Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 January 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 17[edit]

TP:ES -> Template:Editsummary[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 22:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, TP:SUB -> Template:Subst and TP:SUM -> Template:Summary. Probably not such a good idea to start a new group of cross-namespace redirects to link to templates, since they can already be linked to {{like this}}. >Radiant< 16:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - note that there is already a convention of using T: for some links of this type, so they go against (semi-)established practice. (I'm not speaking for or against the existing practice here; I merely note it.) Gavia immer (u|t) 18:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather discuss them in a separate nomination – e.g., I'd rather not sidetrack this one – but the short answer is that I would support deleting them if and only if they were orphaned first. T:DYK, for example, has lots of links and transclusions. Gavia immer (u|t) 18:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Definitely recommend nominating the T: redirects and any other unconventional pseudo-namespace CNRs. --- RockMFR 00:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Lists of various Nintendo games "by genre"[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 22:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These were all lists that got converted to redirects to their respective games; however, none of these make any sense as redirects since they either refer to groups of games in the same genre, or to a single game (there is only one Blast Corps, one Duck Hunt, etc). Nobody would be looking for these as lists, and anybody who came across them in Google would be very confused.

–Unint 03:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as useless redirects. Doesn't seem like anything was merged when redirecting, so we're okay in respect to maintaining the edit histories. --- RockMFR 00:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. —pfahlstrom 01:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of Delete all by genre per nom and above. Cream147 16:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Text of the GNU Free Documentation License → Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. While the GFDL itself is encyclopedic, we already have an article on it. The text is original source material and, per WP:NOT, doesn't belong in article space or masquerading as an article. Per Google, there are no links outside of Wikipedia to this redirect. RockMFR has already cleaned up the Wikipedia ones. -- JLaTondre 15:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect; delete. Also nominating the talk redirect, Talk:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. Kchase T 15:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'll go ahead and cleanup incoming links. --- RockMFR 23:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, the text of GFDL is itself encyclopedic and probably would be appropriate for the article space. The "confusion" argument is irrelevant. Second, this redirect was made as a result of a pagemove. The original page is quite old, predating the creation of the Wikipedia namespace. There is a significant chance that there are external links to the original location. Deleting the redirect will break those links. This is particularly true in this case because Wikipedia is the largest implementation of GFDL in the world so far. Other users frequently point to our page as a convenient way to keep their own references to the license up to date. Rossami (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rossami makes a strong argument (Though I don't know that the text itself is encyclopedic, that might be more appropriate for wikisource). Also, unlike with many CNRs, if a person types this in, they're going to get exactly what they're looking for. Deleting an old redirect with potentially important history and incoming (non-Wikipedia) links is also a concern. delldot | talk 18:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Myxine → Hagfish[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. Red link will better encourage an article creation. Since all the other genus on the page are red links, it doesn't make since to have a lone redirect. Searching for myxine finds the hagfish article. -- JLaTondre 15:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myxine is genus within the hagfish and is referenced by the hagfish article. The result is a confusing self-reference. It would be better to delete this redirect and let the red link document that the genus is yet to be described in Wikipedia. EMS | Talk 19:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. It is confusing to click on Myxine expecting info specific to that genus and get info on a more general topic. Dkreisst 12:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's common to redirect more specific things to more general terms until a full article can be written. This is a plausible search term. However, you're both right that the confusing self-referential link should be removed. delldot | talk 22:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the link from the article. If the decision is to delete, we may want to add it back in. delldot | talk 22:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - In a case like this, that redirect strategy is not a good idea. It is also silly that only the one genus out of several is subject to a redirect like that. I am willing to defer to any guidelines on this issue, but I really think that the Hagfish page is set up so that the lack of a working link is a good flag that something needs to be written. BTW - You did not catch all of the occurances of that link. --EMS | Talk 23:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Well, I admit I don't feel particularly strongly about it one way or the other, perhaps I should change to weak keep. But so far I'm not convinced it's hurting anything by acting as a redirect with possibilities. Thanks for catching the links I missed! delldot | talk 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Celebrity Big Brother 6 (UK) → Celebrity Big Brother 2006 (UK)[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 14:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded by User:TheTallOne with the reason "No such series currently, created due to incorrect numbering. See Talk:Big Brother (UK)#CBB 5 NOT 7 for more information." Conscious 19:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_11, where Celebrity Big Brother 7 (UK) was nominated and deleted. --TheTallOne 18:52, 19 January 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_January_17&oldid=1075371584"