|
Recently, Cyde deleted a number of cross-namespace redirects, citing Wikipedia:CSD#R2. But these redirects are OK per CDS R2: Redirects from the article namespace, to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. I believe that the redirects should be undeleted.
Note also that at least the titular deleted redirect has 5000 visits per month. Nikola (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I see that the page listed at the top of this DRV was just recreated:
- (cur) (prev) 17:18, 10 November 2009 Triesault (talk | contribs) (40 bytes) (←Redirected page to Wikipedia:Unusual articles)
- -- Soap Talk/Contributions 17:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects sums up the issue pretty well. It's likely that everything said here will just end up being a rehash of the arguments presented there. My personal take on the issue is that cross-namespace redirects should not exist as they create a confusion between encyclopedic content and non-encyclopedic content. It's pretty clear: namespace 0 is the encyclopedia, and everything else is meta to that encyclopedia. Namespaces exist to preserve this distinction, and blurring it by redirecting willy-nilly across the boundary is counter-productive. --Cyde Weys 17:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm...Those discussions are from 2006. The RfD for Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents, which closed as keep, was in 2008. Not to mention that CSD R2 explicitly excludes these redirects and hence there is no valid speedy deletion criterion at all. Overturn deletions. RfD at editorial discretion. Tim Song (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We ran into this problem the last time. RFDing hundreds of nonsense redirects like ANE Resources — which points to a subpage of a highly inactive portal — overwhelms the process and is a waste of the time of everyone involved. I'll grant you that Unusual articles is a different situation, but overturning the deletion of the ANE stuff et al would be a triumph of process over common sense. --Cyde Weys 17:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the solution would be to bundle those five and perhaps a couple more together in one nom. I doubt that RFD would be overwhelmed because of that. Tim Song (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bundling only goes so far. There would still be over a hundred separate bundles to push through RFD. (You can't bundle together unrelated redirects.) --Cyde Weys 18:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe an RFC, then? Like what was done with the {{future}} templates? I feel uncomfortable using a three-year-old discussion to justify deletions that are outside policy. Tim Song (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I tried to get Nikola to post this to WP:VPP, but he insisted on posting it here. I agree that a more general discussion on the issue is merited (independent of the specific redirects mentioned in this DRV). The existence of certain high-profile cross-namespace redirects that may be too externally referenced to be deleted has unfortunately ushered in a whole new generation of cross-namespace redirects created by people who seem to think that such things are normal and acceptable. At the very least, I'd push for a moratorium on all new cross-namespace redirects in article-space, and deletion of the vast majority of the ones presently in existence that don't have any significant incoming traffic from off-site. --Cyde Weys 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I right in thinking the two justifications presented for these deletions are a speedy criterion that explicitly doesn't apply, and an essay?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - I personally think that speedy deleting anything that doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria presents Wikipedia in a bad light, and is generally worse than allowing something that should be deleted to exist. Speedy deleting something that doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria makes it seem like Wikipedia administrators either don't know Wikipedia's policies or are free to ignore the policies and delete anything they want. If cross-namespace redirects like these are a problem in general, then a discussion can be started wherever it is appropriate to have one, but I think deleting these before such a discussion has taken place was a mistake. Calathan (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Bad policy to allow these. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
-
- What matters is the proper end result for the project regardless of the forum. not a bureaucracy, la di da and etc. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- The proper end result will depend on whether the deletion process was properly followed. People will behave differently after a fait accompli, and you know that. Nikola (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Invalid speedy deletion, CSD R2 does not apply to these redirects. Sandstein 23:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn totally out of process. Wikipedia does not have sufficiently firm precedents that we can justify a speedy by saying "other articles like this were deleted". We might or might not want to keep them, but it needs to be discussed. We admins do not have the right to simply delete everything we think ought not to be here--that's a misinterpretation of our role so drastic that anyone who ran for admin and said this would never be confirmed, or even come near it. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you might be slightly over-reacting here. Take a step back, look at WP:BOLD, and ask yourself if such strong rhetoric is really justified. All we're dealing with is a handful of deleted non-encyclopedic redirects. No wheel-warring, no nasty words thrown about, nothing. Calm down! --Cyde Weys 05:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, my comment was based upon not this but the totality of such deletions. My comments are I think correct as an expression of the feeling of the community, at least as expressed here. What you could have done to avoid such comments is to have reverted these yourself. I apologize though for any over-personal implications. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn with optional list at RFD. Many (if not most) of these are inappropriate, but no speedy deletion criterion applied. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Misreading of the speedy deletion criterion, and as Tim Song noted, some of these were already discussed and closed as keep. Some of the redirects should be kept for historical reasons (i.e. the page they redirected to was formerly under that name), and very few of them could be confused with articles. I also disagree with SchmuckyTheCat that out-of-process speedy deletions without discussion are OK if you agree with the result, because there is a reasonable chance, as here, that someone else does disagree with the deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as out-of-process, if Cyde wants the R2 criteria expanded then there is a venue for that. –xenotalk 16:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn R2 has been specifically been worded to exclude such redirects exactly because there was never consensus to speedy delete such redirects. Regards SoWhy 16:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted these redirects serve no purpose but to clog up the article space. There could be very well an encyclopedic article written on the topic of "Unusual Articles" or "Basic Topics" or whatever. Maybe there is a band named "Assumed bad faith". We already have WP: for shortcuts. If Wikipedia:Unusual Articles is too long, you can use WP:Unusual Articles or WP:UA. There is no conceivable reason for these redirects to exist. Grue 17:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Not sure if my previous comment counted as a vote, just want to make sure. Here's Google results of pages that link to the now-gone Citation templates: Google search results--Larrybob (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Due to the nature of speedy deletions it is best that they are carried out closer to the letter of the policy than any implied spirit. That being said, perhaps the wording of R2 needs to be looked at if editors feel that it should be broadened. ThemFromSpace 21:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per TimSong. I agree with Cyde's considered views on XNRs, but this is not the way to delete them. And having a discussion about their value at DRV will create confusion about what to do with a no consensus result. We should reverse the out of process deletions and then we can have a centralized discussion someplace.--chaser (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
