. The discussion increasingly centered around the policy basis for userspace essay shortcuts overall, which is rather beyond the remit of RfD. Participants made the key points that essays userfied by MfD should remain in userspace (which is fairly self-evident) but also that there's no particular policy generally preventing WP-space shortcuts to userspace targets. Certainly RfD would be competent to determine that an individual redirect from WP-space to userspace is worth deleting, but that discussion has not really taken place here.
:It may be worth clarifying this policy overall via an RfC, as this is far from the only example. As far as the scope of this discussion goes, there is no consensus that this individual redirect is causing a problem. ~ mazca talk 11:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = Wikipedia:CHURNALISM }} → :User:Northamerica1000/Churnalism (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:CHURNALISM&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2020-12-10&end=2021-01-08&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Wikipedia%3ACHURNALISM stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:CHURNALISM|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Wikipedia:CHURNALISM closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:CHURNALISM|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Wikipedia:CHURNALISM closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:CHURNALISM|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Wikipedia:CHURNALISM closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Deletion
We had a Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Churnalism back in August, 2017. It closed as userify.
There are a handful of user essays that are the target of redirects that make them look like essays in the wikipedia namespace. In my opinion no user essay should have a redirect that makes them look like essays in the wikipedia namespace.
Half or more of those misleadingly redirected user essays seem to be honest mistakes, where the author hasn't fully thought through the drawbacks to this kind of redirect.
But, in this particular instance, the author created the redirect AFTER the MfD closed as userify.
Redirects from userspace essays into the wikipedia namespace should be disallowed for the same reason we don't allow redirects from article space to draft space or userspace. Essays in the wikipedia namespace are held to higher standards. Essays in the wikipedia namespace enjoy an implied assumption that more than one person holds the opinion in the essay. If this wasn't true MfD wouldn't close as choosing to downgrade essays into userspace.
In addition, WP:Userspace and other wikidocuments state or imply that contributors should be allowed to exercise a measure of ownership over essays they started, so long as they keep them in userspace. If an author decides their userspace essay is ready to sit with the big boys and girls in the wikipedia namespace, they have to be ready to accept that other contributors may modify their essay so that they no longer completely agree with it. But, if they keep their essay in userspace, with only a redirect into the wikipedia namespace, they enjoy the WP:OWNERSHIP of total control over the content, combined with the extra credibility that, to casual readers, it appears to be in wikipedia space. Geo Swan (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Geo Swan}} {{xt|for the same reason we don't allow redirects from draft space or userspace into article space}}. We actually do (e.g. WP:RDRAFT and WP:SRED). Did you mean the other way around (i.e. things covered by R2)? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:* Thanks for seeing through what I wrote, and understanding what I meant. I amended my original text. Geo Swan (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete by policy. If there's a longstanding redirect and the target is userfied, that's one thing. Creating a new redirect in the Wikipedia space to a user essay that's been explicitly moved out of Wikipedia space is never okay. SnowFire (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment There is no policy or guideline against Wikipedia space redirects to user essays and precedent at RfD is that most are fine, so any attempt to introduce such a policy or guideline needs to establish explicit consensus for it first. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:: {{U|Thryduulf}}, if you think the precedent at RfD supports conflating the distinction between wikipedia space essays and userspace essays do you think you could help this discussion by linking to the clearest of those precedents?
:: I am going to highlight passages from some wikidocuments:
::
| class="wikitable"
|+ From :Category:User essays |
| : An essay here may be moved categorically by its author into the Wikipedia namespace, Category:Wikipedia essays, if it is frequently referenced, as evidenced by becoming an evolving expression of multiple editors, or if the user wishes to relinquish editorial control of it to the community (and the essay was not userspaced as the result of a community decision). |
:: So, doesn't that say a community decision, like an MfD, demotes an essay to userspace? Doesn't that mean then turning around, and creating a redirect to the wikipedia namespace looks like an attempt to, well, circumvent the consequences of the community decision?
::
| class="wikitable"
|+ From WP:USERESSAY |
| : Writings that contradict policy are somewhat tolerated within the User namespace. The author of a personal essay located in his or her user space has the prerogative to revert any changes made to it by any other user, within reason. |
:: As I wrote, above, the essays in the wikipedia namespace are collaborations - can be edited by any contributor, while the original authors of userspace essays get to exercise OWNERSHIP over their essay. Geo Swan (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:::I don't have time right now to search for the old discussions but none of what you wrote above supports your contention that such redirects are never appropriate. I can only recall one case of a WP shortcut of an essay moved to userspace after an MfD being discussed here, I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head (it was several years ago) but that essay (including the shortcut) was being actively used to mislead with regards to policy. IIRC the shortcut was explicitly mentioned at the MfD and there was a borderline consensus against it there prior to the deletion at RfD. Regardless though, 1 discussion does not make a binding precedent either way. Issues of WP:OWNERSHIP of essays are at best tangiential to whether there is a Wikipedia shortcut to that essay. I haven't looked at this essay in detail, so I currently have no opinion whether this WP shortcut is appropriate. I am simply pointing out that long-standing consensus is that some Wikipedia → user essay shortcuts are acceptable. If you think this one is not then you need to focus your arguments on why this shortcut specifically is not acceptable for reasons other than simply being a shortcut to a Wikipedia essay. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:::* You don't have the time, right now, to look for the discussions you saw support your position? Well, I took a couple of hours, a couple of months ago, and looked for redirections from wikipedia to userspace essays. Such redirections are rare.
:::* You write "I am simply pointing out that long-standing consensus is that some Wikipedia → user essay shortcuts are acceptable..." Hmmm, is it all right with you if I assume there are no discussions that concluded creating redirects to circumvent MfD closures was ever acceptable?
:::* As for those redirections created by individuals whose essays have always been userspace essays - both :Category:Wikipedia essays and :Category:User essays explicitly say an author can unilaterally promote an essay from user space to the wikipedia namespace, whenever they think it measures up to the stricter scrutiny implied in that namespace. Surely you would never claim that an explicit move to the wikipedia namespace, is significantly less convenient than creating a redirect? Geo Swan (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - I have always been on the liberal side of the court when it comes to shortcuts from the projectspace to the userspace. They are convenient and I do not think they lend much of an air of authority because many essays are hosted project-side as well; anyone following the link will quickly know in what space it resides. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Because we allow thousands of shortcut wikilinks to section headings in our wikidocuments most contributors are unaware of whether their favourite wikispace wikilinks go to actual policies, or guidelines and MOS, or wikipedia space essays, or rogue user essays misleading redirected through a wikipedia space redirect. Could you clarify what you mean by "many essays are hosted project-side as well..." if you mean there are other wikipedia namespace redirects to user essays, I challenge your assertion that there are "many". There are others, a couple of dozen, vastly outnumbered by user essays whose authors never made a misleading redirect.
:: Most of the few dozen redirects from wikipedia to userspace essays seem to have been made by authors who failed to recognize how doing so was misleading and unfair to those essay authors who complied with the rules. Only a fraction of those redirects where the essay had been explicitly userified.
:: As for the convenience of reaching user essays... I would encourage the authors of userspace essays who innocently created redirects from the wikipedia namespace to explicitly move their essay to the wikipedia namespace. Alternately, if they lack confidence over whether their essay will be challenged with an MfD, if were in the wikipedia namespace, or they just don't want anyone else editing it, leave it in userspace and delete the redirect. Geo Swan (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete with extreme prejudice. Completely inappropriate to mislead folks with a WP namespace shortcut to a userpage, especially one that was recently MfD'ed and userfied. It makes no logical sense to make a shortcut from the shared, collaborative WP namespace to a user essay that has by consensus been deemed non-community. This should also be eventually made policy. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Community consensus has long been that some WP shortcuts to userspace essays are acceptable. If you think this one is not appropriate explain why you think that with reference to this specific redirect and its target rather than the general class of similar redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. There is no policy based reason for this request. Calling such redirects "misleading and unfair to those essay authors who complied with the rules" is without any basis because there are actually no such rules as far I know and I have none seen cited here. In fact, those in favor of deletion readily admit there is no actual policy or guideline that forbids such redirects. As Thryduulf points out, neither page cited in support (which are both not policies or guidelines) forbids such redirects. :Category:Redirects to user namespace lists at this moment over 900 such redirects that have existed for years without any fuss. I don't think RFD is the right place to basically create new policy out of nowhere. If you believe such redirects should generally be forbidden, then first start a discussion to amend the redirect guideline as such and then, if there is such consensus, nominate them for deletion. Not the other way around. At this time, WP:R#KEEP explicitly states {{xt|However, avoid deleting such redirects if: [...] 5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. [...]}}. This is the case here. I find those redirects very useful and I am often using them regardless of target. On a side note, there is no risk of people actually thinking an essay has more "worth" if it has a "WP:" shortcut because they practically all start with {{xt|It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.}}. Regards SoWhy 09:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{U|SoWhy}},
:Category:User essays says "An essay here may be moved categorically by its author into the Wikipedia namespace, Category:Wikipedia essays, if it is frequently referenced, as evidenced by becoming an evolving expression of multiple editors, or if the user wishes to relinquish editorial control of it to the community (and the essay was not userspaced as the result of a community decision). Additional essays may be found in the WMF-wide meta:Category:Essays. For non-Wikipedia-related essays, as article topics, see Category:Essays."
- Well, this redirect had been userified. That is my policy basis.
- I also think it is implied that any contributor who wants to promote their essay from sole authorship, in user space, to the wikipedia namespace, to take advantage of the increased credibility, and implied aura that it is the work of more than a single individual, should follow the instructions in
:Category:User essays, I quoted above - ie actually move it, don't create a redirect.
:Category:User essays also says "...you should generally not edit essays that reside in someone else's userspace without the user's permission..." AGF, I am willing to assume that most people who maintain a user essay, where they enjoy sole ownership, yet have one or more wikipedia space redirects to it, did so without realizing that the practice was misleading.- Nevertheless, it is misleading.
- If they want their essay to continue to be accessible through a link in the wikipedia namespace all they have to do is actually move it to the wikipedia namespace.
- If they want to maintain sole WP:OWNERSHIP, slap a WP:CSD#G7 on their redirects. Geo Swan (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
::: {{re|Geo Swan}} Repeatedly claiming it to be "misleading" does not make it so. There is no policy or guideline that says WP:-shortcuts are limited to pages residing in Wikipedia:-namespace and hundreds of examples to the contrary exist and have existed for more than a decade (e.g. WP:JIMBOTALK (redirecting to a user talk page), WP:HELP (redirecting to Help:-namespace) etc.). :Category:User essays is not a policy or guideline. It's just something a couple of people have written without any real discussion and I'm pretty sure that based on [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Category:User_essays the page views] that most editors are not even aware of this or have looked at it before you pointed it out here. The current wording is the result of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:User_essays&diff=848172536&oldid=799938817 this 2018 edit] for which there was no discussion as far as I can tell.
::: The actual guidelines here are WP:R and WP:SC, the latter of which explicitly states
::::{{xt|Shortcuts are created for the convenience of editors. It is possible to create a shortcut for any page at all. The existence of a shortcut does not imply or prove that the linked page is a policy or guideline. }} (emphasis added)
::: Correspondingly, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Adherence clearly says:
::::{{xt|On discussion pages and in edit summaries, shortcuts are often used to refer to policies and guidelines. (For example, WP:NOR (no original research), WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) and WP:BLP (biographies of living persons)). Similar shortcuts are also used for other types of project page like essays and how-to guides. Thus a shortcut does not necessarily imply the page linked to has policy or guideline status or has been widely accepted by the community. Additionally, the shortcut is not the policy; the plain-English definition of the page's title or shortcut may be importantly different from the linked page. }} (emphasis added)
::: Both the policy on policies and guidelines as well as the guidelines on redirects and shortcuts allow shortcuts to any essay, not just those in Wikipedia:-namespace. You are welcome to think those policies and guidelines wrong and request a change but RFD is not the place to do so. Regards SoWhy 07:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
:::* {{U|SoWhy}}, you claim precedence. I point out that MfD demote wikipedia essays to userspace as an alternative to complete deletion.
:::* Perhaps you didn't mean to, but you are evading my main point. WP:Churnalism was demoted to userspace, and then, shortly there-after the WP:CHURNALISM redirect was created.
:::* I'd appreciate you trying harder to respond to this particular point. Geo Swan (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
::::: {{re|Geo Swan}} It seems you are conflating two different issues here. "Demotion" to userspace applies to the essay itself. No one is disputing that this happened or that there was consensus to do so.
::::: This discussion however is about the shortcut. Said shortcut was created by a move from the essay at Wikipedia:CHURNALISM to Wikipedia:Churnalism in 2016. It existed as a shortcut since then and was also mentioned in the essay's shortcut box before userfication (cf. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Northamerica1000/Churnalism&oldid=761295903 first version after move], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Northamerica1000/Churnalism&oldid=794246466 last version before userfication]). Therefore saying the redirect was created after "demotion" is simply incorrect, it just pointed somewhere else before. All {{u|Northamerica1000}} did after the move was to retarget the shortcut to the new place.
::::: My larger point was that the shortcut guideline explicitly allows shortcuts to user space pages. So even if Northamerica1000 had created the shortcut from scratch instead of just retargeting it, that would have been allowed by the guideline as well. There is simply no rule in there that says "you are not allowed to create shortcuts if the target page was userfied before". And there shouldn't be. Why a page came to be is userspace is simply irrelevant because there is no reason to treat those pages differently than those that started out in userspace. Regards SoWhy 08:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep – There are presently 925 :Category:Redirects to user namespace, many of which lead to user essays, humor pages, etc. Singling out one shortcut while ignoring the others is a backwards approach, in my opinion. I don't view these as misleading at all myself. Obviously some others differ in opinion herein. Perhaps initiate a wider RfC regarding the matter so a consensus can be decided for all redirects to user namespace, rather than for only one, if it is actually really necessary to do so. Another idea is to just let them sit. North America1000 10:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:54, 16 January 2021 (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.
