Talk:CPRN
 | This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • Canadian Policy Research Networks Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Canadian Policy Research Networks |
To DAB or not to DAB
[edit]NmWTfs85lXusaybq would you kindly explain what vandalism you were referring to in this edit. Conversion of a redirect to a DAB is not ipso facto vandalism, and I see no bad-faith here on the part of any party. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- I was referring to the blanking and PROD of redirect by Paulh144, not the disambiguation by The Anome. But there's no enough valid entries to warrant a dab page anyway. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- @NmWTfs85lXusaybq: neither of those two actions was vandalism i.e.
editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose
; minor disruption resulting from inexperience sure but not vandalism, and the blanking had already been reverted by me incidentally. - I'm well aware of what the MoS calls for here, which is why I didn't make that edit myself. At the same time, the MoS is not an ironclad set of proscriptions; while not required it would be helpful to explain the reversion further, if only with something like
per MoS
. - I'll let The Anome weigh in on the case for DABification. But just because something is irregular does not mean it is forbidden. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, the evidence of deliberate intention to defeat the project's purpose includes spamming, let alone the COI editing of attempt to remove the redirect after AfC submission of Draft:Cerebral Palsy Research Network got declined three times. DABification isn't controversial as long as the draft, which another COI editor Bcooper63 is working on, is accepted via AfC but for now, just keep the redirect as it is. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- @NmWTfs85lXusaybq: misunderstanding PROD, and deletion procedure in general, is a mistake that newbies make all the time; in fact in the rare case they demonstrate the ability to navigate such procedures ab initio they tend to be accused of being socks. We prefer it if COI editors use the AFC process, indeed we actually tell them to do that; they are also allowed to resubmit after declines, indeed we tell them to do that too provided improvements are made between submissions resubmission after rejections is another matter.
- But getting back on the topic of whether a DAB should currently be here, probably not, which is to say in the absence of a good reason to deviate we should default to the guidline. However I believe The Anome should be allowed to make a case as to why this might be an exception. A little open-mindedness never hurts. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, the evidence of deliberate intention to defeat the project's purpose includes spamming, let alone the COI editing of attempt to remove the redirect after AfC submission of Draft:Cerebral Palsy Research Network got declined three times. DABification isn't controversial as long as the draft, which another COI editor Bcooper63 is working on, is accepted via AfC but for now, just keep the redirect as it is. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- @NmWTfs85lXusaybq: neither of those two actions was vandalism i.e.
Dabification seemed a good idea at the time, because there was a draft article in progress that I expected to pass soon, which would have filled in the redlink, and this seemed like a good compromise between deleting the redirect and keeping it in place. But I was merely being WP:BOLD; if the community editing process decides that my choice was wrong, so be it; I've no strong preference either way. — The Anome (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)