Talk:China at the 23rd Chess Olympiad
Where in Wikipedia:Redirect is this not allowed? Gollenaiven (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Redirects are designed to take a user looking for an article on one thing to another article that covers that subject. You should only create redirects that a user of the encyclopedia might plausibly be expected to enter. As it is inplausible that a user would look for an article entitled "China at the 23rd Chess Olympiad", the redirect can be speedily deleted under CSD R3. Mayalld (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- How on earth do you know it is "implausible"? Gollenaiven (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am suggesting that it is implausible. How can anybody know that something is implausible Mayalld (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- It being created in the first place means that you have already contradicted yourself. So therefore it is not implausible. Gollenaiven (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nonsense! The fact that you thought of it as a title for an article (that was deleted by AfD) is not evidence that it is a plausible title that a user might expect to find in Wikipedia. Mayalld (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't think of it off the top of my head. It is a standard naming convention: see China at the 1996 Summer Olympics, or Category:Nations at the Olympics for that matter. Gollenaiven (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nonsense! The fact that you thought of it as a title for an article (that was deleted by AfD) is not evidence that it is a plausible title that a user might expect to find in Wikipedia. Mayalld (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- It being created in the first place means that you have already contradicted yourself. So therefore it is not implausible. Gollenaiven (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am suggesting that it is implausible. How can anybody know that something is implausible Mayalld (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- How on earth do you know it is "implausible"? Gollenaiven (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- (1) You said yourself "it is implausible for a user...". Am I not a user?
- (2) There are many Deleted articles that have been turned into redirects. Gollenaiven (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- By your argument, any redirect would be valid, just because somebody thought of it. The fact that CSD R3 exists proves this argument to be false. Yes, many deleted articles are turned into redirects. Equally many are not. Mayalld (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, you were the one who was pushing that argument. I was simply stating you were contradicting yourself as it is impossible for you to know how many people in the world would search for such a term.
- By your argument, any redirect would be valid, just because somebody thought of it. The fact that CSD R3 exists proves this argument to be false. Yes, many deleted articles are turned into redirects. Equally many are not. Mayalld (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- By your argument, any redirect would be valid.... but that's the thing I didn't create "any" redirect I wanted. I created a redirect that is logical and accurate. Gollenaiven (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- But it is not for you alone to decide whether it is logical, accurate and appropriate.
- It is clear that you remain determined that Wikipedia will bow to your will, and that in all matters relating to anything that you add to Wikipedia, you will be the sole judge of what is right and wrong. I shall leave it to others to explain how this is incorrect. You may have the last word Mayalld (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- You've contradicted yourself again, as I am not "alone" in thinking it is okay. Gollenaiven (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Because I think a redirect is legitimate = "determined that Wikipedia bow to my will", that is quite an antisocial statement to make. Gollenaiven (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)