to Wikipedia:RedWarn. Retarget has the majority in votes, and concerns that this will cause undo havoc with old links were addressed by editors arguing that 1) there aren't that many links and 2) a hatnote will clear up the confusion. signed, Rosguill talk 15:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = Wikipedia:RW }} → :Wikipedia:Researching Wikipedia (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:RW&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2020-06-07&end=2020-07-06&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Wikipedia%3ARW stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:RW|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Wikipedia:RW closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:RW|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Wikipedia:RW closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:RW|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Wikipedia:RW closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Consider changing to WP:REDWARN; (Context: Redwarn is a fairly new counter-vandalism tool; initial discussion over this redirect came from a discussion over changing the edit summary to use something like RW to be less intimidating and more in line with Twinkle (TW) and Huggle (HG).) Pageviews look to be about 100 monthly with Researching Wikipedia, vs. closer to 2100 with Redwarn. None of the other pages linked in the hatnote right now look to be close enough and popular enough to justify the redirect. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- As the creator of RW redirect I have no objection to retargetting to a more popular page, just make sure there is a see also hatnote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Support. Checking what [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:RW currently links to] WP:RW, there are 43 pages that use this redirect. Of these 43, 1 out of 3 article talk pages are archived and 4 out of 15 pages are in the Wikipedia namespace and its associated talkspace are archives. The rest are in userspace. Retargeting to RedWarn shouldn't cause too much trouble, and WP:Researching Wikipedia could be given a new redirect like {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|WP:RESEARCHWP|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
:Alternatively, keep the redirect as is and use another shortcut for RedWarn, like {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|WP:REDW|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Weak keep as is; changing established shortcuts is harmful. Since the creation of WP:RedWarn the [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Wikipedia:RW pageviews] haven't changed altogether too much, indicating that RedWarn's existence isn't enough to use this shortcut. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Changed my opinion to retarget to Wikipedia:RedWarn with hatnote per below. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strong keep. We should always be very conservative when changing shortcut redirects as breaking old links and old references can be very harmful. In this case the shortcut has pointed to its current target since 2007, has a not insignificant number of links and a consistently large number of page views that haven't noticeably changed since creation of RedWarn. The small benefit of a slightly shorter shortcut will not outweigh the breaking of existing links and confusion added to old discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Thryduulf. There's already a hatnote at the current target linking to RedWarn. Please don't break links in old discussions. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 11:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Thryduulf. Narky Blert (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Dab, as there are two popular topics. --◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Retarget per nom, who makes a convincing case. I don't see the issue with retargeting so long as there is a hatnote in place. -- Tavix (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- No issue apart from breaking links and introducing confusion and ambiguity to discussions (old and going forwards) where none currently exists you mean? I firmly disagree that the nominator has made a convincing case that any benefits from retargetting will outweigh all the harm it will cause. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well, it's a good thing we have context...and hatnotes! I find it much more valuable as a convenient shortcut for a popular page over preserving a scattering of links for potential wiki-archeologists on an obscure topic (with thanks to LittlePuppers for demonstrating that). -- Tavix (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Out of curiosity I just did a spot check of half a dozen random user and article talk pages - one was a link here, one was a link to Researching Wikipedia, and two each were typos to WP:EW and WP:RS. I can't say for sure that that's representative (although it could be, with the keys next to each other and 20 and 500k links to EW and RS, respectively), just thought I'd bring it up. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Going through in more detail (mostly to satisfy my own curiosity, and because there really aren't that many):
- 9 to Researching Wikipedia (~5 from Piotrus above)
- 9 to WP:RS
- 5 to WP:EW ("revert warring" -- not entirely sure on 2 of these, but it seems to be the best fit)
- 1 to WP:RM (somehow?)
- 9 from shortcut indices
- 4 from links to this discussion
- 1 from Researching Wikipedia itself
- 4 from this page, subpages, and transclusions
- And that only adds up to 42 so evidently I missed one somewhere
- LittlePuppers (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually, changing to Keep as it is for now until RedWarn becomes more popular. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 02:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Half-strong keep I would like this to be redirected as it is, but it can have a high-medium chance of having some pages, articles, and companies with the same stuff. --StaleGuy22 (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{s|Keep: RedWarn isn't popular enough to justify retargeting an already established shortcut. If at any point RedWarn eclipses the current target, then it should be retargeted. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 00:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)}}
:*[https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2020-06-07&end=2020-07-06&pages=Wikipedia:RedWarn|Wikipedia:Researching_Wikipedia RedWarn has already eclipsed the current target in popularity]. -- Tavix (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
:**My apologies. Striking my vote out. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Retarget RW is a much more handy shortcut for the new tool than REDW or anything else. The edit summaries roaring "RedWarn" even for such edits like welcoming new users isn't a good thing for the community at large (not just for the tool or its users). The number of incoming links in archived discussions are quite few and can be fixed. SD0001 (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- Links in archived discussions generally should not be changed, links in edit summaries (which do not appear in "what links here") cannot be changed. If "RedWarn" is not appropriate to appear in edit summaries then the name of the tool should be changed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{tq|Links in archived discussions generally should not be changed}} Is there any actual reason (apart from bureaucracy) why they shouldn't be changed? We're talking about just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?cirrusUserTesting=control&sort=relevance&search=linksto%3AWikipedia%3ARW+intitle%3Aarchive&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns108=1&ns109=1&ns118=1&ns119=1&ns446=1&ns447=1&ns710=1&ns711=1&ns828=1&ns829=1&ns2300=1&ns2301=1&ns2302=1&ns2303=1 16 links] so changing them shouldn't be a big deal. {{tq|links in edit summaries}} We have all of 40 links in pages. I would be greatly surprised if there were more than 3-4 such links in edit summaries. Again, not a big deal. SD0001 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- Retarget with hatnotes per Tavix. (I know, I'm sorry that I keep changing my !vote.) ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 02:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Vote support - this is a much better target than "Researching Wikipedia". Aasim 04:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Perhaps adding a hatnote would be useful. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 19:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- This discussion is clearly at no consensus now, though I suspect if I closed it as such, this would just come up again in a few months with a clear consensus to retarget. I don't know where that leaves us. If the concern is how "RedWarn" looks in edit summaries, though, couldn't it just be piped as RW? --BDD (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think that a clear consensus to retarget will be automatic in a few months - my !vote certainly won't change unless there is an explosion of people actually using WP:RW clearly intending RedWarn. If the name of the tool is inappropriate or suboptimal then the correct solution is to rename the tool as there is no guarantee that people wont use the full name. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- ::At a glance, it seems like a very useful tool, but I had not heard of it before. My hunch that we'd have clear consensus in the future is based on the assumption that it will enjoy further uptake. Perhaps it won't. There's also probably a cart-and-horse problem here, in that I should hope there isn't an explosion of people using the redirect for RedWarn if that's not where it redirects. I agree with you that the editors who run this tool should consider changing a name if there's such a concern. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Retarget, while there's a good theoretical argument that old links shouldn't be broken without good reason, there just aren't that many links. Researching Wikipedia, by this shortcut, just doesn't seem to be used very much at all, and the increasing popularity of RedWarn just generally seems to make it a much more efficient use of a two-letter project shortcut, particularly as it's one that is far more likely to be used in edit summaries and other space-limited environments. ~ mazca talk 21:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}Relisting comment: Week 2-3 was trending in a different direction from Week 1, so it's worth asking for more editors' input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Covert into a disambiguation page, which is usually the de facto "no consensus" result for "Wikipedia:"-namespace titles. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Retarget. Given Twinkle's similar popularity with RedWarn it seems that the long-term benefits of being able to write WP:RW for RedWarn outweighs the effects of breaking links. Eumat114 (Message) 07:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Retarget long term benefits are higher than the costs, given the low number of incoming links. (t · c) buidhe 04:29, 2 August 2020 (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.