Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CSD pseudo-namespace

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing, in part based on the comments in the discussion section, and the rest per WP:IAR. This RFC is a confusing way of proposing that we change policy to overturn the result at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 10#CSD:G1. If your proposing to change the specific application of policy to overturn the deletion of something, the place to do it is WP:DRV. While I would strongly encourage you to drop the WP:STICK, if you absolutely insist on changing the underlying policy, the way to do it is to start a general RFC on the question asking the community to consider when cross namespace redirects are desirable, not one tailored to the specific deletion outcome. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should CSD: be an exception to the immunity of pseudo-namespaces to deletion?

History

WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 10#CSD:G1
- WP:Redirect#keep
  - WP:Redirect#K2
    - They would aid accidental linking ... redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc.
  - WP:Redirect#K4
    - You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect.
  - WP:Redirect#K5
    - Someone finds them useful.
- WP:Redirect#delete
  - WP:Redirect#D6
    - The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space.

Discussion

In the linked discussion above, it was declared that if these were determined to be PNR, then they were immune from deletion. Yet, the closer, Happy-melon, after declaring that "these form an established pseudo-namespace" (albeit weak), continued to delete these PNRs despite of their immunity (weak or strong, a PNR is a PNR and PNRs are immune to deletion). Technical 13 (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find this kind of confusing. Examples might help. And I'm not sure which rule is being proposed for exception in this case. It's made more confusing by the fact that you're posting an exception proposed by someone else and saying you oppose it, rather than making your own proposal. It might read better as "I propose following the general rule rather than making an exception" and then supporting that proposal. equazcion � | 17:22, 23 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Where does it say that PNRs are immune from deletion? GB fan 17:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see there isn't such a thing. There is however 10 Reasons for deleting and a note saying that reason 6 does not apply to PNRs, it it still leaves PNRs open to other reasons for deletion. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't find any immunity either but Technical 13 says they are immune from deletion, so maybe he can direct us to where it is stated. GB fan 18:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Or, better yet, he could stop wasting the community's time and use the appropriate process... $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One can only hope... Don't think that has enough "look at me" drama value though - stuffy old DRV board with no shiny watchlist notices or AN listings.... I've seldom seen such a pointy spamming at so many venues of something like this. Shame on you T13. Get some perspective. Begoon ^talk 18:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support exception

Oppose exception

I oppose making this exception to the rules without community consensus. I believe that this choice to IAR and dismiss the fact that these redirects were in the wrong forum, as they were immune to deletion as PNRs, where even the nominator declares they expect a no consensus close "[Close as no consensus and open an RFC on creating new pseudo-namespaces without community consensus] is be the conclusion I would expect now. Technical 13 (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.