User talk:Kww/redirects
Double redirects
editOne problem is with double redirects. At the moment, there is a software thing (a "developer" account) that automatically fixes double redirects when people move articles. See User:Redirect fixer. I think protecting redirects would mess that up. Not necessarily a deal-breaker, but something to consider. Carcharoth (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Policy issues
editI also don't think that there are very many cases where redirects are by policy obvious. Songs may be an example (I tend to stay away from those discussions) but fictional characters aren't there, and neither is hardly anything else. How do you show that there are no reliable sources for example? I think the idea is reasonable, but it would need to be a discussion. Hobit (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would class a situation where no sources are currently cited as obvious enough. I guess I would need to phrase that by saying that the guideline violation is obvious when "evaluating the article in it's current state". We aren't talking about deletion. Any editor can see the underlying article, find the source, and ask for the protection to be lifted. If we have a discussion before protection is applied, and discussion to allow it to be removed, how is this any more efficient than AFD/DRV? My goal here was something with a low bar: an article could be made into a protected redirect by a simple evaluation of the article, but that protection could be lifted with the presentation of any evidence that guidelines and policies could be met.—Kww(talk) 11:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ick. Redirects based on the current state of the article is a bit scary. That will likely keep newbies from contributing to the underling article as they won't realize it exists. Redirects should generally be done (IMO) when either there is nothing for the article that isn't in the target OR the article has little chance of meeting WP:N. Current state isn't otherwised used as a redirect term. If it was, we'd probably prevent things like International Symposium on Computer Architecture (for example) from ever having a real chance at improvement. Hobit (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that all redirects and stubs should be protected. I'd even entertain a minimum age of the article for protecting the redirect. We are talking about an article that an editor saw, determined that a redirect was appropriate, redirected it, and then came to ask for protection of his redirect. Even at the rates of people that cause controversy, that's a small percentage of overall articles.—Kww(talk) 14:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- But I'd still not want protection based on the current state of an article. The point is to allow improvement. This stifles it. Maybe AfD results only? Don't like that too much either, but it makes more sense IMO. Hobit (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm perplexed by your objection. If all it takes to get the redirect unprotected is one piece of evidence, why should the protection barrier be high? The reason these edit wars occur is because people resurrect the articles based on arguments like "there must be a source somewhere", and editors that have searched high and low say "I'm sorry, but there really isn't." It's like the current discussion on Darkrai: an editor posts an Amazon search and says "Somewhere, in that pile of 4000 entries, there must be something". That's not an argument worth paying attention to. I've tried to dig through that kind of search with Pokemon before, and invariably come up empty-handed. The search through the first few hundred on that search show that same thing as always: nothing but Nintendo licensed material. It's frustrating that people seem to think the people making the arguments for redirects are too lazy to look for sources ... I've spent more hours looking for a source on Bulbasaur than I care to think about, and I am quite certain that there are no independent sources that have a direct, detailed examination of Bulbasaur. None. Yet, people wave Google searches as evidence, and imply that I must be lying when I say that I've looked.—Kww(talk) 20:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Because newbies will not be able to easily understand what it takes to "meet requirements", nor should they expected to be. And I'm 99% your wrong on Bulbasour. I find the IGN page to be a great source for all of them for example That you (or perhaps some admin) might disagree creates a barrier that I don't think is appropriate. 68.40.58.255 (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- So it's better to edit-war the redirects with newbies than it is to prevent them from undoing the redirect in the first place?—Kww(talk) 21:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Because newbies will not be able to easily understand what it takes to "meet requirements", nor should they expected to be. And I'm 99% your wrong on Bulbasour. I find the IGN page to be a great source for all of them for example That you (or perhaps some admin) might disagree creates a barrier that I don't think is appropriate. 68.40.58.255 (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm perplexed by your objection. If all it takes to get the redirect unprotected is one piece of evidence, why should the protection barrier be high? The reason these edit wars occur is because people resurrect the articles based on arguments like "there must be a source somewhere", and editors that have searched high and low say "I'm sorry, but there really isn't." It's like the current discussion on Darkrai: an editor posts an Amazon search and says "Somewhere, in that pile of 4000 entries, there must be something". That's not an argument worth paying attention to. I've tried to dig through that kind of search with Pokemon before, and invariably come up empty-handed. The search through the first few hundred on that search show that same thing as always: nothing but Nintendo licensed material. It's frustrating that people seem to think the people making the arguments for redirects are too lazy to look for sources ... I've spent more hours looking for a source on Bulbasaur than I care to think about, and I am quite certain that there are no independent sources that have a direct, detailed examination of Bulbasaur. None. Yet, people wave Google searches as evidence, and imply that I must be lying when I say that I've looked.—Kww(talk) 20:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- But I'd still not want protection based on the current state of an article. The point is to allow improvement. This stifles it. Maybe AfD results only? Don't like that too much either, but it makes more sense IMO. Hobit (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that all redirects and stubs should be protected. I'd even entertain a minimum age of the article for protecting the redirect. We are talking about an article that an editor saw, determined that a redirect was appropriate, redirected it, and then came to ask for protection of his redirect. Even at the rates of people that cause controversy, that's a small percentage of overall articles.—Kww(talk) 14:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ick. Redirects based on the current state of the article is a bit scary. That will likely keep newbies from contributing to the underling article as they won't realize it exists. Redirects should generally be done (IMO) when either there is nothing for the article that isn't in the target OR the article has little chance of meeting WP:N. Current state isn't otherwised used as a redirect term. If it was, we'd probably prevent things like International Symposium on Computer Architecture (for example) from ever having a real chance at improvement. Hobit (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Regular editors versus IPs/newbies
editI don't edit music articles very often and thus can't comment there, but merged/redirected fiction articles tend to get restored only by IPs and sometimes newbies (both in good faith and maliciously), and RFPP has so far always said yes to my requests for (temporary) semi-protection. In the very few cases where even regular editors can't get to an agreement, an AfD or an RfC are in order any way. So as much as I'd like to see redirects protected (as per Kww's analysis), I think semiprotection is fully sufficient. Regular editors are usually sensible and knowledgable enough to know when and when not to restore an article. – sgeureka t•c 11:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- [1](scan for "Undid revision by") and VivianDarkbloom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) come immediately to mind. In any case, for a dubious article, a consensus at discussion could unprotect the redirect (which should somehow get flagged ... more process). If an article, taken on its face, violates guidelines, I think its important that the discussion take place before allowing it to be resurrected prior to correction.
- As for anons, it would be possible to get Mediawiki software modified to simply treat all redirects as semi-protected. Think that would be easier to get consensus for?—Kww(talk) 11:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I can name two ex-admins who restored articles despite previous successful merge discussions. But still, in 80-90 percent of the time it is IPs. Getting the software to semiprotect all redirects is a proposal that may even get support. This would also have the effect (for better or for worse) that TTN against a horde of IPs would be a thing of the past, and that it would take at least one non-newbie editor to object to TTN's bold mergers/redirects. – sgeureka t•c 14:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Given some of the articles at issue here (say scrubs episodes) I think the matter is sufficiently debatable (i.e. lack of consensus) that a tools method of "winning" will not generally be acceptable. I'd prefer a "redirects for discussion" forum like AfD to get as many eyes as possible. AfD itself probably fulfills that role. If someone thinks it should be an article wants, they can just ask the other party to bring it to AfD or stop redirecting. And semiprotection of an AfD redirect seems reasonable to me. I'd want a note/explainaiton to go with it so IP editors know what's going on (not you _can't_ make this, but here is the discussion that chose a redirect and you need to log in to override it), but I could live with it. Hobit (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)