Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userboxes


 * The following discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.  

Userboxes and Userbox
Those pages were deleted, as were their talk pages, and protected afterwards. The issue I have is that the redirects run in loops (in one case, at least, the talk page redirects to the main article) and the redirects really ought to be running to WP:Userbox and WP:Userboxes, since this is a Wikipedia specific term. Alternatively, we ought to be saying on Userbox that this is a Wikipedia specific term and then redirecting to WP:Userbox. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 18:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC) ''This is not an undeletion request. This is a redirection request.''


 * This has been the subject of a recent DRV debate. I brought the odd result to closer Brenneman's attention, and he has said he would attend to it.  For the record, I support the redirect to projectspace as reasonable. Xoloz 19:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all! WP:ASR wikipedia specific terms should not be in the main space at all, even as redirects (unless with the WP:xxx notation). We've had this discussion before I think, let's not do it again. Why can userboxes just go away and die somewhere? --Doc ask?  22:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As I indicated above you, Doc, we have in fact had this discussion before. Since redirects are cheap and for convenience's sake, one wonders why anyone would spend anytime arguing against any even remotely useful ones. Xoloz 22:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Because, I don't think we should allow redirects from article to project space unless prefixed with 'WP'. I know there are others, but I would vote to delete them too. (And, in any case, userboxes are not 'remotely useful'. --Doc ask?  10:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are hundreds of others, many of which receive a huge amount of use every single day. Where would we be without NPOV? Your revolutionary proposal for mass-deleting well-established, useful, and harmless redirects should be formally proposed with a new policy if you want it to ever happen, not just assumed on a whim without any consensus support. And if it's userboxes that you don't think are useful, you should be voting to delete Userboxes, not the redirects to that page. Once the userboxes page is deleted, deleting the redirects will be a natural side-effect. Why be sneaky about it? -Silence 19:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * On the one hand this was a work-to-order where I did nothing beyond the minimum required. On the other hand, the current state makes no sense but I'd felt it was a harmless enough glitch that it could wait until I archived my talk page and cleaned up everything else I'd forgotten to do.  On the third hand I was hoping that by that time no-one would care about userboxes and that everyone would be arguing about if the onion tied to one's belt should be purple or brown. -  brenneman  {L} 04:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it's easier for users that was. Crazyswordsman 02:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Purple, 'cause it's prettier!!! Xoloz 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted Per WP:ASR --pgk( talk ) 06:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Relist, WP:ASR is not a speedy deletion criterion. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Undelete and list on RFD. Process is important. "Cross-namespace redirect" and WP:ASR are not speedy deletion criteria. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. They already went through RfD, as I recall, and were deleted. Mackensen (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep both deleted. Let's try to keep this project focused and article namespace reasonably clear.  --Tony Sidaway 12:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep both deleted. Shouldn't be in article space. David | Talk 13:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep both deleted, as further debate would be inconclusive, and it was previously deleted. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 03:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep both deleted- cross-namespace redirects are NOT to be kept. Ral315 (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per it's easier to get to the userboxes if they are. Crazyswordsman 02:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There indeed was a Review on this recently; like Xoloz I am a bit surprised it was closed the way it was. Some remarks:
 * Cross-namespace redirects on WP are not only allowed, some are encouraged. Every WP: and WT: -style redirect sits in the Main space and points to a page in the Wikipedia space. These are usually non-controversial. The governing guideline is Shortcut.
 * There are also a smaller number of Main→WP redirects which are not of the WP: -style. Examples are NPOV, Wikipedia is not paper, Disambiguation, No personal attacks, Assume good faith, ArbCom, and CotW. There seems to be some disagreement about them; Redirects for deletion/Precedents suggests that their suitability be determined on a case-by-case basis.
 * Bearing in mind the general trend to keep redirects to high-traffic WP space pages, especially those known by a particular catch phrase or term, it may not be unreasonable to keep, say, one page as a redirect; perhaps Userboxes→Userboxes. I do not think having all sorts of variations is either needed or desirable.
 * Related matters: a) original RfDs here b) an aside: the comment above that cross-space redirects are never speedy candidates is untrue—Main→User space redirects are speedy candidates (R2).
 * Whatever the outcome of this review, I do hope that no one relists this yet once more: it's been discussed way more than any such triviality has any right to be discussed. Please respect whatever consensus forms here. — Encephalon 07:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong undelete as redirect. (And list at Miscellany for deletion if anyone seriously thinks this should be deleted, since speedy-deletion is obviously inappropriate policy abuse regardless.) This is a very useful and practical redirect to have, much like CotW and the countless other cross-namespace redirects to Wikipedia editor projects and activities, and there's next to no possibility of it being searched for by someone looking for something other than the Wikipedia project, since "userbox" is not a common word, phrase, or abbreviation (unlike the vast majority of other cross-namespace redirects to Wikipedia, like disambiguation, a real word, NPOV, a valid abbreviation, and assume good faith, a not-uncommon phrase). Moreover, it's truly hilarious to invoke WP:ASR as evidence for cross-namespace redirects being unacceptable, considering that "WP:ASR" is itself a cross-namespace redirect!! ("WP:" is technically part of the article namespace, not the Wikipedia namespace, but is tolerated as a matter of convenience.) Furthermore, Avoid self-references itself makes no mention of redirects of this sort being a bad thing, and, for the final nail in the coffin, here is a list of cross-namespace redirects which point to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references: Mention of Wikipedia in articles, Avoid self-references, WP:NSR, Avoid self-reference, WP:SELF, Avoid self references, Avoid self reference, WP:ASR. :) And if that wasn't enough, here's a list of cross-namespace redirects to this very page, Deletion review: WP:VFU, WP:VfU, Votes for undeletion, VfU, WP:RFU, WP:DRV, Deletion Review, WP:Deletion Review, VFU. This deletion is a farce, completely unjustifiable by any policy, guideline, convention, or purpose beneficial to Wikipedia, and should be reversed for the same reasons a deletion of ArbCom or WP:V would be. -Silence 19:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Deleted Hardly notable enough to be even mentioned anywhere in the main space. --InShaneee 21:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, are you aware that these were redirects, not articles? Countless quasi-noteworthy Wikipedia projects have cross-namespace redirects; their point is not to assert notability, but to provide a useful shortcut for users who aren't willing or able to type out lengthy titles like "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" (NPOV) and "Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones" (WP:TROP). -Silence 01:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep deleted - This is absolutely stupid. The only acceptable cross namespace redirects in mainspace begin with WP:, period.  This is merely a matter of convenience.  And guess what, there already is a WP:UBX.  It's simple common sense; we have to keep the encyclopedic content and the non-encyclopedic project content separate.  -- Cyde Weys  20:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no particular opinion in this debate but your absolutist statement about cross-namespace redirects is untrue. NPOV and be bold are among our oldest such redirects.  Those (and probably many others) are not considered at all controversial and would require a considerable amount of pointless work to change.  Rossami (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Cyde is demonstrating nothing here but his lack of knowledge of how cross-namespace redirects work, and always have worked, in Wikipedia. Literally hundreds of such pages exist for just about every popular Wikipedia: page in existence, including both tangential WikiProjects and side-projects and central, high-usage policy and guideline pages. Such redirects are not only allowed, but encouraged. This speedy-deletion is hilariously out-of-process and hypocritical; there is no substantial difference between WP: redirects and other types of redirects, and the "WP:" designation is nothing but a matter of convention to make it easier to remember shortcuts from the article space to the "Wikipedia:" space. -Silence 23:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect As per Encephalon, Silence and Xoloz Darquis 08:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per the above. Cynical 10:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect. The only people that will see it are people who are looking for the projectspace page; the deleted template is more of a black mark on article space than the redirect would be.--ragesoss 01:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I count 10 to restore a cross-namespace redirect, 8 to keep them deleted. As per the mechanics of DRV, I will restore the redirects and list them on RFD for further discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.