Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 29
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 29 June 2006
[edit] Articles for deletion
I understand that there's a phobia about "cross namespace linking" or whatever, but removing this redirect renders it inconvenient for people to look for this section. Not everyone knows to put Wikipedia:... before the title. So I protest this deletion on the grounds that it creates an inconvenience and the existence of a redirect was causing no harm to Wikipedia, in my opinion. I'd like to see someone make a case as to why it was harming Wikipedia to have this here. 23skidoo 00:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete per 23skidoo, useful redirect to newcomers that causes no harm. Yamaguchi先生 00:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. Don't patronize newcomers. They are quite capable of learning the structure of Wikipedia, and will soon find their way around, just like you and I did. Keeping the mainspace (the encyclopedia) separate from WP:space (the bureaucracy) is valuable. --Ezeu 00:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted, do not create cross namespace redirects. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. I see where the author is coming from. There is no doubt that in the early days, WP can be somewhat daunting to navigate. However, if the newcomer does read the links in the 'Welcome!' message (which I would guess many don't :-( ) then they should be well armed. This discussion has, however, raised a very good point that I think should be clarified in the 'Welcome!' message. The dichotomy between the 'mainspace' encyclopaedia and the WP: section will not be well understood by those new to the scene and should be spelt out in the 'Welcome!' message. If this is done then links in the mainspace to WP: are not needed. Meanwhile Keep deleted is right. BlueValour 02:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Just because I think Be bold was useful doesn't necessarily mean I think this is useful. "Be bold" is a fairly notable identifier of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, but I don't think this is. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete. There is no basis in policy for this fanatical opposition to cross-namespace redirects. (Or if there is, no one has taken the time to point it out to me despite repeated requests.) It is not used in the article space and never has been. There is no possibility of confusion over this link. It is a convenience link for anyone who forgets to type Wikipedia at the front of the link (bullet 2 of the "avoid deleting such redirects if" section of Wikipedia:Redirect). It could be helpful to newcomers and it does no harm. To BlueValour's point, of all the things that I'd try to teach a newcomer on their first day (that is, in the Welcome message), the technicalities of the various "spaces" are not one of them. In the meantime, redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Deleted. Cross-namespace redirects confuse articlespace from wikipediaspace, and should be avoided. --Improv 05:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete Well, since I will certainly avoid closing this DRV as if my life depended on it, I chime in to second Rossami's remark. Until all cross-space redirects are deleted (even the "WP:" ones) there is ample practical precedent that user-friendliness trumps a very strict reading of a style guideline. Xoloz 05:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but this is a non-vote that the anti-deletionists are bound to lose. If people, and newbies in especial, can't find AfD then this suits the Wiki-Cabal, who run the deletion policy, because it means that they get to run things the way they want without interference. ####
- Comment. Again, as with the last cross-namespace redirect, DRV is overstepping its bounds. The issue should be whether process was followed; this page must not become a second forum for debating deletion decisions; it is only for new information and possible admin error. In this case, since the page was not deleted by a proper RfD, I propose the compromise that whatever happens to Votes for deletion (currently the subject of a well-attended and legitimate RfD) also happen to this redirect. -- SCZenz 06:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete: We in the cabal have no stance on this petty issue. :-) (We do need to make it easier for the new users, as AfD is actually one of our starter pages for new, somewhat censorious, users.) Geogre 11:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted pending other rfd result Technically not a valid rfd (ASR is not a CSD (but I would support it becoming one)) but leave as is pending rfd result as mentioned by SCZenz. I would reply to some of the above points that WP:ASR is the basis of opposition to cross-namespace redirects, which, while it is a guideline, not policy, does not mean it should simply be ignored. CNR's can cause confusion, when readers browse a enclyopledia, they do not expect to fall through a crack and end up behind the scenes without warning, which CNR's do. Making it easy to find WP pages via search for people who forget to type "wikipedia:" is not a strong enough reason, if in doubt, we should remember that wikipedia is an encylopedia, and assume people want encylopedic content, and act accordingly. Regards, MartinRe 13:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete. I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I do not like this page and I do not think it should exist on Wikipedia, but it was not deleted by RfD, it does not meet any CSD, it does not explicitly violate a clear policy, and the RfD on the similar redirect I cited above did not achieve consensus. I want it deleted, but unilateral deletion + DRV is not the way/place to do this. -- SCZenz 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted per MartinRe: too many people are putting editor convenience above the goals of the project. --Cyde↔Weys 15:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I utterly cannot believe what I have just read. It is honestly making me wonder whether I should continue my involvement in Wikipedia at all. If you can't make things easy for the editors why the hell should they bother contributing to this thing??? 23skidoo 21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- For the good of the 'readers, not for the convenience of the editors. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Reviewing the history of the redirect and the context in which it was used, this redirect was only ever used in talk page discussions which clearly indicated the context of a policy page. What evidence to you have that this redirect created confusion or inconvenience for even a single reader? Rossami (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- For the good of the 'readers, not for the convenience of the editors. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I utterly cannot believe what I have just read. It is honestly making me wonder whether I should continue my involvement in Wikipedia at all. If you can't make things easy for the editors why the hell should they bother contributing to this thing??? 23skidoo 21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. What part of "no cross-space references" don't you people understand? Kelly Martin (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- As we have asked many times before, where is the policy-level rule that there are to be "no cross-space references"? Where has it been decided that these redirects are inherently bad? I am continuing to try to assume good faith but the longer the question goes unanswered, the more my faith is strained. Rossami (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- The question has been repeatedly answered on many different pages. Refusing to even acknowledge the answers to your statements is not a good way to win a debate. --Cyde↔Weys 18:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, actually the question have never been answered. I have been shown two arguments, neither drawing on a policy-level decision. The first argument is that any such redirect constitutes a self-reference. WP:ASR is a guideline, not a policy and looking at the usage and context of these redirects, the applicability of the guideline is weak at best. The second argument is the fifth bullet in the list on Wikipedia:Redirect - another guideline page. That bullet must be read in context with the bulleted list immediately below. No one has yet answered the request for a policy-level decision. Rossami (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- The question has been repeatedly answered on many different pages. Refusing to even acknowledge the answers to your statements is not a good way to win a debate. --Cyde↔Weys 18:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- By policy or by the fiat of some users? If the former, please show rather than tell. If the latter, please explain why such power is adherent. I thought this was rather innocent, but Kelly's and your nasty tone is really quite offputting. Geogre 20:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- As we have asked many times before, where is the policy-level rule that there are to be "no cross-space references"? Where has it been decided that these redirects are inherently bad? I am continuing to try to assume good faith but the longer the question goes unanswered, the more my faith is strained. Rossami (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted per Ezeu --Ardenn 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete per Rossami, Geogre, Yamaguchi, and SCZenz. Please excuse my ignorance, but if this question has been answered repeatedly, why not provide links to such answers rather than skirt around the question? Silensor 20:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. ~ PseudoSudo 22:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete - many new comers may barely know how to use a computer. It causes no harm.whicky1978 talk 23:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion – Gurch 11:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse Will (message me!) 12:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you go with what people trumpeted constantly on Be bold's DRV, this is an obvious out of process deletion (DRV IS ONLY ABOUT PROCESS!!!!111ONE) and should be undeleted. As noted above, ASR is not a CSD and it does not even declare them verboten. WP:NOT has wide acceptance, and it is policy, and yet it is still not a CSD. My vote is actually delete though, as deleted page is worse than a cross-namespace redirect. Kotepho 19:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Unsure Before I vote, can anyone give me a quick, straight answer to the following: Why are cross-namespace redirects frowned upon? Is it a technical issue such as database performance, or is it just because having too many of them would set a bad precedent (like people redirecting silly things to their user pages and such)? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- In my view, CNRs are discouraged as they blur the line between the encyclopedia and wikipedia (which causes trouble with mirrors, among other things) and can result in people searching for encyclopedic content and getting a wikipedia page instead. (While this may seem useful to editors (which all contributers are), no reader would expect to search encyclopedia britianica and receive minutes of a britianica board meeting as a result, so why should this happen in wikipedia? CNR do make it easier for editors by introducing cracks in the wall between the encyclopedia and wikipedia, but this means that people (readers) browing the building (encyclopedia) can fall into the pipework (project space) just beacuse the builders (editors) though it would be easier for them to create cracks in the floors and walls. As there are numerous WP: style short cuts, there should be little reason for a non-WP: article to point to wikipedia space, as if someone does not put in the "Wikipedia" prefix in a search, we should remember that we are an encyclopedia, so should by default return encyclopedic content, and not push them into project space just to make it easier for a small subset of editors. Regards, MartinRe 00:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted per Kelly Martin. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Un-SALT - good grief, if a cross-namespace redirect is bad, SALTing the thing is worse. By SALTing it, instead of having something borderline useful, you have something completely useless. Personally, I think soft redirects are the best way to handle all of these. With a soft redirect, you help newbies learn the correct place to go, keep them from being dependent on the wrong thing, and have something useful. BigDT 05:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete per George. - brenneman {L} 12:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete per Geogre, give it a full run on RFD if needed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted, conditional, I don't see any procedural problem in the nomination. If it belongs to the set of speedy deletions nominated later apply the result of that review also here for consistency. -- Omniplex 12:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Unusure -- I understand MartinRe's arguments above but what is the harm in redirecting a term such as "Articles for deletion" that has no possible encyclopedic usage and is highly unlikely to be mistakenly entered by a reader searcing for something else? (E.g., how does this create problems with mirrors?) - AjaxSmack 18:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying where the rules for mirrors are laid out. The main text section explains that for a CNR, the mirror has a choice - either leave it in, which will be a red link, or remove it as a link to a non-copied document, which is "legally questionable". Putting mirrors in a situation where they need to to choose between those two options is the main difficulty, in my view. Regards, MartinRe 12:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete until an encyclopedic article called "Articles for deletion" needs to be made. I'm no newcomer, but I'm fairly sure I've tried to use this shortcut once or twice in the past. Why not? Furthermore, it blows my mind that some other users are making decisions based off of mirror sites' policies. If some site wants to directly rip off Wikipedia content, it's their problem if the results aren't as perfect as they would like - certainly not ours. Why should we let them dictate our policy? Undeletion would cause no harm and serve some good. I urge everyone else to think pragmatically and consider the matter with an open mind. --BDD 18:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "wikipedia content" is somewhat inaccurate, the copyright of all contributions is still held by those who contributed it. It is of course, licenced under the GFDL, which means that this can be "copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others". That means no-one (including wikipedia, or even the copyright holder) can remove the freedom to copy/redistribute as they are explicit goals of the licence. (So describing mirroring as a "rip off" is very incorrect, as everyone who contributed, did so under the condition that it could be freely copied by anyone.) For many of those contributing, we realise that we are contributing to an encyclopedia, which happens to be initially hosted by wikipedia. Who the encyclopedia is hosted by is irrelevent, so making it unnecessarily difficult for mirrors runs against the basic philosphy of releasing content under the GFDL, in my view. If wikipedia disappeared in the morning, the GFDL would ensure that the content, the encyclopedia itself, would still survive. Intertwining wikipedia and the encyclopedia goes against that, which is why how it affects mirrors does matter. Regards, MartinRe 10:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete per Geogre and others. ugen64 02:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted per MartinRe. (Liberatore, 2006). 16:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
