. There's some disagreement on potential retargeting options, but regardless there is a clear consensus to keep these. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = Anyone can edit Wikipedia }} → :Help:Editing (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anyone_can_edit_Wikipedia&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2018-10-12&end=2018-11-10&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Anyone_can_edit_Wikipedia stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Anyone can edit Wikipedia|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Anyone can edit Wikipedia closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Anyone can edit Wikipedia|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Anyone can edit Wikipedia closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Anyone can edit Wikipedia|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Anyone can edit Wikipedia closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
- {{no redirect|1 = Anyone can edit }} → :Help:Editing (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anyone_can_edit&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2018-10-12&end=2018-11-10&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Anyone_can_edit stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Anyone can edit|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Anyone can edit closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Anyone can edit|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Anyone can edit closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Anyone can edit|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Anyone can edit closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Not useful. MB 04:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
:*See Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects, Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting, the exceptions to WP:R2, and :Category:Cross-namespace redirects for pertinent discussion and for the abundance of precedents for having redirects to information Project namespace articles. Largoplazo (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete – there are no uses of this redirect in main space, nor should there be. So get rid of it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2018
- Delete. Indeed, there ought not to be cross-namespace redirects for this. Bsherr (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep or retarget. These redirects have significant value for new and potential editors searching for information about editing Wikipedia and/or how to do it. The lack of links is completely irrelevant to their purpose, a purposes which is explicitly provided for in all the information pages about cross-namespace redirects. Indeed the very point of generally avoiding CNRs is that internal project-space pages are unhelpful to those not explicitly looking for them, but both current and proposed targets here are explicitly related to what people using these redirects are looking for - people who will probably not know about namespaces yet. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep as is.
or retarget. The first nomination was created just last month in October, so as a new CNR, that one's value is in question; however, I don't see anything wrong with keeping it since it is much like the second nomination, which has been around for over a decade and is "grandfather'd in". Keep both as an aid to new editors. Either Help:Editing (present target) or Wikipedia:Introduction is acceptable. As noted by IP 59.149.124.29 below, the target should have information about, or link to an explanation about, editing restrictions. Paine Ellsworth put'r there 19:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC) 10:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep these seem useful to me. Legacypac (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep well known credo useful site moniker, worthy of blue-link. If crossnamespace redirects are such a concern that some find offense, re-target to land at Jimmy Wales#anyone can edit.--John Cline (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Retarget to Wikipedia:Introduction. Raymond1922 (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep (or retarget to Wikipedia#Openness if there are objections to having a cross-namespace redirect). All potential targets (Help:Editing, Wikipedia:Introduction, Wikipedia#Openness, Jimmy Wales#anyone can edit) are permanently semi-protected. On that ground, we should pick a target that explains to the reader who doesn't have an account (the most likely person to click a link or search for anyone can edit Wikipedia, since people with accounts already know that) why they can't actually edit the page they've arrived at. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep as is, or retarget to Wikipedia:Introduction. There is no apparent notable meaning of the phrase "anyone can edit" that does not relate to the editing of Wikimedia projects. bd2412 T 22:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. We should never have redirects like this out of mainspace unless the phrase itself has come into usage in sources (other than as a direct quotation) and always in reference to Wikipedia. Even in that case, it is better to write an actual article, as at Citation needed. Redirects like this are a WP:SELFREF problem and confuse readers about the distinction between the encyclopedia's content and internal, editor-facing materials. By way of comparison, even the Five pillars disambiguation page does not mention WP:Five pillars of Wikipedia except as a hatnote, despite it being central Wikipedian doctrine. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
:*And yet, aren't they still good search terms? If someone were to want to know about the term "anyone can edit Wikipedia", wouldn't they most likely be looking for those "editor-facing materials" rather than encyclopedic content? Isn't it actually hoped that by virtue of them landing on a project page rather than a mainspace target, they might actually consider registering and helping to improve Wikipedia? (not just articles but the project, as well) Just a thought. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 17:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
:*I understand the case against having an XNR and agree at least somewhat. But even then, why should we prefer deletion over retargeting to one of the mainspace targets mentioned above? 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
::*As you mentioned above, {{gi|we should pick a target that explains to the reader who doesn't have an account}}. The only mainspace target I see mentioned is anchored on Jimbo's page, and there is no explanation there about protected pages and such. When they help readers, new and potential editors, then CNRs should be tolerated, specially old, long-term CNRs. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 16:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
:::*I mentioned another mainspace target Wikipedia#Openness above; it has several paragraphs about semi-protection, pending changes, etc. (To be fair, every time I read that link I have to look again and convince myself I didn't accidentally type Wikipedia:Openness.) 59.149.124.29 (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
::::*Heh – did the same double take after reading your response. Don't think the target should be changed just because they're CNRs, though. The present target suffices. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 19:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
: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.
