Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 May 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 29[edit]

Phillip Calvert -> List of Governors of Maryland[edit]

The result of the debate was Disambig. -- JLaTondre 12:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circular reference. Qblik 01:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Interracial marriage → Miscegenation[edit]

The result of the debate was unmerge. WjBscribe 01:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that these are two totally separate concepts, the prior history of interracial marriage being a well-researched piece on the sociographics of marriage of two people of different backgrounds, and one being a term associated with racism, and the merge doesn't appear to have been discussed anywhere, I ask for community consensus to unmerge the articles. -N 20:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is confusing. It appears that Fairlane75 unilaterally elected to merge the articles without any discussion. I will leave a note on the user's talk page about this matter. Aarktica 00:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really familiar with the term 'miscegenation'. It seems to be that they are the same concept, or at least interracial marriage is a subset of the former. Britannica appears to combine the concepts in their encyclopedia. --- RockMFR 16:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concepts are completely different, regardless of the present article status. Unmerge, by reverts, if necessary, and start over. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unmerge. The first paragraph of the Miscegenation article says that "'miscegenation' in English-speaking countries is often a loaded word, and may be considered offensive." Thus, redirecting Interracial marriage (which is not considered an offensive term) to Miscegenation was not advisable. --Metropolitan90 07:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bbc national news → BBC National News[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep as redirect from alternative capitalisation. Not sure this is very useful (the 'go' button on the search function would find the right page if this were deleted) but I guess someone might type the wrong title into the address bar. Redirects are cheap. WjBscribe 01:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Typing error redirect to BBC National News therefore unneccesary and worth deleting. No articles link to this. Wikiwoohoo 18:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Inexperienced users may type in "bbc national news" into the URL after they're done with one page, and the software would take it to "Bbc national news", which redirects there, therefore making it a likely search term. Cool Bluetalk to me 21:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with Cool Blue. I know it is the kind of mistake that many people would make. --Random Say it here! 23:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the only use for these sort of redirects is for helping redirection when typing directly into the address bar. Without this redirect, the search software would go directly to BBC National News if someone were to type in "bbc national news". We usually keep lowercase redirects anyways. --- RockMFR 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful and plausible search term. Many of us forget to capitalize words. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 21:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

BBC Newsreaders → BBC National News[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. Plausible search term - redirects are cheap. WjBscribe 00:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Originally redirected to List of current BBC newsreaders, which in turn redirected to the BBC National News article which also has just been redirected to the BBC News article. Unnecessary since no articles link to it. Wikiwoohoo 18:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A redirect that lacks article links could still be considered useful. That alone should not necessarily be a reason to delete. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 22:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of current BBC newsreaders → BBC National News[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. Non trivial history - possible merge source. WjBscribe 00:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Same reasons as above - now unnecessary since no articles link to it. Wikiwoohoo 18:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Just removed a speedy from it's talk page, if concensus is delete, then talk page will go with it. Khukri 20:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Per above discussion. --Random Say it here! 23:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Non-trivial history. This was nominally merged with another article (though I don't know if any content was actually moved), so I don't see any harm in tagging this with {{R from merge}} and letting it lie. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 02:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Ollie. When dealing with redirects on top of non-speedy articles, I think it would be best not to delete without a discussion at afd... actually, it seems this was already kept at afd. No matter, it seems like a likely search term (when searching "bbc newsreaders", it comes up near the top). --- RockMFR 16:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Set index article → Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set index articles[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New cross-namespace sectional redirect. Dekimasuよ! 13:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Not used anywhere else in Wikipedia other than in reference to the guideline. ∞ΣɛÞ²

(τ|c) 14:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not relevant, though. Wikipedia:Redirect asks us to avoid redirects out of the main article space to the Wikipedia space, with the WP: prefix as an exception to the rule. You might also want to mention that you created the redirect in question. Dekimasuよ! 00:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it's relevant. So what if I created it? You might want to mention you're the one who nominated it for deletion--after wikistalking me--out of spite? One has to wonder... ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 13:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool down. It's generally encouraged that author's of articles which are currently under discussion for deletion identify themselves. It's no big deal. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 04:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and created the redirect at the above target, so no moves will be necessary. --- RockMFR 16:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I see no reason to violate policy for this. The fact that the term is not used in Wikipedia is insufficient, the problem with cross-namespace redirect is that users using the search function expects to get at an encylopedic article. A soft redirect might be used. But I am unsure about policy for pages merely for soft redirects. Taemyr 10:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, if anything, a DAB article should be created with a link to the Wikipedia policy. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 13:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Useless article history, no real reason to move. I assumed it was, but after checking it out I realized such suggestion is futile. My mistake. Delete. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 22:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inappropriate cross-namespace redirect, offers no significant benefits, and is potentially confusing. A WP: shortcut would be far superior. Xtifr tälk 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not only is this a cross-namespace redirect (XNR), it's also a section redirect, so it breaks any time the section header is renamed (which happens a lot more often than pages themselves are renamed). --Cyde Weys 04:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. older ≠ wiser 14:46, 3 June 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_May_29&oldid=1141907037"