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 unrefine target to User:Prolog/Diacritical marks. The discussion revolved around whether a redirect from project space to a user essay is acceptable and regarding concerns at the redirect pointing to a section within the target making its status as an essay less visible. During the discussion no guidelines were cited that specifically outlaws such a redirect. Though two editors remained strongly opposed to this redirect, the concerns of two would be, in part, allayed by unrefining the target so that it points to the top of the essay. Five editors saw nothing wrong with this type of redirect but of these three, including the creator, were happy with unrefining the target. Taking matters in the round I see unrefining the target as the consensus action. Indeed I see significant merit in avoiding targeting redirects to a section that doesn't explicitly make the status clear. Any further concerns over the use of this redirect should, initially, be discussed with the author directly. WP:KAREN was exemplified with a request for deletion but, following a dialogue with the creator of that redirect, the target of that, too, has been unrefined. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:DGUIDE → User:Prolog/Diacritical marks (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This redirect should be deleted because it is a confusing redirect that leads one to believe that it points to a Wikipedia policy or style guide, when it is actually pointing to a User's POV on his personal subpage. Dolovis (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-I agree with the nominator. Shortcut redirects from the project namespace to userspace essays are a bad idea.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have notified Prolog, the creator. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep See no issue with it. The page is clearly marked as an essay, redirects of this nature often link to essays. -DJSasso (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but consider unrefining target. Per Djasso, I don't see this as harmful - the targeted section (User:Prolog/Diacritical marks#External links) of the essay is a collection of links to external style guidelines regarding the use of diacritical marks. I think a more useful target would be to the top of the essay where the section can be seen in context. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as creator; nothing new or problematic in redirects to userspace essays. I have no objection to the retargeting proposed above. Prolog (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The argument that a redirect to Wikipedia namespace assumes policy or guideline is poor, as it is well known that that namespace also hosts essays, humourous material, maintenance and administrative pages, and more. A poor assumption is not a valid reason for deletion. Additionally, there are numerous WP: redirects to user space essays. In addition to this essay, there are several other examples in just Category:Wikipedia guidance essays alone: WP:CEE, WP:LQUOTE, WP:RDP and WP:TISWAS, as four examples. If there is a desire to ban such cross-namespace redirects, that should be hosted as part of a centralized discussion. Resolute 00:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or make some changes - :The problem is not with the page existing, the problem is it's use as a redirect by this editor. Multiple times he has added this to polls and discussions as if it is wiki policy. I was deceived myself the first time I checked out that page. Sometimes editors (especially newer editors) take cursory glances at links and "assume" they are looking at wiki policy not a personally written page. There is more to that page than just the links and it is biased towards the opinion of Prolog. Since it's a personal page it hasn't gone through the same scrutiny as an actual article. Polls and discussions are tricky enough for people to go through and administrators to rule on without a post that says "per authoritative style guides, our standard practice and other encyclopedias" where it links to a users page. Maybe if his actual posts said, "Here is a listing of diacritic usage that I've personally collected and some of my own thoughts on the matter. It is not a wiki policy guide." Put a link in that and we have no problems. Or make sure that any link points to the page top with some big letters that say this a personal page of Prolog with his own opinions and in no way shape or form is this wiki policy. As it stands now I find it abuses the system. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because you think a redirect is being misused does not mean the redirect is inherently bad. The de facto policy regarding WP shortcuts is that they are not restricted to policies. See for example WP:NCR, WP:RUN, WP:WP, WP:LOO, WP:IDP, WP:CLIPPY, WP:KATE and WP:KAREN. The answer is to educate yourself and others to always view the page the shortcut refers to instead of assuming it's always a policy, because it isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why I also said "or make some changes." My only real options in this poll are "keep" or "delete." That's very limiting. I felt the worst thing that could happen would be the continued use of this redirect in the manner in which it is being used now. Where I've seen it used is quite biased in debates on wikipedia. So it came down to, if a mediator looking at this makes the simple decision to either keep things as they are or delete the redirect, deleting the redirect is better for wikipedia. If the mediator can rule to keep it but tell Prolog to make sure in referring to it that everyone knows these are his own views and his own personal list of websites, and that wikipedia does not agree or disagree with his pov, then that would be ok too. But to get in a heated debate with wiki editors and pull out a link that looks like a wiki source, where it's really your own page, is very misleading and wrong imho. Doubly so because Prolog is an administrator, someone who we look towards to help us settle debates not to add another layer to them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Retarget" is also an option. Potentially, retargetting to the top of the essay so that when someone clicks the link, the first thing they see is "This page is an essay..." Resolute 18:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – It appears as if this link was created for the express purpose of misleading editors into believing that WP Policy (rather than user POV) was being put forward.  This redirect was used in an RM discussion of Marek Židlický (5th vote cast), linked as " • Oppose per authoritative style guides, our standard practice and other encyclopedias; the misspelling of this living person's name is not acceptable in English. Prolog (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)" intended to mislead editors who fail to scroll to the top of the article to discover that it is an essay, who are unsuspectingly led to believe that they are reading NPOV policy rather than, what is in fact, biased POV.[reply]

It's stated above by Djsasso (talk · contribs) the page is marked as an essay and therefore no one should be misled; but the purpose of the link appears to be to jump to the subsection "#External guides" which (intentionally) hides the tophat and the fact that the article is in userspace.  The purpose behind keeping the article in userspace is, I suspect, to circumvent NPOV requirements while achieving the intended misleading of editors; and, since Wikiquette would seriously frown on editing another editor's personal essay (in private userspace) such as this, the deception is accomplished.  Indeed, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#User pages establishes that "…by convention others will not usually edit your user page itself, other than (rarely) to address significant concerns or place project-related tags" which I, and I suspect others, interpret as meaning editing pages in another's userspace (even if not the prime user page) subjects one to demands for explanation, justification, and hypothetically to potential censure.  With the exception of WP:KAREN (alteration/deletion of which I will request forthwith) the 12 redirects listed above by Resolute (talk · contribs) and Thryduulf (talk · contribs) all point to the top of the article where it is clearly indicated that it is an essay.  Conversely, WP:DGUIDE and WP:KAREN both jump to bookmarks in the middle of the article which camouflage the fact that they are user essays rather than any sort of policy formed by consensus (the difference being that WP:KAREN would appear to be a more comical article, discussing criteria for maintaining Pokemon articles, which has no particular air of authority; the same can not be said for Prolog's article which was, more than once, purposefully intimated as policy during serious discussion).

In addition to deleting this particular link (deletion of which would have no negative effects save requiring a few extra keystrokes when presenting these POV arguments into discussions, versus the likelihood of editors being deceived into believing they are viewing policy), and given the potential in general of editors being misled, perhap a global ban on links from the Wikipedia namespace to userspace may be appropriate.  Editors can, if they so wish, present their ideas, copy/move their creations from userspace to WPspace, and afford other editors the freedom to develop consensus on the topic; so long as the articles themselves exist in userspace with redirects pointing to them, many editors will be apprehensive of modifying documents to adhere to WP policies such as NPOV, which is arguably fundamental in mainspace, irrelevant in userspace, and a matter of consensus in WPspace.

At the very least, a link from WPspace to userspace should be subject either to a requirement that it not link to any bookmarks (so as to ensure editors have the opportunity to view the essay tophat), or policy should require repetition of the tophat at the linked bookmark level so that anyone reading the article is assured of a reasonable chance of knowing they are viewing pure POV.

I point out that even a highly controversial essay like WP:FUCK (aka Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism) exists in the open WP space where editors may at least battle for consensus, the same freedom is quite simply denied in userspace.  Finally, I'd suggest that perhaps an alternative global solution would be to establish policy that either a " Sidebar" for the entire document, or a "Background color" could be applied to essays (perhaps differentiating between " General essays" and " Comical articles" so that the entire article (regardless of bookmarked links) is clearly recognizable as such; just a thought.  Thanks for your time and attention. — Who R you? Talk 18:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: there's nothing bad about redirecting to own essay in userspace. The issues with newbies taking it as a policy applies the same way to each and every other essay. Furthermore, the newbies do actually frequently misinterpret this or that policy, so mistaking userspace essay with a policy is a minor issue anyway. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a)  The other redirects to userspace essays don't intentionally bypass the tophat that informs the reader that the page is an essay (just some user's POV), and, particularly in this case since it's kept in userspace, an intentional attempt to deceive, meant to avoid having other users move it toward consensus (or delete every misleading statement is contains); and

b)  presumably the writers of these other essays, along with clearly identifying and redirecting to them as essays, don't imply when they post the link in conversations that they are linking to policy, which is what Prolog has done with this link on more than one occasion.  Is the job description for Admin now to include bottom of society, lowest of the low, and devoid of all moral character? Perhaps so. — Who R you? Talk 00:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. The essay in question has a proper notification of its essay's status. Nothing misleading.
2. Here is the wrong place for even mentioning claimed Prolog's abuse of wikilinking (which can't be proved anyway).

You take the idea of defending the illiterate editors (sic!) a way too far.

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2011 (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.

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 boldly speedy retargeted as suggested. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Karl Koch (Weezer) → Karl Koch (musician) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Redlink redirect —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Weezer. This guy's page was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Koch (musician) (2nd nomination). Since he has been deemed non-notable there are no WP:RED benefits from deletion. This redirect gets a good flow of hits and the suggested retarget contains enough useful material to make it worthwhile for searchers. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea. I'll be bold and do it now. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2011 (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.