This template is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)AfC project pages
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Redirect, a collaborative effort to improve the standard of redirects and their categorization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Note: This banner should be placed on the talk pages of project, template and category pages that exist and operate to maintain redirects. This banner is not designed to be placed on the talk pages of most redirects and almost never on the talk pages of mainspace redirects. For more information see the template documentation.RedirectWikipedia:WikiProject RedirectTemplate:WikiProject Redirectredirect pages
Just an FYI to potentially interested parties, I've gone ahead and created this template per this discussion. Ping @Ivanvector, AngusWOOF, Tamzin, Thryduulf, Tavix, Jay, Compassionate727, and BDD: - curious for your thoughts on the use of this template, and these redirects overall, in a more general venue than RfD. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Applying an RCAT template to these redirects is way more of a maintenance burden than they are worth, I'd much rather see them deleted. --Tavix(talk) 16:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. I don't see it as a huge maintenance burden if others find value in them, but I can see the argument the other way too, especially as they exist in a nonsensical location (hence why an rcat would be good, provided we do keep them). Elli (talk | contribs) 17:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RDRAFT, Redirects that are a result of page moves from the draft namespace to the main namespace should be retained. And this was based on the 2016 Rfc, which covered both questions - how long should drafts be retained, and what about the cross-namespace problem. WP:RDRAFT can be enhanced to mention this legacy draft namespace as well. - Jay(Talk) 18:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see with this is that the software will still populate the resulting redirects with {{R from move}} and not with this template. Will AfC's instructions be updated to instruct to replace {{R from move}} with this template, and also is it worth the effort? Would it be better to modify the other template so that it produces a different message if it's in the draft namespace? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: I think I should clarify - I only made this template for old AfC submissions that were in the Wikipedia talk namespace before the Draft namespace existed. There should not be new redirects being made that this applies to. (for that, there is {{R from draft}} - which yes, has the issue you mentioned, but hopefully not for long). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for modifying the other template, that's an implementation detail - it could be reasonable to make {{R from draft}} use this if in the Wikipedia talk namespace. I'm just curious if there's a consensus / agreement for this to be tracked at all, or if we'd be better getting a consensus to delete all of these. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I was mistaken, I thought you were proposing to use this for current drafts (in Draft: namespace) if/when they're promoted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
