Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 April 16

April 16

WP:EA → Wikipedia:Esperanza

The result of the debate was re-targeted to Wikipedia:Editor assistance. John Reaves (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two possible targets for this shortcut, Wikipedia:Esperanza (which it has historically pointed to) and the new page, Wikipedia:Editor assistance. It seems that an active page should have precedence over a historic one. I therefore suggest retargeting to Wikipedia:Editor assistance, with a disambiguation link to Wikipedia:Esperanza being added to the target. WjBscribe 20:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. No problem with that. Editor assistance replacing Esperanza...that makes it worth it. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 20:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a dead organization should not supplant a live one. Esperanza is already fading into living memory, I am starting to meet people who have no idea what Esperanza is. It's therefore highly useful to change the shortcut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev920 (talk • contribs)
Oppose. There are a lot of links to WP:EA with and without context as to what its intended target is, most often as links in signatures. This both creates confusion for new users, and gives Editor Assistance unearned publicity. Fixing thousands of them is a waste of effort. WP:ASSIST is a much more intuitive shortcut with no previous connotations. –Pomte 20:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's why we'd have a disambig link to guide people to the right page. By definition those looking for Esperanza will be established contributors whereas Editor Assistance is aimed at new users who will never have heard of Esperanza. Is giving it a bit of publicity really a bad thing? WjBscribe 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a user who is willing to use his bot to change all the current WP:EA links to Wikipedia:Esperanza, if consensus is gained to do so. The level of effort required is minimal. Users shouldn't be linking to Esperanza in their signatures anyway, so that shouldn't be an issue. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they shouldn't, but they do. If you check the backlinks, you will find that many of the hits to WP:EA are in fact in signatures. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals insert penis pictures in loads of articles - they shouldn't but they do. Should we therefore delete WP:VAN on that basis? No. If a user is foolish enough to link to a defunct organization in their signature, than anyone clicking on it will be taken to a much more useful organization, but with the option of seeing Esperanza if they want to (through the link at the top of EA). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, I wasn't voicing an opinion about whether or not the work should be done. I was trying to indicate that I thought that there were a very large number of links and that the work might therefore not be minimal. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect to Esperanza. I'm really not seeing the benefit of changing this. WP:EA is pretty well-known as the redirect to Esperanza. Anytime it gets used, most older users are going to think of Esperanza, not Editor assistance. Why not just use the unique WP:ASSIST shortcut that doesn't have a history behind it? --- RockMFR 22:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect to Esperanza. Users who remember Esperanza will remember the WP:EA shortcut, and since changing the link changes many signatures, it changes what people have said, even on archived pages. Since it's generally frowned upon to change archived discussion, I would similarly frown upon changing this historic redirect. Nihiltres 22:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only frowned upon if the meaning is changed. There will no substantive change, provided the bot op is careful. (Or, perhaps, several people might be recruited to do the job manually in AWB, to ensure that no meaning ever gets changed). --kingboyk 15:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support change. Why does Esperanza (an inactive group) get priority over Editor assistance (an active group)? People who remember Esperanza will be able to find it - new people who don't know Esperanza but need assistance should get the easiest shortcut possible. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support change, active page > historical page. ♠P M C♠ 04:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, active boards trump historical ones. >Radiant< 10:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if the previous links are changed. Perhaps a substitute shortcut for Esperanza should be created to replace the existing WP:EA shortcuts. (I note that WP:ESP exists...) - jc37 11:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One would imagine that it is not outside the realms of possibility that someone will create a WikiProject on ESP and want their shortcut... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought about that when I said that (part of why the ellipses : ) - Just out of curiosity, how many shortcuts does Esperanza have? Perhaps the simplest replacement would be WP:ESPERANZA. - jc37 10:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A dead project doesn't need any redirect, but if it's to have one WP:ESPERANZA would probably best, I agree. --kingboyk 11:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the argument that a live project takes priority over a dead one. We have a willing bot operator to fix up existing links too. --kingboyk 15:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Esperanza; been here for a heckuva long time, plus it is in people's signatures. Ab e g92Hokies! 14:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I mostly ignored Esperanza, but was surprised when it was disbanded. Nevertheless, it is defunct, and we have a bot to clean up old links, so nominator's suggestion seems quite reasonable. Not to mention, a better match for these particular initials. Xtifr _tälk 22:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support; as long as a see-also link at the top of the page mentions the former link to Esperanza, it seems useful and reasonable. Krimpet (talk/review) 04:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support change - Esperanza is dead and editors should, by now, begin to accept this. Addhoc 14:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support change because we already have WP:ESP as a redirect to Esperanza. However, a disambig tag should be added on editor assistance. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - No matter how often we fix the links, there will always be the occasional editor who still uses WP:EA to redirect to Wikipedia:Esperanza. In addition, I've seens some links to WP:EA in edit summaries; obviously, we can't edit edit summaries, can we?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can't, no. But that's the reason that there will be a "see instead" link at the top of Editor's assitance to Esperanza. - jc37 02:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Keeping Esperanza in its pristine condition is fine, but what of the poor inexperienced editors who have no idea what to do. They type, in desperation, some abbreviation like WP:EA and they get Esperanza. That's no help to them. --Valley2city^₪‽ 08:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig i.e. create a disambiguation page linking to Esperanza and all other applicable. Simply south 17:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a bit of a silly outcome. There's only two choices; the "losing" page must get a dab header, that's all that's needed. This discussion is to decide which page is the "loser": Esperanza or Editor Assistance. --kingboyk 11:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Change Active should take priority over historical in this case. GDonato (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support change By the time I came around in earnest, Esperanza was dead. Let's move on and perform the necessary organ donation to help another project. (Sorry if that sounds gruesome.) YechielMan 06:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the idea is well intentioned. The idea of transferring this link from "Esperanza" to "Editor Assistance" I believe is perceived by many as not so harmful because the two pages are virtually the same. They both keeps the spirit of helping out others and providing guidance. I believe the debate should look at how we will preserve the historic sense of Esperanza. Let us assume that some or many of the "what links to WP:EA", as demonstrated here, are related mostly to Esperanza. Esperanza was well established back in 2004. Now we are 2007. Personally, even though I'm supposedly banded from editing at WP:Editor Assistance, I would prefer having the "WP:EA", used for a Wikipedia pages, link to a page which has not been disbanded. Personnally I think we should even make a rule for this. If old group is defunct then new group should receive the page. However, if there is more then 3 possible meanings then pershaps a dissambiguation page should be created. If there is no problem in changing the link, I would do it! But there may in fact be a problem. I believe we must consider the former Esperanza concept. References to Esperanza appear to be numerous (2000+). I therefore believe that where ever WP:EA redirects that, that new page, (ie.: Editor assistance) should maintain a disambiguation at the top of the "article". That would mean that "Editor Assistance" should mention Esperanza or have a link somewhere on it's page. Another solution, would be to utilise WP:EA as a disambiguation page. This would probably be a better solution because it allows for each entity to remain "separate."--CyclePat 20:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s.: What are we going to do about all these possible wikipedia groups: "Emergency Assistance", "Emergency Authority", "Emergency Announcement", "Educator Ambassador", "External Associate", "Emergency/Enforcement Action", "Early Action", "External Affairs", "Experimental Activities", "Expert Advisor", "Electronic Analysis", "Editor Assimilation" or "Executive Agency", "Equal Access", "Enrolled Agent", "Evangelical Alliance", "Enterprise Architecture"... Trully a dissambiguation is to be called for now before the creators of Editor assistance believe they own WP:EA. --CyclePat 20:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Equinox (astronomy) → Equinox

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 11:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not this meaning. Visor 19:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes that meaning. What did you have in mind? –Pomte 14:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a confusing problem. "Equinox" has two uses in astronomy. The page at equinox describes one meaning of the term. In other situations, "equinox" may be used as a synonym for epoch (astronomy). Template:Starbox observe, which is used on a few pages, included a link to equinox (astronomy) that redirected to equinox, but the term, as used in the template, should actually redirect to epoch (astronomy). To fix this problem, I replace "equinox" with "epoch" in the template. After that fix, I do not know if anything will link to equinox (astronomy). However, maybe having a redirect with disambiguation would still be useful. Dr. Submillimeter 08:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
convert to dab per Dr. micron. 132.205.44.134 00:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlikely seach term. No articles link there. We already have Equinox (disambiguation). WjBscribe 01:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Cat:Richmond, California → Category:Richmond, California

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 01:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really a shortcut at all. I can't see how it could be useful. No relevant incoming. --- RockMFR 17:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed – Gurch 11:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Simply south 20:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Journaled File System → IBM Journaled File System 2 (JFS2)

The result of the debate was retarget to Journaling file system. WjBscribe 01:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes more sense to me, and no one said anything in the two months since I mentioned it on the talk page, that the article be named "Journaled File System" instead of the cumbersome and peculiar "IBM Journaled File System 2 (JFS2)". I would've just renamed it, but it appears the article in question used to be called JFS (before JFS became a disambiguation page), and "Journaled File System" redirected there. Kbolino 12:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Journaling file system and place a hatnote there pointing to IBM Journaled File System 2 (JFS2). In my opinion, it's a tossup whether someone searching on the nominated redirect wants info on journaling filesystems in general, or on IBM's specific (and badly named) one. Hence, we'd better make sure they can find either one. Gavia immer (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Journaling file system per Gavia immer. The current target is very badly named, but that can be discussed on its talk page. Xtifr _tälk 00:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternative option: create a dab page at Journaled file system, pointing to JFS2, VERITAS, possibly some others, and to Journaling file system (where it currently points), then redirect this there. Xtifr _tälk 00:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

WP:NOOB → Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 01:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate, possibly imflammatory from reading Noob article Simply south 10:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I highly disagree. It's been for three years, and I don't really agree with that reason. TheBlazikenMaster 12:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Use of this shortcut risks violating Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. There are plenty of other shortcuts available. Gavia immer (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not inappropriate. Remember the context in which this is being used. It is not being used disparagingly towards newbs - rather, it is being used as an easy shortcut to a guideline page that is often used in discussions between veteran users. --- RockMFR 17:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the newbie article, it is unsourced that noob is more insulting than newb. Both are well-known terms for referring to newcomers. Anyone insulted by one is likely to be insulted by the other, and they should assume good faith, though I think they'd be more insulted by the BITE claim. –Pomte 20:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well known term for new users. To me does not seem that bad Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 02:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "noob" for "newcomer" is very common slang, and provides a reasonable, easy-to-remember shortcut to an important guideline page. As RockMFR pointed out, it's primarily used in discussions between veteran users; anyone who uses this in an inappropriate way towards newcomers would, ironically, be breaking WP:NOOB (and WP:CIVIL). Krimpet (talk/review) 04:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, noob is today's newbie which was yesteryear's newcomer. In other words, everyone knows what it means. --Valley2city^₪‽ 08:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only a few incoming links for this (less than 50). Please fix those, and then delete. Carcharoth 09:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can be regarded offensive, especially by newcomers (see for example [1] today). Why not use WP:NEWCOMERS or something like that. ---Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as the executor of said comment I realize first-hand that it can be misconstrued. But, then again, so could WP:BITE or typing out Please do not bite the newcomers. You're liable to tick some people off whatever you do: even though I was trying to cool heads, sometimes trying to blow out a fire ends up fanning the flames, no matter which shortcut I use. In 1337, noob is the proper nomenclature that wouldn't have the same effect as say WP:Greenhorn or WP:Infant. --Valley2city^₪‽ 16:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not contest the meaning of the word, but this is English Wikipedia after all, not 1337 W1k1p3d14. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The meaning of "noob" depends on context. Other things being equal, it just means newbie, and is perfectly innocuous. If I say, "Joe Schmoe is a n00b!" that's another story entirely. YechielMan 06:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Silas N.Pearman Bridge → Silas N. Pearman Memorial Bridge

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 01:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page only exists because it is missing a space between the middle initial and the last name. N.Pearman versus N. Pearman. Also, because I moved the target page, this page is now a double redirect. Charles 01:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because redirects are cheap, easy to leave out a space. I've fixed it so it points to Silas N. Pearman Bridge and is no longer a double redirect. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as redirects are cheap. Ab e g92Hokies! 14:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By this logic, we should be creating pages like the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology so that lazy people do not have to be checking their typing. Sometimes having a redirect where the space is missing may make sense. For instance, Bluewhale redirects to Blue Whale. I can understand that some people may not know that the proper name of the animal is two words. However, if someone does not know that a space is needed between a period and the next word, perhaps they need more help than Wikipedia has to offer. Just because a type exists, is not a reason to keep it. - Charles 22:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We don't purposely create these. In this case, the article was created with the typo, when it was moved to the correct title, it became a redirect. Because redirects are cheap, we often just keep them if they are plausible. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Make someone happy! → Uuuser

The result of the debate was Deleted by NawlinWiki. -- JLaTondre 11:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense pages.. and so is the target page but I have already used a Speedy template there Exit2DOS2000^{•T•C••} 04:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

HIPC (disambiguation) → HIPC

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 01:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless redirect. Who's gonna type in " (disambiguation)" when they can easily omit it? — Jack · talk · 15:26, Monday, 16 April 2007

Delete per nom. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Valley2city^₪‽ 08:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, there are many pages out there with "(disambiguation)" in the name which redirect to the proper disambiguation page. Should we delete those as well? Simply south 17:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say yes, delete all of them which have no incoming links. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A redirect doesn't have to have incoming links to be a redirect. Simply south 19:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I am aware of that. However, if there are no incoming links then the redircet will only be used if someone types in the entire phrase, and as suggested by the nominator, why would anyone do that? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is a common name......? OK i see your point. Simply south 09:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

TheSimpsons → The Simpsons

The result of the debate was keep. Harryboyles 13:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No incoming. Created by Jake Mayo-Dan (talk · contribs) as patent nonsense, speedied, and then speedy tag removed by creator. JianLi 18:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nevertheless, this could be used as a common redirect for common spelling. Simply south 23:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, redirects are cheap, and this is a plausible misspelling. Do tag it as {{R from misspelling}}, though. -- Xtifr _tälk 00:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see what's wrong with it. JuJube 01:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Just a redirect from a misspelling. I doubt anyone is looking for TheSimpsons as something different than The Simpsons. (mastrchf91) 02:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xtifr and Mastrchf91. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 00:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cheap. Ab e g92Hokies! 14:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to delete. Probably a common misspelling. --Melanochromis 21:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should Wikipedia be like Microsoft Word and correct spellings without people having to think? You say cheap to keep and I say it just helps make lazy people. - Charles 22:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's not there to help lazy people, it's there to help readers who type the search term incorrectly. Should Wikipedia make it easy for readers to find articles? Adambro 12:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plausible and appropriate search term. Adambro 12:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.