Talk:Ignatius (album)

Contested deletion
This is a valid redirect. We don't redirects that function as delete plausible search terms. A target article does not need extensive information on a subject for a redirect to be valid, and the nominating editor is obviously inexperienced in this matter.  Ss  112   14:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with your "extensive information" point, but the article doesn't have any information on the topic. Louis Waweru Talk  14:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Jadakiss discography does, and I've already repointed it there.  Ss  112   14:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Which has a circular link, though. Please just consider my rationale for the deletion:
 * User searches for the page.
 * User lands on Artist page (well new dicography page) with no information about query.
 * User scans thousands of words learning nothing new.
 * The wiki link should be red to encourage new content creation. Louis Waweru Talk  14:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I already removed the circular link before you replied. Redirects do not prevent content creation. As I create plenty of redirects, I have first-hand knowledge that they don't. Most users—IP editors included—know how to navigate back to them through the link at the top and click "edit this page". It's never stopped anybody before. I don't know if you're a regular user of this site as your last 500 edits date back to 2008 so I'm not sure if you're aware, but most experienced editors do not bother nominating redirects for speedy deletion—redirects do not stop users from making articles. If they're valid, as in they're even so much as mentioned at the target, they're usually left alone. The whole process, including this discussion, is a waste of time. Any admin worth their salt is not going to delete this redirect.  Ss  112   14:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I gave several reasons why redirects to non-informative pages are problematic, circular links aside. I don't think I've actually heard a reason why you promote this redirect behavior. How does it create good? I don't mean to waste your time, to the contrary I think no longer creating such redirects would save people's time by not having to detangle them in the future. Louis Waweru Talk  15:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's right. You aren't "hearing" reasons, you're reading them, and I'm sure you can read. I just told you why those reasons don't apply or aren't valid—users still create content on redirects all the time, it doesn't prevent anybody from making anything. A case could actually be made for the opposite. Even though I was a registered user then, I was not a regular user, so I don't know how it was in 2008 or when you last regularly contributed, but times have changed. You are not a regular editor any more, and it appears this concern over a redirect is the most activity you've made to this website in 12 years. There's nothing to detangle; the redirect is fine and all users, including far more experienced editors than yourself, create them. If they do it, I don't know why you have an issue with this. I'm sure you can find more productive uses of your time, like actually creating articles or contributing to worthwhile discussions, not trying to delete one of millions of redirects. Can you assess/hopefully deny this? What a waste of time this is.  Ss   112   16:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I came to Wikipedia and was redirected around without learning anything. I was just trying to avoid that happening to others. I didn't mean to upset you, and I'm sorry an admin had to get pinged twice. I assumed this was a small deal, and was surprised to see such a strong defense of it. Though I still think the behavior wastes readers' time, it wasn't an attack on you personally. I hope you can see that what I thought was an improvement to your contribution was worthy of a discussion to dissuade this style of contributing. Again, it's nothing personal... and I hope you'll find a way to see this as a worthwhile discussion. I learned that redirects can be used as placeholders if someone were gaming article creation stats, and I think that's about as silly as it is unfair to editors who aren't metagaming redirects. I didn't come here for that, but I still learned something new, so it was worthwhile. I've turned a stub into a GA without knowing what a GA was. The process was lot's of fun and I learned a about the topic lot doing it, as well as getting a peak at Wikipedia's inner-workings. Just because I'm inactive, I won't stop assuming good faith and being bold. Would rather see nothing or a stub than Wikipedia behave like a search engine that refuses to admit it's got nothin'. 19:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to worry. This was not a big deal. You nominated something for CSD and it was contested. An admin was going to get involved if for no other reason than a CSD tag was put up. It's obvious your tag was placed in good faith and your rational was not unreasonable. But there was a cogent argument on the other side so RfD is where this belongs if you want to pursue the matter. We all try (or should) not to take these things personally. Thanks for all of your work on the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You claim you're not attacking me personally then you go on to mention "gaming article creation stats", which is clearly aimed at me. The hypocrisy on display in your comment alone is amazing. It is a personal attack to claim someone you don't even know is creating redirects just to do that. I don't care about numbers, how many articles or redirects any counter external or internal says I've made, and anybody who does is an idiot. That's not what I create redirects for, and that is a completely baseless presumption on your part. The above discussion had nothing to do with that—not even a mention of it—then you come in hours later, after I'd already made the redirect into an article, with this nonsense, probably because you felt personally slighted after being called inactive and having your misguided CSD declined. You should not have even bothered in the first place. Spare us. This editor talks about "good faith" yet makes a bad-faith assumption about me and you completely glossed over this. There is no way to take a personal attack other than personally.  Ss   112   03:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, I assumed good faith in that you'd just delete the page based on my response to your criticisms of me being out of touch with the way things are around here. My curiosity was peaked by the unexpectedly rude and blind defense of the one-liner page, and I imagined a scenario that would provoke such slew of responses involving touting in vs out-crowds (was sure I woke up still a decent netizen, guess not). I think the rush to redirect behavior looks like page creation meta-gaming. I hope anyone who reads this open discussion will avoid such behavior. I won't dig into your contributions as you did to me, I'm not interested in singling you out. I just think it's not the best behavior to meta-game new pages. A new observation that was my take away from this. If it applies to you, I apologize for not understanding your point of view, but the critique is for anyone who happens to read this, not just you. Louis Waweru Talk  03:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what this fixation you have with the term "meta-game" is, but it sounds like some fanciful way of describing your hot take on what editors around here do now, and maybe, but that's not what I'm doing. You intended that as an attack on me; it's not a presumption on my part that I'm who you meant, so do not make yourself out to be innocent and me as having some guilty consicence or paranoid mentality. Yet again: Spare us. There was very little good faith in anything you said here, from my perspective. Now, onto what else you said: As I am not an admin, you should know I can't delete articles, and even if I could, I wouldn't have in this case, and certainly not based on anything you said, which was weak from the get-go. There was also no "rush" in creating the redirect. As you're evidently familiar with the subject matter, I presume you know when Jadakiss first announced the album. If I had "rushed" to make the redirect, I would have made it over a week earlier, when the title was first revealed. I only made it yesterday. That's certainly not "rushing"—if anything, I was quite behind. I already created the article hours ago, and you already know this, having edited it. If all I cared about was redirect creation, I wouldn't have even bothered to expand it. So you've been proven wrong multiple times now. It is time for you to stop with the baseless accusations and poor defences of what you've just said, and move on.  Ss  112   03:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Wikipedians participate out of enjoyment. Meta is just the current state of rules and policies. Metagaming is having fun taking advantage of these rules and policies. Sometimes the meta is broken, as I think it is in this case; I see no difference in a title page redirect to a page with no information on said title happening a week ago, or at the last minute. There's nothing wrong with metagaming, just look at all the bots running wild doing useful things. Let's say there were a bot that made redirects where users would learn nothing. I don't see how the bot could be justified, and would argue the meta needs to be modified. I don't see why a human should be given a pass because it's not a bot. Again, I'm not seriously concerned with this permitted behavior, but I don't mind responding to your continued discussion. I'd like to think I can get you to agree with me eventually. But if you're ready to move on, that's fine. Louis Waweru Talk  04:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * CSD nomination . Talk page discussion shows a plausible argument for retention. If doubts remain I suggest WP:RfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)