Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bobet (talk | contribs) at 11:27, 6 September 2006 (→[]: redirect to feature story). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

30 August 2006

Featured articles

I tried to find out more about what was required of an article for it to meet featured article specifications but twice, a redirect has been deleted from Featured articles to Misplaced Pages:Featured article. Inclusion of the redirect would have saved me the great deal of time that it took me to get here and protest against its deletion and would also save future users the hassle of discovering the Misplaced Pages:Featured article page, particularly troublesome to newcomers. --Username132 (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Was there an RfD for this? Looks like a cross-namespace redirect that was speedied. ~ trialsanderrors 18:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment RfD here. Whispering 21:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn (undelete). The noses where counted properly in the RfD but the conclusion contradicts policy on When should we delete a redirect?. While that section does suggest that cross-namespace redirects may be deletable in some circumstances, the section immediately below covers the exceptions. Bullets 1 (useful history), 3 (aid searching), 5 (someone finds them useful) and probably 4 (breaking old links) in the "Avoid deleting such redirects" section apply to this case. Misplaced Pages:Cross-namespace redirects is the most comprehensive discussion of the relative merits and demerits of CNRs. The case for their deletion is, in my opinion, far from settled. Rossami (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redlink, i.e. delete the {{deletedpage}}), as with prior cross-namespace redirects. Those who want to make sure it doesn't reappear can watchlist it. --Sam Blanning 23:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redlink, just like all other cross-namespace redirects. If you disagree with that policy, start a discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:Redirect. -Sean Curtin 23:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted, no opinion on deleted template vs Redlink - Cross namespace redirects should be deleted on sight. --Improv 02:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have nothing more to say than Improv already said. Keep deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as for all cross-namespace redirects. (Liberatore, 2006). 13:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Question. Articles frequently have a cross-namespace link at the top (e.g. using the selfref template) incase someone was looking for Misplaced Pages help. Would it be acceptable to undelete the page and apply such a manually-operated link? --Username132 (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That's one of the better solutions, but only if you can write an article about featured articles that would stand up at AfD (bearing WP:ASR in mind). I'm not sure that the phrase has enough relevance outside Misplaced Pages for that to be possible. --ais523 11:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redlink unless an article can be written. --ais523 11:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redlink per WP:RfD. Eluchil404 17:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Proposed compromise Can we set the redirects here → Article? I think cross namespace dab headers are fairly common and the best solution to article space searches for/links to WP space topics. As long as we can find something in the article space they can go to, adding a dab header there seems a far better solution than redlinking. ~ trialsanderrors 01:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted or redirect to an encyclopedic article. A cross-namespace redirect is unacceptable. --Cyde Weys 02:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Reopening for the purpose of gathering more opinion here. Xoloz 17:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Feature story and add a dablink at the top. - Bobet 11:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)