Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 29

August 29[edit]

Wp:table → Wikipedia:How to use tables, and WP:TABLE → Wikipedia:When to use tables[edit]

The result of the debate was delete Wp:table, no consensus as to whether to retarget WP:TABLE. WjBscribe 17:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Retarget needed) Both shortcuts to Wikipedia-space are exactly the same, except for their capitalization. However, they redirect to two different but related pages. Suggest retargeting one of them to maintain consistency between the two. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 10:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The former is nonstandard and has hardly any incoming links; the latter is more standard and does have inlinks. So fix the former, either by deleting it or by pointing to the latter. >Radiant< 07:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about redirect both to Help:Table? They are useful shortcuts irrespective of the number of incoming links. — AjaxSmack 08:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wp:table. Through two and a half years, it's accumulated five links? Get rid of it and allow the go button to direct wp:table to WP:TABLE. Let's keep the number of incorrect pseudo-namespace redirects to a minimum. That is to say WP: is okay, Wp: is not. BigNate37_(T) 15:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wp:table and redirect its links to WP:TABLE which should be redirected to Help:Table. All searches don't make a difference with Capitals, so it's therefore obselete. Chris DHDR 12:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say leaving WP:TABLE's target as-is would be best, since it's listed as the shortcut to that page and in my opinion there isn't good enough reason here to reassign that shortcut. Otherwise, I'd like the idea of redirecting to Wikipedia:How to use tables which is a disambiguation. BigNate37_(T) 15:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox SpongeBob list → Template:Infobox SpongeBob episode[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template redirect without any conceivable use. --MZMcBride 00:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - its name is confusing, is it a list or is it a template??? Not very helpful either . Chris DHDR 13:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox Microsoft → Template:Infobox Software[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template redirect without any conceivable use. --MZMcBride 00:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: one obvious use is to put {{Infobox Microsoft}} on MS software product articles in lieu of {{Infobox Software}}. The advantage of using the redirect is that one could later expand the redirect into a MS-specific template based on the generic one, should that become desirable. If there is no MS-specific information warranting a custom MS infobox, the redirect would simply remain and not cause any harm. BigNate37_(T) 15:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I sort of see it the other way around. If someone wanted to create a specific template of Microsoft products, they could do so and then update the appropriate pages. However, I would hate to start seeing a new Template redirect for every company or piece of software. Template:Infobox Software is intended to standardize the infoboxes for pieces of software. Also, unless someone does actually place this template redirect on Microsoft-related pages, it's just another one of thousands of unused and orphaned templates and template redirects cluttering the Template namespace. --MZMcBride 21:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, however things like open-source software, Microsoft, Electronic Arts... they're all big enough to warrant their own infobox. I doubt there's more than a dozen such classifications for software that would, so lumping it in with the thousands seems a little dramatic. I've changed my recommendation from keep to weak keep, but I still see only a marginal reason to delete along with my marginal reason to keep. BigNate37_(T) 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - so that should an infobox specific to Microsoft be needed in the future, this redirect won't hinder it's creation. Chris DHDR 13:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If an actual Template:Infobox Microsoft is created, it may not have the same parameters as Template:Infobox (otherwise, why create a duplicate?). Any pages that use Template:Infobox Microsoft as a redirect will have to be fixed if a new template is ever created. Besides, multiple templates names cause confusion for editors. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bennett Cohen → Ben Cohen (ice cream)[edit]

The result of the debate was disambiguate. WjBscribe 23:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some confusion here. The links to this article are for Bennett Cohen, producer, but the target is for the cofounder of Ben & Jerry's. A redlink would be most useful here. - RedWordSmith 20:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per above Chris DHDR 13:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Convert. Since the full name of Ben Cohen is Bennett Cohen (check the official Ben & Jerry's website), then this is a perfectly valid redirect. If there is a notable individual with the same name, then the best thing to do would be to create a stub on that person and add a dab link at the top to Ben Cohen. If not, then a dab page is probably in order, and the links fixed to Bennett Cohen (producer) or something. The link between these two pages/titles shouldn't be lost. mattbr 20:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that if there were an article about the producer, it would be best if it included a link to Ben Cohen (businessman). However, I am skeptical about whether such an article will exist in the near future given the limited information currently available on Wikipedia and the age of the topic. We also don't want to create substubs. - RedWordSmith 07:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But that's not a reason to delete the link, currently by a redirect, between the full name and short name of Ben Cohen so that the links to Bennett Cohen for the producer become redlinks. The connection between the two should remain, which the deletion of the page would not achieve, which is why I suggested a dab page and the re-targeting of the (currently two) links. matt br 07:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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