User:TeleComNasSprVen/redirects

Based on the 8 statements proposed by earlier and subsequent comments I present the following statements (organised slightly differently) that I think approximate the current state of consensus about CNRs and PNRs from the main namespace. CNRs from other namespaces (e.g. Help: to Wikipedia:) are not considered here.

A: Cross-namespace redirects (CNRs) from the main (article) namespace, other than Pseudo-namespace redirects (PNRs):
 * Examples of CNRs: Current events → Portal:Current events, About Wikipedia → About
 * 1) New CNRs are usually discouraged
 * 2) Discussion of new CNRs before they are created is strongly encouraged.
 * The talk page of the proposed target or the talk page of a relevant WikiProject are often a good locations for such discussion.
 * 1) Retargetting a CNR so it is no longer cross-namespace can be done BOLDly where this would not be controversial. Where the redirect is highly visited or retargetting would or may be controversial for any reason then it should be discussed first at WP:RFD

B: Pseudo-namspace redirects (PNRs) from the main (article) namespace and WP and WT namespace aliases.
 * Examples of PNRs: MOS:IDENTITY → Manual of Style, WP:NOT → What Wikipedia is Not
 * PNRs are composed of a prefix, a separator and a suffix
 * 1) New PNRs without a suffix are not permitted without prior consensus
 * 2) New PNRs with unapproved prefixes (i.e. ones not listed on WP:Namespace (info) or WP:SHORTCUT (guideline)) are not permitted without prior consensus.
 * 3) PNR prefixes are case sensitive, i.e. "MOS", "MoS" and "mos" are three different prefixes.
 * 4) New PNRs with separators other than ":" are not permitted
 * 5) New PNRs that use an existing prefix followed by ":" may be created freely, but it is strongly encouraged for suffixes that are shortcuts or acronyms to be in ALLCAPS without spaces
 * 6) A shortcut PNRs not listed on the target page may indicate that it is not endorsed, but this is not always true.
 * 7) Prefix_talk:FOO must refer to the talkpage of the page Prefix:FOO links to (e.g. WP:CSD leads to Criteria for speedy deletion so WT:CSD must link to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion).
 * If you find mismatched pairs they should be listed for discussion at WP:RFD.
 * 1) In most cases Prefix:FOO and Namespace:FOO should refer to the same target, but there are exceptions. New PNRs should usually avoid creating mismatched pairs as they can be controversial.

C: All CNRs and PNRs from the main (article) namespace and WP and WT namespace aliases:
 * 1) Deletion of CNRs and PNRs that do not meet the letter of the Criteria for speedy deletion must be discussed at WP:RFD.
 * 2) Simply being a CNR or PNR is not a reason on its own to delete a redirect.
 * 3) As with all redirects, having few or no internal links is not a reason on its own to delete a CNR or PNR.
 * 4) Converting an existing redirect to a CNR or PNR should be discussed at WP:RFD first, except following a page move.
 * 5) The status of the target page may be taken into account when discussing a redirect. Inactive pages and failed proposals often (but not always) make poorer targets than active, highly visited pages for example.
 * 6) New CNRs or PNRs to inactive pages, failed proposals and similar pages should not normally be created without discussion at an active page.
 * 7) Notifying the target and/or a relevant WikiProject of discussions at RfD is encouraged. For retargettings it is encouraged to noitfy the proposed target as well.
 * 8) Tagging the talk page of CNRs and PNRs with the banners of WikiProjects associated with the target page (using using the "class=redirect" parameter) is encouraged (except where an individual WikiProject objects).
 * This means they will be listed on the relevant Article alerts page if they are nominated at RfD for any reason.

I know this is a lot, and includes things not really discussed here yet, but the idea is to try and avoid statements that people partly agree and partly disagree with (and I'm generally a fan of long lists of simple criteria over short lists of complicated ones). I intend this as part of the discussion, not necessarily as a final conclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)