Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 12, 2015.

Waukegan Fire Department[edit]

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 restore article and send to AfD. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information about the fire department on the page that this redirects to. Zackmann08 (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore for AfD - I think this is probably not notable, but I'm on the fence. As a redirect, it's a weak keep as a longstanding redirect, and not quite a delete as misleading. I say restore this version and then pass the buck to AfD. Ivanvector (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not mentioned at target. The old article has no references so it's not worth merging. Siuenti (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect, as I just added a sentence based on the old article, to the target article. Cut short complaining about it not being there, just put it there and be done. --doncram 00:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it is unfair to characterise those above as "complaining". Adding unreferenced content is not "done", it is just a start, and may be a false start. Si Trew (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore then nominate for AfD/Prod'. I think taking a shortcut to delete this article using RfD will set a bad precedence. --Lenticel (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2015 (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.

Wikipedia:KAFFEEKLATSCH[edit]

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 no consensus. There is rigorous debate over whether this page is a valid WP-to-user redirect or an illegitimate endorsement by Wikipedia of a user-space experiment, but there is no clear outcome to this debate. The option for a soft redirect was brought up; though it did not gain traction as an option, it is technically not precluded by this RFD either (since it does not concern deleting the page). Harej (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This very recently created cross-namespace redirect needs to be deleted. The target page was kept after an MFD, with many of the keep comments specifically noting that they thought this was okay in userspace but did not want the page in WP space. Putting a redirect from WP space makes it seem that the community has approved this term or this concept, and that hasn't happened. I think we need more community input. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I created this redirect to make it maybe a smidge easier for women - 10% to 15% of the community - to find this little space that I'm trying to develop to help address the gender gap. WMF legal okayed the space, and many comments supported it. Lightbreather (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A page in userspace where a user limits participation (akin to asking people to stay off one's own talkpage) is acceptable, just about. A redirect that suggests it is a Wikipedia project space page that is limited only to editors dictated by a single user is not acceptable. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that goes for project space as well as article space. If Lightbreather wishes to bar certain groups of editors from her userpages that is permissible, but trying to shoehorn this concept into project space by way of a redirect is not. Yunshui 雲水 15:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments as nominator. In addition to the other issues listed in the nomination, Kaffeeklatsch is not a common term in English and is not one people would normally search for. Furthermore, the target page is only for women; we should not be linking from WP space (which is open to anyone) to a page where 90% of the editors are banned from editing. Karanacs (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Redirects are not going to be random users' search terms, they're only there for experienced editors who already know what they're looking for. Also, WP space is not open to anyone. For example, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard is a page in WP space, but not open to anyone. In fact, over 99.9% of editors are barred from editing it.--GRuban (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did... did you seriously compare a page in userspace to ArbCom's noticeboard? Did you seriously just do that?
I'm not even going to bother commenting further on this particular "point", because I think its ridiculousness is plenty obvious already. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I proved Karanacs statement (that WP space was open to anyone) incorrect. That's the whole point of the nomination for deletion here, after all, since the userspace page was upheld already, in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch. We're only discussing the WP space redirect here. --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already know what is being discussed. Nevertheless, the fact that you compared a userspace page's redirect to ArbCom's noticeboard makes it impossible to take your argument here seriously. That's like comparing your garage lemonade stand to the Vatican City. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless RFD is different from AFD in this regard, the nominator's nomination counts as your !vote, so you should strike this other bolded "delete". You can still participate in the discussion, of course. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'd recommend that LB seek getting the KAFFEEKLATSCH made into a WikiProject. It's highly likely that it would bring about editor recruitment of both professed genders, but nevertheless recruitment. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am pursuing that idea, and have been since January 6, thought it may take months to happen... if it happens at all. Lightbreather (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirect Either this can be a userspace project and you can exert some level of control over it or it can be a Wikipedia space and you can give up all control over it. You can't have it both ways. Also there may be canvasing going on in this Mfd that is biased towards one gender. Chillum 16:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon further thought, the redirect is not the problem here. The problem is that Wikipedia is allowing gender based discrimination. I say that anything in the Wikipedia namespace needs to be open to consensus and an all female club does not fit that description so I endorse deletion of any Wikipedia redirect to a place that does not allow all parties to contribute to consensus. Chillum 00:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As pointed out by Lightbreather, this should be seen as a free zone for an underrepresented demographic. It has a specific purpose that does not exclude anyone from editing articles. Until we get a reasonable handle on the gender gap, it's a perfectly valid strategy. Please consider the big picture here and try not to apply the letter of the law so strictly. Peter Isotalo 16:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Karanacs and Chillum. J3Mrs (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This cross-namespace redirect should be deleted per WP:R#DELETE, reason #6 (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. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia.)) since it is not one of the listed exceptions nor does it meet any of the reasons to keep redirects. The fact that the page was recently kept after MfD discussion - or even that WMF legal determined that the page does not violate the Discrimination policy - is not a justification for making an exception to the redirect guideline. Ca2james (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Er - the very text you are quoting is telling you you're wrong. It's not a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, since the WP: redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace. --GRuban (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken: it's a redirect from project to user space which I personally think goes against the sprit of that guideline. Either way, this redirect does imply that the page is OK in project space. Since many MfD keep !votes specifically stated that this page is OK because it's in user space and not project space, this redirect should be deleted. So my delete !vote stands. Ca2james (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also note that although the soft redirect was added after I !voted, my Delete !vote applies to both. Ca2james (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The redirect is unnecessary. Userspace pages do not get to get mainspace redirects. Furthermore Peter Isotalo, Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, and it is completely inappropriate to act as digilantes and break the rules just because you feel that they are preventing you from righting great wrongs. Ignoring all rules is fine if you are trying to improve the encyclopaedia, but trying to "fix" a community is not improving the encyclopaedia; it is attempting to modify the userbase, which does not fall under "the encyclopaedia". Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not about article content so citing WP:GREATWRONGS makes no sense. We have a massive, undisputed gender gap, and that's bad for the project, both for content generation and for women users. Going after a redirect seems litigious and lacking in collegial sensitivity. No harm will be done by simply ignoring a technical breach of guidelines, but shooting this one down will obviously act as a discouragement. Those who disagree should seriously consider abstaining unless they can point to any realistic consequences from allowing this to stay. Peter Isotalo 16:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Undisputed? I don't think we have any idea what the gender ratio is here. The vast majority of people do not self identify and the numbers being tossed around are dubious at best. Chillum 16:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going by the surveys about this that have actually been made and published. It's more reliable than random speculation by individual users.
Peter Isotalo 17:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about surveys is that you are more likely to measure which gender is more likely to self identify online. Chillum 17:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are not an authority on online surveys, so merely repeating your views on online surveys isn't going to make me change my initial stance.
Peter Isotalo 21:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to be an authority on online surveys to know that they rarely reflect reality. The fact the the participants were self selected is enough to show it is dubious at best. I think men are more likely to admit their gender only due to less fear of discrimination. Chillum 18:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. Again, you don't just get to "ignore a technical breach of guidelines" just because you don't like the fact that this redirect goes against them. Many dispute that this redirect betters the encyclopaedia. Furthermore, those who have a particular agenda should seriously consider abstaining unless they can point to any realistic reasons that this should unquestionably stay. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - allowable cross-space redirect, gets users to the information they're looking for. It's not a page in project space, it's a redirect from project space to a page in user space. And if there is any chance that this makes the project even a tiny bit more friendly to female users, it is obviously of clear benefit to Wikipedia. No policy-based reason for deletion has been suggested; some users simply don't like it. Ivanvector (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My response to Peter above applies to you as well. One is not allowed to ignore the rules if it is not for the purpose of bettering the overall articles in the progress. Using Wikipedia to further a personal agenda is not allowed here.
    With that said, I take no issue with the page that Lightbreather set up within her userspace. I agree that women should be treated with far more respect than they are currently, and that (until they are) they should have a space for themselves to feel safe and not threatened by witch hunting-esque attitudes by many males. Nevertheless, such a thing should stay in userspace. Also, please don't use superlatives and intensifiers so as to make your argument appear better than it is. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments refer repeatedly to content in article space (including your link to WP:PEACOCK, which is a style guide and has nothing to do with user-to-user discussions) but nothing we are talking about here is in article space, and there is no threat here to article content. Indeed the purpose is bettering articles, by making the project as a whole more hospitable to a diversity of editors, and countering our well-known and deeply-entrenched systemic bias. This redirect is doing much more good than harm. Ivanvector (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tharthan, you're not actually citing any relevant rules, though. Not even guidelines. You've referred to WP:PEACOCK and WP:GREATWRONGS and both are about article content. So which rule is being broken here? Peter Isotalo 16:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they aren't truly applicative, but the fact that you are willing to overlook things that don't benefit you worries me, though. Laissez faire is a corrupt approach to doing things. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What worries me is the fact that you struggle to pull mainspace-based content guilelines in here to make your case for deleting this harmless non-mainspace non-content redirect, yet you still haven't put forward a reasonable policy-based reason for deletion. Ivanvector (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Perhaps"? You're saying we should delete this innocuous redirect because it breaks rules, but you cite no relevant rules. So what are we overlooking?
Peter Isotalo 21:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect is misleading, and there's no evidence that it serves as a useful navigation aid. There is a Category:Redirects to user namespace but virtually all of these are for pages that were once in WP space and later userfied. In those cases a cross-namespace redirect is warranted so as not to break pre-existing links. This is not the case here. It's a user space experiment not open to general editing and participation, and in fact explicitly excludes the majority of editors. A redirect like this allows it to masquerade as something it's not, particularly if used to link to the page in lists and discussions instead of the actual name, e.g. "See also Wikipedia:KAFFEEKLATSCH". I might think differently if not for the MfD for this page (in which I did not opine one way or another). Approximately 2/3 of the "keep" !votes at the MFD were on the basis that this area was in user space, and several of them explicitly said they would strongly oppose it in WP space as did two or three of those who commented without !voting one way or another. Voceditenore (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - since the target page has been kept at MfD, this is an entirely reasonable redirect. I see no policy-based reason to delete it; in no way is the mainspace involved here. LadyofShalott 17:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LadyofShalott and others. --doncram 17:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#KEEP #5. "Someone finds them useful. You might not find it useful, but this may be because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." Creator states above that this redirect was created "to make it maybe a smidge easier for women ... to find". Let's WP:AGF. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation. Previous RfD examples Yogurt Principle, Yogurt Rule, and Concision razor were all deleted under the same principle - that "Wikipedia:" redirects to pages in user space gave the mistaken impression that something had community support when it did not actually have community support. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those were redirects to user essays, essays which did not have community support. This page is not an essay and does have community support, per the MfD. Ivanvector (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The MFD showed that the page was accepted within userspace. Many of the keep comments specifically noted that the editor would not find it acceptable in project space. This redirect circumvents that. Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The page is within userspace. Redirects are allowed as shortcuts from project space to user space. For some examples, see Category:Redirects to user namespace. Ivanvector (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If an MfD showing consensus for something being in user space but not project space can be described as having community support, then both of the essays those "Wikipedia:" redirects pointed to actually could be said to have that type of community support, since they both went through it (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concision razor, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule). That this is slightly different is why I commented rather than !voted. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others. In German (many here speak German), "KAFFEEKLATSCH" is a social group that isn't defined by sex. By this edit[1], Lightbreather has add to the page: Shortcut: WP:KAFFEEKLATSCH, making it seem like a mainspace article. Yet if Lightbreather is right, 90% of people editing here will be directed to a page that excludes them. (And readers will be confused, expecting and article.)

    Lightbreather retains total control of the content and removes comments from some females, defeating the purpose of a place for open discussion among women. e.g. (Ongepotchket)[2], (Montanabw) [3], (Pitke))[4], (SlimVirgin)[5]. And despite spamming editors and WikiProjects, since 27 January only three editors have signed The Pledge. EChastain (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather Can you comment on the alleged removal of editors input to the Kaffeeklatsch? . Buster Seven Talk 18:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those comments were not deleted. They were moved to a talk page: Ongepotchket [6], Montanabw [7], Pitke [8], SlimVirgin [9]. An editor moving errant comments to the place where a discussion is already occurring on a subject is not a valid reason to delete a redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector, what do you mean by "errant comments"? They were attempts by females to discuss Lightbreather's proposal. Why were some allowed to remain like those of LadyofShalott? What's the purpose of the page if no discussion is allowed? EChastain (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, LB asked users to either sign the pledge before commenting on that page, or to comment on LB's talk page instead. Those users had not signed. LadyofShalott had signed at the time she left her comments but later removed her signature. That's all I'm able to offer; LB might have more. Ivanvector (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Lightbreather to comment. I know they were moved. No one said they were deleted. When I move a comment from one page to another I leave a note at the receiving page, (in this case it would be Lightbreathe's talk page), to inform readers of the move. I just wonder why Lightbreather didn't think it was important. . Buster Seven Talk 18:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I equate removal with deletion, in the sense that many editors refer to their comments being "deleted" from a talk page, and listed the diffs for the benefit of editors here who might share my interpretation. But I understand your point. There may be some insight in SlimVirgin's edit here. Ivanvector (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Buster7, there is a Welcome message at the top of the Kaffeeklatsch page that says:
If you have signed the Kaffeeklatsch Pledge in good faith, Welcome! - and please proceed.
If you have not signed the pledge, please join or start a discussion on the hostess' talk page.
If an editor continues to post on the klatsch page without having signed the pledge page I simply move their post to my talk page under the "Kaffeeklatsch discussions" header. Lightbreather (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what EChastain has done: given diffs for my removing comments from the klatsch page, but not the diffs that show me immediately moving them to my talk page![10][11][12][13] (Actually, the first one was moved by Sarah (SV) herself.) Lightbreather (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, correction on what EC posted: Six women have signed the pledge, two have removed their names. (So there are four there now, including myself.) Honestly, with the kind of "welcome" this idea is getting, I expect just building membership will be a hard task, but just because it may be slow-going doesn't seem like reason alone to ditch it. Lightbreather (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lightbreather, please AGF and answer directly without I've done something underhanded. So to be clear, a net of three editors have signed the pledge, not counting you. (If they remove their name, then you count them as signed?} LadyofShalott has removed herself from the pledge, so why are her comments still there? How do you expect a discussion if the comments of other female editors are removed without their concerns being given a heading, or even addressed at all? SlimVirgin removing her own is entirely different than you unilaterally removing the feedback of others without commenting or leaving any indication as Buster7 suggests is good practice. You say: "I will start a separate discussion and after we get 10 or 12 members" regarding the wording of the pledge. But how do you expect anyone to sign if their concerns about the pledge are removed without being noted? EChastain (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EChastain, that is one definition of Kaffeeklatsch. Another long-standing one is "A mid-afternoon gathering of women."[14] They were quite common among women in the American Midwest when I was growing up. Lightbreather (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC
No, readers will not be confused, because Wikipedia project space is not main article space. The vast majority of Wikipedia readers will never see this. Ivanvector (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Purely on the German history of the word: "These informal gatherings ... were a boost to women workers, whom patriarchal German males banned from coffee houses...." Encyclopedia of Kitchen History p. 238. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector why are you doing all the answering for Lightbreather? She's busy editing and could answer for herself.[15] EChastain (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter? I lurk RfD, and you're asking questions that seem to have obvious answers. Lightbreather might have more to say, but that doesn't preclude my responding as well. Ivanvector (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector yes it matters. She was asked a direct question, important in determining what this page is for. One female editor's concerns were given a section title for discussion, while others were just moved off the page with no opportunity to get feedback. Why was no discussion allowed? EChastain (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All this consternation is the result of a poorly designed system that required allegiance before discussion would be allowed. No sign, no voice...at least not where the editor wanted their voice to be heard.. Buster Seven Talk 20:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EC and B7: No comments were deleted! They were there for feedback, and they're still there for feedback! Go knock yourselves out...[16] but if it gets attack-ey or harras-ey, I will delete it. Lightbreather (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither EC nor I said anything about deleting. You and Ivan mentioned deleting. BTW, an having on open membership is not hard. It's having a restricting membership that is hard. . Buster Seven Talk 20:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And what does any of this have to do with the redirect that we're discussing? We already had a discussion on the merits of the page; consensus was that it's fine. If you'd like to reopen that discussion, you need to talk to the admin who closed the MfD, not gripe about it here. Ivanvector (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, EC and B7: No comments were removed! (You two used "remove" not "delete.") Also, I'm taking this page off my watchlist now. Lightbreather (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fact: Comments were re-moved...from the Coffee Clutch to LB's talk page without any mention (other than Sarah mentioning it herself) in either place. Bad practice. The history of a page, especially a talk page, should be obvious on sight. If someone took the time they could figure out the development of THIS long-winded and fragmented discussion bt way of time stamps. The comments that were moved to LB's talk page are intermingled and any individual integrity was lost. Bad practice. I am not insensitive to the plight of Women editors in a world surrounded by "testy" men. But not every editor making a counterpoint is an anti-feminist. Buster Seven Talk 16:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Buster7: Lightbreather has said above that she is no longer watching this page. If you would like to continue badgering her about refactoring comments on pages in her user space, a line of discussion which has nothing to do with this redirect, you should take that over to her talk page. Ivanvector (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw what she said. My comment was not for her. It was for you and anyone else that reads it. . Buster Seven Talk 16:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Karanacs and Chillum and others. The solution to the gender gap is neither further isolation nor is it intentional segregation. I understand that naysayers get in the way of focused conversation. There is absolutely no doubt that the gender ratio is skewed. . Buster Seven Talk 18:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you put it better than me. Isolation and segregation. Neither of these things is good for an equality movement and they run contrary to the spirit of a project that anyone can edit. Chillum 18:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's quite simple, all politics aside, it's not possible to have the official Wikipedia designation leading to an unofficial non-Wikipedia page. Giano (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All politics aside, it's possible to have approximately 120 redirects from Wikipedia space to user space. See Category:Redirects to user namespace. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is no danger of confusion with the WP mainspace article. I am not convinced of the need for the project, but so long as the project exists, I think the redirect is appropriate so people can find it. Also, the reality of this being a RfD here actually gives some credence to some of Lightbreather's positions (if her position is that women endure discrimination on WP) That said, I'm not interested in joining at this time. Montanabw(talk) 22:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I nominated it...and I'm female. I think it is an inappropriate use of a redirect. Karanacs (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as an inappropriate cross-namespace redirect which makes it look like an project/guideline/help page. If one day there is consensus to promote the user page to a guideline then and only then might this be appropriate, but right now it does not belong, especially as its non-English name makes it entirely unclear what it is for.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A further observation: if this is kept then what's to stop other editors creating redirects in WP: space to their own creations, whether proposed policies, essays, or whatever? Probably they will choose a shortcut in English not German. And as more of these are created (and pages can have two or more of them) editors will become more and more likely to come across them searching for policy pages. There aren't that many pages in WP space, relative to the other namespaces, so over time such cross-namespace redirects could come to represent a large proportion of the WP: shortcuts, created by the page creators or other well meaning editors, making it harder to find actual policy pages – the ones meant to start with WP: . The way to avoid this is to treat this as other redirects into userspace and delete it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I admit I was one of those who said in the nomination of the page itself that the page itself should only be kept because it's unofficial; but the presence of the redirect doesn't make it more official. There are no rules forbidding the redirect from wp:space to user space, while there are plenty of precedents cited by the IP a few rows above, including Wikipedia:Article Deletion Squadron, Wikipedia:Automated peer review, Wikipedia:CLUEBOT, Wikipedia:NOPROBLEM, and many others. --GRuban (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment GRuban and Smallbones Please see Wikipedia:Subpages. The IP above gave a link to Category:Redirects to user namespace. If you look at the pages in that category, you'll see {{essay}} on most. Userspace guidelines suggest Category:User essays.

    At Subpages:Allowed uses, you'll see: "Avoid additional incoming and outward links that would make it appear as if this "/Temp" page is part of the encyclopedia", and "don't create navigational templates that make it appear as if this temp page is part of a series of encyclopedia articles", etc. It suggests using {{userspace draft}} to make this clear. It also note the WP:NOTAWEBHOST.

    Further down: "All of these pages are your user pages or user space. While you do not "own" them, by custom you may manage them as you wish, so long as you do so reasonably and within these guidelines." Under What may I not have in my user pages, it says, "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption." So is WP:KAFFEEKLATSCH permissible? EChastain (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's permissible. The community determined at the previous discussion (at MfD) that the page is suitable, having considered all of the guidelines you mentioned above. What we're talking about here is a redirect to that community-sanctioned page, which is also fine. The text you've quoted regarding /Temp subpages refers specifically to point 8 on that page, which deals with creating a temporary article in a talk space with the intent of working on it while a copyright violation is being repaired, and of course discourages linking to the temporary version from article space. That doesn't apply here - the user page isn't in a talk space, it's not a temporary version of an article, it's not intended to be an article, and the redirect is not in article space. Ivanvector (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As others have said, it's not uncommon – Category:Redirects to user namespace – for project-space shortcuts to point to user pages to make them easier to type and find. Anyone clicking on or hovering over the link will see it's in user space. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I made a mistake above, which I've struck through. EChastain, thanks for pointing it out. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hovering over links actually does work if you have WP:POPUPS enabled. But most users probably don't. Ivanvector (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until such time as the target page is in projectspace. See also Voceditenore's comments above. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Nikkimaria, redirects such as these don't go to user-pages unless it is a project. For those who are arguing about the proposal its not and should not be about that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am a concerned with elevating the status of this redirect because I am concerned of promoting, or institutionalizing within Wikipedia, the protection of silo'd off spaces with exclusionary non-meritocratic group memberships. Exclusive talk spaces on Wikipedia by their very nature encourage group editing behaviour and the coordination of edits among people of like perspectives. Isn't such a group, by its very nature of being driven by a group interest in its editing behaviour, an institutionalized form of meat puppeting? WP:MEATPUPPET Spudst3r (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is not a valid or useful cross-namespace redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Speaking as someone who strongly supported keeping the userpage otherwise, this does not look to be in line with how I understand the Wikipedia namespace which: "contains many types of pages connected with the Wikipedia project itself: information, policy, essays, processes, discussion, etc.." I felt the userpage itself was should have been entirely uncontroversial, but this redirect means it's "connected with the Wikipedia project itself", and while that may be the case in the future, it's not now. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cross-namespace redirects that go from project space to user space are well within policy. Otherwise the entire Category:Redirects to user namespace would be deleted. This redirect is a useful navigation aid for editors trying to find the Kaffeeklatsch. gobonobo + c 15:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having the redirect means the Kaffeeklatsch has to operate by the rules of Wikipedia, that is by consensus. Consensus (also amongst self-identified women) is that a wikipedia-wide women-only page isn't desirable for several reasons. Let Lightbreather run her user page just as she wants to, but let's not pretend that all of Wikipedia works by her rules. 134.224.220.1 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear, hear! Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. If this is actually kept because of lack of consensus, then there is stark corruption afoot. Insisting that a needless redirect needs to be kept because "I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG AND YOU'RE ALL JUST BIG MEANIES THAT WANT TO RETAIN THE SYSTEMATIC BIAS!" should never be perceived as persuasive. I thought that we tried to run things here based upon reason and consensus, not by emotion, rash judgment, and activism. Perhaps things have changed for the worse, and I just never realised that people had become unreasonable.
Now I speak to no individual person when I say this, but rather to something I've seen in discussions on Wikipedia as a whole as of late: I truly hate how, in these types of situations, extreme conservatives crying "Keep things the way that they were just because it's the status quo!" and extreme liberals crying "Change things just because I want to stick it to the man!" seem to get more attention than the people that actually have valid arguments. If you want this to be kept, give a legitimate reason for why it should be kept. A legitimate reason isn't "I support the ideals of the proposer and think that a temporary breach of how things run is worth it in the long run", a legitimate argument would be "Here are some other examples where wiki-space redirects have been used to redirect to userspace pages, and here is why this proposal is beneficial to the encyclopaedia".
Remember, in the end, it doesn't matter if this gets more opposes than keeps or keeps than opposes. Wikipedia doesn't run by votes here, it runs by the amount of reason placed in arguments and furthermore how much reason is present for each side. Please propose things at the village pump and related areas. Do not suddenly create redirects out of nowhere that go against protocol without reasonable explanation that is not composed of loaded words and nonargument arguments. That's gaming the system to get one's preferred way, and that's not allowed. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on discussion at hand: the relevant consensus is here, if users commenting here would like to read it. This redirect's existence or deletion does not alter, influence, or qualify that consensus. The consensus, per closer Harej, was simply "page kept". Other users here have read this and that into the closing statement but the fact is that the community has approved the existence of Lightbreather's user space project - it is thus Wikipedia sanctioned. It's as simple as that. This discussion will not change that; it can't, it doesn't have jurisdiction. If you want to revisit whether or not the page should exist, your first step is to contact the closing admin, and then proceed to deletion review. Frankly it's disappointing to see so many editors banding together to undercut this editor's meagre effort to improve the editing environment for other women, an activity which threatens nobody, but it is off-topic for this discussion.
This thread is about the redirect, not about the page. There is no policy or guideline which forbids redirects from the Wikipedia: space to User: space (only redirects out of article (main) space are forbidden by WP:CNR and this redirect is in Wikipedia: space), and this particular redirect does not meet any of the criteria for deletion specified at WP:RFD#DELETE. A lot of users here who really want to see the page get deleted have cobbled together disparate policies and guidelines to form a coherent deletion argument, but such logic simply doesn't apply here. Ivanvector (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who is proposing that the page be deleted? This discussion is about whether or not the redirect gets deleted. Lightbreather has already been given the go-ahead to have that page. Anyone commenting that the page should be deleted should be being ignored, so I don't know why you bring up the small few that are trying to abuse this RfD.
(edit conflict) Several of the arguments here are of the form "this redirect should be deleted because the page shouldn't exist" which is faulty logic. By extension, arguments of the form "this redirect should be deleted because the page has issues" and "this redirect should be deleted because the page is against the spirit of Wikipedia" are also faulty. If the page was deleted then this would be WP:G8. But we already agreed to keep the page, so none of those arguments apply. I'm intending to note for whichever unfortunate soul gets assigned the regrettable task of closing this that there have been no valid deletion arguments presented. Ivanvector (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Uh-uh. You are not a neutral party. So who are you to say "there have been no valid deletion arguments"? Let the one that closes this decide for themselves whether there have been valid keep reasons and/or valid deletion reasons. Not you. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)There is a difference between having the page exist 'in user space with community consensus, and with having consensus for a redirect from project space to point to such a page. I voted keep in the MFD yet initated this discussion because I thought the redirect inappropriate. Having the redirect implies that this consensus exists - and this discussion should be the determining factor in that. Yes there are some redirects that go from project space to user space. Many of these are legacy - the page was moved ("userified") and no one wanted to break the existing links. That is not the case here. Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, can you show me any examples of any other page in userspace that has a wikispace redirect to it?
You're joking, right? The link to Category:Redirects to user namespace has been posted at least three times above in this very discussion. The category lists one hundred and twenty-one such redirects. Are you confusing article (main) space with Wikipedia space? Ivanvector (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Things are kept in userspace when they haven't been approved of by the community for inclusion in wikispace. That's why user essays don't get redirects from the wikispace (unless, perhaps, they used to be in the wikispace).
Why the devil should this be any different? Because (to quote the page that you love quoting oh so much) you like it? I'm afraid that that's not a legitimate reason, Ivanvector. Like I said in my previous comment: a legitimate reason to keep this isn't "I support the ideals of the proposer and think that a temporary breach of how things run is worth it in the long run", a legitimate argument would be "Here are some other examples where wiki-space redirects have been used to redirect to userspace pages, and here is why this proposal is beneficial to the encyclopaedia". Can you actually provide me with a legitimate reason in the vein of the aforementioned without having it filled with activism or driven by emotion? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. You are absolutely right, my friend. The valid reasons for deleting a redirect are conveniently listed at WP:RFD#DELETE. Which of these does this redirect meet? Ivanvector (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons at WP:RFD#Delete are specific to redirects to articles. That does not mean that no other redirect can/should be deleted. The target page is only for women; we should not be linking from WP space (which is open to anyone) to a page where more than 90% of the editors are barred from editing. Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As per your duplicate comment above, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard is a page in WP space, but not open to anyone. In fact, over 99.9% of editors are barred from editing it. --GRuban (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Yunshui and Karanacs, and the fact that redirecting from meta space to user space implies endorsement. That a category exists of redirects from meta to user space only gives us a list that needs to be examined very closely, and having a category does not constitute community endorsement of the action, as anyone can create one. I can list other policies that this edges on, but it should be obvious enough if examined closely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the "implied endorsement" argument, as though there are some [user] pages that the community (we) decide shouldn't be here, but we keep them anyway. Of course we don't - they go through MfD and get tossed, regardless of what namespace they live in. That the page was kept is the endorsement, and that is our only endorsement. The redirect has nothing to do with it, it's merely a navigational aid. The category is one of several hidden categories automatically populated by the {{rcat}} templates for sorting redirects. Ivanvector (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting from Wiki space to user space IS an implied endorsement, saying it is on par with a page in Wikispace. This is why we generally don't allow it except in implied circumstances. My comment about categories was a reply to above, which was (mistakenly) implying that because a category existed, then doing meta->user redirects was always acceptable. That is clearly not the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If i want to find the KafeeKlatsch that I've heard so much about, I'd try searching. In the searchbox, start typing "Kaff" and you get suggestions of various mainspace pages. Oh, i recall that to search in non-mainspace, proceed instead typing "wp:kaf" and the KaffeeKlatsch redirect is the one suggestion given. This serves readers. Also, if I want to refer someone, perhaps a new editor that I have welcomed, I would not remember the full named location (I know it's in some user's space, is it in their Talk space, which user...). I would like to be able to suggest simply: "maybe you would like to check out wp:KaffeeKlatsch", where I assume there is full disclosure that it is currently a private area in one user's space, and not a main part of Wikipedia. And likely misspellings should be redirects. If it is moved, then the redirect can be updated, and still works. This is simply courtesy. Why make it deliberately hard to refer to it? --doncram 21:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no. This is not a WikiProject. This is like if I were to create something in my userspace, and demand a redirect to it from the wikispace. It's stupid and doesn't make any sense to do so. The only times that that has ever seemed to happen is when an essay or the like was demoted to a user essay and moved to userspace. This is not a case like that. Nevertheless, if this because a WikiProject, please feel free to link this as such. Until then, no. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. doncram Did you mean to spell it wrong above? i.e. "wp:KaffeeKlatsch", where you "assume there is full disclosure that it is currently a private area in one user's space, and not a main part of Wikipedia." No, there's no "full disclosure" and SlimVirgin's assumption that a mouseover will reveal it's a userpage is also wrong. The definition from a blog, above by Lightbreather, doesn't match a dictionary definition: from "Origin of KAFFEEKLATSCH -German, from Kaffee coffee + Klatsch gossip" and doesn't say it's women only.[17]. Ivanvector, the MDF was for allowing a the subpage to remain in userspace and doesn't imply any endorsement for a mainspace link.

    And for anyone who looks, Category:Redirects to user namespace, it contains essays that aren't there because a user independently decided to link a subpage to wikipedia. Does Lightbreather want to add {{essay}} to her subpage and put it in Category: User essays with the community's consent? EChastain (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't spell it wrong. I do see that wp:KaffeeKlatsch is currently a redlink, as probably also is wp:kaffeeklatsch. Naturally those should also be redirects, if wp:KAFFEEKLATSCH is kept.
And, while "mouseover" views depend upon your settings, for me I notice that mouseover on the redirect does not show what is displayed from mouseover on the target. But anyhow, if there was a bit more "full disclosure" added at the target, perhaps that would overcome objections about the redirect? I could support that. I voted "Keep" above. Also, labelling it an essay is not useful; it is not an essay. --doncram 00:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):::Thanks doncram I didn't realize mouseover depends on settings. Is there a way to change settings in popups? EChastain (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your preference settings can be set to show mouseovers or not to show them, at least. I found them irritating and turned them off for a while, now choose to show them again. Actually I don't know if there are other ways to change mouseover display, besides ON/OFF choice. --doncram 01:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I would support that as well; it's just probably a good idea. @Lightbreather: (sorry to ping you back here) would you consider adding such a notice to the discussion to the Klatsch page? Perhaps {{workpage}} or {{user page}}, or something customized. Ivanvector (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done[18] Lightbreather (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Soft redirect? Making the redirect into a Wikipedia:Soft redirect is an option, technically, which might be a compromise here. To demonstrate, I am now making wp:kaffeeklatsch into a soft redirect. (Don't have a cow about that, anyone. If the outcome here is "delete", then that should be deleted also, obviously.) A soft redirect gives a user a pause, indicating (usually) that they are going off-site. As a technical matter, also, could a customised "full disclosure" message be provided at the pause point? Just an idea. If required here, then soft redirects maybe should be required for some other redirects to user-space, e.g. warning that an essay is not accepted. --doncram 00:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it can. And that seems to work, with the "message" I chose to display being "Kaffeeklatsch: a user-space discussion area with membership requirements". If you click on wp:kaffeeklatsch you come to a pause page with that, or if you mouse over it you also see that message. I hope that message is clear enough, and not loaded with any overtones. I think editors here can request/suggest to Lightbreather that the actual target page be edited at the top to have more "full disclosure", but the page was accepted as is, in the MFD. This discussion is about the redirect(s). I would be fine with the redirects being soft, with that short message or very similar short message. --doncram 01:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • doncram, that's a good idea if it's allowed (though it skirts the rules, as pointed out above, so that I or anyone else can put a shortcut in wikispace to one of my subpages). That way, people could be warned before they go to that subpage of Lightbreather's. Perhaps also adding that if they post, their post may be removed if the page owner doen't feel it's suitable. EChastain (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • doncram, problem. When I click on the soft redirect I get an error message, something about the page not having been approved by AFC, though I still get to the subpage. EChastain (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get an error. Different question though: is it permissible to pipe a soft redirect link? Would it be better to briefly describe the target (re: membership/women only) rather than pipe? Ivanvector (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get an error. Maybe I don't understand the question about piping, but if you just mean, can a pipelink such as hey maybe you'd like to try out this place work? Yes, that works, knock on wood. --doncram 02:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About the message displayed, Lightbreather edited it to display the same description that she has added to the target page, instead of what I wrote. And I edited it further, to add back the word/phrase "user-space", so that it shows "Kaffeeklatsch: a user-space place for women to get together, hear, and support each other." Lightbreather has already edited the target page to indicate it is a userpage. I hope this message is okay, it is fine with me, and actually I don't think this RFD needs to debate the exact wording. The RFD can be closed Keep with specification of having a soft redirect, which serves a purpose no matter what the wording is, and leave the wording to usual editing processes (can be discussed at Talk page, etc.). --doncram 01:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doncram: I have added your new redirect to the Rfd header above and will tag the redirect appropriately, as a matter of procedure since we're talking about it here. I support what you're doing and it would be fine by me if both of these were given the same soft redirect treatment. Ivanvector (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the first, but your tagging the redirect itself is messing up the example. I removed it, you and/or EChastain added it back. Could you please remove that? I think it interferes with this RFD, in the sense that you are making the mouseover of wp:kaffeeklatsch show badly, rather than allowing it to demonstrate what would be shown if the soft redirect is kept. I and many others are not familiar with soft redirects; the example, as long as it is not screwed up by unnecessary tags, helps the RFD discussion. Please. --doncram 04:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is that it displays nothing, not because of the Afd template but because the soft redirect template makes it so that the page is not technically a redirect, so the script doesn't know to pull information from the target. For an example, mouse over this: Wikipedia:Bring Back Articles for Discussion. I'll remove the Rfd template so you can see, but the template should be there to let users who come across it know that we're talking about it here. Ivanvector (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • doncram I always get the error, that the page hasn't been approved by AFC. But it goes away and I get to the page. Probably will confuse some people though. It's really a silly redirect. No one is going to know how to spell it, and you have to be on Lightbreather's subpage before you even know about the redirect. So it doesn't help people get there. Anyway, she's spammed enough about it all over wiki, WikiProjects, userpages, on meta, Jimbo's page, other forums, on a WMF mail list, even many times at an arbcom proceeding she started so that plenty know where it is. Let's drop this whole thing. Even on the WMF gendergap mail list, no women joined. EChastain (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine if you no longer object to the redirect, if that's what you mean. But it does help navigate: try going to KaffeeKlatsch now by starting to type in "wp:kaf" and the search bar already understands where you probably want to go, you don't have to know how to spell it beyond 3 letters. And, it serves as a shortcut in writing: wp:kaffeeklatsch is a lot easier than User:Lightbreather/kaffeeklatsch or whatever is the full name. Hmm, while upcase vs. downcase spelling variations can be handled by the redirect(s), do full calls with those variations work? Try User:Lightbreather/KAFFEEKLATSCH? I think it does not. The redirects help. --doncram 02:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EChastain: Is the AFC in your error referring to Articles for Creation? Could there be a helper script you're using which is generating the error? I still haven't seen it. Ivanvector (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector yes, I unchecked a bunch of things in my preferences and that error went away. Doncram said on his talk that he didn't have the correct user rights to create his redirect, so that's why I got the message. Also, the second redirect isn't a project page, though it's in a project page redirect category. EChastain (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A safe space for a specific demographic is a reasonable thing to have. The soft redirect and the descriptions are enough guard against somebody winding up there without realizing what they're going into. --Thnidu (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Karanacs and Yunshui. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- no harm being done. I don't endorse the opinion that a redirect from WP: space implies community approval. BethNaught (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the redirect isn't harming anyone by being in projectspace. — kikichugirl speak up! 21:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This comes across as pointless WP:POINTy wikilawyering. The volume of text in deletion discussions about this project vastly exceeds that of the project itself. If you don't like the idea, the shortest path to your desired outcome is to leave it alone and wait for it to fade away. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The wikilawyering is mostly about the project, not the redirect, and as such is ultra vires here: a point many seem to have missed despite others repeatedly stating that this is Redirects for Discussion, not for discussing the project itself. I just repeat that since it seems to need repeating. Si Trew (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Buster7 and Dennis Brown. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GAME and WP:COMMONSENSE. Since this is not in article space, all the usual policies and guidelines can be argued out on technicalities. Patently it is not the intention of WP to promote a particular cause, which is implied by "branding" a user page with a WP: namespace. (Passing off would be the equivalent in real life.) Kaffeeklatsch, KaffeeKlatsch and KAFFEEKLATSCH are red (coffee morning would seem the more natural way to say it), so I am not sure how one is supposed to work out what it means. Si Trew (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no guidelines that can be ignored "on technicalities". We simply don't have any guidelines against this, and there's a reason for it. It's usually what we consider a sign of consensus, but for this case, you're insisting that we apply special scrutiny. That's some pretty harsh treatment of a modest attempt at improving a skewed user demographic. Peter Isotalo 21:47, 18 February 2015 (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.

Country Party of Australia[edit]

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 Tricky. The draft article is a good candidate to move over the redirect, but the redirect is already linked to a substantial number of articles, so the argument in favour of the existing redirect is well made. The proper solution would seem to be to ask a passing botmeister to pipe links to the existing redirect into the main article instead and then either move the draft in or make this a dab and disambiguate the title of the draft. Simply deleting the redirect and replacing with the new party, is not supported by this discussion, according to my reading of it, per ScottDavis's comment. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment transferred from speedy deletion template to RfD This page redirects to the National Party of Australia which is clearly damaging to the notable current formation of the Country Party of Australia. The National Party of Australia changed its name from the National Country Party in 1982. It was never known as the Country Party of Australia. This redirect misleads people who will now be searching for the Country Party of Australia as it is reported in current media in Australia. Proceeding Preceding comment transferred to RfD by user Safiel (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Safiel (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Another user placed an a speedy deletion tag with the reasoning above. I procedurally declined speedy deletion and will take it to RfD instead. I am currently neutral as to whether this redirect should stay or go. Safiel (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote. The primary topic is National Party of Australia which went by a close-enough variation of this name pre-1975; a hatnote should direct to the short-lived and now defunct New Country Party. If the user who nominated this for speedy deletion is referring to an even newer political entity by this name, I can't find it. Ivanvector (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that it is a brand-new, very small party. Actually, that's not quite true: it's a group of people calling themselves this who as I understand it don't have enough members to be officially registered as a party. We've already deleted its page as not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Party (Australia) if you like. This redirect is unlikely to cause confusion with that group. Ivanvector (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My first thought was dabify, since it sounds like we have two articles on subjects that might be referred to by this name. But since it wasn't actually the name of either of them, I think search results might be the best way to go here. And if I understand the nominator's comment, there's a party with this name now? That means WP:REDLINK is a reason to delete too. --BDD (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is a party by this name in the sense that I and my cat have formed the America's Hat Party. Please write an article about us. The National Party which was formerly the Country Party is one of Australia's major political parties, akin to the Republicans or Tories depending on where you live. The New Country Party is more akin to the Blue Enigma Party or the Wessex Regionalist Party. The party which the nominator refers to is more akin to the aforementioned America's Hat Party. Ivanvector (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: I drafted your campaign song at Ivanvector owns a cat. Not sure how long it will last, though. Si Trew (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! But you didn't check your sources - I live with two cats. The other, like most cats, is a libertarian. (Jokes aside, I'm sure you can WP:G7 the mainspace redirect for that) Ivanvector (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the solution is to make an article on this party. I did a very cursory search, but it seems to have enough sources to pass WP:GNG. And if not, it can just be deleted. I may do this soon if no one else does. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've drafted a page at Draft:Country Party of Australia, partially on the bones of the deleted Country Party (Australia). Feedback and help are appreciated. --BDD (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the face of it I don't object - creating an article is a fine solution to Rfds. But procedurally, this party's article was deleted by consensus at an Afd less than a month ago for being WP:TOOSOON. I think if it's going to be recreated it should pass a deletion review. I can't see the deleted version so I don't know how much work you've done with it, but it looks to me like the party is still too new to be wikified; front-page coverage is an indicator but still lacks in lasting notability. Ivanvector (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are an enormous number of inbound links from historic politicians and electorates to Country Party of Australia, Australian Country Party, and piped links to Country Party which should really link through a redirect instead of a piped link in case the articles are ever separated in future. It is unclear from National Party of Australia#National Country Party, and National Party and The National's account of their history whether in fact the "Country Party" at the national level was always the same entity as the various state "Country Party"s nor strictly the same as that which is now the National Party of Australia. Somebody more knowledgeable than me should identify how many different article titles there should be for all these entities, even if at present some of them are described together in a smaller number of actual articles with inbound redirects for historic or alternative names, in case it later becomes helpful to create a separate article for the 1931-45 Country Party (Australia), similar to how United Australia Party is a different article to Liberal Party of Australia. If the legal name of the party in the past was "Country Party of Australia", then this title should redirect to the article that describes it (as it appears to do at present). If the legal name of that party was something else, then all the relevant links should go to that title (disambiguated if required) and see what's left. That's a long-winded and conditional KEEP this redirect as-is. --Scott Davis Talk 02:47, 21 February 2015 (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.

Key Success Indicator[edit]

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. The arguments to delete appear to be stronger, and I think there's a very real chance that readers would be better served by search results here. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this term in target article; this googlebooks hit indicates that they are not synonyms. PamD 15:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this doesn't seem to be something that is actually measured. I found one source discussing "success indicators" in relation to post-WWII changes in the Soviet Union economy, suggesting that a new "key" indicator needed to be found, but that suggests that the phrase is a compound of other terms. We don't have success indicator and this would be different from performance indicator. Success is measured or achieved at a point in time; performance is ongoing. Ivanvector (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muddle: This sort of business terminology is really quite a muddle because top flight thinkers define their own terms and re-use terminology with new senses, while second rate writers often employ these concepts without articulating, or even having, an integrated framework. Definitions and undefined uses of "KPI" and "KSI" vary: this source explicitly says they are synonymous, and this one explicitly contrasts them as different. A good target article would need to give an overview of metrics employed in business performance management while taking full cognizance of the diversity of approaches and the resulting incompatible definitions. Not an easy task to achieve in a neutral way without original synthesis because sources tend to each adopt one view with little acknowledgement of the diversity of views in the field. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment'. Perhaps we should DABify it, then? Si Trew (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant above by "not actually measured" was that this is the sort of business neologism that management types cobble together from impressive-sounding words to make themselves look good in presentations, but doesn't actually have any specific meaning. We shouldn't have articles (or redirects) for those kinds of things, because they are barely a step away (sometimes not even) from being entirely made up. There are proper, textbook terms for business topics. This meaningless neologism is a real-life version of The Possimpible. Ivanvector (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2015 (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.

Headquarters Area, Colorado Springs[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Headquarters Area, Colorado Springs redirects to the Ent Air Force Base, but it was never known at "Headquarters Area". It was for a time the headquarters of the Second Air Force and then the Air Defense Command, but would be looked up by those two names, not "Headquarters Area". There's really nothing named "Headquarters Area, Colorado Springs". CaroleHenson (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2015 (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.

Kraft (band)[edit]

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 retarget. I've carried out the merge and move specified by Rich. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be a plausible redirect to the destination article. The name Kraft does not appear at any point in the destination article. Safiel (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_12&oldid=1142587236"