Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 6[edit]

WikiProject Dragon Ball → Wikipedia:WikiProject Dragon Ball[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect created by a single-purpose account. Tagged for speedy deletion, but speedy deletion was declined because CNR isn't a speedy deletion criterion. Coredesat 23:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bfesser/Editing Reference → User:Bfesser/Editing Reference[edit]

The result of the debate was WP:CSD#R2 John Reaves (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

accidentally created redirection by a typo, useless redirect Bfesser 21:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Admins. → Administration[edit]

The result of the debate was retarget to administrator. John Reaves (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No links. — miketm - Queen WikiProject - 19:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep , frequently used abbreviation. John Reaves (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Did you see there's a period on the end? That seems a bit less probable to me. —dgiestc
  • Abbreviations frequently feature periods, though it does seem to be less common nowadays. John Reaves (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think they're used more generally for acronyms. Meh, redirects are cheap. —dgiestc 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"Badd" → Badd[edit]

The result of the debate was merged and deleted. John Reaves (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Properly named page already exists. Song names in double quotes are extremely rare. No links to this page, was orphaned until yesterday (and is so again now).. and was only created 3 days ago. Nip it in the bud. Cloudz679 23:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Content from "Badd" was merged to Badd. Redirect must be kept to maintain GFDL history (or a history merge must be done). --- RockMFR 00:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur. Can someone do a history merge because I don't know how that works... thanks Cloudz679 02:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

(disambig) → (disambiguation)[edit]

The result of the debate was no consensus. John Reaves (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Binomial (disambig) → Binomial (disambiguation)
Cavan (disambigation) → Cavan (disambiguation)
Cayuse (disambig) → Cayuse (disambiguation)
Coyote (disambig) → Coyote (disambiguation)
  • Delete. Before I moved the page about 2 years ago, this was the article's actual title. Georgia guy 14:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elba (disambig) → Elba (disambiguation)
Empanda (disambig) → Empanda (disambiguation)
Flight (disambig) → Flight (disambiguation)
Gandalf (disambig) → Gandalf (disambiguation)
Kerosene (disambig) → Kerosene (disambiguation)
MDAC (disambig) → MDAC (disambiguation)
Nerd (disambig) → Nerd (disambiguation)
Risley (disambig) → Risley (disambiguation)
Sennar (disambig) → Sennar (disambiguation)
Spanky (disambig) → Spanky (disambiguation)
Swatch (disambig) → Swatch (disambiguation)

A properly named DAB page exists. No history before redirect created. JohnI 10:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unlikely search, plus, the main articles link to the disambiguation pages so you don't really need a shortcut. John Reaves (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - nobody is going to search for "foo (disambig)", and anyone who links to these could just as easily link to the full name. These are pure examples of inside jargon leaking into the main space, where we shouldn't have it. Gavia immer 17:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Trivial history, no incoming, won't be searched for. --- RockMFR 19:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. No longer necessary. Khoikhoi 04:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See here: [1] for similar RFD2 requests "ANC (disambig)" through "Watt (disambig)". JohnI 19:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: I don't understand the objections. Redirects never appear in search engines, this is not crufting up Wikipedia and is in fact very useful whenever I want to get to the MDAC disambig page (which, believe it or not, is more frequently than you would expect). - Ta bu shi da yu 21:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. This used to be the preferred naming convention for disambiguation pages. We've evolved in naming conventions and most such pages have since been moved but there is no reason to throw away the history. In fact, the act of doing so consumes more resources than leaving them be. Rossami (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if I get a vote on this, as I made the nomination or there may be other voting criteria. Anyway, I'll add to my case for deletion.
    1. I think having 2 pages called DAB, with different spellings, is confusing. To get to the "foo (disambiguation)" page is easy by going to "foo" first, and clicking on the "foo (disambiguation)" link which should be there.
    2. I did a google search which gave 12,800 results for disambiguation, and 173 for disambig. Most of the 173 are in the "Category:" namespace. These search numbers are not accurate, but do give an indication of the relative numbers.
    3. See WP:DAB#Page naming conventions for information about the naming conventions. Although it doesn't explicitly state that other abbreviations for DAB page names redirecting to an article are unacceptable, I think it is implied.
    Regards, JohnI 02:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Firstly, why bother deleting them? There's no point, they can't hurt anyone, they don't show in search results. As Ta bu shi da yu said, the objections about search make no sense. Secondly, they're potentially useful shortcuts. It's a lot faster and less error-prone to type "disambig" than "disambiguation".
To answer JohnI:
1. They are not confusing, because the only way to know about them is to hunt for them,
2. The number of them is of no relevance to whether they are worth keeping,
3. They are actually an old convention, which some people are used to. Also, not following naming conventions for disambigs doesn't hurt anything.
I suggest you look at policy for deleting redirects - no-one calling for delete has given a policy-based reason.
Just because they are arguably unnecessary doesn't mean we should remove them, or need to remove them, because they don't hurt anything. I would argue that many other kinds of redirects, like redirects for misspelling, are equally "unnecessary".
··gracefool |☺ 05:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't want it deleted because I find it hard to spell "disambiguation"! "disambig" is easier. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cavan (disambigation) as unlikely typo. No opinion on the rest. --- RockMFR 06:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all the feedback. I was thinking about the use of the (disambig) as a shortcut.

    I count 19 key-strokes typing the whole "(disambiguation)" suffix, including holding the SHIFT-key down twice; compared with 13 for "(disambig)". Wouldn't shortcuts like "-dab" or " dab" (2 suggestions) with only 4 keystrokes, be even quicker? I myself never use those short-cuts, but I can see the reasons.

    Thoughts anyone? JohnI 07:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go for it; again, shortcut redirects don't hurt anyone, whether or not few people use them. I'd suggest "article name (dab)". ··gracefool☺ 20:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As stated above, I find it hard to spell "disambiguation". Hence the typo redirect above, which I have since deleted :-) Ta bu shi da yu 23:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_6&oldid=1064237784"