Knowledge (XXG) talk:Cross-namespace redirects

1047:

also do so. Thus, the existance of CNR's removes choice, for the minor convience of a subset of editors, which is not a valid trade off in my view. It is important to remember that we are creating an enclyopedia that is freely available, so entwining it with one particular host (wikipedia) goes against that principle in my opinion. I want the enclyopedia I contribute to to work just as well, no matter who it's hosted by, now, or in the future. Personally I think any non-WP: style enclyopedia redirects should either be re-targeted to remain in the enclyopedia, or, if no valid target exists, deleted. (retargeting any incoming links, as appropiate). I'd also support it becoming a speedy criteria, for the simple reason that currently if an editor, well meaning or otherwise, creates dozens of redirects out of enclyopedia space, they each have to spend the week on rfd, which seems a little overkill. As an alternative, something that might be considered is whether CSD G4 can apply to redirects. Surely if say,

1042:- log in, and your search function changes?). I think many of my reasonings against CNR's are in the proposal, except for maybe the comment that "when searching encyclopedia Bitianica, you would not expect to find minutes of a Bitianica board meeting, so why should it be that way for wikipedia?". Also, to reply to the WP:BITE suggestion above, I think the opposite is the case. Deletion of CNR's isn't biting newcomers, the fact that the encyclopedia and wikipedia are not interchangable is an important concept, but blurring the line with CNR's is giving newcomers the wrong impression from the start, and that is doing them a dis-service by creating confusion in the long run. Also, I believe that if someone has not selected "wikipedia" in their search, we should not return wikipedia results. Yes, they may have not selected it as a newbie, or it may be an experienced user who has forgotten to tick the box, but both have the option of ticking the box and searching. However, for the reader who has 783:, and despite people making the outrageous claim that "it's not policy, it's just a guideline, therefore I am free to totally ignore it", it makes a compelling case for why the separation of encyclopedic content and unencyclopedic content is important. I have a simple question that no one has been able to answer yet, and I'd be glad if you could. The namespaces were originally created because Knowledge (XXG)-specific stuff was being created and it was getting confused with the encyclopedic content. Once the namespaces were created, the non-encyclopedic content, you know, the stuff that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, was moved to Knowledge (XXG):. Why oh why should we violate that separation of namespaces by having a redirect to every Knowledge (XXG):XX page from XX? It makes no sense and I've seen at least half a dozen examples now of XNRs camping on names that were later turned into valid articles once I went through and deleted the XNR. -- 2828:

treat that page as though it belongs to others who may disagree with you in ways that you haven't yet figured out yet. And there is no need for you to edit it directly into the page when you are just at the stage of dreaming it up. So I hope you don't feel like you have been angered upon, but I will insist that you try not to radically alter the essays and guidelines of others without making sure that you are supported in the suitable manner, not simply on your own instigation. However, I would encourage you to use the page I have put in your userspace and rewrite the essay as you believe it requires. Then, when you feel you have enough for a discussion, have the discussion. Any better? Thanks.

1074:.) Neither option is without disadvantages, however I'd favour having a different default for anon and logged-in users because I think the vast majority of newly registered users registered to edit the Knowledge (XXG) (and therefore interested in the encyclopedia-making process, so showing them the Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion as default would be justified), and the vast majority of anon users very rarely (just typo fixes, etc) or don't edit Knowledge (XXG) at all (so showing them unencyclopedic content as default would not be justified). Of course, we're talking about the default values here, so if anybody wanted to modify their search filter, they'd be able to do that. -- 2750:"Accidental linking aided by cross-namespace redirects may actually be undesirable," followed by a paragraph about it, but we got that at the accidental part, but you go on with a paragraph referring the reader to some other points you were making, further up the list of course. You say that new editors have a duty to understand CNR as a major point of contention in the argument. The point of that page is for referencing past debate on the argument, not 1396:(point at the same place, with the same content) Right now, anyone could create a dozen redirects to WP:NOT, "what wikipeida isn't", "wikpieida isn't this", etc, and each and every one of them would be required to go though a week long discussion on rfd. That to me, makes no sense. Even if existing CNR's have to be rfd'd (despite idential ones being previously rfd'd) surely new CNR's should class as a speedy for that reason alone? Regards, 99: 158: 130: 3377: 222: 144: 2968:. Click it and see where you end up. It's a cross namespace redirect. It sat in my userspace for years being read and edited by others, and it was a subject I knew nothing about (I just wanted to save it from deletion because it was obviously just an article lacking TLC and English language input, rather than totally non-notable, so it was put there). So how long, in 1705:, because it short-circuits the process for determining whether these redirects should exist or not. IMHO, cross-namespace redirects are, at best, extremely helpful and useful, and at worst, merely annoying to a few easily-annoyed editors. There is no harm to the project caused by these redirects. It is absurd to pretend that they cause any significant damage. -- 3353:, which seems like a contravention of avoiding redirects across namespaces. On one hand, I could conceive encyclopedic coverage of Knowledge (XXG) Library, but on other hand (and how I found it) I just wanted to refer/link to it easily, while discussing it within a Knowledge (XXG) talk page. I would argue this is one of the times breaking the rules is reasonable. 2517:(Also, it is important to note that, while discussions about the content of this page should take place here, there is an ongoing discussion as noted by the above link where discussion about this has already begun. Rather than discuss it in two different places, it would probably be better to keep the discussion in one place to avoid any confusion.) 3442: 1206:: "The process of being 'caught in a Wikibyss' as it is termed here is an actual phenomena, I believe fairly common to regular Knowledge (XXG) users. I just happened to coin the term for it. Because of the nature of Knowledge (XXG), I thought this was the best way of popularising it, and encouraging people to use it.") 958:

personally. We should make things as convenient as possible, and I've yet to read any argument that persuades me that having a redirect that, say, allows someone to type "3RR" into the search engine and be sent to the page on the Three Revert Rule, thereby saving time and keystrokes, in anyway harms Knowledge (XXG).

2973:

forward isn't polarisation? Because then you can't hear each other? It's collaboration? Wow RTG, you really do my thingy in? Well I should bleedin cocoa? It needs another full discussion for a guideline, but it's not really that important, and this page is sort of historical now instead? Okay, maybe you

2478:

why should we? This is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - we need a constant influx of new editors who will volunteer to help with the maintenance. We need to make those access ports visible and easy to find. We can't afford to paint them in camouflage colors and hide them behind the bookshelves.

1406:

RfD at the same time). On the other hand, as Rossami pointed out, currently there is no CSD criterion under which they could be deleted. So I think it's sensible to expand one of the criteria to include explicitly this kind of situation. By the way, there is a discussion about applying G4 to redirects

3286:

Removed sentence that was inaccurate. we do NOT delete redirects from mainspace to draft. on the contrary, the template {{draft}} is DESIGNED to specifically alert users that the mainspace version of that articles LEADS to the draft!!! this is a valid way to create a single visible draft for a valid

1069:

here: what's better, to have a clueless newbie enter "Articles for deletion" in the search bar and get no results whatsoever (even though they entered the correct phrase!), or to have different default search filters for logged-in and anon users? (Obviously changing the default search filter for both

1046:

unselected the box because they don't want wikipedia results, it is unfair to return them anyway. With CNR's, a reader can choose to search wikpedia by ticking the box, but they have no option not to do so. Without CNR's, readers wishing to search wikipedia can do so, and those who do not want to can

2583:

just pointed out to me that this essay has a very awkward format, making it difficult to update its content - which is fine - in line with the evolution of the MediaWiki software and any changes to consensus within the project. I agree; so I'm going to start working on overhauling it for clarity and

2477:

Redirects to WP pages are more like the deliberate creation of a red-bordered access panel which allows direct access to the valves and wiring when you need to make repairs. Yes, we could force our maintenance techs to go the long way around the building and crawl through the ventilation shafts but

1696:

The idea that cross-namespace redirects are so harmful that they should be banned is absurd. The entire Knowledge (XXG) project is based on the collective contributions of thousands of editors. Making it harder for new editors to find the resources they need to contribute productively is simply an

1621:

Grammatically, that sentence parses to "Redirects ... are irrelevant" which was not quite the intent. I think we are trying to say that "The arguments against redirects are irrelevant" in that specific case. How about "For redirects which are used exclusively on User, Talk and other project pages,

1497:

deleting redirects. RfD has recently been deleting these redirects but I believe that they are doing so only by being very selective in their reading of Knowledge (XXG) policy and tradition. I'm trying very hard not to be inflammatory in my language but I honestly believe that damage has been done

1444:

Actually there is more to do than just accept the proposal - as it would require changes to the setup of wikipedia - you would need not only community support but also support from amongst those tasked with maintaining the system (of course they generally are helpful to the community and only object

1405:

The point is that if this proposal is accepted and there is no need for CNRs anymore, they should be deleted. The deletion of these redirects would be non-controversial so I think it would be reasonable to delete them without listing them at RfD (there are lots of CNRs, imagine all of them listed at

1299:

deleting all of them - so comparing this to T1 is unjustified. And status quo is not fine: currently some users complain that deleting useful CNRs is against newbies and usability, others say that polluting the encyclopedic article namespace with non-encyclopedic cross-namespace redirects is against

1231:

The WP: and CAT: links definitely need to be a shortcut or alias namespace for Knowledge (XXG): and Category: ... just like Image is an alias for Bild on German Knowledge (XXG). That doesn't really need a policy, I wouldn't think. It obviously needs to be done - a glut of them sometimes show up in

1112:

Some of these redirects are very old and were in many cases created before the namespaces existed. Extreme caution must be taken so as to not delete any of those (unfortunately, many of them have probably already been lost...recovering them might make an interesting WikiProject). For an example, see

957:

which is a term I rarely hear used. The apparent assumption is users will magically know to type in "Knowledge (XXG):Wikiholiday". I actually saw someone post a comment (in another cross namespace debate) that Knowledge (XXG) shouldn't make things easy for its editors. I think that's utter bollocks,

3251:

Not quite. When I say above that something is "acceptable" or "not acceptable" (or similar) I mean this in the general case. Redirects named in that fashion are acceptable, but that doesn't mean that all examples of them will have consensus to be kept. The same goes for most of the comments here -

1586:

bringing over all the project-spaces, then the redirect won't be broken - again, making that argument largely moot. If a mirror is, for some inexplicable reason, bringing over Talk pages but not Knowledge (XXG)-space pages, the reader of the mirror will be faced with many thousands of broken links

1581:

My addition was intended as a rebuttal to the last bullet in the prior section which says that these redirects are bad because they are "broken" when copied to a mirror. My point is that if the mirror is not bringing over the User, Talk or Knowledge (XXG)-spaces, that argument is largely moot. No

1298:

for cross-namespace redirects: if newbies get to their targets directly without even touching a cross-namespace redirect (read the proposal, that's what it aims to accomplish), there would be no need to create them. In fact, since noone would ever use them anymore there would be 0 controversy about

1271:

In the long term I'd like to see cross-namespace redirects removed, but the effort required to update links and keep new links updated may be substantial. On the other hand, some redirects clearly might refer to legitimate subjects and need to go. I think RfD does a good job of distinguishing these

1250:

settings. And they will search for "articles for deletion" and similar WP-specific phrases and they won't get results unless they go to the preferences and change the search filter settings. And you can't expect that from a newbie, just as you can't expect them to prefix "Knowledge (XXG):" to their

832:

Look, Cyde, I think your arguments for deleting the CNRs are really compelling, but the fact is there are lots of editors who don't want them simply deleted (in short-term, without software changes), and there are a couple of valid and strong arguments (usability, WP:BITE) for keeping them. I think

3099:

newly created cross-namespace redirects..." (italicisation here only). The reason being that a cross-namespace redirect that is unambiguous with an encyclopaedic topic, reader-facing and helpful to very new contributors would undoubtedly be kept regardless of age, and a redirects that meets two of

2921:

LOL. Look Pally, you haven't even asked me to discuss the things you want to add and you are lawyering up the battleground. Please, you added 2,600 bytes to the essay. It hasn't been that size for seven years. You claim to be seeking neutrality by having a fight with me, while your other claim

2827:

Look, I shouldn't be posting here in an unapologetic tone. When I reviewed your edits I believed you were in good faith all the way. But when they kept going, and growing, and it was becoming more than a simple discussion, and you weren't even looking for a discussion... So I want to ask you to

2732:

One of the points argued in the essay is that no guideline is needed here at all, so I would not be so sure about that. I believe the purpose of the essay is to record the current state of affairs with regard to acceptability of cross-namespace redirects. My additions are not "random thoughts" any

2211:

I will contest this absent presentation of the RfDs alluded to and revert for now to previous language. In my view such RfDs should show clear consensus among a wide number of participants. The reasoning should not be circular either. If a weak precedent from earlier for example is the deciding

1735:

Not quite, the floor plan (search engine) also knows where they are, so a guest can ask for directions to the resturauant and end up in the kitchens. And they can't even say "I'm a guest, only tell me about guest things" (i.e. set the search filter up) because it's included in guest handbook, even

1055:

which contains the identical content/target is a valid G4, but the impression I've received is that this might be contravertisal to some, and each redirect needs to be rfd'd. Anyway, hope that expands somewhat, unfortunately I'm busier than normal so my contribution time has been limited recently.

872:

Actually I agree with you there, but I think this proposal is still preferable over the "delete all CNRs right now" solution, because it's more friendly to newbies (Okay, let's call it "newbie-friendliness" or "usability" instead of WP:BITE.) and at the same time it keeps the namespaces separated,

683:

This is putting the cart way ahead of the horse, but I can see two situations: either you reset everyone's Search Preferences to follow the new behavior, thus "breaking" years of habit, or you only implement the new Search Preferences for new users, in which case the impact of the helpful software

1387:

Maybe we don't need a new CSD, just an application of the existing ones. Right now, if an article "rubbish article" get's deleted, then if the same content is at "rubbish article II" then it get's G4'd. However, if the content is a redirect, somehow a new discussion seems to be needed (c/f rfd of

668:

These settings could be changed anytime at Special:Preferences."; "The default search filter for users searching Knowledge (XXG) anonymously would stay as article namespace-only". If someone sets up their search options to search just the encyclopedia, it won't return WP stuff at all. That's what

1719:

The arguments for CNRs talks about people accidentally falling into cracks in the floor of a building. It says the cracks are there on purpose so it's easier for the engineers to get around. Thing is, no one really accidentally falls through those cracks - only the engineers know where they're

1037:

I think creating a namespace for short cuts is a good idea, as often when searching for something, many of the first results are all pointers to the same article, it would be nice to have a google ways of "ignore duplicate pages" (or filtering on the target of the redirect). However, I think the

2749:

Look, let's consider the edits you are making. One of the edits was to the bulleted list of counter arguments. In your own words you say that CNR will never be accepted because some people agree with the other points above with some extended rant about syndromes you have identified. You say,

1488:

I think this page is a start at fairly laying out the advantages and disadvantages of cross-namespace redirects. I think, however, that the proposed solution is overly complex, error-prone and expensive. This is a solution in search of a problem. I remain unconvinced by the blanket arguments

642:

I don't know if proposing to change the defaults is a good idea; Knowledge (XXG) is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and the search should only return encyclopedic results by default. Maybe we can discuss modifying the default search options for logged-in users (pure readers probably aren't

2972:

opinion, after it was moved back into main space, do you delete the remaining CNR? But this CNR is not going to WP space... ZOMG... it's going to... Oh wait, it doesn't apply to that one the same then? This page is sort of named slightly wrong? And something else? Something more? The way

2651:

Hello, you have been writing extra bits into WP:CNR since about two weeks ago. But I think for any significant changes you should have a significant discussion. Also, I have found some inaccuracy and overstatement, and I'd like to ask you to let me revert and ask you not to work alone on the

1358:

qualify under speedy-deletion case G6 as "housekeeping". Please go re-read the speedy-deletion case and, in particular, read all the discussion and precedent that's in the archives about how that specific case is to be used. Even if you orphan every one of them, these will not qualify for

2266:

What the hell does that mean? As far as I'm aware, cross-name redirects do not cause readers any physical pain so how is that analogy relevant at all? If a word does not exist outside of Knowledge (XXG), what's the harm of redirecting it to its relevant Knowledge (XXG) namespace page?

1181:

Another argument against allowing redirects out of the main namespace is that they encourage original research. Editors think that because they hit an internal concept, peculiar to Knowledge (XXG) and not documented elsewhere, via a name in the main namespace, it is all right to add

584:

Just like with other redirects, if it's implausible that anyone would type it, then we won't create them, but from a couple of plausible titles (like the ones you mentioned) we could create redirects. It would be much better for newbies compared to the current situation - when typing

2402:

the talk page of an account controlled by the same user" but there's nothing explicitly forbidding redirecting the main user page to an article. It can be seen as a form of promotion but since it's promoting an existing Knowledge (XXG) article I don't see the harm. :) --

1986:

User boxes do not belong as results of searches for encyclopedia articles. You have answered your own question: one way cross-namespace redirects hurt is by mixing pages irrelevant to the encyclopedia, with the articles for which the vast majority of users are searching.

3094:

This guideline previously said that "newly created cross-namespace redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Knowledge (XXG) (project) namespace should be deleted,", but to reflect the actual arguments presented in recent RfDs I have changed this to read

2473:

In my opinion creating cross-namespace redirects from the main namespace to save a few editors a little bit of work is about as morally justifiable as throwing your banana peels on the sidewalk, while there's a trashcan a few feet away, "because it save a bit of

1235:

Personally, I think the most FUNDAMENTAL Knowledge (XXG) pages need either dab links or cross-namespace redirects. That doesn't mean we need redirects for everyone's pet wikiproject ... but the most essential processes and policies would definitely be helpful.

3179:

template→anything that is not a template: almost always a bad idea, regardless of the target namespace (but exceptions are possible). Templates in other namespaces that are the target of a redirect from the template namespace should probably be moved over the

760:

I don't think there's consensus to avoid CNRs. The 'keep' arguments are actually quite strong, and I don't think deleting all CNRs without these software changes would solve anything. Obviously I'm not a WP developer, but from my experience in programming in

1565:

template?). I don't think a claim that mirror readers will never see them is correct. However, I don't think it's any worse for a mirror reader to see them than a direct Knowledge (XXG) reader. I recommend that this argument be re-written along the lines of

2198:

redirects may be used freely", as the page currently says. I don't see this reflected in recent RfDs, to the contrary. If there are no objections, I will remove that sentence, and add a link to the pseudo namespace page in the "see also" section instead.

1537:

History is a potential issue with any deletion. There are means of dealing with it and if it wasn't done in this case, then that's more an issue of improperly following the procedures for capturing history before deletion than about the deletion itself.

2263:"CNRs are bad because they result in a person (reader) walking around a building (encyclopedia) and falling into the pipework (project space) because the builders (editors) thought cracks in the walls and floors would be useful for them to get around." 1966:

I support cross-namespaces; what the Hell can they hurt? Nothing. They can help, though. For example, unless you alter your search preferences, which you have to be a member to do; the msajority of users aren't; many non-cross-namespaced things such as

2624:

has been created and deleted many times. I haven't looked for deletion discussions that ended in its being kept, but given that it's been deleted so many times, I'd suggest removing it as an example of an appropriate CNR. Judging by the comments on

1697:

asinine thing to do. Cross-namespace redirects exist because they are useful. Something useful should not be removed from the project without a good reason. No reason has thus far been offered. Not only that, but some folks apparently think this

1844:

from June 2006 there are a lot more redlinks (though this does not discriminate between user, category, wikipedia, etc. spaces). Most have been deleted, and the only ones not deleted are probably because no one cares enough to go through them all.

2126:

It seems that the argument against CNRs due to search engine subversion is no longer valid. When searching for terms that are currently the targets of CNRs, I'm not seeing any results outside of the articles namespace. For example, a search for

3167:"T:" pseudo-namespace shortcuts: Generally acceptable to template or (less commonly) talk namespaces, sometimes controversial but unlikely to be deleted if being cross-namespace is the only argument presented. Not accepted to any other namespace. 1568:

Redirects which are used exclusively on non-article pages are irrelevant as readers of the article-space only will never fall into this "pipework" because these "cracks" (or more accurately, "access ports") are only being left in the maintenance

464:. There were consensus to delete them because when the editor notices they're redlinks, they would correct it to the proper target. I think making linking easier is not as important as making navigation easier (searching). Besides, links to 709:". Editors don't have the default (main namespace only) settings would not be affected by this change. (I think it wouldn't be a good idea to change the settings for those who have already altered them to according to their preferences.) -- 1639:

Instead of "Redirects ... are irrelevant", how about ""Redirects ... do not cause confusion"? I also do not like using the bullet numbers. Depending upon the qualification, it may be problematic to add as not everyone may agree with it.

3100:

those three might be kept (it would depend on the individual circumstances and the arguments made in the discussion). There will be very few of these, but very few is more than none so I feel "most" is the more accurate wording here.

1605:

Redirects which are used exclusively on User, Talk and other project pages are irrelevant as readers of the article-space only will never see them. This is especially true for mirrors which only duplicate the main article namespace

1445:

when there are technical reasons not to). This argument for speedy should wait until the proposal has approved - and implementation has been done - now it is moot - and deletion of CNR's now is just annoying those that use them --

2452:. Copying them here because they represent competing analogies for cross-namespace redirects and may be helpful in illustrating the differing opinions about the utility of such redirects. (Minor paraphrasing for clarity.) 356:

This proposal seems to consider CNRs only from the aspect of the search bar. However, wikilinks behave differently and show up red no matter whether a similar term exists in a different namespace. Some CNRs are type-in (like

3048:

user subpages) should not hard redirect to the article namespace. There is a lesser consensus that converting these to soft redirects is acceptable and better than outright deletion. Should this be mentioned in this essay?

1836:

Is there any list before December, preferably from early 2006? Most of them were deleted before December. While I would not think that every single one was deleted, a huge number have been deleted. There were 56 deleted in

1038:

default search for logged in users should remain just the encyclopedia, as just creating an account shouldn't modify a user's search functionality. (To me, having a different default for anon and logged in users is not the

3139:

I think a new section that gives a summary of precedent and things to consider for specific classes of CNR (based on origin and target namespaces) may be worthwhile. I think as a very brief summary the following are true:

1251:

searches. On the other hand, readers who don't want to edit WP at all (and therefore didn't bother to create an account and log in) would have article namespace-only default search settings according to this proposal. --

1624:

That wording seems overly specific and could be disrupted if the bullets in the section above are reorganized. A cleaner solution might be to reword the bullets in the top section to include the necessary qualifiers.

765:, I suppose that that these source code changes could be done relatively quickly. As for the related changes in the database - I don't know. But given a debate of this scale, I think there is no short-term solution. -- 700:

My original idea was to implement this change only for new users. But yes, it might be better to change the search filters for all users who have the default settings at the time of its implementation and notify them

743:

This essay seems to focus on software/config changes which could be made to help resolve this problem. While this is good in the longer term it would be nice in the short-to-medium term to address the current issue.

2937:. This is a community page. You can't throw it around on the basis of simply being demanding. Now, I've told you several times what to do. If you continue to abide the feeling of insult I will take offense. 3208:

I'll add these (with slight expansion in some cases) unless anyone objects in the next week or so - if you do object please be specific about which one(s) you disagree with and why to aid productive discussion.

1787:

Ultimately, all or almost all cross-namespace redirects have been deleted (except the WP: pseudo-namespace), and there were several discussions about them on RfD and administrative noticeboards for doing so.

2879:

I actually used some of the counterarguments I added there. I would really like people defending these redirects to consider them, and I hate repeating myself, so I believe this essay is a good place for

1622:

the first and fourth arguments against CNRs are irrelevant as readers of the article-space only will never see them. This is especially true for mirrors which only duplicate the main article namespace."

1814:

to have an overview of what's been deleted in the last 3 months. I wouldn't say that all xnr's have been deleted, but many have. Things that seem to be mistakes or are unnecessarily long or silly (eg.

386:

for shortcuts because they are there - it saves typing a few characters. If they noticed they were red links then they would fix them... There's no excuse really not to use the WP: shortcuts for this. /

2876:

There is no Essay Approval Committee, for better or for worse. Defenders of cross-namespace redirects have the same right to edit the essay as I have. If they decline to do so, this is not my problem.

2694:

Knowledge (XXG) policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.". I believe editing an essay does not require conducting an RFC beforehand.

2652:

guidelines, not by adding many paragraphs of text. One reason for this is that guidelines are approved, and if you double the text without consulting the community, then it is only half approved..

1456:

You're right of course. I listed the deletion of the CNRs as the last step because I think that it should be done only after all previous steps are completed. I clarified this on the project page. --

1838: 611:, which immediately leads you there. The cross-namespace redirect is unnecessary. I really don't understand why people insist on putting non-encyclopedic content in the encyclopedic namespace. -- 3115:

This does make sense – do you think there is any need to briefly describe the few exception(s) in this guideline as you've done here (in addition to the "old" exception that's already described)?

2754:. The point of that essay is not for you to express your opinions. I told you. That is what the talk page is for, and also the village pump. If you wish to write your own version of the essay, 1098:

I fully support this proposal. It will allow people to find the pages they are looking for outside the article space easily without redirecting to non-encyclopedic content from the main namespace.

953:. Someone might well type the term into the search engine (as indeed I did) and hope to find a page explaining what the term means. In fact, there is no such page ... instead, the redirect goes to 931:, they would still be able to arrive at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion without changing the link. That's simply an (admittedly not too strong) argument to keep CNRs. However, as I explained 2511:

Is it right or wrong to change the wording of the lead of this essay, which has come about via the consensus of the community? I understand that consensus may change over time; however, even the

1005:

While it's nice to be quoted, and I think the majority of CNR's are harmful (for many of the reasons listed), I've removed one of the reasons referened to me as it has been subsequently shown (by

2449: 1009:) that I mis interpreted the page in question. On further reading, the legally questionable bit of verbatiam copying is more aimed at cases where a mirror changes an article from "blah blah blah 235: 3155:

main→template: (excluding "T:" pseudo-namespace shortcuts) usually fine to reader-facing templates if there is no better target and a redlink isn't more desirable otherwise as for main→project.

365:

has often been used as a direct link on talk or project space, not as a type-in shortcut. How should links to shortcuts work, especially if a term exists both in article and in shortcut space?

1023:

That's ok, but do you think this proposal could work? Any suggestions on how to improve it? Since you were quite active in the discussions about CNRs, I'd like to hear your opinion on this. --

39: 1162:

A proposed clarification: I would suggest erring on the side of merging rather than deleting (regarding "useful" edit history). Keeping histories is important for GFDL/copyright purposes.

3472: 2553: 607:

Agreed, once someone already knows it's called "Articles for deletion" I think they will be able to find it. I just searched for "Articles for deletion" and the second search result was

202: 1272:

currently and there's no need for a change. In particular, I would strongly oppose a speedy deletion criterion in light of the dissent surrounding this issue - we don't need another T1.

2049:. Does that mean that just because it's a redirect it's not in the already in the project namespace despite the "Knowledge (XXG):" prefix? Or is the template misplaced or redundant? -- 1555:

It seems to me that this argument is mistaken in its basic premise. I know some mirrors contain Talk & Project pages. I thought some mirrors also contain User pages (why else the

3252:

there will almost always be exceptions and not all examples of classes that have no problems because of their cross-namespace anture (e.g. Help→Project) will be good redirects (e.g.

2733:

more than the list of arguments they respond to. And I believe one of the points of essays in general is to be able to express opinions about Knowledge (XXG) without having to worry

2561: 3224: 2854:

I believe I have a reasonably good grasp of English, but I have trouble understanding some of what you have written above. However, I will try my best at responding to it:

935:, this proposal would not keep CNRs, and accidental linking would be corrected by an automated bot and/or users correcting themselves after they realized it's a redlink. -- 3064:

Geez, totally missed this – yes, that does deserve mention, probably in its own section titled something like "RfD decisions" or "Discussion-based details", or so on.

1410:, but I think that's not relevant here, because there are lots of CNRs which haven't been deleted before (so G4 wouldn't apply), but would have to be deleted anyway. -- 651:

of the Knowledge (XXG) stuff, they will get hits on Knowledge (XXG): stuff anyway because someone has made an XNR that effectively makes the search filter useless. --

2706:

The point of the essay is to be the basis for a guideline, not for jotting down random thoughts about the subject. Do that on the talk page instead please, thanks.

2515:

is not even close to the consensus that would be needed to overpower the present longstanding community consensus about how pseudo-namespaces may be "used freely".

684:

change is reduced proportional to how many people will actually see it. I've got no strong opinion on this as such yet, but I figured it was worth mentioning... --

2097: 990: 3482: 2585: 1407: 1228:

among the results unless they specifically select the Knowledge (XXG) namespace. The default search really shouldn't include anything other than article space.

975:, so a user searching the project space shouldn't have any problems. I don't think the accidental linking is a reason to support CNR's; the onsite search being 524:

And what newbie is going to type in "Articles for deletion" - to know it's called that assumes prior knowledge. Someone new to WP is going to be searching for

74: 695: 288: 3200:

Project→Special: (note all redirects to the special namespace are soft redirects) completely acceptable and most exist to provide a talk page for the target.

3161:

main→category: can be good when targetting content categories if there is no better target and a redlink isn't more desirable, otherwise as for main→project

2560:

categories are perfectly acceptable according to practise, where AFDs regularly have 'redirect to category' as the decision. There are hundreds of them at

165: 1199: 820:

has some uses, and we have some blatantly nonencyclopedic pages like Brian Peppers in the encyclopedia namespace. Would you want to delete Brian Peppers?

212: 80: 625: 608: 1373:

I know, and that's why I proposed a change in R2. What I meant above, is that these deletions would be "non-controversial maintenance tasks". --

412:, which is a blue link: a self-referential page talking about Knowledge (XXG) in article space without the benefits of a cross-space redirect). 3194:

speedy deletion) or as a result of technical restrictions, otherwise no problems from being cross-namespace - discuss on the individual merits.

643:

looking for Articles for deletion anyway). But I find it inexcusable that, when someone has setup their search options to specifically search

3405: 2788: 2683: 1752: 1518: 1513:

Although I support this proposal, I agree that some damage has been done—specifically, with respect to redirects with histories. For example,

874: 24: 3477: 2737:

about how widely accepted they are; for example, to collect some of the more subjective "stock arguments" used in debates, as in this case.

1896: 1772: 3350: 1762: 779:

Where have you been looking? There is a consensus to avoid XNRs; most of the ones brought up on RFD end up being deleted. Also, there's

174: 1240: 2245: 274: 3425: 2032: 2539: 2512: 924: 905:

I've seen people bring this up occasionally but nobody's ever explained what it means or why it's a good thing. Care to explain? --

705:

at the "login successful" page (at their first login after the change) with something like "Please review your search preferences at

453: 2168:

Unless someone can point out something I'm missing, it seems there is no longer justification for including the third bullet of the

20: 3164:

main→any talk namespace: (excluding "T:" pseudo-namespace shortcuts) old subpage redirects are the only time these are acceptable.

2294: 2212:

factor in an RfD participated by a couple of people who are also participants in the previous discussion that is not convincing.

718: 325: 1489:

against cross-namespace redirects. Many such redirects are not only harmless but actively meet some of the specific reasons at

1126: 69: 3203:

anything else: No general consensus I am aware of, but they are unlikely to be deleted simply because they are cross-namespace.

2922:

was that you can use this essay to support your one sided arguments... (to create peace no doubt) Don't be afraid to use your

2025: 1066: 1039: 3183:

project→user: Normally fine to user subpages, and common for user essays, but very dependent on the content of the target page

2564:. The redirect name may be bad for other reasons, but the target being a category shouldnt be used as an argument to delete. 135: 110: 60: 2797: 2784: 2933: 2287:

Also, it's hard to get out of the pipework. It's easy to get out of the project namespace (Just click the back button). --

2180: 143: 2195: 550: 2377: 2337: 1976: 2361:

I never said it isn't; I was just uncertain. Redirecting your user page to an article seems inappropriate for readers.

456:

simply because they forget/don't know they should type Knowledge (XXG):. As for linking, I do remember a discussion at

178: 747:

Is there consensus to avoid cross-namespace redirs 99% of the time? Can we put together a guideline to that effect...

2965: 2014: 546: 277:? It's supposed to be a clearinghouse for changes to deletion standards, above all else, from what I understand. -- 2626: 2039: 1816: 3383: 2150: 1191: 554: 231: 3237: 3125: 3074: 3007: 2952: 2843: 2816: 2773: 2721: 2667: 2468:

Namespaces were created for a reason, so that the encyclopedic content would be separate. CNRs work against this.

1517:

was recently deleted. I have suspicions (but obviously can't check!) that it contained history, especially since

2900: 2858: 2751: 2105: 2018: 2010: 333:

Feedback is welcome. If you don't like this proposal, please leave a comment and explain why, or alternatively,

2172:

section, assumedly due to a (recent?) software change. I move that we remove this bullet from the section. --

1758:

in particular, but the general discussion regarding this issue. Has it been discussed somewhere else recently?

1514: 1010: 972: 954: 116: 796:

We should not ignore guidelines, but weigh their importance and their applicability to a specific topic. Per

3223:

It would appear then that, according to your "main→any talk namespace" above, if I understand it correctly,

2928: 2924: 2429: 2351: 2249: 1972: 1389: 3152:

user→elsewhere: rarely good from the main userpage, normally fine from subpages. See also previous section.

2395: 1751:

What is the current status of the discussion regarding cross-namespace redirects? I don't necessarily mean

1393: 3429: 2599: 1820: 2237: 1925: 968: 50: 2621: 2425: 2347: 2314: 2233: 1778: 1706: 1336:. The proposed addition to the speedy criterion is just to ensure that CNRs wouldn't have to go through 1114: 928: 487: 469: 465: 379: 362: 2888: 2492:

Is there anyway to locate just Talk to Mainspace redirects? (I'd guess these are almost always wrong.)

2232:

Shouldn't we just allow CNRs becasue they are sometimes userful? I think that a good useful CNR is for

2046: 1935:

Normally, we don't unless it's an obvious user test or at the request of the sole author of the page.

65: 1186:

such original research concepts to Knowledge (XXG). For example: The existence of the redirect from

529: 2580: 2566: 2523: 2297: 2096:

Before "WP" was an alias for the Knowledge (XXG) namespace, they were cross-namespace redirects (See

1920:

Why do we remove the redirects when moving essays from Knowledge (XXG) namespace to User namespaces?

1725: 814: 804: 628:

because you have "search in Wikipedia_talk:" on. Newbies with default settings don't have that on. --

428: 402: 3346: 3257: 3253: 3170:

main→user: acceptable to a user subpage for a short time after a page move, but not other than that.

2896: 2391: 1921: 1282:

So far RfD deleted each and every cross-namespace redirect and there is some controversy because of

586: 525: 3457: 3433: 3362: 3358: 3335: 3315: 3311: 3296: 3269: 3265: 3245: 3218: 3214: 3158:

main→portal: almost never any problems due to being cross-namespace, but not always the best target

3133: 3109: 3105: 3082: 3058: 3054: 3013: 2958: 2914: 2849: 2822: 2779: 2744: 2727: 2701: 2673: 2638: 2606: 2570: 2531: 2501: 2461: 2433: 2411: 2409: 2381: 2355: 2341: 2303: 2281: 2253: 2221: 2205: 2184: 2115: 2104:

for details on that change). Perhaps someone was unaware that that has been fixed when they tagged

2087: 2072: 2055: 1998: 1980: 1955: 1944: 1929: 1910: 1880: 1856: 1827: 1799: 1781: 1768: 1740: 1729: 1709: 1675: 1662: 1644: 1634: 1616: 1598: 1575: 1542: 1532: 1507: 1465: 1451: 1446: 1419: 1400: 1382: 1368: 1349: 1326: 1312: 1276: 1260: 1210: 1203: 1166: 1157: 1143: 1133: 1102: 1083: 1060: 1032: 1017: 985: 962: 944: 913: 886: 867: 846: 827: 791: 774: 754: 706: 690: 678: 659: 637: 619: 598: 579: 566: 540: 533: 517: 502: 481: 443: 419: 390: 372: 346: 283: 267: 170: 3331: 2910: 2740: 2697: 2497: 2217: 2200: 1905: 2884: 1225: 494:

links than there are now. Someone ran a bot on it (I don't remember who, could've been me). --

461: 2540:

Knowledge (XXG):Village_pump_(policy)#RFC:_On_the_controversy_of_the_pseudo-namespace_shortcuts

1273: 950: 2589: 2457: 1940: 1658: 1630: 1594: 1559: 1503: 1457: 1411: 1374: 1364: 1341: 1304: 1252: 1195: 1149: 1075: 1024: 936: 878: 838: 766: 710: 670: 629: 590: 558: 473: 435: 338: 317: 298: 259: 46: 3230: 3118: 3067: 2892: 1968: 1777:). I'm just asking if there currently is more to say about this issue than "no consensus"? -- 1221: 852: 409: 358: 3452: 3421: 3292: 2645: 2634: 2367: 2327: 2275: 2112: 2066: 1992: 1874: 1850: 1793: 1323: 3191: 2394:

archives I see that this question has come up before, but never definitively answered. The

2161: 1337: 1333: 1300: 797: 780: 457: 2289: 1951: 1721: 1608:." Also, I think the last point under "Arguments for deleting CNRs" should be changed to " 1052: 824: 514: 416: 369: 173:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the 2241: 1318:

Establishing a speedy criterion on the basis of a technical wishlist is just ... weird. -

334: 980: 800:

and the "purity" of encyclopedia space, we should (for example) delete all instances of

685: 278: 3354: 3307: 3261: 3210: 3101: 3050: 2687: 2404: 2083: 2051: 1672: 1641: 1613: 1572: 1539: 398:

is not a shortcut. I agree that if CNRs should go, they need to be redlinks instead of

2870: 2866: 1490: 1013:

blah blah blah" to "blah blah blah This nonexistent article blah blah blah". Regards,

3466: 3327: 3001: 2946: 2837: 2810: 2767: 2715: 2661: 2493: 2213: 2134: 2101: 1900: 1824: 1737: 1529: 1461: 1415: 1397: 1378: 1345: 1308: 1256: 1163: 1153: 1140: 1130: 1099: 1079: 1057: 1048: 1028: 1014: 959: 940: 882: 842: 770: 714: 674: 633: 594: 562: 477: 439: 342: 321: 310: 302: 263: 1571:." We can debate how strong that argument is, but it wouldn't be factually wrong. -- 2453: 2173: 2045:

that don't seem like they belong there or are candidates for deletion according to

1936: 1654: 1626: 1590: 1499: 1360: 1207: 507: 837:, but I hope with the help of this proposal they can be dealt with accordingly. -- 2554:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 15#Requests for unblock

1220:

If someone is searching in the "search" box for "Pokemon", they should NEVER get

3449: 3288: 3143:

main→project: rarely good, but sometimes acceptable if they are old, or as above

2630: 2362: 2322: 2269: 2109: 2062: 1988: 1870: 1846: 1789: 1522: 1319: 1006: 3306:

DraftSpace links are *always* deleted, although “deleted” is the wrong word. —

3044:

Based on recent discussions, it seems there is consensus that user pages (note

3305:

on my watchlist. My understanding is the complete opposite. Mainspace —: -->

3146:

user→main: never as a main userpage, fine from subpages - see previous section

2629:, the tide seems to have turned against CNRs from the main space at least. -- 1237: 920: 821: 751: 576: 537: 511: 413: 387: 366: 221: 157: 129: 1701:

is policy, or at least feel the urge to implement it immediately. This is a

1139:

Or better yet (if someone has the time), the edit histories could be merged.

664:

I completely agree. Read the proposal: "Modify the default search filter for

2584:

maintainability. Rather than hack about the live text, I've started work at

1187: 906: 860: 784: 652: 612: 495: 2992:? I am going to get to the baser elements here and say, I don't like it. 3260:

would not be kept). I'll put a note about this at the top of the section.

2005:

Are ALL redirects in the main articlespace no matter what prefix they use?

2995: 2940: 2831: 2804: 2761: 2709: 2679: 2655: 1287: 1071: 873:

and thus solves the "mirror issue", etc; and pretty much everything from

2883:

I believe that the proliferation of mutually contradictory essays (e.g.

2318: 2098:

Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (proposals)/Archive 4#WP: pseudo-namespace

1899:, concerning the creation of a new namespace for shortcuts. Thanks. -- 3173:

help→project, project→help: not a problem at all and often encouraged

2686:

is just an essay, not a guideline. If you have ever bothered to read

762: 452:

I think the main usability problem here is when newbies can't find

1771:

should be done by seeking "broader input via a forum such as the

1525: 1736:

though it's only applicable to the employee handbook. Regards,

1332:

Once noone uses CNRs, deleting them would be nothing more than

169:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of 3371: 2617: 1303:. In my opinion status quo is really far from being "fine". -- 395: 383: 92: 15: 1897:

Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (proposals)#WP: pseudo-namespace

949:

Related to the above, there is an RFD underway right now for

1589:

If there's a better way to word the thought, please do so.

1484:

Alternate solution: Stop deleting cross-namespace redirects

490:

have already pretty much been corrected; there used to be a

220: 3420:

do" (my emphasis), replace "redirect" with "redirects" for

2133:

does not give any results in the WP namespace, despite the

2562:

Knowledge (XXG):Database reports/Cross-namespace redirects

1916:

Redirects from Knowledge (XXG) namespace to User namespace

3186:

project→main: Most commonly created in error (if so they

3326:

It is interesting to remember that this is an essay. --

3303: 2556:, this essay should mention that CNR from mainspace to 2155: 2145: 2139: 2129: 1842: 1811: 1807: 1668: 1650: 1291: 932: 856: 361:

and the other uncontroversial shortcut redirects), but

294: 258:

Comments and/or proposed amendments are appreciated. --

1148:

I've made a change in the proposal to reflect this. --

1129:

or something like that), that would be fine (right?).

1587:

regardless of whether these redirects exist or not.

2061:

These template usages seem to be simply erroneous. —

1971:

will not even show up in the bloody search results.

3473:

Low-impact WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages

2901:

the perception of Knowledge (XXG) as a battleground

2861:is relevant. That guideline applies to contents of 1869:

Also, some have merely been redirected elsewhere. —

1215: 434:. Deleted CNRs would stay as redlinks of course. -- 2122:Search engine subversion argument no longer valid? 3412:from Knowledge (XXG) namespace to, say, Template 3227:should not have been deleted. Is that correct? 2586:Knowledge (XXG):Cross-namespace redirects/sandbox 2317:recently redirected his user page to the article 1294:). Actually, the idea behind this proposal is to 979:so often is certainly more persuasive for me. -- 2190:"Pseudo-namespace redirects may be used freely"? 1551:Recent additions to "Arguments for keeping CNRs" 1498:to the project through this misguided crusade. 2448:The following two comments were presented in a 1359:speedy-deletion under any existing criterion. 575:other possibility? There are hunners of them! / 468:could be corrected by an automated bot even if 109:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s 3282:draft redirects from mainspace are not deleted 3176:talk→any non-talk namespace: never acceptable? 2795:, i.e. everyone elses who you should ask when 3341:Interesting exception Knowledge (XXG) Library 2240:, especially for people who don't know about 8: 2977:have an answer for everything, but I really 306:18:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC) and added this to 3351:Knowledge (XXG):The Knowledge (XXG) Library 1246:The big problem here is that the new users 1216:I don't really like this idea that much ... 739:Software changes, but... in the short term? 238:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links. 3368:Semi-protected edit request 4 October 2021 2400:should not redirect to anything other than 1127:Knowledge (XXG):Requested articles/archive 669:this proposal attempts achieve, anyway. -- 626:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Articles for Deletion 609:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Articles for Deletion 124: 2873:does not apply to Knowledge (XXG) essays. 2346:It isn't?? I will remove it asap. Sorry! 1528:. Or did we not have "be bold" yet then? 1519:Knowledge (XXG):Be bold in updating pages 3483:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages 3197:Project→MediaWiki: completely acceptable 2801:is ready for community review, cheers. 2612:Evidently AFD is not suitable for CNR... 1773:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (proposals) 851:I do believe I've already explained why 295:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (proposals) 193:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages 1823:) seem to get deleted more quickly. -- 536:and the like - not our esoteric term! / 126: 2398:guideline does state "User talk pages 1290:deletes CNRs - users create CNRs (see 424:I just want to add: I absolutely hate 408:(because that creates situations like 3149:user→user talk: completely acceptable 2899:) is a bad thing, and contributes to 2787:, to edit and play games and stuff. 1667:Looks very good. I made my suggested 1582:reader will see them. If the mirror 925:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 454:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 2934:Knowledge (XXG):Write your own essay 2444:Competing analogies presented at RfD 1761:Note: I'm not necessarily trying to 923:means is when someone wants to link 810:right now. We don't do that because 98: 96: 2903:and I prefer to avoid adding to it. 557:. They would be able to find it. -- 115:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 2310:Redirecting user pages to articles 2238:Knowledge (XXG):Vandalism#Warnings 2033:Category:Cross namespace redirects 2021:, and it is currently tagged with 1747:Current status of this discussion? 967:However, there is a redirect from 187:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Essays 177:. For a listing of essays see the 166:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays 14: 927:and they accidentally link it as 460:about redirects from months like 163:This page is within the scope of 45:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 3440: 3375: 2081:Sigh, that's what I thought. -- 1340:if this proposal is accepted. -- 1065:Yes, we have a problem with the 833:there is no consensus to delete 551:Knowledge (XXG):Article_deletion 156: 142: 128: 97: 40:Click here to start a new topic. 3478:NA-Class Knowledge (XXG) essays 2966:User:RTG/Dream of Mirror Online 1067:principle of least astonishment 472:doesn't exist as a redirect. -- 3014:10:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 2959:01:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 2915:20:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC) 2850:19:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC) 2823:19:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC) 2780:19:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC) 2745:16:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC) 2728:16:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC) 2702:16:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC) 2674:07:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC) 2185:23:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC) 2015:Knowledge (XXG):Categorization 1949:Or if the essay is deleted. - 1671:to the con section as well. -- 1070:anons and logged-ins would be 547:Knowledge (XXG):Delete_article 545:There could be redirects from 1: 3416:technically cross-namespace, 3059:12:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC) 2639:00:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 2282:03:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC) 2151:Knowledge (XXG) administrator 1956:15:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 1945:01:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 1930:22:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 1911:20:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 1891:WP: pseudo-namespace creation 1817:Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan 1192:Knowledge (XXG):Wikipediholic 1121:to the correct namespace and 647:the encyclopedic content and 589:doesn't take you anywhere. -- 555:Knowledge (XXG):Delete a page 37:Put new text under old text. 2684:WP:Cross-namespace redirects 2607:19:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 2571:06:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 2502:02:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC) 2206:16:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC) 2031:, as well as many others in 2011:Knowledge (XXG):Categorizing 1194:encouraged someone to write 207:This page has been rated as 3458:21:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC) 3434:03:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC) 3398:to reactivate your request. 3386:has been answered. Set the 3316:21:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 3297:14:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 3270:11:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 3246:07:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 3219:19:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC) 3134:14:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC) 3110:12:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC) 3083:14:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC) 2756:then write your own version 2532:13:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC) 2434:00:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 2412:18:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC) 2382:16:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC) 2356:16:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC) 2342:10:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC) 2304:03:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 2170:Arguments for deleting CNRs 2162:Arguments for deleting CNRs 1741:14:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1730:21:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 1710:17:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 1676:13:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 1663:04:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 1645:00:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 1635:19:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 1617:18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 1599:16:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 1576:14:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 1543:14:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 1533:04:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 1508:04:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 1466:16:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 1452:15:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 1420:12:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 1401:00:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 1383:12:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 1369:04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 1350:14:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 973:Knowledge (XXG):Wikiholiday 955:Knowledge (XXG):Wikiholiday 293:I've just left a notice at 190:Template:WikiProject Essays 3499: 3363:10:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC) 3336:16:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC) 3040:User: to article redirects 2984:page, to fill my need for 2865:, and is a reiteration of 2462:00:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC) 2222:03:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 2194:I very much dispute that " 2159:, the example used in the 2056:19:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 1895:See current discussion at 1841:alone, and if you look at 1782:10:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 1327:22:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC) 1313:16:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC) 1301:the very goal of wikipedia 1277:02:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 1261:16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC) 1241:01:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 1211:09:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC) 1177:Another reason to consider 1167:06:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 901:Aid in accidental linking? 707:Special:Preferences/Search 2857:I fail to understand how 2548:CNR to content categories 2513:present policy discussion 2116:23:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 1981:23:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC) 1515:Be bold in updating pages 1158:19:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 1144:04:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 1134:04:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 1103:15:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC) 1084:19:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 1061:19:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC) 1033:16:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC) 1018:23:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC) 991:22:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC) 969:Knowledge (XXG):Wikibreak 963:18:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC) 945:17:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 914:17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 887:17:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 868:17:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 847:16:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 828:16:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 792:16:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 775:16:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 755:15:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 719:12:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC) 696:02:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC) 679:16:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 660:16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 638:16:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 620:16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 599:16:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 580:16:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 567:16:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 541:16:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 518:16:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 503:16:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 482:15:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 444:16:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 420:15:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 391:15:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 373:15:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 347:16:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC) 326:12:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC) 289:18:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 268:15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 228: 206: 151: 123: 75:Be welcoming to newcomers 25:Cross-namespace redirects 3406:§ Overview of the debate 2988:page, of the essay I... 2588:. Additions welcomed. — 2254:04:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC) 2088:06:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC) 2073:04:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 1999:04:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 1881:00:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 1857:00:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 1828:22:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 1800:15:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 1117:. If the redirects were 1108:Major issue with removal 1011:This nonexistent article 3347:Knowledge (XXG) Library 3258:Knowledge (XXG):Be bold 1040:least surprising option 273:Have you added this to 2690:, it says "Essays are 2424:Anyways I removed it. 2026:R to project namespace 1521:has no history before 1248:will edit with default 275:Centralized discussion 232:automatically assessed 225: 213:project's impact scale 171:Knowledge (XXG) essays 70:avoid personal attacks 2688:the banner at the top 2622:Articles for deletion 2616:(Let me see how many 2450:recent RfD discussion 1821:Image:Kirk scream.jpg 1765:the discussion here ( 1394:what wikipedia is not 929:Articles for deletion 835:all of them right now 488:Articles for deletion 470:Articles for deletion 466:Articles for deletion 380:Articles for deletion 363:Articles for deletion 230:The above rating was 224: 2785:This is your version 2236:to be redirected to 2040:R to other namespace 624:I suppose you found 486:All of the links to 352:Searching vs linking 2552:As I have noted at 2321:. Is this allowed? 2140:"wikipedia editors" 1769:Template:Historical 1767:which according to 1715:Cracks in the Floor 1051:is deleted by rfd, 750:I'll get me coat! / 3090:Newly created CNRs 2315:User:Intoronto1125 2234:Vandalism Warnings 2047:WP:REDIRECT#DELETE 1973:Daniel Christensen 1267:Status quo is fine 1115:Requested articles 226: 111:content assessment 81:dispute resolution 42: 3404:In first para of 3402: 3401: 3248: 3234: 3231:Temporal Sunshine 3136: 3122: 3119:Temporal Sunshine 3085: 3071: 3068:Temporal Sunshine 2528: 2488:Talk to Mainspace 2460: 2183: 2177: 2130:"speedy deletion" 1943: 1909: 1661: 1633: 1597: 1506: 1367: 335:fix it right away 251: 250: 247: 246: 243: 242: 239: 91: 90: 61:Assume good faith 38: 3490: 3448: 3444: 3443: 3422:number agreement 3393: 3389: 3379: 3378: 3372: 3302:I saw the above 3244: 3240: 3228: 3132: 3128: 3116: 3081: 3077: 3065: 3012: 3010: 3004: 2998: 2957: 2955: 2949: 2943: 2913: 2848: 2846: 2840: 2834: 2821: 2819: 2813: 2807: 2778: 2776: 2770: 2764: 2743: 2726: 2724: 2718: 2712: 2700: 2672: 2670: 2664: 2658: 2646:User talk:Kephir 2603: 2598: 2593: 2569: 2526: 2522: 2456: 2407: 2374: 2365: 2334: 2325: 2300: 2292: 2278: 2272: 2203: 2179: 2176: 2158: 2148: 2146:"administrators" 2142: 2132: 2044: 2038: 2030: 2024: 1954: 1939: 1903: 1806:You can look at 1657: 1629: 1593: 1564: 1558: 1502: 1449: 1390:wikipedia is not 1363: 1296:abolish the need 1292:a recent example 911: 865: 819: 813: 809: 803: 789: 657: 617: 530:article deletion 500: 433: 427: 407: 401: 315: 309: 254:Older discussion 229: 195: 194: 191: 188: 185: 160: 153: 152: 147: 146: 145: 140: 132: 125: 102: 101: 100: 93: 16: 3498: 3497: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3463: 3462: 3455: 3454:it has begun... 3441: 3439: 3391: 3387: 3376: 3370: 3343: 3324: 3284: 3238: 3126: 3092: 3075: 3042: 3008: 3002: 2996: 2993: 2953: 2947: 2941: 2938: 2908: 2859:WP:SCHOOLONEDAY 2844: 2838: 2832: 2829: 2817: 2811: 2805: 2802: 2774: 2768: 2762: 2759: 2752:WP:SCHOOLONEDAY 2738: 2722: 2716: 2710: 2707: 2695: 2668: 2662: 2656: 2653: 2649: 2614: 2601: 2596: 2591: 2581:John Vandenberg 2578: 2567:John Vandenberg 2565: 2550: 2525:Paine Ellsworth 2524: 2509: 2490: 2446: 2405: 2368: 2363: 2328: 2323: 2312: 2298: 2290: 2276: 2270: 2261: 2230: 2228:Just allow CNRs 2201: 2192: 2154: 2153:CNR. Also for 2144: 2138: 2137:CNR. Same for 2128: 2124: 2106:WP:Categorizing 2042: 2036: 2028: 2022: 2019:WP:Categorizing 2007: 1964: 1950: 1918: 1893: 1749: 1717: 1694: 1610:Some mirrors... 1562: 1556: 1553: 1486: 1447: 1354:No, these will 1269: 1218: 1179: 1110: 1096: 1053:speedy deletion 1003: 988: 907: 903: 861: 855:isn't relevant 817: 811: 807: 801: 785: 741: 693: 666:logged-in users 653: 613: 496: 431: 425: 405: 399: 354: 313: 307: 286: 256: 192: 189: 186: 183: 182: 179:essay directory 141: 138: 87: 86: 56: 12: 11: 5: 3496: 3494: 3486: 3485: 3480: 3475: 3465: 3464: 3461: 3460: 3453: 3408:, for ""while 3400: 3399: 3380: 3369: 3366: 3342: 3339: 3323: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3283: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3254:Help:Bold text 3206: 3205: 3204: 3201: 3198: 3195: 3190:be subject to 3184: 3181: 3177: 3174: 3171: 3168: 3165: 3162: 3159: 3156: 3153: 3150: 3147: 3144: 3091: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3041: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2881: 2877: 2874: 2648: 2642: 2627:Current Events 2613: 2610: 2577: 2574: 2549: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2508: 2505: 2489: 2486: 2480: 2479: 2475: 2445: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2390:Searching the 2385: 2384: 2311: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2260: 2259:Arguments for? 2257: 2229: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2191: 2188: 2123: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2076: 2075: 2006: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1963: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1947: 1917: 1914: 1892: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1831: 1830: 1803: 1802: 1748: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1716: 1713: 1693: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1623: 1588: 1552: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1485: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1316: 1315: 1268: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1217: 1214: 1200:AfD discussion 1178: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1125:deleted (e.g. 1109: 1106: 1095: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1002: 1001:Reason removal 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 984: 902: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 830: 740: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 689: 605: 604: 603: 602: 601: 587:delete article 526:delete article 522: 521: 520: 450: 449: 448: 447: 446: 353: 350: 331: 330: 329: 328: 282: 255: 252: 249: 248: 245: 244: 241: 240: 227: 217: 216: 205: 199: 198: 196: 161: 149: 148: 133: 121: 120: 114: 103: 89: 88: 85: 84: 77: 72: 63: 57: 55: 54: 43: 34: 33: 30: 29: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3495: 3484: 3481: 3479: 3476: 3474: 3471: 3470: 3468: 3459: 3456: 3451: 3447: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3397: 3394:parameter to 3385: 3381: 3374: 3373: 3367: 3365: 3364: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3349:redirects to 3348: 3340: 3338: 3337: 3333: 3329: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3304: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3294: 3290: 3281: 3271: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3250: 3249: 3247: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3233: 3232: 3226: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3207: 3202: 3199: 3196: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3182: 3178: 3175: 3172: 3169: 3166: 3163: 3160: 3157: 3154: 3151: 3148: 3145: 3142: 3141: 3138: 3137: 3135: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3121: 3120: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3098: 3089: 3084: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3070: 3069: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3047: 3039: 3015: 3011: 3005: 2999: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2980: 2976: 2971: 2967: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2956: 2950: 2944: 2936: 2935: 2930: 2927: 2926: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2912: 2907: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2875: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2855: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2847: 2841: 2835: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2820: 2814: 2808: 2800: 2799: 2794: 2792: 2786: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2777: 2771: 2765: 2757: 2753: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2742: 2736: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2725: 2719: 2713: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2699: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2671: 2665: 2659: 2647: 2643: 2641: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2623: 2619: 2611: 2609: 2608: 2605: 2604: 2595: 2594: 2587: 2582: 2575: 2573: 2572: 2568: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2547: 2543: 2541: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2530: 2529: 2527: 2518: 2514: 2506: 2504: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2487: 2485: 2484: 2476: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2464: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2443: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2426:Intoronto1125 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2413: 2410: 2408: 2401: 2397: 2396:WP:User pages 2393: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2373: 2372: 2366: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2348:Intoronto1125 2344: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2333: 2332: 2326: 2320: 2316: 2309: 2305: 2302: 2301: 2296: 2293: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2280: 2279: 2273: 2264: 2258: 2256: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2246:71.94.158.203 2243: 2239: 2235: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2204: 2197: 2189: 2187: 2186: 2182: 2175: 2171: 2166: 2164: 2163: 2157: 2156:"page update" 2152: 2147: 2141: 2136: 2135:Speedy Delete 2131: 2121: 2117: 2114: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2094: 2089: 2086: 2085: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2074: 2070: 2069: 2064: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2054: 2053: 2048: 2041: 2034: 2027: 2020: 2016: 2013:redirects to 2012: 2009:For example: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1995: 1990: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1948: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1915: 1913: 1912: 1907: 1902: 1898: 1890: 1882: 1878: 1877: 1872: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1858: 1854: 1853: 1848: 1843: 1840: 1839:May 2006 RfDs 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1829: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1804: 1801: 1797: 1796: 1791: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1780: 1779:83.253.36.136 1776: 1774: 1770: 1764: 1759: 1757: 1755: 1746: 1742: 1739: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1714: 1712: 1711: 1708: 1707:71.36.251.182 1704: 1700: 1691: 1677: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1653:strike you? 1652: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1643: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1585: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1574: 1570: 1561: 1550: 1544: 1541: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1531: 1527: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1496: 1492: 1483: 1467: 1464: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1450: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1421: 1418: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1381: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1357: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1348: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1325: 1321: 1314: 1311: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1275: 1266: 1262: 1259: 1258: 1254: 1249: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1239: 1233: 1229: 1227: 1223: 1213: 1212: 1209: 1205: 1204:Talk:Wikibyss 1201: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1176: 1168: 1165: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1156: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1142: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1107: 1105: 1104: 1101: 1093: 1085: 1082: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1068: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1059: 1054: 1050: 1049:speedy delete 1045: 1041: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1031: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1000: 992: 989: 987: 982: 978: 974: 970: 966: 965: 964: 961: 956: 952: 948: 947: 946: 943: 942: 938: 934: 930: 926: 922: 919:I think what 918: 917: 916: 915: 912: 910: 900: 888: 885: 884: 880: 876: 871: 870: 869: 866: 864: 858: 854: 850: 849: 848: 845: 844: 840: 836: 831: 829: 826: 823: 816: 806: 799: 795: 794: 793: 790: 788: 782: 778: 777: 776: 773: 772: 768: 764: 759: 758: 757: 756: 753: 748: 745: 738: 720: 717: 716: 712: 708: 704: 699: 698: 697: 694: 692: 687: 682: 681: 680: 677: 676: 672: 667: 663: 662: 661: 658: 656: 650: 646: 641: 640: 639: 636: 635: 631: 627: 623: 622: 621: 618: 616: 610: 606: 600: 597: 596: 592: 588: 583: 582: 581: 578: 574: 570: 569: 568: 565: 564: 560: 556: 552: 548: 544: 543: 542: 539: 535: 534:delete a page 531: 527: 523: 519: 516: 513: 509: 506: 505: 504: 501: 499: 493: 489: 485: 484: 483: 480: 479: 475: 471: 467: 463: 459: 455: 451: 445: 442: 441: 437: 430: 423: 422: 421: 418: 415: 411: 404: 397: 394: 393: 392: 389: 385: 381: 377: 376: 375: 374: 371: 368: 364: 360: 351: 349: 348: 345: 344: 340: 336: 327: 324: 323: 319: 312: 305: 304: 300: 296: 292: 291: 290: 287: 285: 280: 276: 272: 271: 270: 269: 266: 265: 261: 253: 237: 233: 223: 219: 218: 214: 210: 204: 201: 200: 197: 180: 176: 172: 168: 167: 162: 159: 155: 154: 150: 137: 134: 131: 127: 122: 118: 112: 108: 104: 95: 94: 82: 78: 76: 73: 71: 67: 64: 62: 59: 58: 52: 48: 47:Learn to edit 44: 41: 36: 35: 32: 31: 26: 22: 18: 17: 3445: 3426:85.67.32.244 3417: 3413: 3409: 3403: 3395: 3384:edit request 3344: 3325: 3285: 3236: 3235: 3229: 3225:this old CNR 3187: 3124: 3123: 3117: 3096: 3093: 3073: 3072: 3066: 3045: 3043: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2978: 2974: 2969: 2932: 2923: 2862: 2798:your version 2796: 2790: 2755: 2734: 2691: 2650: 2620:I can use!) 2615: 2600: 2590: 2579: 2557: 2551: 2537: 2521: 2520: 2516: 2510: 2491: 2482: 2481: 2467: 2465: 2447: 2399: 2370: 2369: 2345: 2330: 2329: 2313: 2288: 2271:McLerristarr 2268: 2265: 2262: 2231: 2193: 2169: 2167: 2160: 2149:despite the 2125: 2082: 2067: 2050: 2035:tagged with 2017:but so does 2008: 1993: 1965: 1919: 1894: 1875: 1851: 1794: 1766: 1760: 1753: 1750: 1718: 1702: 1698: 1695: 1609: 1604: 1583: 1567: 1554: 1494: 1487: 1460: 1414: 1377: 1355: 1344: 1334:housekeeping 1317: 1307: 1295: 1283: 1270: 1255: 1247: 1234: 1230: 1219: 1183: 1180: 1152: 1122: 1118: 1111: 1097: 1078: 1044:deliberately 1043: 1027: 1004: 983: 976: 939: 908: 904: 881: 862: 841: 834: 786: 769: 749: 746: 742: 713: 702: 688: 673: 665: 654: 648: 644: 632: 614: 593: 572: 561: 497: 491: 476: 438: 355: 341: 332: 320: 301: 281: 262: 257: 208: 164: 117:WikiProjects 107:project page 106: 19:This is the 3287:article. -- 2889:WP:NOTSPADE 2483:import ends 1720:located. - 1603:How about " 1523:25 February 1392:and rfd of 1286:. You see, 815:deletedpage 805:deletedpage 429:deletedpage 403:deletedpage 378:People use 3467:Categories 3450:* Pppery * 3388:|answered= 3345:Currently 2897:WP:NOTBLUE 2644:Posted at 2242:namespaces 1952:Mtmelendez 1722:Zapptastic 1232:searches. 1202:). (From 462:March 1426 209:Low-impact 175:discussion 139:Low‑impact 3355:Shushugah 3308:SmokeyJoe 3262:Thryduulf 3211:Thryduulf 3180:redirect. 3102:Thryduulf 3051:Thryduulf 2929:userspace 2494:Mark Hurd 2165:section. 2084:OlEnglish 2052:OlEnglish 1922:Zxczxczxc 1808:this list 1703:bad thing 1673:JLaTondre 1642:JLaTondre 1614:JLaTondre 1573:JLaTondre 1569:corridors 1540:JLaTondre 1188:Wikiholic 1056:Regards, 951:Wikibreak 909:Cyde↔Weys 863:Cyde↔Weys 787:Cyde↔Weys 655:Cyde↔Weys 615:Cyde↔Weys 498:Cyde↔Weys 83:if needed 66:Be polite 21:talk page 3410:redirect 3328:BoldLuis 2885:WP:SPADE 2863:articles 2789:This is 2735:too much 2576:Overhaul 2507:The lead 2474:effort". 2378:contribs 2338:contribs 2214:Lambanog 2202:Amalthea 2181:contribs 1901:Quiddity 1825:Interiot 1756:proposal 1738:MartinRe 1699:proposal 1560:Userpage 1530:Ardric47 1398:MartinRe 1226:WP:PTEST 1196:Wikibyss 1164:Ardric47 1141:Ardric47 1131:Ardric47 1100:Polonium 1072:overkill 1058:MartinRe 1015:MartinRe 981:nae'blis 960:23skidoo 686:nae'blis 510:, IIRC. 492:lot more 279:nae'blis 51:get help 2893:WP:BLUE 2793:version 2558:content 2454:Rossami 2319:Toronto 2174:Zach425 1969:userbox 1962:Support 1937:Rossami 1655:Rossami 1627:Rossami 1591:Rossami 1500:Rossami 1361:Rossami 1222:WP:POKE 1208:Uncle G 1094:Support 853:WP:BITE 508:Rory096 410:Userbox 359:cat:csd 211:on the 3289:Sm8900 2990:want.. 2631:ke4roh 2458:(talk) 2277:Mclay1 2110:Anomie 2063:Centrx 1989:Centrx 1941:(talk) 1871:Centrx 1847:Centrx 1790:Centrx 1763:revive 1692:Absurd 1669:change 1659:(talk) 1649:How's 1631:(talk) 1595:(talk) 1504:(talk) 1448:Trödel 1365:(talk) 1320:Splash 1007:Splash 986:(talk) 977:broken 798:WP:ASR 781:WP:ASR 691:(talk) 458:WP:RfD 284:(talk) 234:using 184:Essays 136:Essays 113:scale. 3392:|ans= 3382:This 3322:Essay 3239:Paine 3127:Paine 3076:Paine 2880:them. 2592:Scott 2466:Re: 2392:WT:UP 2299:Dalek 2102:T8313 1612:". -- 1238:BigDT 1184:other 1119:moved 921:Kusma 859:. -- 822:Kusma 752:wangi 577:wangi 573:every 538:wangi 512:Kusma 414:Kusma 388:wangi 367:Kusma 105:This 79:Seek 27:page. 3446:Done 3430:talk 3418:they 3359:talk 3332:talk 3312:talk 3293:talk 3266:talk 3215:talk 3106:talk 3097:most 3055:talk 2982:this 2979:want 2970:your 2911:Keφr 2871:WP:V 2867:WP:V 2741:Keφr 2698:Keφr 2635:talk 2618:TLAs 2602:talk 2538:See 2498:talk 2430:talk 2352:talk 2291:User 2250:talk 2218:talk 2143:and 2100:and 2068:talk 1994:talk 1977:talk 1926:talk 1906:talk 1876:talk 1852:talk 1812:this 1795:talk 1754:this 1726:talk 1651:this 1526:2002 1493:for 1491:WP:R 1408:here 1284:that 1274:Deco 1123:then 933:here 877:. -- 875:here 857:here 825:(討論) 703:once 649:none 645:just 571:And 553:and 549:and 515:(討論) 417:(討論) 382:and 370:(討論) 337:. -- 316:. -- 311:cent 297:. -- 236:data 68:and 3414:are 3390:or 3188:may 3046:not 2931:or 2925:own 2895:vs 2887:vs 2791:our 2758:. 2692:not 2680:RTG 2371:Mid 2364:Hey 2331:Mid 2324:Hey 1810:or 1495:not 1462:(t) 1458:Zoz 1416:(t) 1412:Zoz 1379:(t) 1375:Zoz 1356:not 1346:(t) 1342:Zoz 1338:RfD 1309:(t) 1305:Zoz 1288:RfD 1257:(t) 1253:Zoz 1224:or 1190:to 1154:(t) 1150:Zoz 1080:(t) 1076:Zoz 1029:(t) 1025:Zoz 971:to 941:(t) 937:Zoz 883:(t) 879:Zoz 843:(t) 839:Zoz 771:(t) 767:Zoz 763:C++ 715:(t) 711:Zoz 675:(t) 671:Zoz 634:(t) 630:Zoz 595:(t) 591:Zoz 563:(t) 559:Zoz 478:(t) 474:Zoz 440:(t) 436:Zoz 396:AFD 384:AFD 343:(t) 339:Zoz 322:(t) 318:Zoz 303:(t) 299:Zoz 264:(t) 260:Zoz 203:Low 3469:: 3432:) 3424:. 3396:no 3361:) 3334:) 3314:) 3295:) 3268:) 3256:→ 3217:) 3192:G6 3108:) 3057:) 2994:~ 2975:do 2939:~ 2909:— 2891:, 2869:. 2830:~ 2803:~ 2760:~ 2739:— 2708:~ 2696:— 2682:: 2654:~ 2637:) 2519:– 2500:) 2432:) 2380:) 2354:) 2340:) 2274:| 2252:) 2244:. 2220:) 2108:? 2071:• 2043:}} 2037:{{ 2029:}} 2023:{{ 1997:• 1979:) 1928:) 1879:• 1855:• 1819:⇒ 1798:• 1728:) 1640:-- 1584:is 1563:}} 1557:{{ 1538:-- 1324:tk 1322:- 818:}} 812:{{ 808:}} 802:{{ 532:, 528:, 432:}} 426:{{ 406:}} 400:{{ 314:}} 308:{{ 49:; 3428:( 3357:( 3330:( 3310:( 3291:( 3264:( 3213:( 3104:( 3095:" 3053:( 3009:G 3006:. 3003:T 3000:. 2997:R 2986:a 2954:G 2951:. 2948:T 2945:. 2942:R 2845:G 2842:. 2839:T 2836:. 2833:R 2818:G 2815:. 2812:T 2809:. 2806:R 2775:G 2772:. 2769:T 2766:. 2763:R 2723:G 2720:. 2717:T 2714:. 2711:R 2669:G 2666:. 2663:T 2660:. 2657:R 2633:( 2597:• 2542:. 2496:( 2428:( 2406:œ 2376:( 2350:( 2336:( 2295:J 2248:( 2216:( 2196:| 2178:/ 2113:⚔ 2065:→ 1991:→ 1987:— 1975:( 1924:( 1908:) 1904:( 1873:→ 1849:→ 1845:— 1792:→ 1788:— 1775:" 1724:( 1566:" 1198:( 215:. 181:. 119:: 53:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Cross-namespace redirects - Knowledge (XXG)

Index