Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 24

October 24[edit]

Special Attacks (RuneScape) → RuneScape[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. Non consensus for deletion and redirects are cheap. -- JLaTondre 14:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects that were previously fancruft articles that were either speedily deleted or deleted per AFD but were changed to redirects after afd or upon recreation. It is very unlikely any of the above will be searched.Professional Deletionist 15:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC) — Professional Deletionist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment These probably are still associated with disambig pages. Perhaps change disambigs to contain direct links to RuneScape? --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 23:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very few actually are.--Professional Deletionist 11:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all primarily because this is the easiest way to make sure that those pages stay gone and to direct the editors to the one central article where they should be contributing. It also appears from the history that the content of at least some of them were merged into the respective articles prior to being converted to redirects. Keep to comply with GFDL. Rossami (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the content in the history has been directly copied from other websites, so they are copyright violations. Redirects are not created to stop users recreating an article. Articles that are recreated get protected, not changed to a redirect.--Professional Deletionist 11:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the most part, the copyvios are no longer relevant since the pages are now redirects. (I suppose you could request a history cleanup but that's normally not required. Removing the copyvio from all active versions has been generally deemed sufficient to meet the law's requirements.) Protection is certainly an options but in my opinion, it is often unnecessarily hostile and unhelpful to new contributors. A redirect, on the other hand, says "We want your contributions - just not at that title. Here's a better context for your contributions." Unless you really have a bad-faith or repeat recreation, the redirect accomplishes the same goal without biting the good faith contributors as badly. Rossami (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem like a likely search term, does it? really, who types things in parentheses to find out about stuff? Law & Disorder 23:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just say no to fancruft. Chris Cunningham 11:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can see no GFDL justification for keeping these redirects, and they're pretty unlikely search terms. I'd also argue that keeping them actually increases the risk that the articles will get re-created, as the pages already exist. Better to just get rid of them now. Terraxos 02:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know about y'all, but I do "<article> (<context>)" searches quite often to skip the disambig pages and go straight to articles that probably exist. I'd guess that at least a handful of other Wikipedia regulars do as well. Redirects are free; don't see the point in deleting these. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are hundreds runescape redirects that don't include brackets, which are more likely to be searched and then redirect users to the runescape article.--Snakese 19:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - to prevent recreation. If users see that the redirect's subject is covered in the target article, they'll be discouraged to recreate it. As for plausibility, there are many redirects and articles using the (<context>) format as described by Daniel, so even if some users find them unlikely they are widely used nonetheless. As a final note, redirects are cheap. (:-) - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 02:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jerusalem (song) → And did those feet in ancient time[edit]

The result of the debate was redirect to Jerusalem (disambiguation)#Songs. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 01:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several songs which go by the name "Jerusalem". There's a disambiguation page for them already. This parenthesised title is unlikely to be stumbled upon, nor entered manually, nor linked as such. Chris Cunningham 13:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with Chris.--Professional Deletionist 15:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I could see myself entering this as a search term - as 'And did those feet in ancient time', the song's actual title, is considerably longer. It is, by some way, the most well-known song with the title 'Jerusalem'; but the simple fact that other songs by that name exist, and they could be searching for one of those instead, justifies changing this redirect. My suggestion is retarget to Jerusalem (disambiguation). Terraxos 02:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as deletionist there said, it seems unlikely someone is going to search for that using the shitty search engine we have. ^Law/_Disorder 06:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re-target Experienced users familiar with the disambiguations used herein (parantheticals) would use this as a search criteria. Would suggest re-targeting to Jerusalem (disambiguation). 20:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkierRMH (talk • contribs)

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

Bryan Clough → Brian Clough[edit]

The result of the debate was repurposed (verbing weirds words). Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here. I wish to create a page for Bryan Clough, writer, but this redirect to Brian Clough, football manager, prevents me. Advice please. Brizes 10:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just create a page at Brian Clough (writer) and add a hatnote to Brian Clough indicating that there's another article for the writer. Chris Cunningham 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I need to create a Bryan Clough page with a 'y'. Would Bryan Clough (writer) still be the correct procedure?, and does it need a disambiguation page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brizes (talk • contribs) 14:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. Just create it at Bryan Clough, and add {{for|the writer|Bryan Clough}} to the top of Brian Clough. No need to discuss the redirect any further: just use it. Chris Cunningham 15:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia User page → Wikipedia:User page[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Rossami. WjBscribe 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikipedia: namespace from the article space. 198.189.198.2 21:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 23:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum -- The Redirect page could become an article about user pages, whereas the WP guidline (or is it a policy?) is about what is allowed --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 23:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedy-deleted it because it was created on 21 Oct as part of the cleanup of some pagemove vandalism. There is no history other than the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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