Essay to discuss the practice before a proposal to lock it in
I recommend converting this to an essay. In the essay, the community, interested editors anyway, can study the practice. Only after properly studying the practice in an essay should a proposal be written. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
"the page ... must be an exact match of a topic already covered within the mainspace"
I think this is language is a bit tight. "Speedy redirect", meaning the reviewer should have just redirected in the first place, is the best option for essentially the same topic, not just "exactly the same", and it is also for when the mainspace article, or another more advanced draft, covers the same topic in more breadth. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- User:SmokeyJoe - My thinking, and I am aware that other editors disagree, is that I don't like speedy redirects after an MFD has started except in obvious cases, just as speedy deletion is only used in obvious cases. Otherwise speedy redirects can be used as a good-faith but disruptive way to thwart a deletion discussion. I agree that it should be only available if the nominator should have redirected rather than deleting, but there are times when a nominator has a reasonable judgment call as to whether to redirect or to tag for deletion. So I want something rigid and tight. That's my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'd support loosening the language a bit. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like to see the language loosened a bit, but only if it keeps Robert happy, because his opinion is a good one. Loosen, but it must remain objective. If a page should be redirected, but not quite "speedy", there is no harm in letting the discussion play out. Mostly, my wish in writing "speedy redirect" is to tell the nominator that they should have considered redirecting before MfD-ing. It used to be a problem, for MfD workflow issues, but that was before mas portals. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)