Forum:CT:TCRedirect and associated protection clauses

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:TCRedirect and associated protection clauses

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support. —spookywilloww^talk 17:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Just sort of boring procedural stuff, but wanted to formalize {{TCRedirect}} and have it added to TC closing instructions. As well as codifying that pages redirected via TC get protected, so as to prevent them from simply being re-made as pages (as the casual editor who isn't involved in site processes may not know it was a community decision to formally create the redirect and not have a page on its own). TCRedirect would serve as a visual notifier of that, while the protection also helps with that. Understandably, mostly just for ones going forward; highly doubt anyone's going to backtrack to past decisions and thats fine. As that's a how-to guide, simply hosting the vote to approve the additions/documentation of the process, without hammering any specific wording since it's relatively basic and good to keep it open to cleanup (the CT itself being just for approving the template).

Also to add a sole bullet to Wookieepedia:Protection policy:

Redirects created via a decision from the trash compactor should be protected to prevent page recreation.

And to amend: Pages deleted via consensus in a Trash compactor discussion that are repeatedly recreated in violation of the consensus to delete may should be fully create protected.

As for the reasoning behind the amend bit, to my knowledge it's been done consistently for the last few years, so policy never got updated but its been what folk have been doing anyway. And rightly so, if the community makes a decision, that should be upheld. Again to help with providing a visual/actual marker of 'hey this has been deleted because of a TC' rather than speedy-ing it with no summary and not protecting it, which may result in a well-meaning new editor creating it only for it to get nuked immediately.—spookywilloww^talk 17:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. —spookywilloww^talk 17:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
2. I forgot that template existed! Good to have this formalised OOM 224 17:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Yasen Nestorov (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Lewisr (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Ayrehead02 (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
6. Fan26 (Talk) 19:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
7. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 09:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
8. Bonzane10 09:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
9. Imperators II^(Talk) 10:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
10. NBDani (they/them)^{Yeager's Repairs} 15:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)