Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Example of a double redirect
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was redirect keep. On a head-count, the keeps are slightly ahead, and the "useful to see it" / "no harm" arguments seem stronger to me than the "explain it as prose" and "useless" arguments. BencherliteTalk 08:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
pointless A:-)Brunuś (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom.···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 14:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)- Change to Keep per discussion below. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, funny but useless. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - The page Wikipedia:Example of a double redirect isn't tagged for deletion, so not sure this discussion will result in a viable outcome. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Now tagged. Jenks24 (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - The points made at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion now seem stale. Also, we use prose to describe things. The description "A redirect that points to another redirect is called a double redirect" at Wikipedia:Double redirects is sufficient. Rather than being prose, "Wikipedia:Example of a double redirect" is an example demonstrations that go against the redirect guidline, "a redirect should not be left pointing to another redirect page." Since this example demonstrations goes against the redirect guideline, this example demonstrations works towards bringing disrepute to Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. It's far simpler to understand how a double redirect works if you see one. Remember the newbies — one may start to wonder how to recognise one, as text is substantially easier to forget. Moreover, the redirect guideline is meant for pages whose intent is to improve navigation. Demonstration pages are meant to serve some other purpose, and this is a great example of why we treat it with common sense, and it is an applicable occasional exception. Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- If a newbie post a redirect that turns out to be a double redirect, then we can have the bot that removes the double redirect (see Special:DoubleRedirects) post a note on their talk page to give them understanding in the context of their knowledge of how their now fixed redirect used to work. If the newbie doesn't post a double redirect, then either they already know what not to do or it's not an issue in their Wikipedia editing understanding. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's still easier to see how a page WORKS than how it WORKED, especially when you're new and not as familiar with the workings of the project. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- If a newbie post a redirect that turns out to be a double redirect, then we can have the bot that removes the double redirect (see Special:DoubleRedirects) post a note on their talk page to give them understanding in the context of their knowledge of how their now fixed redirect used to work. If the newbie doesn't post a double redirect, then either they already know what not to do or it's not an issue in their Wikipedia editing understanding. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. As something of a newbie myself, I gotta say it's much easier to understand what a double redirect is when you actually see one. CarniCat (meow) 05:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Faulty nomination. Its point is Wikipedia:Double redirects. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Guidelines should be explained as prose. A reductio ad absurdum argumet could easily be made for other pages. We don't want Double Redirects, so why use a double redirect to explain that process. A Screenshot would serve the same purpose. Achowat (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep evidently from the comments above it is not useless and it does help to explain the concept of a double redirect. No reason to think the page is doing any harm. Hut 8.5 20:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - this example helps understand how a double redirect in action - that it doesn't redirect twice, but only once then breaks, showing why they are undesirable on Wikipedia apart from the load issue. benzband (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.