the other examples, that's the best way to explain it. --Cyde↔Weys 18:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it makes sense. That's (sort of) how AfD works, I know because there I'm only interested in AfDs I personally list; since each AfD has its own page so I can watchlist that but not the whole page of open AfDs. Of course, AfD transcludes each nomination seperately and you're proposing each day is transcluded on this one from what I gather. If this is the case (or better, do like AfD does) then you've got my albiet weak support. BigNate37T·C 18:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Seems like much more work than it would create as a benefit. I archived some the other day, and the only complaint I had was that I had to reverse the order of the days chronologically when sticking them in the July archive as a batch. I don't think the volume of redirects (under normal circumstances) warrants trying to split it off DRV/CSD-style, and would just lead to a plethora of subpages for a process than closers are already trying to streamline (including yourself, if I read your comments on Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy correctly). -- nae'blis (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The process would actually become easier as archiving would no longer be necessary - just remove the transclusion from the main page and you're done. The number of subpages doesn't impact the work so it doesn't go against streamlining. The biggest advantage I see is that the edit history of the nominations could be much more easily be accessed. At the moment, it is very difficult to find the history for a nomination in the archives. It's all in the main page's history and working your way through that is tough. If for some reason you had to figure out if the cut-n-paste archive was correct, it would be a chore. Hopefully, that is never needed, but why not make it easier? -- JLaTondre 20:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
JLaTondre's comments are making me like the idea of this more and more. BigNate37T·C 20:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, good point about the edit history. I'm not sure it overrides my concerns about additional pages and edits, but I'm no worse than neutral on the idea now, for what it's worth. Would be good to get more eyes on the idea. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] procedural question

When someone turns a redirect here (Different Drum, Cult of Hermes) into an actual page/disambiguation page, is the RFD header left on? Is there some sort of "This page, which was formerly a redirect, is being considered for deletion..." template we can use instead? I'm not quite comfortable closing them unilaterally just because someone edited the redirect away, but maybe having it discussed/visible here is enough. -- nae'blis 18:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? Redirects are for helping people find content. If there is ambiguity in the redirect, then a disambig is appropriate. If the target doesn't adequately explain the subject, then a new article is needed. Outside vandalism or patent nonsense, I doubt we'd ever delete the page in a case like that. We may argue over whether the topic warrants a disambig or article instead of a redirect, but that is a content dispute and not a deletion debate. For the few oddball cases that might occur, it's not worth creating another layer of process for something that can be handled on this page or via other mechanisms. -- JLaTondre 22:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
So it's a bit like userfication of vanity articles, then? The "problem" goes away, so the *FD is closed? Just trying to wrap my brain around the how and the why of exceptions to process... -- nae'blis 22:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that RfD loses scope over the page when it becomes a stub/disambig page after having been nominated for deletion as a redirect. They don't become AfDs, and I don't think they should, personally. A consequence is that a controversial article stub can be continually changed between a stub and a redirect in an edit war and be difficult to delete because of the lack of validity of AfD and RfD when the article changes back and forth. With 3RR and semi-protection, this is not a serious problem to quell if and when it does happen. BigNate37T·C 01:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
From my observations, there are a few ways an RfD can be closed:
  • Discussion period ends with a consensus to delete or no discussion at all (delete)
  • Discussion period ends with no consensus (keep)
  • Discussion period ends with no consensus and very little actual discussion (relist)
  • Discussion period ends with a keep consensus (keep)
  • Editor places {{db}} on the redirect and redirect is deleted via CSD (close)
  • Admin decides a CSD criterion applies (delete)
  • Disambiguation page is created over top of the redirect (close)
  • Stub article created over top of the redirect (close)

[edit] New name for the process

I'm proposing to rename this process to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, which is more descriptive of what actually goes on here, because redirects are frequently retargetted or turned into disambiguation pages rather than simply being deleted or kept. This would go along with the recent renaming of Wikipedia:Categories for deletion to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. At the same time we'd switch to a per-day subpage system of linking pages (like WP:CFD) to make archiving and history browsing easier. --Cyde↔Weys 20:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's done, but there's probably some loose ends to be tied up. --Cyde↔Weys 17:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice job. I changed the instructions to match CFD's way of getting people to add the entry to the subpage and not the main page (already had to move one prior to that). I don't think we need to go as far as having the "NEW NOMINATION" section that they have, but we can always do that if needed. -- JLaTondre 19:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The NEW NOMINATIONS section is to reduce edit conflicts. The number of concurrent discussions at Cfd are so many that after a few hours, it became unreasonably difficult to add an entry as that required an edit of the whole page, conflicting with every section edit. Not as many concurrent Rfd, not as big a problem.
Of course, it would be even better to change to chronological entries, instead of reverse chronology, as the software supports &section=new. There would be no need for a special section. However, there's an awful lot of tradition for reverse chronology. It's only a tradition, as there is no practical reason.
--William Allen Simpson 18:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The next step, obviously is changing Articles for deletion to Articles for discussion. That'll be a bit more work :-D Cyde↔Weys 06:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion was renamed to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion because categories are nominated "not just for deletions, but for renames and merges as well" (JeffW). Redirects nominated for RfD are always nominated to be deleted. Retargeting or turning them to dab pages can (should) happen without RfD, so I think it this process should be rerenamed to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. --Zoz (t) 20:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

While you do make a valid point regarding the difference in the scope of the nominations, I think the title should remain discussion. For one, I think it's a more friendly term and more fitting with WP:BITE. But more importantly, I think it de-emphasis the debates as being delete vs. keep and instead emphasises them being discussions regardless of the solution type. Yes, retargeting, stubbing, and dabing should happen without invoking RFD, but those are acceptable outcomes as well. -- JLaTondre 12:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with Zoz here. ..for deletion is unambiguous with respect to RfD and AfD (the fact that the end result is sometimes a merge/retarget is not germane). Changing those two to "for discussion" looks like doublespeak and jargon. I wish Cyde had waited more than 24 hours before making this massive change. -- nae'blis 15:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this term is actually less friendly because it's ambiguous. When a newbie sees that a redirect is nominated for RfD they should know immediately that it's nominated to be deleted. And the fact that redirects get retargeted or turned into a dab page is not relevant here, because the nomination was made in order to have them deleted. Just as speedy deletion candidates are sometimes userfied or get listed for AfD, etc, they were still candidates for speedy deletion regardless of the actual outcome. This title is about as appropriate as Category:Candidates for speedy discussion would be. --Zoz (t) 18:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I'd just like to pip in with my support for the renamed process - it much better reflects what happens. Thanks/wangi 15:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think three things: for one, it was good to have the reorganisation of the page that came along with the namechange. Two, WP:BITE is all fine and well but newbies are generally not as fragile as we make out and if they need significant coddling to get them to stay longer than a week than as soon as they coddling is gone, so too are they. Lastly the name doesn't really matter that much. I agree Cyde could (should?) have waited longer before making such a significant change; he seems to do everything in haste. But there was initial support for it and I think Wikipedia is better served leaving RfD as it is now and moving our collective efforts to something more fruitful. BigNate37T·C 18:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually I like the reorganization, especially the subpage system, I just don't like the title for reasons I explained above. --Zoz (t) 20:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I also like the new org scheme, I just think the retitling was unnecessary/obscuring. But whatever... -- nae'blis 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep the daily subpages, but please rename this back to Redirects for deletion. Pretending that stuff isn't nominated here to be deleted is not friendlyness to newbies. It's hiding the truth. Kimchi.sg 07:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Kimchi. Please move it back to Redirects for deletion.--Firsfron of Ronchester 07:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I also wish that Cyde had waited and discussed more than a day (when we changed the name at Cfd, we discussed for months first), but I support the new name.
--William Allen Simpson 15:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I was just about to boldly rename this back to Redirects for deletion when I realized that this page is protected from moves.[2] If an admin moves this page back to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, I'll fix the double redirects, move the subpages to the correct name, etc. --Zoz (t) 15:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It seems that it's about even on support / disagreement for the rename. I would recommend we wait before changing back. Yes, there should have been more consensus before the change was made, but since it's made, let's get consensus one way or the other before playing ping-pong. -- JLaTondre 16:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes it was about even if you see this discussion as a vote. However, because I think all support arguments (except for "I like this") were rebutted by nae'blis, Kimchi and me, and there were no significant discussion for about a week, I interprerted this as "consensus to rename". --Zoz (t) 17:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Those you replied to did not state agreement with your responses. I don't believe a "last one to post is correct" is a proper way to determine an outcome. Simply because you respond with a counter-point does not mean that your counter-point automatically outweighs the original point. Also, the last post prior to your rename one was Simpson's on the 6th and he supported the new name. There certainly doesn't seem like consensus one way or the other to me. -- JLaTondre 18:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Please, I didn't say that the "last one to post is correct". I thought there had been consensus because Kimchi's, Naeblis' and my posts openly questioned the validity of the support arguments and there were no adequate response for that. And frankly, Simpson's last post "I support the new name" didn't add much to the discussion, nor did it refute any counter-arguments. But anyway, arguing about whether there had been consensus or not is quite pointless now that there clearly isn't; I just wanted to make it clear that I didn't base my interpretation of consensus on the "last post wins" rule. --Zoz (t) 15:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually I like redirects for discussion; every so often we do do something else. Septentrionalis 16:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I explained above why the outcome is irrelevant here. Here redirects are nominated to be deleted. You should go to this page if you want to delete redirects, not if you want to discuss them. Discussion about redirects should go to Wikipedia talk:Redirect, not here. Redirects for discussion is a misnomer just like candidates for speedy discussion would be. Categories for deletion was renamed to categories for discussion because categories are nominated "not just for deletions, but for renames and merges as well", and this doesn't apply here because all redirects are nominated to be deleted at RfD. --Zoz (t) 16:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Categories are not nominated for discussion either. They are specifically nominated for deletion, renaming, or merging. By your logic, it shouldn't be "Categories for discussion" either, but "Categories for deletion, renaming, or merging". If the name is a misnomer here, it's a misnomer for categories as well. While you may not think the outcome is relevant, it's clear that others do not agree. -- JLaTondre 16:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, I don't think that categories for deletion is a perfect name, but it's better than categories for deletion for sure. And while "categories for deletion, renaming, or merging" would better reflect the purpose of that process, there are obvious problems with it, so imo "categories for discussion" is a nice compromise. --Zoz (t) 17:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "discussion" over "deletion" because it emphasizes the means over the end. The discussion part is important; it isn't merely a vote. And I still think it's confusing that a process specifically named "for deletion" would have such alternative outcomes as turned into a stub, turned into a disambiguation page, retargetted, etc. A lot more happens here than merely deleting; "deletion" is a misnomer. And no, you don't only bring things here for deletion. If there's a contentious redirect and you want to get a wider discussion on where it should point you should bring it here, not the redirect talk page. Let's broaden the scope of this to go along with the new name. We should continue emphasizing how this is a discussion to reach consensus and find the best end result, not congregating merely to throw in a "vote" and then leave. --Cyde Weys 16:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I completely agree that we should emphasize that this is a discussion and not a vote. That's why votes for deletion got renamed to articles for deletion. And the results of AfD discussions are often "transwiki" "keep" "merge", etc, but that doesn't mean we should rename it to articles for discussion. Think about it, had the means been emphasised over the end at articles for discussion, new editors would nominate pages for afd when they wanted to propose only a merge or a transwiki. How would the {{AFDWarning}} look like? "A page you created is nominated for discussion"? That would be absolutely misleading. So I think emphasising the means over the end is generally a bad idea (think about renaming "Requests for adminship" to "Wikipedia:How many persons like your contributions"). Let's emphasise the why, rather than the how. "Redirects for deletion" immediately gives a clear idea about the purpose of the process, "redirects for discussion" does not. And we can emphasise that it's a discussion and not a vote in the header. --Zoz (t) 17:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
So you suggest to change not only the name, but also the scope of this page? I don't think that people should nominate redirects here unless their intent is to have them deleted. Retargetting and stubbing should be done without going through here. I support moving back to the old name, as this page is more analogous to AfD than to CfD. Kusma (討論) 17:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course uncontroversial retargetting and stubbing should be done without bringing them here. But if they are causing a contentious edit war this is the best place to bring the dispute to get input from the wider community. An article RFC is probably overkill in most situations. --Cyde Weys 17:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Has there ever been a "contentious edit war" over a redirect? --Zoz (t) 15:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. When an subject can be known by two names (especially geographic regions claimed by two different parties), there can be some pretty contentious debates about what should be the article name and what should be the redirect name. Those cases should go to Wikipedia:Requested moves, however. There have also been cases about whether a page should be a redirect or an article. I haven't seen any that I'd call "contentious", but I'd believe it could happen (and probably has). I think AFD is the place those would go to now. -- JLaTondre 18:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Many times. One off the top of my head would be Wikiality. Remember, we're Wikipedia, the largest collection of argument nexuses online. We have contentious edit wars over everything, even little, trivial stuff. --Cyde Weys 18:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The most contentious edit war over a redirect that I can remember was the vicious battle of Gdańsk vs Danzig. In fact, that's the case the led to the creation of the Requested moves process that JLaTondre mentioned. Those questions should continue to be decided through the Recommended moves process and should not be decided here. I would oppose anything that implied that the scope of this page was being expanded. That said, I don't think that the namechange necessarily makes that implication. After all, if a new user makes a nomination in the wrong place, one of the more experienced editors can simply move the request into the right queue. Rossami (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is a centralized discussion here better than Wikipedia:Requested moves and the redirects' talk pages? (editors do read even redirects' talk pages, see this self-revert for example.) --Zoz (t) 16:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
So you know, I'm neutral on this issue (at the moment). What this rename means to me is a growing change among the community that misguided RfD nominations are okay. By changing it to Redirects for Discussion, we are saying that editors can nominate a redirect with no intention of having it deleted simply because they are unsure what to do with it. This happens; it is a question of whether we want to encourage it or educate editors who do this about their other options. In sum, do we want to change the name to justify the creation of misguided nominations? It really depends on what other courses of action there are to take for other editors with problematic redirects. Perhaps if the new name is kept, the instructions for nominating a redirect should be changed and nominating editors instructed to state whether they are nominating the redirect for deletion or not. BigNate37(T) 18:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, if the scope of RfD is expanded, then Redirects for discussion is obviously a better name. However, if the scope is not to be expanded, then Redirects for deletion is the better name. --Zoz (t) 16:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Just stumbled across this discussion, and sorry for jumping right in, but I can't see any reason to rename this "Redirects for Discussion". There are absolutely no benefits, and, as BigNate pointed out, possibly some dangers. The whole reason there is a nomination process (for articles, templates, redirects, whatever) is that deletion can't be done by a normal editor. Therefore it is necessary to gauge the consensus of the community so that an entrusted individual (i.e. admin) can do its bidding. Changing what a redirect points to or turning a redirect into a stub or anything else of the sort should be dealt with on the redirect's talk page. The idea that a "contentious edit war" over a redirect should be resolved here makes no sense to me. WP:30 and WP:RFC already exist to elicit wider attention from the community concerning contentious edits. This page should focus on one thing and one thing only: whether a redirect should be deleted. When a redirect is listed here, it is discussed, and then either deleted or not. Whether it is kept unchanged, moved, or renamed after that is irrelevant. Recommendations for Merge happen all the time at AfD, but that is still called Articles for Deletion, and rightly so. Imagine if the already horribly clogged AfD page was renamed Articles for Discussion, and it was suggested that that was a good place to bring articles undergoing contentious edits. The system would fall apart. As Wikipedia scales up the entire nomination process is going to be severely tested, and we are doing future Wikipedians a great disservice by expanding the scope of RfD to some fuzzy place where "discussions" happen. --Nscheffey(T/C) 10:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's up with saving page move history?

When you move a page, both the resulting redirect and the page at its new name have edit history showing the move itself, but only the moved page and not the new redirect at the old name have the article history. Why is there a sudden push for keeping both copies of the move history? I can understand if there are other reasons for keeping a redirect after a pave move (and their often are), but more than a couple RfDs now have cited preservation of page move history as the primary reason for keeping the redirect. What's up with this? BigNate37(T) 20:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I've never even heard this "reason" advanced before, and it makes absolutely no sense to me. Should we save all of the "XXXXXX on wheels" pages too because they "preserve" the page move history? Nevermind that all of the page move history can be found in the page move logs anyway .... --Cyde Weys 20:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd rather not get into specific RfD votes, because I'm sure it would be the same editor or two every time. I just wanted to know if there was any merit to it and if I was missing some relevant policy. BigNate37(T) 20:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This reason has been around for a very long time and has been extensively discussed in the archives and the older deletion discussions. (Look prior to the split of RfD from the main Votes for deletion process.)
Only in the recent releases of MediaWiki has the software preserved actual evidence of the pagemove itself. Prior to that, you can only tell that the page was moved or who moved it by following "what links here" and checking the edit history of the redirect. The lawyers who have commented extensively on our GFDL policies have said that changes to the page name do count as changes to content and that we must preserve their contributions as well. So for the old pagemoves, preserving the redirect was the most reliable way to do that.
The secondary reasons for preserving the old redirects (and the primary reasons for keeping the newer leftover redirects from a pagemove) is that keeping the redirect after a good-faith pagemove serves to direct the original author(s) to the new location so that they can contribute to the right article. It "preserves" the pagemove history in a way that is visible to the new contributor. Without the redirect, the original contributors often get frustrated when they can not find their good-faith contributions in Wikipedia. They either lash out at us for "deleting" (or worse, "censoring") their efforts or they recreate the article in ignorance of the pagemove. The redirect, on the other hand, brings them into the fold so that they can join the community of other editors working on the topic.
Note: This applies not only to editors who actively edited the article prior to the move but also to everyone who read the article at the old title. Readers can be equally confused when we move a title and leave no trace of the move behind. Rossami (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Cross-namespace redirects#Major issue with removal. The example that I gave, Requested articles, was merged and deleted correctly. WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki (and the related CNR Why on Earth would I want to contribute to a wiki) is an example of an extant cross-namespace redirect that should not simply be deleted—it contains valuable insight into the very, very early days of Wikipedia. These are essentially cut-and-paste moves that need to be repaired like any other, except that the current page move technology did not exist at the time (as mentioned above). Ardric47 07:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to preserving page histories after a merge or some borked move, part of the reason is to preserve the history of contributions for licensing reasons, or for the same reasons why we keep any old page history. I personally enjoy cleanliness and think that really old histories (where the contributions have been eclipsed anyway) are fine to delete, and really old deleted edits should be purged, but this is the reason. There's no reason to just preserve a simple, properly done move where the only remainder is the redirect or activity from our locomotive friends. —Centrx→talk • 15:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, really old histories are not fine to delete. But otherwise, I agree, there's no really good reason to keep a CNR left over from a properly exectuted move. Ardric47 07:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think User:Rossami isn't considering these individually, just pasting this reason on generically. Permeability(geology) was moved in 2004, but he still has the same boilerplate reason for keeping, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 18, that "This redirect was created as the result of a recent pagemove by the person who then tagged the page for deletion." —Centrx→talk • 19:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd shrug it off unless it happens a lot; as much as Rossami participates in RfD it is easy to make a mistake here and there. BigNate37(T) 20:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me assure you that I review these cases individually and as carefully as I can. That said, I did make a mistake on this example. When I reviewed the history of these pages, I attempted to trace all the pagemoves that led to the current redirects. In doing so, I got Permeability (hydrology) and Permeability (geology) mixed up with the history page for Permeability(geology) (note the lack of space). The "hydrology" and "geology with space" pages were part of a recent and multi-stage pagemove. You are correct that the "geology without space" was moved back in 2004. And since the pagemove was performed by the only editor on the page up to that point, there was a significantly lesser obligation to preserve the contribution history. I stand corrected. Rossami (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Informing the creators is being ignored

This was crossposted and has little to do with the specific workings of this page. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Informing the creators is being ignored. The comments have already been moved. Please do not spam such complaints across multiple pages. Rossami (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XYZ --> Wikipedia:XYZ

The redirects into Wikipedia space should be covered by a guideline. Either formalized or speediable. Pavel Vozenilek 23:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been attempted (see Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects among other discussions). The final result has been that no one policy has reached consensus for all cases so we discuss them individually. -- JLaTondre 03:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-space redirects

The page says to delete a redirect if "It is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace." Is there any reason for this? It seems pointless/pedantic. I was directed here from Talk:Requested articles. — Omegatron 22:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

By long tradition, some articles are moved from the article-space to the userspace either so a user can have the page as his/her main user page (common for autobiographical entries or to work on the draft before resubmitting it to the community. The left-over redirect from the pagemove should always be deleted in order to prevent the further abuse of the userspace as a "home" for otherwise unacceptable content. One should never click on a link in an article and find yourself taken to a page in the userspace.
The clause about the Wikipedia-space, however, makes little sense to me. Some have argued that they could be confused with articles. I have never found that to be the case. Those redirects are exclusively used on Talk and project pages and in a context which makes the reference to Wikipedia policy or guideline perfectly clear. Many of the redirects are the result of the pagemove of pages that existed before the creation of the separate Wikipedia-space.
The closest I've seen to a balanced discussion of the merits of cross-namespace redirects was at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects but the discussion petered out and the page was eventually tagged with {{historical}}. Rossami (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Those reasons for deletion are transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirect#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect.3F (despite "Templates should not masquerade as article content"), so I guess this conversation goes there. I removed it from the list for now. — Omegatron 02:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I reverted you. That list predates Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects was a suggested change to policy and Wikipedia code that did not reach consensus. The arguments for and against cross-namespace redirects are still valid. Some people like them, some don't. We end up discussing them one by one (or group by group as it sometimes happens). In general, the final result is delete, but some survive because they are deemed to be useful by enough people. -- JLaTondre 03:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The arguments for and against cross-namespace redirects are still valid. Some people like them, some don't.
Well I guess I was wrong then. There's obviously a very clear consensus to delete cross-namespace redirects, and that rule should stay in the template. — Omegatron 21:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have a misunderstanding regarding that page. That list clearly says "might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list)". The list does not mean that everything that matches it should automatically be deleted. Most cross-namespace redirects do get deleted, but some don't. The list tends to reflect the opinions expressed at RFD. The consensus, as actually expressed at RFD, seems to be to definitely delete any that conflict with article content (though the definition of conflict will vary), a tendency to delete any that are perceived not very useful, and keep those that are perceived very useful. Occasionally, there is a flare up over a particular nomination, but so far we seem to be living okay with handling them one by one. Simply because a suggestion to delete all cross-namespace redirects was defeated, does not mean there is a consensus to keep all cross-namespace redirects. -- JLaTondre 00:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
There is clearly no consensus either way, and the guideline pages should reflect that. Revert warring is not helpful. The list is being used as justification for such deletions without consensus. — Omegatron 01:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Changing a guideline page without proposing the change & having it debated is more unhelpful. That line has been there since at least Dec 2004[3]. If you think the guideline should be changed, then suggest the change. I cannot recall a single reference to this list at RFD (though I'll admit I could have missed them). Some people are nominating them because they don't believe in cross-namespace redirects, not because they are parroting these guidelines. You may not feel cross-namespace redirects are a problem, but not everyone agrees. There is probably room for a middle ground on the wording, but a complete removal isn't likely to gain any more consensus either. -- JLaTondre 02:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple redirects

Is there any set way to list multiple redirects for the same article? I feel many of the very obscure namings for Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha should be deleted. Charles 17:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It is possible but is often a bad idea. Individual redirects sometimes have different histories, different purposes, etc. If there is a different fact-base, it should be discussed separately from the mass-nomination.
That said, I did a quick check of the inbound links to the page you mention and all of the redirects seem to be in use. That would tend to argue that, however obscure, the redirects are serving a valid purpose and are successfully pointing readers to the correct title. Before making your nomination, please read both the common reasons for deleting a redirect and the common exceptions to those reasons (the two 6-point lists on Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?). Rossami (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I think I mixed up Albert with another royal. I was editing something for his page and had many others open at the same time. I apologize for the error. Charles 21:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should Sir Robert Dunsmuir redirect be deleted?

I am doing some work on Robert Dunsmuir and his son James Dunsmuir. Although the father was a rich coal baron and mightily wanted to be knighted, for pretty good reason he never was. Yet there were references to Sir Robert Dunsmuir on E and N Railway, Hurlford and James Dunsmuir. I have corrected those entries to link directly to Robert Dunsmuir. It may be because of the existence of the redirect that this error propagated. Is that a reason to delete the redirect? KenWalker | Talk 10:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is a mistake within Wikipedia, then it should be deleted. If it is a common misconception outside Wikipedia and can be sourced, then it should be mentioned in the target and kept. My 2 cents at least. -- JLaTondre 13:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definite rule on order of nominations

Can we establish a definite rule for whether new nominations should be placed at the top or the bottom of individual day subpages? I've always thought they were supposed to go at the top, but I don't actually see a definite rule anywhere on Wikipedia:redirects for discussion, and at least 10%, if not more, of all new nominations are listed at the bottom of the day's subpage, in the style of afds. Thoughts? Picaroon9288 01:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

They used to be added to the top when it was all one page. Now that they are individual subpages, I don't think it makes much difference. I think most people are used to adding additions to the bottom of the page so that's what I'd use as the nominal method, but I don't think we need a rule about it. -- JLaTondre 12:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It makes more logical sense to add new items to the top (so that there's an unbroken flow from newest to oldest on the main RFD page), but in practice I don't think it makes a huge difference so long as people add things with the correct date. It's not as if RFD is as busy as AFD or CFD; in practice the order of items on subpages doesn't really affect the order of resolution. (FWIW, I do think that moving things around after they've been commented on is a bad idea, regardless of other considerations - but what's done is done.) Gavia immer (u|t|c) 18:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{rfd top}}

I'm seeking consensus to change the text of the message on this template to "The result of the debate was" to bring it in line with the other deletion systems (and to avoid confusion). What does everyone else think? Martinp23 14:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. -- JLaTondre 15:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good, consistent and probably makes it easier to write up some of the rarer results. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 18:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Since there's been no objection & it seems like standardization should be non-controversial, I went ahead and made the change. -- JLaTondre 04:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wp: (lowercase) a valid pseudonamespace prefix?

I don't want to create a metric goatload of work for RFD, but is wp: a protected pseudo-namespace prefix like WP:? It's used in a couple hundred odd redirects, which may or may not date back to the dark ages before namespaces existed, but it's a little...irregular in my mind. One specific case of confusion is where wp:sp redirects to one Wikipedia page, and WP:SP connects to another. -- nae'blis 22:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My personal slant on the lowercase wp: pseudospace is that it is only there as a typo for the WP: pseudonamespace. It should never be used in shortcut boxes, but if user creates a link such as [[wp:prod|proposed deletion]] then it would at least go to the right spot. I'm not sure whether there is any relevant policy or style guidelines, that's just my reasoning based on the policy I do have knowledge of. As an aside, it's not wp: but Wp:, since page names always start with a capital and they're technically in articlespace. BigNate37(T) 22:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/d/Wikipedia_talk%7ERedirects_for_discussion_9cdd.html"