Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 November 7#Template:R from external link

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|R from external link}}
• {{Tfd links|Redirects from external links|catfd=yes}}

In its 4 years of existence, there are currently 3 transclusions. The redirect categorization template, as well as its respective category :Category:Redirects from external links, encourage finding titles that are not on Wikipedia that are malformed and link them to a Wikipedia article. This is problematic since it is 1) not Wikipedia's job to keep track of erroneous external links to articles and 2) not Wikipedia's job to keep track of where these erroneous links are on external web sites, causing a need for unnecessary and potentially never-ending maintenance to check third party web sites for erroneous links, especially if the web site moves to a different URL, for example. Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Redirects with disambiguators missing ")" for related discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, should be more widely-publicised on Capricorn or some such; I'd never heard of it until that discussion. I think this is very helpful as an indicator to the redirect's validity, and should be placed if an editor comes across an erroneous external link. I don't see that active maintenance is really necessary here. J947 † ^edits 21:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• :"{{Tq|I don't see that active maintenance is really necessary here.}}" I disagree with that statement since there really needs to be some evidence of where such links are externally to validate their existence. Then there will be the cases where there is no web site listed where these links may be, which then invalidates such redirects' existence that are tagged with this template. Otherwise, editors could make bogus claims for such redirects existing with this template due to thinking they saw it on some site, or even just to vandalize Wikipedia with a bunch of garbage redirects (WP:BEANS and all). Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• ::Could use a parameter which links to the site with the erroneous link, and the template should link to pageviews like for an especially uncommon misspelling which receives an inexplicable amount of views. Would reduce a lot of RfDs starting which would close in keep. Without pageviews the template could be invalidated by anyone who comes along to assess its merits. (Actually, the Rcat shell should probably always link to pageviews because they're quite hard to access. Thoughts?) J947 † ^edits 22:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - I created this four years ago but I can't remember why; in retrospect it seems like a bad idea. I don't think I agree with the reasons given and I often argue that concern over the possibility of as-yet-unrealized creative future vandalism isn't a good reason to do anything. Limiting link rot is good, but we have {{tl|R from move}} to handle old incoming links that point to one of our pages that we break by moving it. For websites that break their own links or publish bad links themselves, we would better serve Wikipedia readers in the long term if a link such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_buzzard) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_buzzard)] returns an error page - if it returns the intended article then the link never gets fixed. A secondary problem (or maybe it's a bigger problem) is that this template categorizes pages into a maintenance category, but no Wikipedia editor can actually perform the necessary maintenance. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
• :I'm assuming you created it because of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 14#Genie (feral child. Legoktm (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• I will just link the [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Genie_(feral_child pageviews for Genie (feral child] which is the main justification for keeping that page. In my opinion (and that of RfD) is that this case at least should be kept. Is an RCat where there is/should be a single digit proper uses appropriate is then the question for me. I'm leaning no, but I can very well see an argument for this being a potentially useful maintenance category. --Trialpears (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. It is not our job to fix broken links from external sites. Let's not encourage it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with J947. This is a useful categorisation that explains (and can be extended to explain better) the rationale for some redirects, that there are not that many of these does not invalidate that. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2022 (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 (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by {{admin|Izno}} AnomieBOT⚡ 20:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|ATMakon/sandbox}}

Unused, not a template. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:07, 7 November 2022 (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 (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).