Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 29, 2008

Chris Fucking Hansen → Chris Hansen[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedy delete G3/G10 --Versageek 00:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No pages link to this, possible attack, appears to serve no purpose. D-Day (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Masonic rituals → Masonic ritual and symbolism[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redundant redirect. Through renaming, Masonic ritual (the singular) already redirects to the same target, and the plural links can be adjusted to redirect the same way, which I will do now. MSJapan (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there is no such thing as a redundant redirect if it is foreseeable that someone would input it as a search term. As a rule, plurals should redirect to the singular (and if the singular is a redirect, the plural should redirect to the same target). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - not quite that simple here. The singular was originally an article because it was broken out from Freemasonry#Ritual and symbolism. On it being pointed out that the "Masonic ritual" article was not about ritual, but ritual and symbolism, it was renamed to "Masonic ritual and symbolism", after which the article creator created redirects to it from this redir listed here as well as others. So, the plural was created after the singular. MSJapan (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It can simply redirect to the Masonic ritual and symbolism. There were a large number of times that this term was used shown by the linking and delinking, and the term is likely to be used again. 07:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep because it helps linking prose in articles without resorting to awckard wikimarkup. Masonic symbolism and Masonic symbols should probably also redirect there. NerdyNSK (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no problem with this so called "redundant" redirect. This is useful to the pedia Monster Under Your Bed (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form" is listed as a reason not to delete a redirect. If both a singular and plural form redirect to the same article, that does not seem redundant. Suntag (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question This isn't going to get deleted. Can't we just close this down now? JASpencer (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Obama Obama → Agama agama[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a bad joke. Splette :) How's my driving? 19:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ceetol → Cellulosic ethanol[edit]

Ceetoh → Cellulosic ethanol[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are not standard industry terms or trademarks, AFAICT. Details are at Talk:Cellulosic ethanol#What is "ceetol"?. --Jtir (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both, inappropriate and confusing redirects. Johnfos (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:s-nob → Template:s-reg[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 00:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is no longer in use. It was created for use at a time when the system of WP:SBS was in its infancy. As things developed, we realized that this template was not necessary and also caused an issue where s-nob = snob. This was unintentional, but still is another reason why we wish the deletion of this template. All articles have been corrected to reflect this change.

  • Delete - as per nom.
    –Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 08:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 's-not needed. Bazj (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons that the redirect was kept back in Aug 2007. This template was around for a fair while before being moved to the better name. The redirect serves to point anyone who still uses the old template to the correct title. Please remember that when templates are substituted, you can't know which name the editor used. All we can say is that there are currently no inbound links. We can't say that the redirect is no longer needed. We also don't want to unnecessarily disrupt the history of the articles where it was used without substitution. If one of those articles is reverted to an older version (for example, to clean up undiscovered vandalism), the redirect would ensure that we don't accidentally break the templates. Despite the unfortunate coincidence of the name's similarity to the pejorative, this redirect is not actively harmful. It may not have much use anymore, but redirects really are this cheap. Rossami (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, just don't get your point at all. You want to keep a placeholder for a template that hasn't been used in over a year?
      It's not going to make the history look right. What was a pretty strapline in a succession box is now a REDIR notice. Any editor who's found this ancient template in the history can just as easily figure out that at a later point in the history it was replaced by {{s-reg}}.
      Your point about reverting vandalism presumes that the vandalism has been laying unnoticed for over a year and that the editor is unable to see which version to revert to.
      Its sole impact now is that {{s-nob}} appears blue instead of red, and if that causes an editor even a second of confusion of which template to use its retention has far outweighed the fact that it's cheap. Bazj (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How would someone new to the project know that {{s-reg}} replaced {{s-nob}}? Remember that at the time they'll be looking, they won't be able to see the content - all they'll see is a redlink. Those are not especially intuitive naming conventions. I'm sure they make sense to the people actively using them but the rest of us would need to do some digging. And, yes, we might easily be digging several years back into history.
        To your last point, since s-nob is a redirect, it does not matter which template the editor uses. Whether you type in the redirect or the main template, both will present the identical content on the page. (That function is broken now but only as a function of the RfD template.) I'm not seeing how the existence of the redirect creates any possibility of confusion. Rossami (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given that the template has been totally replaced, the only place it'll be found is in the history. With a REDIR it'll appear blue, and the casual editor will think it's still acceptable. Without a REDIR it'll appear red, obviously out-of-use and, as it's in the history, going to a later version will show what's replaced it. Bazj (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Template:S-nob was created on 18 April 2006 and deleted four months later on 12 July 2006. During that time, the template was edited once. The 12 July 2006 reason given to create the redirect from the delete template was that Template:S-nob had a large numbers of uses, which no longer appears to be the case per Template:S-nob Special:WhatLinksHere. See also the 31 July 2007 "Royalist decrees" discussion here. Wikipedia discussions concerning s-nob seem to indicate that most people are on the same page when it comes to s-nob and s-reg. It does not seem likely that people will be searching for s-nob. People who use templates like s-nob likely would know how to [search Wikipedia to figure out why s-nob is red linked in the unlikely event they came across such a link or a need to have such an understanding. As indicated in prior deletion discussions, deleting the template as a redirect will discourage furture use as a shortcut and encourage use of the maintained s-reg. The template itself was deleted almost two years ago and the present reasons to delete the template as a redirect now seem to outweight the reasons to keep the template as a redirect. Suntag (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Version Targeting → Internet Explorer 8[edit]

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to Version targeting. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Version targeting" is a general term that is not necessarily specific to Internet Explorer 8. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_29&oldid=1140156290"