Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 6[edit]

Haunted Forest → Neopia[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 21:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

procedural nomination Redirect was PROD'ed, with the following rationale: this redirect not used by any articles to go anywhere. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 11:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the original nom. who placed both prod and rfd tags. No other article uses this as a redirect to get to the Neopia page, nor is "Haunted Forest" a strong connection to the Neopia "world". In fact, the correct title for the fictional land within Neopia is the "Haunted Woods". -- Guroadrunner 12:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only because the page history indicates that content from this page was merged into List of Neopian worlds (a page that was later moved to Neopia). GFDL requires that we keep attribution history and preserving the old page and the redirect is the easiest way to do that. Remember that in a perfect world, no other article should use a redirect. Orphaned redirects are a good thing - but we keep them around anyway because they serve other administrative purposes (like history preservation). Rossami (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami above. Terraxos 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

/me → List of Internet Relay Chat commands[edit]

The result of the debate was retarget to Client-To-Client Protocol. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 18:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was listed over at AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion//me. I'm listing it here. Procedural listing. UsaSatsui 22:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is copy/pasted from the AFD discussion:

The article it's redirecting to has been re-written (by me), and no longer contains an entry for this client command.  M2Ys4U (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps... It could go under cleaning up redirects. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 17:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer to MFD Will (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why doesn't the article include /em - /me? - Che Nuevara 20:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion below -

  • Keep. Why was this command removed from the target article? It should be there. --- RockMFR 06:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Because it's not an IRC command, it's an IRC Client command, albeit a prolific one. It's transformed into a CTCP message, which is really just a PRIVMSG command with a magic byte on each end of the message... —Preceding unsigned comment added by M2Ys4U (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I commented on the talk page of the IRC article, the article Internet Relay Chat client software would be useful for detailing client-specific commands and replies, and would be a good target for /me. Unforunately, that article does not exist at this point. Perhaps Client-To-Client Protocol is a better target for /me at this point? ACTION is specified in the CTCP protocol, and the CTCP article even mentions the correlation between ACTION and /me, so /me may as well redirect there for now. GracenotesT § 20:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm, no dissenting views on this? I suppose I'll record my "official" opinion as retarget to Client-To-Client Protocol; perhaps this debate will need to be relisted. GracenotesT § 21:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Client-To-Client Protocol as that article contains a discussion of the command. WjBscribe 02:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the guy who took it to AfD originally, I change my opinion to retarget. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M2Ys4U (talk • contribs) 14:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Idiot boy → Mental retardation[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy-deleted (again, this time by Addhoc) as an attack page. Rossami (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect term/description Mhking 18:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Vietnam in the Time of the Second World War → Vietnam in the Time of the Second World War[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, per WP:CSD#G4 and WP:CSD#G8. Article was deleted as a copyvio, talk page was re-created using the same copyright material. This is actually the fourth deletion of the talk page. User who created it has been warned. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 02:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the article text is actually in the talkpage of the article, there is no text in the article space itself Chris 02:15, 6 October 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_October_6&oldid=1140438012"