User:Kww/redirects

This is a draft proposal for a procedure to deal with an existing problem with redirects. Redirects suffer from multiple problems:
 * They are vandalism-prone. Few people watchlist redirects, so if a vandal changes a redirect to point to an inappropriate place, this can go a long time without being detected.
 * They are prone to edit-warring. Many redirects are created because of failure to meet inclusion guidelines. Sometimes, this failure to meet inclusion guidelines does not meet well with some group of editors, and the result is edit-warring, as one group of editors attempts to follow guidelines, and others attempt to violate them. The opposite case occurs as well, where someone has been overly zealous at redirecting, and the restoring editors have a valid case.

To solve these problems, a new process is being proposed. This makes use of our existing process at WP:RFPP to handle the straightforward cases, with a new noticeboard to handle the exception cases. The procedures seek to establish some trivial barriers to cross before a redirect can be protected and before a redirect can be unprotected. In short, a redirect can be protected upon presentation of a policy or guideline that the underlying article violates on plain reading of the article and the guideline, while it can be unprotected upon production of a single piece of evidence that the violation can be repaired. Of course, discussions and consensus can override in either direction. This serves to prevent edit-warring and promotes compliance with guidelines and policies while making it simple to improve articles that can be improved.

In order to have a redirect protected, an editor should post a protection request at WP:RFPP with the following information:
 * Identity of article to be redirected
 * Target of redirect
 * Statement of reason. This can be in one of three forms:
 * Simple policy or guideline statement
 * Pointer to a deletion discussion that resulted in merge or redirect
 * Pointer to a redirection discussion that resulted in a merge or a redirect
 * Duration of protection (optional). Sometimes, the redirect can be expected to be lifted at a certain date. One example is an article about a musical single, which will generally be a redirect until the song charts, at which time an article can be created. It would be sensible for the redirect to be protected until the single release date.

If all the proposer has is a simple statement of policy, the standard should be that no straightforward reading of policies and guidelines would permit inclusion of the article, as the article was written and sourced prior to the redirect. For example, if the proposer is proposing a redirect of a musical single be protected, it would be valid to state.
 * WP:NSONGS states Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. This song has not yet been released, therefore it has not ranked on charts, has not received an award, and has not been performed by multiple artists.

It would not be acceptable to state:
 * WP:NSONGS states Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. This song only charted in Canada and New Zealand, neither of which are important enough countries to justify an article.

In the first case, there is no reasonable argument against the redirect, and anyone attempting to make one would have to be distorting guidelines in their argument. The second case is a legitimate case where discussion is necessary: it may well be that the song can't carry its own article, but it isn't such an obvious case that protection can be applied without consensus.

Unprotecting works similarly:
 * Identity of article to be unprotected
 * Statement of reason. This can be in one of three forms:
 * Evidence that reason for original protection is no longer true
 * Pointer to a repaired version of the article
 * Pointer to a redirection discussion that resulted in a decision to override the protection

Either of the first two forms only has to reach the standard of making the original protection criteria no longer valid. Continuing the example of an unreleased single, a pointer to a single chart in a single country would be enough to cause protection to be lifted. The single may or may not warrant a standalone article, but such a decision now has to be reached through discussion, not enforced through protection.

''Lots of help needed from here out ... where do discussions take place? AFD and DRV? Separate noticeboards? On talk pages, with pointers from a noticeboard? Closed similarly to AFDs?''


 * Discussion at User talk:Kww/redirects