I did a redirect the other day. They got after me because there was "no
article". So I ended up protecting the redirect. I did write a half-assed article
eventually, but did that under duress. I can see no problem having a redirect to a red
link, if the redirect is to the best title. When did a red link become an offense,
From: Phil Sandifer [mailto:Snowspinner@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:34 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: [WikiEN-l] When did RfD Become Toxic?
Can anyone quickly get me up to speed on when Redirects for
Deletion... sorry. Redirects for "discussion" became a toxic hellhole
of idiocy that makes the rest of our deletion procedures look sane?
Seriously. People are nominating perfectly sane if misguided
redirects for deletion because no articles use them. Things like
[[Cammy (Street Fighter)]] are up because there's no other Cammy
articles. Which is fine, but someone who doesn't know that and is
trying to guess our naming conventions could type in. Similarly, we
have people seriously suggesting that [[The Twilight Zone (pinball)]]
is not a reasonable redirect for [[Twilight Zone (pinball)]].
Seriously. When did we begin purging redirects, which are possibly
the most harmless thing imaginable on Wikipedia. These are not
offensive or POV redirects. They're sensible things that people might
well guess when trying to type in an article name.
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: