Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 30[edit]

Kentucky fried chicken is → KFC[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per CSD G1 (patent nonsense). This is a non-admin closure. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense redirect. "is"? Why would anyone looking for Kentucky Fried Chicken with "is" at the end? TheBlazikenMaster 13:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as G1 (patent nonsense) or G2 (test edit). This is the sole userspace contribution of someone with an illuminating userpage and no contributions since last June. Not otherwise useful. Gavia immer (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

CNRs to Portal-space that are longer than the title of the portal[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. Given that Beatles portal and similar already exist as more straightforward redirects, these are of no real navigational advantage. Clearly undesirable as XNRs. WjBscribe 05:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above are CNRs to Portal-space that are as long as or longer than the title of the target portal, have no useful edit history, and have no significant incoming links (the only links are from lists of CNRs). Delete. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The articles were part of a mass nomination of cross-namespace redirects on March 17, 2007, which closed as "no consensus" due to the sheer number of redirects included in the nomination.

  • Strong Keep. As this is a re-nomination, here's my re-opposition to the proposal. Are there really more benefits of deleting these instead of keeping them? If one day there's gonna be an article named "the fish portal", then convert the redirect to article. I'm fine with that. But meanwhile, why deleting useful redirects? From my experience, they are extremely useful. Back then before there were redirects to the fish portal, I was watching my boyfriend trying to get to the fish portal, and he didn't have any clue how to do it. He didn't even know that all portals are in a different namespace. He kept typing "fish portal" and "portal fish" until I told him it's "portal:fish". And that was exactly why I put these redirects. Just because we are more experienced editors, it doesn't mean we can ignore other people. It's not unlikely that someday there will be some newbies somewhere trying to get to Portal:Fish by typing "the fish portal" --Melanochromis 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CNR, fairly cut and dry from where I stand. JuJube 06:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Such redirects are very useful for non-wikipedians. 'Portal:The Beatles' or 'Portal:Fish' are hardly intuitive. The fact that there are many portal-related cross-namespace redirects indicates that many other editors think so too. Since they are a naviation aid, it's no surprise that they have 'no useful edit history, and have no significant incoming links'. Gralo 16:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that the 'sheer number of redirects' included in the previous mass nomination was not a major factor in reaching "no consensus" last time around; in my view the central argument was over their utility. Gralo 17:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Gralo 18:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my counter-argument as well. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 01:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is crazy. Why do we have to remove them? Makes no fuckin' sense. Also per Melanochromis. Oh and sorry about using the f-word. I couldn't figure out how to word it otherwise. TheBlazikenMaster 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strict adherence to guidelines or helping the encyclopedia? I'll take the latter AdamBiswanger1 21:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, XNRs should be avoided and "longcuts" are really pretty pointless. >Radiant< 11:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. CNR. Users can easily type in Portal:Whatever, just as they would to find Categories, Users, etc. The related articles also have clear links to such pages. Its based on policy, and its easier. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 12:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can see their utility, even if others can't. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. --163.1.165.116 16:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that's part of the policy, but I believe and interpret that it applies to article namespace only. If it applied to every namespace, then I'll just create an Mtm page so it redirects to my userpage, and since I would find that very useful, I could use that policy clause for my defense. I understand your point, but I think that clause should be clarified. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 16:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The people who don't know how to find portals are usually the ones who don't even know they are called portals, so I consider these unlikely search terms. On top of that, there's an "all portals" link on the main page for those who wish to get a clue about portal naming conventions. Easily accessible and not hard to find. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Cross namespace. Plus, the top of the Portal article includes a reference to the list. ∴ here…♠ 00:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • drown (uh, delete). Delete confusing CNR. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, XNR, longer than target, and I have to completely agree with Mgm] about the supposed utility of these. If you've learned enough about Wikipedia to be actually searching for a portal, then you should know enough to be able figure out what they're called. I think "it might be useful" is a reasonable argument within the main namespace, but not for cross-namespace redirects, IMO. Xtifr tälk 20:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_30&oldid=1078530065"