Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 1[edit]

User:Interiot/cross-namespace redirects[edit]

The result of the debate was I made a better proposal on today's log. >Radiant< 09:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure some people have heard of this page? It's a list of a thousand or so cross-namespace redirects. Now tagging all of them is a ludicrous amount of work, but with two or three dedicated admins and a tabbed browser it's quite easy to clean out. But such a bold move needs some discussion, and there's probably some bits on the list that should not be deleted, so I'm bringing it up here. >Radiant< 14:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In lieu of tagging thousands of pages with RfD, perhaps you should post at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and anywhere else you think appropriate. Also, if anyone objects to a particular redirect (as opposed to a general objection), perhaps you should exempt it from this purge and list it separately if you still want it deleted. —Dgiest c 17:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I've pointed out before, there are a few major "categories" of redirects on the page that each need to be discussed individually, preferably on the village pump. --- RockMFR 17:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The majority (if not all) of those are inappropriate. As long as none of the shortcuts (i.e. wp:rfd) are deleted, I'd in favor of deleting. I do think this should be brought before a larger audience though. John Reaves (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would not worry about that since WP:RFD is not a crosspace redirect and therefore it would not be effected by this. --69.156.204.128 22:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is a cross-namespace redirect. It is technically in the mainspace. --- RockMFR 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose any kind of mass clean-out without discussion, especially of redirects in the Help, Special, Wikipedia Talk and Wikipedia sections. Many of the redirects on the list are appropriate for deletion but many are not. Unless a speedy-deletion criterion already applies, the histories of each page have to be carefully evaluated and the merits of individual redirects weighed. That requires discussion. Let's take the time to do it right. Rossami (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

1974 European Cup Final → European Cup 1973-74[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept John Reaves (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to the final itself when European Cup finals should have their own articles, separate from the main tournament article (e.g. European Cup 1983-84 and 1984 European Cup Final). This redirect discourages people from writing an article about the final. ArtVandelay13 12:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a simple redirect.Tellyaddict 12:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the absence of an article for the final itself, it is very useful to be able to link automatically to the next best thing, which is this article. Let's put it this way- it's much more useful to readers than a red link. Robotforaday 22:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Robotforaday. Oldelpaso 11:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Robotforaday. mattbr30 10:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Cherry Creek School District. → Cherry Creek School District[edit]

The result of the debate was changed to speedy delete ({{db-redirtypo}}). John Reaves (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for a listing with a period after it... No pages link there. PaladinWhite 08:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mermaid(cryptozoology) → Mermaid[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly, see Talk:Mermaid(cryptozoology). It is consensus that mermaids are not cryptids and, thus, this redirect is misleading. And, also, the redirect's title is wrongly written, without a space between "Mermaid" and "(cryptozoology)" Neigel von Teighen 11:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Its more likely that the viewer would type the actual article name in than the long redirect.Tellyaddict 12:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless as a redirect — nobody will search for this, the name does not follow conventions, and is factually incorrect. The edit history of the article shows that it is a fork of Mermaid and possibly a copyvio of another website, so this would get killed whether it was here or at Afd. --- RockMFR 18:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per consensus. John Reaves (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was an admitted attempt (see its talk page) for an editor to put in information that was justly objected to in the Mermaid article. Goldfritha 01:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

PLAYSTATION® Store → PlayStation Store[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether the target, recently restored on WP:DRV, is going to survive its AFD or not, but between the capitals and the trademark symbol, this redirect is really intolerable. —Cryptic 12:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - WP:MOS says you should not use the capitalization and TM in a page name, but that doesn't apply to redirects. Redirects are cheap and exist in part to prevent people from creating duplicate pages with the wrong name. —Dgiest c 17:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The chances of someone else creating a duplicate page at this title are practically nonexistent. Meanwhile, so long as it's here, it appears to the outside world (in google searches and so on) as if we do have a duplicate page at this abominable title. —Cryptic 18:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that the DRV'd page was originally created at that title (and that the creator thought that was the right spelling) suggests that other people will try to use that name too. See also the debate at Talk:Glock/GLOCK vs. Glock debate. —Dgiest c 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible search term. I simply cannot see any user trying to find an article with a term that includes a copyright symbol. WjBscribe 02:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WJBscribe. mattbr30 10:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Rocket engines → Spacecraft propulsion[edit]

The result of the debate was Retargeted to Rocket engine. —Dgiest c 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A full Rocket engine article also exists. For consistency, shouldn't rocket engines redirect to the rocket engine article? Sdsds 21:10, 1 March 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_March_1&oldid=1075371607"