Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 12

2942:. If i want to find the KafeeKlatsch that I've heard so much about, I'd try searching. In the searchbox, start typing "Kaff" and you get suggestions of various mainspace pages. Oh, i recall that to search in non-mainspace, proceed instead typing "wp:kaf" and the KaffeeKlatsch redirect is the one suggestion given. This serves readers. Also, if I want to refer someone, perhaps a new editor that I have welcomed, I would not remember the full named location (I know it's in some user's space, is it in their Talk space, which user...). I would like to be able to suggest simply: "maybe you would like to check out 2240:, it says, "The Knowledge (XXG) community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption." So is 2557:

extreme liberals crying "Change things just because I want to stick it to the man!" seem to get more attention than the people that actually have valid arguments. If you want this to be kept, give a legitimate reason for why it should be kept. A legitimate reason isn't "I support the ideals of the proposer and think that a temporary breach of how things run is worth it in the long run", a legitimate argument would be "Here are some other examples where wiki-space redirects have been used to redirect to userspace pages, and here is why this proposal is beneficial to the encyclopaedia".

2551:. If this is actually kept because of lack of consensus, then there is stark corruption afoot. Insisting that a needless redirect needs to be kept because "I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG AND YOU'RE ALL JUST BIG MEANIES THAT WANT TO RETAIN THE SYSTEMATIC BIAS!" should never be perceived as persuasive. I thought that we tried to run things here based upon reason and consensus, not by emotion, rash judgment, and activism. Perhaps things have changed for the worse, and I just never realised that people had become unreasonable. 2105:

of them) editors will become more and more likely to come across them searching for policy pages. There aren't that many pages in WP space, relative to the other namespaces, so over time such cross-namespace redirects could come to represent a large proportion of the WP: shortcuts, created by the page creators or other well meaning editors, making it harder to find actual policy pages – the ones meant to start with WP: . The way to avoid this is to treat this as other redirects into userspace and delete it.--

3382:

and support each other." Lightbreather has already edited the target page to indicate it is a userpage. I hope this message is okay, it is fine with me, and actually I don't think this RFD needs to debate the exact wording. The RFD can be closed Keep with specification of having a soft redirect, which serves a purpose no matter what the wording is, and leave the wording to usual editing processes (can be discussed at Talk page, etc.). --

2055:: There is no danger of confusion with the WP mainspace article. I am not convinced of the need for the project, but so long as the project exists, I think the redirect is appropriate so people can find it. Also, the reality of this being a RfD here actually gives some credence to some of Lightbreather's positions (if her position is that women endure discrimination on WP) That said, I'm not interested in joining at this time. 2564:, it runs by the amount of reason placed in arguments and furthermore how much reason is present for each side. Please propose things at the village pump and related areas. Do not suddenly create redirects out of nowhere that go against protocol without reasonable explanation that is not composed of loaded words and nonargument arguments. That's gaming the system to get one's preferred way, and that's not allowed. 320:. There is rigorous debate over whether this page is a valid WP-to-user redirect or an illegitimate endorsement by Knowledge (XXG) of a user-space experiment, but there is no clear outcome to this debate. The option for a soft redirect was brought up; though it did not gain traction as an option, it is technically not precluded by this RFD either (since it does not concern deleting the page). 4291:. If the legal name of the party in the past was "Country Party of Australia", then this title should redirect to the article that describes it (as it appears to do at present). If the legal name of that party was something else, then all the relevant links should go to that title (disambiguated if required) and see what's left. That's a long-winded and conditional 3303:, that's a good idea if it's allowed (though it skirts the rules, as pointed out above, so that I or anyone else can put a shortcut in wikispace to one of my subpages). That way, people could be warned before they go to that subpage of Lightbreather's. Perhaps also adding that if they post, their post may be removed if the page owner doen't feel it's suitable. 4279:. Somebody more knowledgeable than me should identify how many different article titles there should be for all these entities, even if at present some of them are described together in a smaller number of actual articles with inbound redirects for historic or alternative names, in case it later becomes helpful to create a separate article for the 1931-45 2126:. I admit I was one of those who said in the nomination of the page itself that the page itself should only be kept because it's unofficial; but the presence of the redirect doesn't make it more official. There are no rules forbidding the redirect from wp:space to user space, while there are plenty of precedents cited by the IP a few rows above, including 3506:

redirect. So it doesn't help people get there. Anyway, she's spammed enough about it all over wiki, WikiProjects, userpages, on meta, Jimbo's page, other forums, on a WMF mail list, even many times at an arbcom proceeding she started so that plenty know where it is. Let's drop this whole thing. Even on the WMF gendergap mail list, no women joined.

3207: 1881:

of THIS long-winded and fragmented discussion bt way of time stamps. The comments that were moved to LB's talk page are intermingled and any individual integrity was lost. Bad practice. I am not insensitive to the plight of Women editors in a world surrounded by "testy" men. But not every editor making a counterpoint is an anti-feminist.

3868:

botmeister to pipe links to the existing redirect into the main article instead and then either move the draft in or make this a dab and disambiguate the title of the draft. Simply deleting the redirect and replacing with the new party, is not supported by this discussion, according to my reading of it, per ScottDavis's comment.

2946:", where I assume there is full disclosure that it is currently a private area in one user's space, and not a main part of Knowledge (XXG). And likely misspellings should be redirects. If it is moved, then the redirect can be updated, and still works. This is simply courtesy. Why make it deliberately hard to refer to it? -- 4525:: This sort of business terminology is really quite a muddle because top flight thinkers define their own terms and re-use terminology with new senses, while second rate writers often employ these concepts without articulating, or even having, an integrated framework. Definitions and undefined uses of "KPI" and "KSI" vary: 4500:- this doesn't seem to be something that is actually measured. I found one source discussing "success indicators" in relation to post-WWII changes in the Soviet Union economy, suggesting that a new "key" indicator needed to be found, but that suggests that the phrase is a compound of other terms. We don't have 1115:(in which I did not opine one way or another). Approximately 2/3 of the "keep" !votes at the MFD were on the basis that this area was in user space, and several of them explicitly said they would strongly oppose it in WP space as did two or three of those who commented without !voting one way or another. 2785:

other examples where wiki-space redirects have been used to redirect to userspace pages, and here is why this proposal is beneficial to the encyclopaedia". Can you actually provide me with a legitimate reason in the vein of the aforementioned without having it filled with activism or driven by emotion?

3590:

yes, I unchecked a bunch of things in my preferences and that error went away. Doncram said on his talk that he didn't have the correct user rights to create his redirect, so that's why I got the message. Also, the second redirect isn't a project page, though it's in a project page redirect category.

3381:

About the message displayed, Lightbreather edited it to display the same description that she has added to the target page, instead of what I wrote. And I edited it further, to add back the word/phrase "user-space", so that it shows "Kaffeeklatsch: a user-space place for women to get together, hear,

2104:

A further observation: if this is kept then what's to stop other editors creating redirects in WP: space to their own creations, whether proposed policies, essays, or whatever? Probably they will choose a shortcut in English not German. And as more of these are created (and pages can have two or more

1880:

Fact: Comments were re-moved...from the Coffee Clutch to LB's talk page without any mention (other than Sarah mentioning it herself) in either place. Bad practice. The history of a page, especially a talk page, should be obvious on sight. If someone took the time they could figure out the development

466:

as nominator. In addition to the other issues listed in the nomination, Kaffeeklatsch is not a common term in English and is not one people would normally search for. Furthermore, the target page is only for women; we should not be linking from WP space (which is open to anyone) to a page where 90%

3928:

This page redirects to the National Party of Australia which is clearly damaging to the notable current formation of the Country Party of Australia. The National Party of Australia changed its name from the National Country Party in 1982. It was never known as the Country Party of Australia. This

3810:

There are no guidelines that can be ignored "on technicalities". We simply don't have any guidelines against this, and there's a reason for it. It's usually what we consider a sign of consensus, but for this case, you're insisting that we apply special scrutiny. That's some pretty harsh treatment of

3074:

And, while "mouseover" views depend upon your settings, for me I notice that mouseover on the redirect does not show what is displayed from mouseover on the target. But anyhow, if there was a bit more "full disclosure" added at the target, perhaps that would overcome objections about the redirect?

2784:

I'm afraid that that's not a legitimate reason, Ivanvector. Like I said in my previous comment: a legitimate reason to keep this isn't "I support the ideals of the proposer and think that a temporary breach of how things run is worth it in the long run", a legitimate argument would be "Here are some

1638:

has removed herself from the pledge, so why are her comments still there? How do you expect a discussion if the comments of other female editors are removed without their concerns being given a heading, or even addressed at all? SlimVirgin removing her own is entirely different than you unilaterally

1613:

Also, correction on what EC posted: Six women have signed the pledge, two have removed their names. (So there are four there now, including myself.) Honestly, with the kind of "welcome" this idea is getting, I expect just building membership will be a hard task, but just because it may be slow-going

759:

Point taken: it's a redirect from project to user space which I personally think goes against the sprit of that guideline. Either way, this redirect does imply that the page is OK in project space. Since many MfD keep !votes specifically stated that this page is OK because it's in user space and not

720:

It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Knowledge (XXG) namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also

446:

acceptable. Knowledge (XXG) is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that goes for project space as well as article space. If Lightbreather wishes to bar certain groups of editors from her userpages that is permissible, but trying to shoehorn this concept into project space by way of a redirect

405:

This very recently created cross-namespace redirect needs to be deleted. The target page was kept after an MFD, with many of the keep comments specifically noting that they thought this was okay in userspace but did not want the page in WP space. Putting a redirect from WP space makes it seem that

4577:

What I meant above by "not actually measured" was that this is the sort of business neologism that management types cobble together from impressive-sounding words to make themselves look good in presentations, but doesn't actually have any specific meaning. We shouldn't have articles (or redirects)

3276:

you come to a pause page with that, or if you mouse over it you also see that message. I hope that message is clear enough, and not loaded with any overtones. I think editors here can request/suggest to Lightbreather that the actual target page be edited at the top to have more "full disclosure",

2863:

per Yunshui and Karanacs, and the fact that redirecting from meta space to user space implies endorsement. That a category exists of redirects from meta to user space only gives us a list that needs to be examined very closely, and having a category does not constitute community endorsement of the

2268:

in a talk space with the intent of working on it while a copyright violation is being repaired, and of course discourages linking to the temporary version from article space. That doesn't apply here - the user page isn't in a talk space, it's not a temporary version of an article, it's not intended

676:

As pointed out by Lightbreather, this should be seen as a free zone for an underrepresented demographic. It has a specific purpose that does not exclude anyone from editing articles. Until we get a reasonable handle on the gender gap, it's a perfectly valid strategy. Please consider the big picture

3526:

Fine if you no longer object to the redirect, if that's what you mean. But it does help navigate: try going to KaffeeKlatsch now by starting to type in "wp:kaf" and the search bar already understands where you probably want to go, you don't have to know how to spell it beyond 3 letters. And, it

2709:

with community consensus, and with having consensus for a redirect from project space to point to such a page. I voted keep in the MFD yet initated this discussion because I thought the redirect inappropriate. Having the redirect implies that this consensus exists - and this discussion should be

2665:

Several of the arguments here are of the form "this redirect should be deleted because the page shouldn't exist" which is faulty logic. By extension, arguments of the form "this redirect should be deleted because the page has issues" and "this redirect should be deleted because the page is against

2517:

has to operate by the rules of Knowledge (XXG), that is by consensus. Consensus (also amongst self-identified women) is that a wikipedia-wide women-only page isn't desirable for several reasons. Let Lightbreather run her user page just as she wants to, but let's not pretend that all of Knowledge

972:

With that said, I take no issue with the page that Lightbreather set up within her userspace. I agree that women should be treated with far more respect than they are currently, and that (until they are) they should have a space for themselves to feel safe and not threatened by witch hunting-esque

4061:

My first thought was dabify, since it sounds like we have two articles on subjects that might be referred to by this name. But since it wasn't actually the name of either of them, I think search results might be the best way to go here. And if I understand the nominator's comment, there's a party

3246:

into a soft redirect. (Don't have a cow about that, anyone. If the outcome here is "delete", then that should be deleted also, obviously.) A soft redirect gives a user a pause, indicating (usually) that they are going off-site. As a technical matter, also, could a customised "full disclosure"

2979:

is like if I were to create something in my userspace, and demand a redirect to it from the wikispace. It's stupid and doesn't make any sense to do so. The only times that that has ever seemed to happen is when an essay or the like was demoted to a user essay and moved to userspace. This is not a

914:

just because you don't like the fact that this redirect goes against them. Many dispute that this redirect betters the encyclopaedia. Furthermore, those who have a particular agenda should seriously consider abstaining unless they can point to any realistic reasons that this should unquestionably

3867:

The result of the discussion was Tricky. The draft article is a good candidate to move over the redirect, but the redirect is already linked to a substantial number of articles, so the argument in favour of the existing redirect is well made. The proper solution would seem to be to ask a passing

3505:

I always get the error, that the page hasn't been approved by AFC. But it goes away and I get to the page. Probably will confuse some people though. It's really a silly redirect. No one is going to know how to spell it, and you have to be on Lightbreather's subpage before you even know about the

1502:

I asked Lightbreather to comment. I know they were moved. No one said they were deleted. When I move a comment from one page to another I leave a note at the receiving page, (in this case it would be Lightbreathe's talk page), to inform readers of the move. I just wonder why Lightbreather didn't

1106:

but virtually all of these are for pages that were once in WP space and later userfied. In those cases a cross-namespace redirect is warranted so as not to break pre-existing links. This is not the case here. It's a user space experiment not open to general editing and participation, and in fact

2914:

Redirecting from Wiki space to user space IS an implied endorsement, saying it is on par with a page in Wikispace. This is why we generally don't allow it except in implied circumstances. My comment about categories was a reply to above, which was (mistakenly) implying that because a category

2817:

The reasons at WP:RFD#Delete are specific to redirects to articles. That does not mean that no other redirect can/should be deleted. The target page is only for women; we should not be linking from WP space (which is open to anyone) to a page where more than 90% of the editors are barred from

2556:

Now I speak to no individual person when I say this, but rather to something I've seen in discussions on Knowledge (XXG) as a whole as of late: I truly hate how, in these types of situations, extreme conservatives crying "Keep things the way that they were just because it's the status quo!" and

2424:

I am a concerned with elevating the status of this redirect because I am concerned of promoting, or institutionalizing within Knowledge (XXG), the protection of silo'd off spaces with exclusionary non-meritocratic group memberships. Exclusive talk spaces on Knowledge (XXG) by their very nature

2087:

as an inappropriate cross-namespace redirect which makes it look like an project/guideline/help page. If one day there is consensus to promote the user page to a guideline then and only then might this be appropriate, but right now it does not belong, especially as its non-English name makes it

2263:

Yes, it's permissible. The community determined at the previous discussion (at MfD) that the page is suitable, having considered all of the guidelines you mentioned above. What we're talking about here is a redirect to that community-sanctioned page, which is also fine. The text you've quoted

832:

makes no sense. We have a massive, undisputed gender gap, and that's bad for the project, both for content generation and for women users. Going after a redirect seems litigious and lacking in collegial sensitivity. No harm will be done by simply ignoring a technical breach of guidelines, but

2885:

I don't understand the "implied endorsement" argument, as though there are some pages that the community (we) decide shouldn't be here, but we keep them anyway. Of course we don't - they go through MfD and get tossed, regardless of what namespace they live in. That the page was kept is the

2215:, you'll see: "Avoid additional incoming and outward links that would make it appear as if this "/Temp" page is part of the encyclopedia", and "don't create navigational templates that make it appear as if this temp page is part of a series of encyclopedia articles", etc. It suggests using 4537:

while taking full cognizance of the diversity of approaches and the resulting incompatible definitions. Not an easy task to achieve in a neutral way without original synthesis because sources tend to each adopt one view with little acknowledgement of the diversity of views in the field. ~

1483:

Well, LB asked users to either sign the pledge before commenting on that page, or to comment on LB's talk page instead. Those users had not signed. LadyofShalott had signed at the time she left her comments but later removed her signature. That's all I'm able to offer; LB might have more.

4405: 1525:

I equate removal with deletion, in the sense that many editors refer to their comments being "deleted" from a talk page, and listed the diffs for the benefit of editors here who might share my interpretation. But I understand your point. There may be some insight in SlimVirgin's edit

3133:

Well, your preference settings can be set to show mouseovers or not to show them, at least. I found them irritating and turned them off for a while, now choose to show them again. Actually I don't know if there are other ways to change mouseover display, besides ON/OFF choice.

1754:

yes it matters. She was asked a direct question, important in determining what this page is for. One female editor's concerns were given a section title for discussion, while others were just moved off the page with no opportunity to get feedback. Why was no discussion allowed?

1847:

And what does any of this have to do with the redirect that we're discussing? We already had a discussion on the merits of the page; consensus was that it's fine. If you'd like to reopen that discussion, you need to talk to the admin who closed the MfD, not gripe about it here.

2595:". Other users here have read this and that into the closing statement but the fact is that the community has approved the existence of Lightbreather's user space project - it is thus Knowledge (XXG) sanctioned. It's as simple as that. This discussion will not change that; it 894:

You don't need to be an authority on online surveys to know that they rarely reflect reality. The fact the the participants were self selected is enough to show it is dubious at best. I think men are more likely to admit their gender only due to less fear of discrimination.

3420:

I have added your new redirect to the Rfd header above and will tag the redirect appropriately, as a matter of procedure since we're talking about it here. I support what you're doing and it would be fine by me if both of these were given the same soft redirect treatment.

3013:'s assumption that a mouseover will reveal it's a userpage is also wrong. The definition from a blog, above by Lightbreather, doesn't match a dictionary definition: from "Origin of KAFFEEKLATSCH -German, from Kaffee coffee + Klatsch gossip" and doesn't say it's women only. 4008:

Ah, I see that it is a brand-new, very small party. Actually, that's not quite true: it's a group of people calling themselves this who as I understand it don't have enough members to be officially registered as a party. We've already deleted its page as not notable. See

946:, gets users to the information they're looking for. It's not a page in project space, it's a redirect from project space to a page in user space. And if there is any chance that this makes the project even a tiny bit more friendly to female users, it is obviously 441:

A page in userspace where a user limits participation (akin to asking people to stay off one's own talkpage) is acceptable, just about. A redirect that suggests it is a Knowledge (XXG) project space page that is limited only to editors dictated by a single user is

1963:

per Karanacs and Chillum and others. The solution to the gender gap is neither further isolation nor is it intentional segregation. I understand that naysayers get in the way of focused conversation. There is absolutely no doubt that the gender ratio is skewed. .

538:

I already know what is being discussed. Nevertheless, the fact that you compared a userspace page's redirect to ArbCom's noticeboard makes it impossible to take your argument here seriously. That's like comparing your garage lemonade stand to the Vatican City.

3446:

show badly, rather than allowing it to demonstrate what would be shown if the soft redirect is kept. I and many others are not familiar with soft redirects; the example, as long as it is not screwed up by unnecessary tags, helps the RFD discussion. Please.

1063:

What worries me is the fact that you struggle to pull mainspace-based content guilelines in here to make your case for deleting this harmless non-mainspace non-content redirect, yet you still haven't put forward a reasonable policy-based reason for deletion.

4530: 4526: 3441:

Thanks for the first, but your tagging the redirect itself is messing up the example. I removed it, you and/or EChastain added it back. Could you please remove that? I think it interferes with this RFD, in the sense that you are making the mouseover of

1643:

suggests is good practice. You say: "I will start a separate discussion and after we get 10 or 12 members" regarding the wording of the pledge. But how do you expect anyone to sign if their concerns about the pledge are removed without being noted?

1188:#5. "Someone finds them useful. You might not find it useful, but this may be because you browse Knowledge (XXG) in different ways." Creator states above that this redirect was created "to make it maybe a smidge easier for women ... to find". Let's 2425:

encourage group editing behaviour and the coordination of edits among people of like perspectives. Isn't such a group, by its very nature of being driven by a group interest in its editing behaviour, an institutionalized form of meat puppeting?

424:. I created this redirect to make it maybe a smidge easier for women - 10% to 15% of the community - to find this little space that I'm trying to develop to help address the gender gap. WMF legal okayed the space, and many comments supported it. 1701: 3696:

wikilawyering. The volume of text in deletion discussions about this project vastly exceeds that of the project itself. If you don't like the idea, the shortest path to your desired outcome is to leave it alone and wait for it to fade away.

2670:. But we already agreed to keep the page, so none of those arguments apply. I'm intending to note for whichever unfortunate soul gets assigned the regrettable task of closing this that there have been no valid deletion arguments presented. 2654:

gets deleted. Lightbreather has already been given the go-ahead to have that page. Anyone commenting that the page should be deleted should be being ignored, so I don't know why you bring up the small few that are trying to abuse this RfD.

2603:. Frankly it's disappointing to see so many editors banding together to undercut this editor's meagre effort to improve the editing environment for other women, an activity which threatens nobody, but it is off-topic for this discussion. 968:

My response to Peter above applies to you as well. One is not allowed to ignore the rules if it is not for the purpose of bettering the overall articles in the progress. Using Knowledge (XXG) to further a personal agenda is not allowed

721:

kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Knowledge (XXG) namespace, WP: being an alias for Knowledge (XXG).)

1299:

If an MfD showing consensus for something being in user space but not project space can be described as having community support, then both of the essays those "Knowledge (XXG):" redirects pointed to actually could be said to have

4440:. Oddly, I would have thought this was an extremely common term, but PamD is right: I presume it's a mistaken conflation of the two, but that section explains the difference. Neither is "Key Success Indicator" at the DAB page at 2688:

are not a neutral party. So who are you to say "there have been no valid deletion arguments"? Let the one that closes this decide for themselves whether there have been valid keep reasons and/or valid deletion reasons. Not you.

1107:

explicitly excludes the majority of editors. A redirect like this allows it to masquerade as something it's not, particularly if used to link to the page in lists and discussions instead of the actual name, e.g. "See also

4578:

for those kinds of things, because they are barely a step away (sometimes not even) from being entirely made up. There are proper, textbook terms for business topics. This meaningless neologism is a real-life version of

1221:

were all deleted under the same principle - that "Knowledge (XXG):" redirects to pages in user space gave the mistaken impression that something had community support when it did not actually have community support.

2584: 1112: 521: 727:. The fact that the page was recently kept after MfD discussion - or even that WMF legal determined that the page does not violate the Discrimination policy - is not a justification for making an exception to the 2776:

Things are kept in userspace when they haven't been approved of by the community for inclusion in wikispace. That's why user essays don't get redirects from the wikispace (unless, perhaps, they used to be in the

813:

is fine if you are trying to improve the encyclopaedia, but trying to "fix" a community is not improving the encyclopaedia; it is attempting to modify the userbase, which does not fall under "the encyclopaedia".

629:

Either this can be a userspace project and you can exert some level of control over it or it can be a Knowledge (XXG) space and you can give up all control over it. You can't have it both ways. Also there may be

1769:

All this consternation is the result of a poorly designed system that required allegiance before discussion would be allowed. No sign, no voice...at least not where the editor wanted their voice to be heard..

3618:. A safe space for a specific demographic is a reasonable thing to have. The soft redirect and the descriptions are enough guard against somebody winding up there without realizing what they're going into. -- 4233:. I can't see the deleted version so I don't know how much work you've done with it, but it looks to me like the party is still too new to be wikified; front-page coverage is an indicator but still lacks in 565:

Unless RFD is different from AFD in this regard, the nominator's nomination counts as your !vote, so you should strike this other bolded "delete". You can still participate in the discussion, of course. --—

3247:

message be provided at the pause point? Just an idea. If required here, then soft redirects maybe should be required for some other redirects to user-space, e.g. warning that an essay is not accepted. --

1003:, which is a style guide and has nothing to do with user-to-user discussions) but nothing we are talking about here is in article space, and there is no threat here to article content. Indeed the purpose 1346:, making it seem like a mainspace article. Yet if Lightbreather is right, 90% of people editing here will be directed to a page that excludes them. (And readers will be confused, expecting and article.) 833:

shooting this one down will obviously act as a discouragement. Those who disagree should seriously consider abstaining unless they can point to any realistic consequences from allowing this to stay.

1305: 485:

WP:Redirects are not going to be random users' search terms, they're only there for experienced editors who already know what they're looking for. Also, WP space is not open to anyone. For example,

2714:

some redirects that go from project space to user space. Many of these are legacy - the page was moved ("userified") and no one wanted to break the existing links. That is not the case here.

4222: 4010: 3342:

I don't get an error. Different question though: is it permissible to pipe a soft redirect link? Would it be better to briefly describe the target (re: membership/women only) rather than pipe?

3277:

but the page was accepted as is, in the MFD. This discussion is about the redirect(s). I would be fine with the redirects being soft, with that short message or very similar short message. --

520:

I proved Karanacs statement (that WP space was open to anyone) incorrect. That's the whole point of the nomination for deletion here, after all, since the userspace page was upheld already, in

1990:

I think you put it better than me. Isolation and segregation. Neither of these things is good for an equality movement and they run contrary to the spirit of a project that anyone can edit.

2474:

should have been entirely uncontroversial, but this redirect means it's "connected with the Knowledge (XXG) project itself", and while that may be the case in the future, it's not now. --—

1309: 1218: 1214: 39: 34: 4675: 1210: 745:

Er - the very text you are quoting is telling you you're wrong. It's not a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, since the WP: redirects are in the Knowledge (XXG) namespace. --

3009:", where you "assume there is full disclosure that it is currently a private area in one user's space, and not a main part of Knowledge (XXG)." No, there's no "full disclosure" and 2407:

I agree with Nikkimaria, redirects such as these don't go to user-pages unless it is a project. For those who are arguing about the proposal its not and should not be about that. -

1825:

Neither EC nor I said anything about deleting. You and Ivan mentioned deleting. BTW, an having on open membership is not hard. It's having a restricting membership that is hard. .

850:

Undisputed? I don't think we have any idea what the gender ratio is here. The vast majority of people do not self identify and the numbers being tossed around are dubious at best.

1737:

Does it matter? I lurk RfD, and you're asking questions that seem to have obvious answers. Lightbreather might have more to say, but that doesn't preclude my responding as well.

1572:

If an editor continues to post on the klatsch page without having signed the pledge page I simply move their post to my talk page under the "Kaffeeklatsch discussions" header.

3272:

Yes it can. And that seems to work, with the "message" I chose to display being "Kaffeeklatsch: a user-space discussion area with membership requirements". If you click on

161:- I think this is probably not notable, but I'm on the fence. As a redirect, it's a weak keep as a longstanding redirect, and not quite a delete as misleading. I say restore 4275:

whether in fact the "Country Party" at the national level was always the same entity as the various state "Country Party"s nor strictly the same as that which is now the

1910:

Lightbreather has said above that she is no longer watching this page. If you would like to continue badgering her about refactoring comments on pages in her user space,

2587:, if users commenting here would like to read it. This redirect's existence or deletion does not alter, influence, or qualify that consensus. The consensus, per closer 3902: 2616:. There is no policy or guideline which forbids redirects from the Knowledge (XXG): space to User: space (only redirects out of article (main) space are forbidden by 1586:

Oh, I see what EChastain has done: given diffs for my removing comments from the klatsch page, but not the diffs that show me immediately moving them to my talk page!

2890:

endorsement. The redirect has nothing to do with it, it's merely a navigational aid. The category is one of several hidden categories automatically populated by the

1700:

Purely on the German history of the word: "These informal gatherings ... were a boost to women workers, whom patriarchal German males banned from coffee houses...."

1686:

No, readers will not be confused, because Knowledge (XXG) project space is not main article space. The vast majority of Knowledge (XXG) readers will never see this.

3535:

or whatever is the full name. Hmm, while upcase vs. downcase spelling variations can be handled by the redirect(s), do full calls with those variations work? Try

3473: 1348:

Lightbreather retains total control of the content and removes comments from some females, defeating the purpose of a place for open discussion among women. e.g. (

3324:, problem. When I click on the soft redirect I get an error message, something about the page not having been approved by AFC, though I still get to the subpage. 2599:, it doesn't have jurisdiction. If you want to revisit whether or not the page should exist, your first step is to contact the closing admin, and then proceed to 120: 2833: 486: 382: 348: 3961:

Another user placed an a speedy deletion tag with the reasoning above. I procedurally declined speedy deletion and will take it to RfD instead. I am currently

2008:: It's quite simple, all politics aside, it's not possible to have the official Knowledge (XXG) designation leading to an unofficial non-Knowledge (XXG) page. 233:. I think it is unfair to characterise those above as "complaining". Adding unreferenced content is not "done", it is just a start, and may be a false start. 4381: 1465:, what do you mean by "errant comments"? They were attempts by females to discuss Lightbreather's proposal. Why were some allowed to remain like those of 1240:

Those were redirects to user essays, essays which did not have community support. This page is not an essay and does have community support, per the MfD.

2462:- Speaking as someone who strongly supported keeping the userpage otherwise, this does not look to be in line with how I understand the Knowledge (XXG) 4088:. Please write an article about us. The National Party which was formerly the Country Party is one of Australia's major political parties, akin to the 654:. I say that anything in the Knowledge (XXG) namespace needs to be open to consensus and an all female club does not fit that description so I endorse 4353:. The arguments to delete appear to be stronger, and I think there's a very real chance that readers would be better served by search results here. -- 4221:

On the face of it I don't object - creating an article is a fine solution to Rfds. But procedurally, this party's article was deleted by consensus at

1078:"Perhaps"? You're saying we should delete this innocuous redirect because it breaks rules, but you cite no relevant rules. So what are we overlooking? 21: 2752:

has been posted at least three times above in this very discussion. The category lists one hundred and twenty-one such redirects. Are you confusing

1007:

bettering articles, by making the project as a whole more hospitable to a diversity of editors, and countering our well-known and deeply-entrenched

585:. I'd recommend that LB seek getting the KAFFEEKLATSCH made into a WikiProject. It's highly likely that it would bring about editor recruitment of 1553: 1377: 1448:. An editor moving errant comments to the place where a discussion is already occurring on a subject is not a valid reason to delete a redirect. 3468:

The answer is that it displays nothing, not because of the Afd template but because the soft redirect template makes it so that the page is not

4854:

Does not appear to be a plausible redirect to the destination article. The name Kraft does not appear at any point in the destination article.

1258:. Many of the keep comments specifically noted that the editor would not find it acceptable in project space. This redirect circumvents that. 861:

I'm going by the surveys about this that have actually been made and published. It's more reliable than random speculation by individual users.

2127: 883:

You are not an authority on online surveys, so merely repeating your views on online surveys isn't going to make me change my initial stance.

17: 3026:, it contains essays that aren't there because a user independently decided to link a subpage to wikipedia. Does Lightbreather want to add 3023: 2749: 2492: 2468:"contains many types of pages connected with the Knowledge (XXG) project itself: information, policy, essays, processes, discussion, etc.." 2291: 2192: 2112: 2095: 2031: 1280: 1103: 4714:, but would be looked up by those two names, not "Headquarters Area". There's really nothing named "Headquarters Area, Colorado Springs". 4267:

which should really link through a redirect instead of a piped link in case the articles are ever separated in future. It is unclear from

2620:

and this redirect is in Knowledge (XXG): space), and this particular redirect does not meet any of the criteria for deletion specified at

506:

I'm not even going to bother commenting further on this particular "point", because I think its ridiculousness is plenty obvious already.

2632:

have cobbled together disparate policies and guidelines to form a coherent deletion argument, but such logic simply doesn't apply here.

2519: 2035: 1705: 1193: 631: 3929:

redirect misleads people who will now be searching for the Country Party of Australia as it is reported in current media in Australia.

1045:

Perhaps they aren't truly applicative, but the fact that you are willing to overlook things that don't benefit you worries me, though.

4831: 809:

inappropriate to act as digilantes and break the rules just because you feel that they are preventing you from righting great wrongs.

2864:

action, as anyone can create one. I can list other policies that this edges on, but it should be obvious enough if examined closely.

2131: 1132:- since the target page has been kept at MfD, this is an entirely reasonable redirect. I see no policy-based reason to delete it; in 4177:

I think the solution is to make an article on this party. I did a very cursory search, but it seems to have enough sources to pass

3990:. If the user who nominated this for speedy deletion is referring to an even newer political entity by this name, I can't find it. 4093: 4089: 376: 342: 3772:. Since this is not in article space, all the usual policies and guidelines can be argued out on technicalities. Patently it is 4534: 2503: 3550: 3458: 3393: 3371: 3288: 3258: 3145: 3086: 2957: 1171: 453: 214: 4699: 4664: 4472: 4033: 3986:

which went by a close-enough variation of this name pre-1975; a hatnote should direct to the short-lived and now defunct

3356:

I don't get an error. Maybe I don't understand the question about piping, but if you just mean, can a pipelink such as

2799:

You're right. You are absolutely right, my friend. The valid reasons for deleting a redirect are conveniently listed at

4956: 4931: 4904: 4883: 4863: 4810: 4788: 4747: 4725: 4656: 4634: 4591: 4564: 4547: 4517: 4490: 4463: 4427: 4362: 4340: 4299: 4246: 4212: 4190: 4164: 4138: 4113: 4075: 4051: 4022: 3999: 3974: 3952: 3881: 3858: 3815: 3805: 3756: 3735: 3706: 3681: 3664: 3647: 3627: 3600: 3580: 3555: 3515: 3489: 3463: 3430: 3398: 3376: 3351: 3333: 3312: 3293: 3263: 3224: 3199: 3150: 3119: 3091: 3049: 3020:, the MDF was for allowing a the subpage to remain in userspace and doesn't imply any endorsement for a mainspace link. 2989: 2962: 2928: 2909: 2876: 2845: 2827: 2812: 2794: 2769: 2738: 2723: 2698: 2679: 2641: 2573: 2541: 2527: 2505: 2483: 2454: 2437: 2416: 2399: 2374: 2352: 2333: 2304: 2278: 2253: 2236:" them, by custom you may manage them as you wish, so long as you do so reasonably and within these guidelines." Under 2172: 2151: 2116: 2099: 2077: 2063: 2043: 2021: 1996: 1981: 1945: 1923: 1898: 1875: 1857: 1842: 1820: 1787: 1764: 1746: 1732: 1713: 1695: 1653: 1623: 1608: 1581: 1539: 1520: 1493: 1478: 1457: 1419: 1389: 1321: 1292: 1267: 1249: 1231: 1201: 1176: 1152: 1124: 1084: 1073: 1058: 1040: 1020: 986: 963: 924: 901: 889: 878: 867: 856: 837: 823: 783: 769: 754: 740: 704: 685: 664: 640: 616: 598: 575: 548: 533: 515: 498: 476: 458: 433: 415: 406:

the community has approved this term or this concept, and that hasn't happened. I think we need more community input.

329: 307: 266: 242: 219: 191: 174: 152: 99: 77: 4276: 4268: 4264: 4196: 3983: 3896: 3752: 3536: 3532: 1664:

EChastain, that is one definition of Kaffeeklatsch. Another long-standing one is "A mid-afternoon gathering of women."

607:

I am pursuing that idea, and have been since January 6, thought it may take months to happen... if it happens at all.

3776:

the intention of WP to promote a particular cause, which is implied by "branding" a user page with a WP: namespace. (

3174:(sorry to ping you back here) would you consider adding such a notice to the discussion to the Klatsch page? Perhaps 4533:

explicitly contrasts them as different. A good target article would need to give an overview of metrics employed in

2980:

case like that. Nevertheless, if this because a WikiProject, please feel free to link this as such. Until then, no.

2030:

All politics aside, it's possible to have approximately 120 redirects from Knowledge (XXG) space to user space. See

872:

The thing about surveys is that you are more likely to measure which gender is more likely to self identify online.

4288: 4256: 3702: 3528: 3443: 3357: 3273: 3243: 3064: 3060: 3006: 2943: 371: 4272: 3239: 3068: 2757: 2491:. Cross-namespace redirects that go from project space to user space are well within policy. Otherwise the entire 2241: 1343: 1108: 337: 4978: 4711: 4280: 4200: 4126: 3075:

I could support that. I voted "Keep" above. Also, labelling it an essay is not useful; it is not an essay. --

1008: 4260: 4101: 2412: 2219: 3769: 3655:-- no harm being done. I don't endorse the opinion that a redirect from WP: space implies community approval. 2745:

In any case, can you show me any examples of any other page in userspace that has a wikispace redirect to it?

2625: 2294:– for project-space shortcuts to point to user pages to make them easier to type and find. Anyone clicking on 2226: 1033: 951: 829: 3472:

a redirect, so the script doesn't know to pull information from the target. For an example, mouse over this:

1102:. This redirect is misleading, and there's no evidence that it serves as a useful navigation aid. There is a 503:

Did... did you seriously compare a page in userspace to ArbCom's noticeboard? Did you seriously just do that?

4437: 3796:

would seem the more natural way to say it), so I am not sure how one is supposed to work out what it means.

3642: 3220: 2836:

is a page in WP space, but not open to anyone. In fact, over 99.9% of editors are barred from editing it. --

2523: 2264:

regarding /Temp subpages refers specifically to point 8 on that page, which deals with creating a temporary

2039: 1871: 1816: 1709: 1672: 1619: 1604: 1577: 1563: 1197: 1146: 774:

Please also note that although the soft redirect was added after I !voted, my Delete !vote applies to both.

612: 429: 4370: 2426: 2237: 489:

is a page in WP space, but not open to anyone. In fact, over 99.9% of editors are barred from editing it.--

4873: 4719: 4284: 3748: 2923: 2871: 1120: 4085: 2780:

Why the devil should this be any different? Because (to quote the page that you love quoting oh so much)

2753: 2495:

would be deleted. This redirect is a useful navigation aid for editors trying to find the Kaffeeklatsch.

2463: 2139: 4784: 4630: 4505: 4451: 4375: 4336: 3854: 3698: 1317: 1227: 303: 73: 4735: 4687: 4501: 4097: 2321: 2212: 2188: 1911: 1721:

why are you doing all the answering for Lightbreather? She's busy editing and could answer for herself.

1630:

Lightbreather, please AGF and answer directly without I've done something underhanded. So to be clear,

658:

of any Knowledge (XXG) redirect to a place that does not allow all parties to contribute to consensus.

53:

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 12, 2015.

3571:? Could there be a helper script you're using which is generating the error? I still haven't seen it. 4975: 4927: 4587: 4513: 4242: 4160: 4109: 4018: 3995: 3660: 3576: 3485: 3426: 3347: 3195: 3037: 2905: 2808: 2765: 2675: 2637: 2395: 2370: 2274: 2206: 2165: 1919: 1853: 1742: 1691: 1535: 1489: 1453: 1288: 1245: 1069: 1016: 959: 170: 148: 4226: 4063: 3793: 2781: 2561: 2560:

Remember, in the end, it doesn't matter if this gets more opposes than keeps or keeps than opposes.

2135: 1029: 1000: 974: 4900: 4743: 4560: 4543: 4459: 4134: 3801: 3789: 3785: 3731: 3596: 3511: 3329: 3308: 3115: 3045: 2476: 2408: 2329: 2249: 2107: 2090: 2061: 1760: 1728: 1649: 1474: 1385: 975:

please don't use superlatives and intensifiers so as to make your argument appear better than it is

568: 238: 4104:. The party which the nominator refers to is more akin to the aforementioned America's Hat Party. 2362: 678: 4962: 4944: 4914: 4703: 4669: 3812: 3636: 3216: 3185: 3169: 3161: 3101: 2985: 2823: 2790: 2734: 2719: 2694: 2660: 2569: 2537: 2501: 2433: 2073: 1928:

I saw what she said. My comment was not for her. It was for you and anyone else that reads it. .

1867: 1812: 1668: 1665: 1635: 1615: 1600: 1573: 1466: 1399: 1376:. And despite spamming editors and WikiProjects, since 27 January only three editors have signed 1263: 1138: 1081: 1054: 1037: 1028:, you're not actually citing any relevant rules, though. Not even guidelines. You've referred to 982: 920: 886: 864: 834: 819: 779: 765: 736: 682: 608: 544: 511: 472: 425: 411: 114: 3693: 797:

The redirect is unnecessary. Userspace pages do not get to get mainspace redirects. Furthermore

3726:, not for discussing the project itself. I just repeat that since it seems to need repeating. 2390:

until such time as the target page is in projectspace. See also Voceditenore's comments above.

4952: 4716: 4454:, which perhaps is why this does too: so a bit more DABbing or hatnoting might be preferable? 3987: 3545: 3453: 3388: 3366: 3283: 3253: 3242:

is an option, technically, which might be a compromise here. To demonstrate, I am now making

3177: 3140: 3110:

I didn't realize mouseover depends on settings. Is there a way to change settings in popups?

3081: 2952: 2917: 2865: 2450: 1991: 1973: 1937: 1890: 1834: 1779: 1512: 1425: 1411: 1349: 1279:. Redirects are allowed as shortcuts from project space to user space. For some examples, see 1166: 1116: 896: 873: 851: 659: 635: 594: 451: 209: 187: 4783:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

4629:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

4335:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

3853:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

3765: 302:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

72:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

4859: 4707: 3970: 3948: 3940: 3914: 3675: 3623: 2841: 2147: 1313: 1223: 750: 529: 494: 4706:, but it was never known at "Headquarters Area". It was for a time the headquarters of the 4255:

There are an enormous number of inbound links from historic politicians and electorates to

4230: 4178: 3568: 2800: 2666:

the spirit of Knowledge (XXG)" are also faulty. If the page was deleted then this would be

2621: 2617: 2600: 2233: 1189: 947: 943: 810: 802: 394: 360: 4923: 4583: 4579: 4509: 4296: 4238: 4156: 4120: 4105: 4014: 3991: 3656: 3587: 3572: 3481: 3422: 3343: 3191: 3017: 3014: 3010: 2901: 2804: 2761: 2671: 2633: 2391: 2366: 2347: 2313: 2299: 2270: 2184: 2160: 2016: 1915: 1849: 1751: 1738: 1718: 1687: 1596: 1531: 1485: 1462: 1449: 1443: 1370: 1284: 1241: 1065: 1012: 955: 700: 325: 260:. I think taking a shortcut to delete this article using RfD will set a bad precedence. -- 166: 144: 132: 4152: 2667: 182:

as not mentioned at target. The old article has no references so it's not worth merging.

4896: 4739: 4556: 4539: 4455: 4418: 4393: 4130: 3797: 3727: 3592: 3562: 3507: 3325: 3304: 3111: 3041: 3030: 2343: 2325: 2245: 2232:

Further down: "All of these pages are your user pages or user space. While you do not "

2199: 2056: 1866:(You two used "remove" not "delete.") Also, I'm taking this page off my watchlist now. 1756: 1724: 1645: 1470: 1431: 1381: 1356: 234: 4917:

or several non-notable bands with Facebook pages called the <insert man's name: -->

3722:

here: a point many seem to have missed despite others repeatedly stating that this is

1185: 728: 724: 715: 143:

There is no information about the fire department on the page that this redirects to.

4825: 4806: 4652: 4486: 4358: 4208: 4186: 4071: 4047: 3876: 3870: 3781: 2981: 2894: 2819: 2786: 2730: 2715: 2690: 2565: 2533: 2496: 2429: 2069: 1259: 1050: 1025: 978: 916: 815: 775: 761: 732: 540: 507: 468: 407: 261: 95: 2068:

I nominated it...and I'm female. I think it is an inappropriate use of a redirect.

999:

Your arguments refer repeatedly to content in article space (including your link to

973:

attitudes by many males. Nevertheless, such a thing should stay in userspace. Also,

203:. Cut short complaining about it not being there, just put it there and be done. -- 4966: 4948: 4940: 3540: 3502: 3448: 3415: 3383: 3361: 3321: 3300: 3278: 3248: 3135: 3107: 3076: 3002: 2947: 2446: 1965: 1929: 1905: 1882: 1826: 1771: 1640: 1546: 1504: 1403: 1336: 1161: 590: 448: 204: 183: 4843: 3718:. The wikilawyering is mostly about the project, not the redirect, and as such is 1667:

They were quite common among women in the American Midwest when I was growing up.

4084:

No, there is a party by this name in the sense that I and my cat have formed the

4855: 4181:. And if not, it can just be deleted. I may do this soon if no one else does. -- 4148: 3966: 3944: 3936: 3777: 3719: 3619: 3480:

be there to let users who come across it know that we're talking about it here.

2837: 2317: 2180: 2143: 1639:

removing the feedback of others without commenting or leaving any indication as

1634:, not counting you. (If they remove their name, then you count them as signed?} 1402:

Can you comment on the alleged removal of editors input to the Kaffeeklatsch? .

746: 525: 490: 1804:

EC and B7: No comments were deleted! They were there for feedback, and they're

4508:. Success is measured or achieved at a point in time; performance is ongoing. 2588: 2010: 1437: 1363: 696: 321: 4475:

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

4036:

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

1549:, there is a Welcome message at the top of the Kaffeeklatsch page that says: 4910: 4892: 4409: 1809: 1562:

If you have not signed the pledge, please join or start a discussion on the

950:. No policy-based reason for deletion has been suggested; some users simply 4013:

if you like. This redirect is unlikely to cause confusion with that group.

760:

project space, this redirect should be deleted. So my delete !vote stands.

723:) since it is not one of the listed exceptions nor does it meet any of the 652:

The problem is that Knowledge (XXG) is allowing gender based discrimination

4973:

per Siuenti, otherwise a dab page would be a better target. All the best:

4777:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

4623:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

4329:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

3847:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

1312:). That this is slightly different is why I commented rather than !voted. 296:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

66:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

4802: 4648: 4482: 4354: 4204: 4182: 4067: 4043: 91: 1036:

and both are about article content. So which rule is being broken here?

522:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch

4096:

depending on where you live. The New Country Party is more akin to the

201:

I just added a sentence based on the old article, to the target article

4998: