Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

September 10

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 10, 2013.

Mother city

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Turn into a dab page. Ruslik_Zero 18:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In an English-speaking context, Mother City is largely used to mean Cape Town (see "mother+city" for evidence) and the redirect should also reflect this. eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

CSD:G1

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. By pure vote counting, the "keep" and "delete" sides are quite balanced (weak leaning to delete), and RfD discussions tie-break towards deletion. But the "keep" arguments are weaker and in many cases near wikilawyering: the hitcounts of redirects are irrelevant to RfD discussions at the best of times, and especially so when they have been nearly entirely engineered by template editing. By contrast, the argument that cross-namespace redirects are inherently deletable is strong, and the counter that these form an established pseudo-namespace weak: it's clear from the history of pseudo-namespaces that PNRs are not welcomed, and existing PNRs are kept mainly to avoid linkrot; one editor cannot have the ability to unilaterally create a new pseudo-namespace which immediately becomes magically exempt from scrutiny. Happy‑melon 12:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating along with: CSD:G2, CSD:G3, CSD:G4, CSD:G5, CSD:G6, CSD:G7, CSD:G8, CSD:G9, CSD:G10, CSD:G11, CSD:G12, CSD:G13, CSD:A1, CSD:A2, CSD:A3, CSD:A5, CSD:A7, CSD:A9, CSD:A10, CSD:R2, CSD:R3, CSD:F1, CSD:F2, CSD:F3, CSD:F4, CSD:F5, CSD:F6, CSD:F7, CSD:F8, CSD:F9, CSD:F10, CSD:F11, CSD:U1, CSD:U2, CSD:U3, CSD:T2, CSD:T3, CSD:P1, CSD:P2

Update: CSD: has been created by Technical 13 on 12th of September and immediately added to the nomination. I also add CSD:C1, CSD:C2, CSD:C2A, CSD:C2B, CSD:C2C, CSD:C2D, CSD:C2E. Keφr 10:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needless main namespace pollution. WP:CSD#G1, WP:CSD#A1, etc. are already well-established shortcuts. I have never seen anyone express a need for more. Keφr 19:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the CSD: pseudo namespace is getting so many hits and has only been around ~2 weeks, I'd say it looks like it is reasonable to keep as a likely search term.. Technical 13 (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I presume they get so many hits because you worked so hard to promote these shortcuts and add links to them into templates and policy pages. Note that there are no hits in earlier months. Keφr 09:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of why there were hits, editors expect it now, which is the important factor. Technical 13 (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The benefits of the CSD: vs. WP:CSD# in these few templates are not great enough to warrant a new cross-namespace or pseudo-namespace shortcut. Unless there is something special about the helper script, the same is probably true for it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "They aid searches on certain terms."
  3. "You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect."
  4. "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. stats.grok.se can also provide evidence of outside utility."
As well as 10% of the WP:RFD#DELETE reasons:
  2. "It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space."
Say that this pseudo namespace should be kept and none of the WP:RFD#DELETE reasons are valid for deletion of this pseudo-namespace. Your claim, "That all the nominated pages are all that have a common prefix ending with a colon, something we customarily call a "pseudo-namespace", is irrelevant", is false as it is the defining' exception to the only possible valid delete reason. Technical 13 (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant as to whether this is the correct discussion venue. I did not say it is irrelevant as to whether they should be kept.
There are few internal links, they can be changed. I doubt anyone would externally link to an internal-policy page through an obscure shortcut anyway, especially this recent.
Mentioning percentages is silly. There are ten reasons listed for deleting, and five for keeping; the percentages on the deletion side will very obviously often be smaller. Reasons for either side may overlap, some reasons may be more important than others. You cannot quantify reasonableness of a deletion request like that. And I have never seen it written anywhere that these lists are exhaustive. Stop WP:LAWYERING. Think for a moment why these rules were put in place. Keφr 12:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for searches, one of the reason namespaces exist is that searches can be narrowed to encyclopædic content: just disable searching within the Wikipedia namespace. If you are searching for a policy, search only within the Wikipedia namespace. Cross-namespace pollution defeats that. Keφr 12:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm telling you I find them useful... As to your original "Needless main namespace pollution. WP:CSD#G1, WP:CSD#A1, etc. are already well-established shortcuts. I have never seen anyone express a need for more." comment 492 hits for WP:CSD (which is all #criteria)] in 90 days compared to 2,002 hits for CSD: (based on adding all of the CSD: values from the collapsed table above) in 30 days seems to imply that WP:CSD is not as well established as you thought and CSD: is more needed than you claim. I disagree that pseudo-namespaces are cross-namespace pollution, and the community seems to as well based on WP:RFD#D6. Technical 13 (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Measuring is easy. Understanding the measurement is harder. I will bet most of these hits are: 0) yourself and new page patrollers on the day of creation, 1) editors checking the shortcut links in WP:Criteria for speedy deletion (which I do not believe indicates any support for this particular set of shortcuts), or 2) caused by editors checking whether the shortcuts work before changing templates and this very nomination (simple observer effect). 513 hits on the day of creation and 526 yesterday imply that more than half of your number is measurement uncertainty. Counting the backlinks would tell us more, although also not much. Keφr 15:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, speaking of hit counts. Wikipedia:CSD has had 8239 hits in the last 30 days. Remember that the MediaWiki software automatically expands the "WP" alias into "Wikipedia", while the hit counter apparently does not treat these titles as equivalent. This means that this latter count covers most internal links. Wikipedia:SPEEDY has had 568 hits, while Wikipedia:SD has had 254. Now try the rest of the shortcuts. I think this reinforces my point: using tools without understanding them is worse than useless. Keφr 09:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because it did not. These shortcuts were created on 28th of August. By guess whom. Perhaps I am a bit overzealous about this, so thanks for the trout, although I just finished eating, so could it wait a little bit? Keφr 16:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These redirects fall into two categories: they are both CNRs and PNR shortcut redirects. If treated as newly created CNRs, then they should be deleted. If treated as PNRs, then they are immune to deletion. I would like to see the community consensus that agreed to the creation of a new pseudo-namespace. If the community was not involved in its creation, then I suggest that we speedy-end this discussion, because this is not the correct venue to decide if a new pseudoname-space is needed. Such a discussion may take place either at WT:Namespace or at WP:PROPS. I see no recent discussions about new pseudo-namespace proposals. And it looks like several have been missed (the ones in italics). – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 20:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, right. I think I forgot to put the notification banners on some. And completely missed the category criteria. Would that be a breach of due process to add them to this nomination now?
    • For all I know, the "community consensus that agreed to the creation of a new pseudo-namespace" consists of just one bold editor, Technical 13. But I think closing deletion discussion on one reasonably appropriate venue and then reopening it on another reasonably appropriate venue is pure bureaucracy, one of many things Wikipedia is not, ostensibly. I see no reason why consensus for deleting or keeping those redirects cannot be determined here. Feel free to post a link on these pages, though. Keφr 07:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, do what you want – throw in all the PNRs if you like. My point is that these are all by definition pseudo-namespace shortcuts, so you won't find too many editors, admin or otherwise, who are willing to just delete them out of hand. And yet, if the community did not decide to make another pseudo-namespace, then that puts these in a limbo of sorts. They can stay here awaiting a consensus that probably won't come easily, if at all, or the process can be begun at the correct disussion page to determine if they should have been created in the first place. The longer that waits, the more likely it will be that these CNRs will solidify into undeletable PNRs. Your nominating them here at Rfd actually works better for their creator, because the longer we debate their fate, the more they become like concrete. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or change to CSD G1 etc. (the keyboard layout I use forces me to press the shift key to produce a colon). These are intuitive and will save typing. —rybec 21:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pseudo namespace redirect, commonly used. Should keep the colon, as that is what makes it a pseudonamespace. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 06:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom and eh bien mon prince. — Lfdder (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They look neater than the # ones, and are more obvious. I can't see the new ones doing anybody or anything any harm. Peridon (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the CSD namespace advocates should know that there are hash-less WP shortcuts for these, e.g. WP:G1, etc. 1 character less!!!!! — Lfdder (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are not all there for one, and for two, a new editor will be less likely to type WP:G7 when they are looking for CSD criteria then they are to type CSD:G7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technical 13 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per User:Technical 13 — OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirects are cheap, and there's no harm here as long as we're not intruding on a real namespace to do this. Both sets of shortcuts can coexist for maximum ease of use (even the "CSD G1" suggestion above could be added as long as we don't override existing articles. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although I prefer the WP:(number) style, having a CSD pseudo-namespace makes sense, as one could theoretically look for CSD and choose from the numbers presented. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Move to WP:CSD:G1 or WP:CSD G1 etc. Although these are convenient, intuitive (I remember trying to use one of tthese redirects before they were created) and would surely get a great deal of use, putting stuff about Wikipedia policies among the articles causes clutter for mirror sites, thus interfering with our main goal here (creating an encyclopedia that anyone can copy). see third comment —rybec 17:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; you have got to be kidding me. Yes they are all redirects, but for discussing the deletion of an entire namespace I'd take it to AN. Yes these redirects are new, but they are seriously useful. Also redirects are cheap, so these are doing no harm whatsoever. What is to be gained from its deletion?--Launchballer 09:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right about their utility, but these are not "namespace" redirects/shortcuts, they are presently "cross-namespace" redirects that were recently created, all by one editor, to become shortcuts in a pseudo-namespace. This new pseudo-namespace has been created without community consensus, so you may also be wrong about their utility. If you personally find these shortcuts useful, that's certainly okay. But here at Rfd we don't decide about pseudo-namespaces, we decide about redirects. Since these redirects are in place without community consensus, then they must be deleted, and the appropriate forum can decide if they and more like them should be created. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 20:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me what policy requires community consensus to create a cross-namespace/pseudo-namespace redirect. Please then show me the policy that requires community consensus to create a redirect, period. Hint - there is none. ~Charmlet -talk- 02:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The policy that requires community consensus to make any controversial decision is Wikipedia:Consensus. Anyone with eyes can see by this very discussion here at Rfd that the manufacture of a new pseudo-namespace is a controversial issue. However, as you pointed out above Rfd is a place to discuss the deletion of redirects. And as I pointed out, Rfd is not the place to discuss whether or not it is okay to create a new pseudo-namespace. So in accordance with WP:RFD#DELETE – D6, i.e., the deletion of recently created cross-namespace redirects, all of these redirects are to be deleted. After that, if the editor who manufactured these redirect shortcuts would like to open a discussion about whether or not a new pseudo-namespace is needed, then it can be opened at the Pump, or it can be opened on the namespace's talk page. There should be no further discussion here; this Rfd proposal should be speedily closed, and all the redirects should be deleted. They are newly created cross-namespace redirects. They are not members of a pseudo-namespace until the requirements of the WP:CON policy are met. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 03:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep you cannot assume new editors will know the namespaces of Wikipedia. They are likely to type CSDG1 or CSD G1 or CSD:G1 into the search box, not WP:CSD#G1, that requires they know both namespaces and anchors, two quite advanced topics. Honestly - this is a perfectly fine CNR, and the fact that some opposes are based on the bureaucracy of "it's a CNR with no discussion." Please realize that The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. This does not say that there must be discussion to have a pseudo-namespace, nor that those without discussion should be deleted. It, however, does say that pseudo-namespaces are an exception to the CNR rule. This is a pseudonamespace, thus it would be an exception. Furthermore, WP:Pseudo-namespace does not mention anything about a discussion requirement to make a pseudo-namespace. Thus, all votes regarding "no discussion" or "spontaneous creation" are invalid as WP:NOTBURO and the fact that they are not based in policy. There is, thusly, no policy-based reason on which these should be deleted, per WP:R#DELETE as they are not meeting any of the criteria there. tl;dr - WP:NOTBURO, discussion not needed, thus no policy reason to delete. ~Charmlet -talk- 02:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting that some editors have to be reminded that it does not require a policy to know when things need to be discussed, only disagreement. If the disagreement here in this discussion, as well as elsewhere, does not tell you something, then what will? When disagreements like this exist, then only a consensus will settle it. Rfd is not the forum for that discussion. We delete these CNRs and then the correct forum can decide whether or not they are truly needed. Your calling this some kind of bureaucracy is just as incorrect as your requiring to see us quote a policy, especially when right there at WP:NOTBURO it states, "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures." No offense, but if your !vote to keep these is based upon that, then it is your own !vote that is invalid. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 03:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your, and others' !votes are based on the fact that it apparently inherently needed discussion. There are many !votes that say "delete he should've discussed first". Those are invalid. They are created. This is discussing whether they should be deleted. There is no policy reason to delete them. By the way, RfD is the forum to discuss deletion. ~Charmlet -talk- 04:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course we cannot assume that new editors will know namespaces from the very start. But they should learn them. Competence is required here. And some other things. Or are you arguing that separation of policy and encyclopaedic content is an unnecessary burden on editors?
    Let us conduct a little thought experiment. Say, I created a K: prefix and put redirects from it into my userspace. If "there is no policy" to delete the redirects we are discussing now, then we would have no reason to discuss these either. It is a pseudo-namespace!!! A major exception explicitly listed as immune to deletion!!!!! According to the literal interpretation of WP:RFD#DELETE number 6, at least. Among other things, WP:NOTBURO means that the spirit of policies trumps the letter of policies, including deletion policies, and that examples listed within are not necessarily exhaustive; doing the opposite would result in instruction WP:CREEP. Maybe those people are arguing that it should be discussed first not because there is a policy explicitly stating so, but simply because they think that creating a pseudo-namespace prefix is a major change, has a potential for disruption and goes against the usual practices of namespace separation.
    And if you are saying "keep because arguments for delete are invalid", you are committing a logical WP:FALLACY of denying the antecedent and your argument is equally invalid, if not more. Judge the redirects based on their own merits. Keφr 05:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that your hypothetical use case – a new user typing CSD* into the search box – is implausible. There are prominent links to WP:Criteria for speedy deletion in the speedy tags and the warning templates. A new user creating a page qualifying for speedy deletion is unlikely to get even the CSD acronym or the relevant criterion correct. I responded to your citing WP:Redirect/Deletion reasons#D6 above. Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (Note: the templates have been recently changed to use these shortcuts. I am yet to see an actual justification. Among other things, it means that the hit counts are meaningless now.) Keφr 05:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{R to project}} indicates redirects to project space. If it's not done already, would it be difficult to exclude such redirects from the article-only dumps, so that people making mirrors or offline copies would not be burdened with irrelevant redirects? If this were done, the name-space pollution might not be a problem. —rybec 06:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response: They all have {{R from shortcut}} and {{R to section}}, I was unaware of this {{R to project}} but have no objection to adding it. Technical 13 (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What's the point? These are not needed for historical accuracy. Current use can be reverted. The idea that they help new users find CSD related information is improbable at best. There is no need for new shortcuts in addition to WP:G1, WP:CSD#G1, and a new pseudonamespace is a bad precedent. The idea that this is helpful for new users who don't know Wikipedia namespaces strikes me as opposite of what would happen: instead of a clear organization along Wikipedia,WP -> Project, Article -> Main, Category -> Categories, User -> Ancillary user stuff... there would instead be a confusing mess of redirects which does undermine the namespace system as a whole. Quick, why is CSD:G1 not under WP:? Is it somehow not a project page? OSborn arfcontribs. 15:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They seem to meet exactly zero of WP:RFD#DELETE rationales and several of WP:RFD#KEEP. Usually, just by having been nominated, you would expect some valid rationale under which they could be deleted, but these doesn't even pass that basic smell test. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 16:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Some contributors here seem to be overlooking WP:RFD#DELETE – D6, the one about newly created cross-namespace redirects. Until there is a community consensus in the correct venue (not here at Rfd) that a new pseudo-namespace of this nature is okay to create, then the only class into which these redirects fall is the CNR class, which means that they all should be plonked. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 01:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in favour of the Wikipedia namespace shortcuts - no need for two shortcuts for each criterion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So? That's just one redirect!
As with the other redirects you pointed out, I don't see a problem with having a few redirects here and there for common usage in searching and so on. I do see a problem with creating a huge batch of redirects, particularly when another huge batch of redirects to the same criteria already exists. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh... I see, Dogmaticeclectic, so your argument is "I just don't like it". I understand. :) Technical 13 (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note for anyone else reading this: the user above has been warned for this obvious violation of WP:AGF. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects are useful to help people find things. It is clear people use these redirects. As long as people use redirects we should have them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the only person that uses them and creates links to them everywhere is their creator. Links in templates have also been added at his request. Using "people" in plural is kind of a stretch. Keφr 17:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC) (Keep. Delete. Keep. Delete. Keep. Delete. Keep. Delete. I notice a pattern...)[reply]
  • Delete per Keφr's well reasoned arguments. Begoon talk 23:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find these quite useful, and haven't heard any argument against them other than bureaucratic 'these are the rules, so we have to uphold them'. People like these, are more productive using these, and if the rules say we can't have them, the rules need to be fixed, rather than these handy shortcuts. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, why have any rules at all? Keφr 14:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because in many cases they give useful guidance. What are you trying to argue here? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Martijn, Kephir almost lost me with that comment too until I realized that he simply missed the fact that all you were saying is that because CCC, it is justifiable to discuss them. Technical 13 (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • He might have meant something like that, but he said something else, something which was very easy to read along the lines of "rules are stupid therefore ignore them in favour of WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT type of justifications". (Oh the irony that I have to be the literalist now.) Like I already mentioned, using "people" in plural is kind of an overestimation. Second, every new pseudo-namespace prefix is an infinity (shall we say, for the sake of the argument) of names subtracted from the space of possible article titles. The line must be drawn somewhere, and I demand that it be drawn before these, before we started depending on them. There are lots of other shortcuts available, some even one character shorter than these. Keφr 16:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I meant neither, and apparently wasn't exact enough to be clear. First of, when I said "people like these [...]", I probably should have said "some people like these [...]". I meant neither consensus can change, nor all rules are stupid, I meant this application of this rule isn't adding to general productiveness, and yes, it's useful. Which I think is a fine argument to use in a deletion discussion for a redirects. It's not the first time usefulness is taken in to account for redirects, in fact, I think it's quite standard practice to judge the merit of a redirect on its usefulness. I'm not quite sure where the I like it argument is coming from. I don't think it can even apply to a (non-novelty) redirect. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bullfrog

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 23#Bullfrog

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_10&oldid=1138579297"