Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 29[edit]

Navigation popups → Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cross-namespace redirect to the Wikipedia namespace that lacks a useful edit history and has no incoming links from the article namespace. There are a total of 9 non-trivial incoming links from the "User:" and "Wikipedia:" namespaces which I can easily disambiguate upon request.

The article's title is potentially confusing and I doubt its usefulness as a search term. Only experienced users are likely to know about "Navigation popups" and there already exist various shortcuts to it. Moreover, the title "navigation popups" may be confused with "popups during navigation/browsing" (i.e., pop-up ads). I thought of redirecting to pop-up ad, but that gives a bad name to a valuable Wikipedia tool. I think the least problematic solution is to delete the redirect. -- Black Falcon 22:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Pop-up ad which is what a user of the encyclopedia is probably looking for. Anyone with the experience to be looking for the Wikipedia tool will have a better idea where to look (especially as all edit summaries that result from using popups have the direct link). Don't think it "gives a bad name to the tool"- the allusion must have been obvious when they were named. WjBscribe 03:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think "navigation popups" is used to refer to popup ads. --JianLi 02:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as cross-namespace, but make sure that popups still redirects to pop-up ad with a dablink to Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. --After Midnight 0001 20:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't the presence of the DAB link to Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups make it a good idea to redirect people to that article? WjBscribe 20:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are asking about the current redirect, I would say "no". If you are asking about your proposal, I would say that would be my 2nd choice after delete. --After Midnight 0001 03:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Game Maker logo → Image:Game Maker 48.png[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. YechielMan 15:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game Maker Logo (same target) added to the discussion. --- RockMFR 22:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kurdish separatism → Kurdistan Workers Party[edit]

The result of the debate was retarget to Kurdistan. John Reaves (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PKK is not only Kurdish separatist organisation and there is no page for Kurdish nationalism nor Kurdish separatism. Francis Tyers · 09:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to Turkish Kurdistan or Kurdistan - Koweja 03:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until there are such pages (per FT). NikoSilver 14:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Kurdistan which is the closest to what someone who searches for the term may be looking for. There are Kurdish separatists in countries other than Turkey so this seems the better of Koweja's suggestions. WjBscribe 06:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Terör → Kurdistan Workers Party[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 06:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV -- I suppose this is the Turkish word for 'Terror'. Francis Tyers · 09:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As POV and overly general based on tr:Terörizm. —dgiestc 04:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a foreign-language POV redirect where the foreign-language term has no particular affiliation with the concept. I oppose retargeting to terror as, political issues aside, the Turkish word for "terror" has no particular association with the general concept of "terror" compared to any other language. For instance, redirecting "cosmonaut" to "austronaut" is justifed because of the USSR's heavy presence in space exploration and because cosmonaut is a term that has wide use even outside of Russia. The same does not apply to the Turkish translation of "terror". We should not have a redirect for every foreign-language translation of a term. We have 1.7 million articles in en.wikipedia and Ethnologue identifies more than 7000 main languages. That comes to nearly 12 billion redirects, not counting redirects for alternate foreign-language spellings, misspellings, plural forms, and so on. Granted, allowing this one redirect to stay won't spawn millions of others, but the general principle applies equally to the millions as it does to this one. -- Black Falcon 05:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I move for Speedy delete. NikoSilver 14:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per {{db-attack}}. --After Midnight 0001 20:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Pkk terör örgütü → Kurdistan Workers Party[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 06:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV -- I suppose this is the Turkish word for 'Terror'. Francis Tyers · 09:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As POV based on tr:Terörizm. I'm guessing it means "PKK Terorist Organization". —dgiestc 04:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I might not have suggested deleting a redirect for POV only if it was a plausible search term. However, as this is a foreign-language POV redirect, I have no qualms supporting deletion. -- Black Falcon 05:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I move for speedy delete. NikoSilver 14:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and yes, for the record, it means "PKK terrorist organisation", just as people guessed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per {{db-attack}}. --After Midnight 0001 20:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Redirects to templates[edit]

The result of the debate was delete most of those not retargeted. No consensus to delete Pic of the day and Picture of the day. WjBscribe 06:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful for XNRs, potentially confusing. Delete. >Radiant< 07:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved via retargeting:[edit]
Discussion:[edit]
  • Delete all, these kinds of redirects can make people mistake for articles. Apple••w••o••r••m•• 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep all. Some of these redirects can easily be targeted to articles. For instance, List of Green parties should direct to Worldwide Green parties. Others may be cross-namespace redirects, but probably aid on search terms. These redirects have nothing in common except being CNRs to the template namespace. I would urge a close and separate renomination of (most of) these or a withdrawal of all but the least-controversial ones from the nomination. -- Black Falcon 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Despite your claim, this is not actually out of procedure. Also, {{sofixit}}. >Radiant< 08:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My claim was not that this is out of procedure. On the contrary, it is well within the rules. I simply didn't want to leave the closing admin with a recommendation of "3 keeps, 7 weak keeps, 18 retargets, 10 weak deletes, and 24 deletes". I will re-assess based on the changes by JLaTondre. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have resolved more by retargeting to article content. -- JLaTondre 16:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except those that were resolved by retargeting. Do not delete Pic of the day and Picture of the day, which may aid searches. The pic of the day is always featured on the main page, so a lot of new users may search for "Picture of the day" without typing the "Wikipedia:" prefix. -- Black Falcon 19:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have gone through and tagged most pages with {{rfd}}. I have not tagged those pages which were resolved through retargeting. -- Black Falcon 01:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete except the re-targeted ones, the picture of the day ones per Black Falcon, and History of Christianity in the British isles, which probably should be an article, but this template is the next best thing. I have considered re-targeting Territorial disputes involving the Republic of China to List of territorial disputes, but I'm not sure and I couldn't find another suitable target. I don't see the rest as useful or phrases which could be search terms and should be deleted. mattbr 10:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete except retargetted and (for now) the pic of the day ones, per Black Falcon. Do Delete History of Christianity in the British isles; being a reasonable name for an article is not a reason for keeping a cross-namespace redirect. Having the redirect may even be discouraging people from starting an article. (I honestly can't think of any other reason why there isn't at least a stub there.) Xtifr tälk 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

How weather affects PSI → Pollutant Standards Index[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Weatherers created an article at How weather affects PSI, which was moved by User:Dweller to Pollutants Standards Index. I observed that there was already an article at Pollutant Standards Index and suggested merging the two. However, after discussion at Talk:Pollutants Standards Index, it was decided that the new article contained only OR. Therefore both Pollutants Standards Index and How weather affects PSI were redirected to Pollutant Standards Index. However, the target article does not actually discuss the effect of weather on PSI, so I believe that the redirect at How weather affects PSI is confusing and should be deleted. The significant page history is at Pollutants Standards Index and would not be lost by this deletion. EALacey 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --JianLi 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - note to closing Admin this is without prejudice, or COI --Dweller 21:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Blink-172 → Blink-182[edit]

The result of the debate was keep because some people have fat fingers. John Reaves (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect name, no incoming links JianLi 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete+10 I'm guessing someone had trouble remembering the name but I think it's too improbable to keep. —dgiestc 05:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some reason is given why this redirect should exist and redirects in the ranges {-∞, 171} {173, 181} {183, ∞} should not. -- Black Falcon 05:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep because the '7' and '8' keys are right next to each other, making this a not-improbable typo redirect. Not a likely enough typo that it's worth creating similar ones, but redirects are cheap, so this one might as well stay. Xtifr tälk 12:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - weak only because redirects are cheap --After Midnight 0001 20:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cheap redirects. Abeg92contribs 10:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Redirects for Fat-fingers Mcgee are very cheap. Grandmasterka 07:19, 5 April 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_29&oldid=1138574829"