Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 28

May 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 28, 2008

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asset Voting → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asset voting[edit]

The result of the debate was delete now that the AfD has been closed. I don't think we want to start seeing these type of redirects pop up for every AfD, that would create some very bad precedent to keep thousands of similar redirects. VegaDark (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Asset voting. This was made to facilitate some off-site canvassing. Probably not very fair, and I don't know that this redirect helps us. rootology (T) 23:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my RFD. There wasn't any disruption intended--any redirect you put up for deletion by it's very nature gets sort of broken. rootology (T) 01:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rootology. I think that maybe we shouldn't tag redirects the same way as articles. But I can see arguments both ways. --Abd (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.:This is totally out of order. First of all, there is a claim of "off-site canvassing," apparently based purely on speculation as to what was sent to a mailing list, not trusting that the mention of the AfD was neutral. The announcement on the list was rigorously neutral, the list is not an advocacy or biased list, but is one which has many experts as subscribers. The purpose in posting the announcement was to allow an audience of experts to see the article itself and the AfD, and the message cautioned against voting just to vote. The only reason Rootology even knew about the email message was that, as usual, when I've notified some group of Wikipedia process, I note it on the relevant page. Why the Redirect? Well, in the email voting was incorrectly capitalized. The easiest and simplest way to fix this is with a redirect, one which does no harm at all (unless allowing a reader to reach the page they want to see is "harm"). If the email was improper, that could be mentioned in the AfD as canvassing often is. In creating this RfD, Rootology broke the Redirect, which he had commented out. I fixed it by placing the RfD material below the redirect and removing the #. To allow what he did is to essentially remove the redirect without discussion. The question of the redirect is not about canvassing. The question is whether or not a person is likely to be searching for the actual AfD and uses this mispelling for some reason. With this RfD, we are now wasting more editor time, and making more fuss. The alleged canvass was neutral, and nothing has been cited or shown to the contrary, so removing the redirect, and that is what the notice did, could look like an attempt to bias the AfD by placing an obstacle to finding it. Given how valuable editor time is and how harmless the redirect is, this should be speedy closed. (someone might read that mailing list post years from now (the archives are googleable) and wonder, what was that about?, and follow the link. What will they find? Shouldn't they find the AfD?).--Abd (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, the notice is *always* placed this way, so that any editor using the redirect will see the RfD notice and has the option to go to the discussion page --Enric Naval (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - this redirect should never have been formed in the first place as this actually confuses the issue of a pending AfD. The appropriate place to note that the title of the article under discussion is malformed is in the AfD discussion itself. While there is no doubt that the editor created it in good faith, it does more harm than good here, and I believe CSD G2 would cover it as a test page if the redirect's creator (or an admin) would agree to it. B.Wind (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion. Those who specifically need a redirect to find the AfD should try Asset Voting, which redirects to Asset voting, containing the tag. B.Wind (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the speedy tag, as the redirect was evidently intentionally created and so the criterion does not really apply. If the creator decides to agree to deletion, he may of course tag it {{Db-G7}}. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, valid redirect. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it when the AfD ends, there is no need for a redirect from a AfD with a malformed name. It just makes it look as if the redirect Asset Voting was named for AfD :D . Altough, if the mailing list is published on a public website, and it's a live link, then we should keep the redirect for the people who read that page and click on that link. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was indeed a post to a mailing list that is archived and google-indexed. Here is the message:[1]. (Those who claimed it was canvassing did so at a point where they were speculating on what the message was. There will be some clicks, could be years from now. If it weren't a mailing list, I'd have fixed it. (I did sent a message noting the spelling error, but, especially later, that message might not be seen. On the other hand, the correction is the very next message in the archive, so it might be seen.)--Abd (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Enric. It's helpful now, but after the AfD is over, future confusion might come about if a separate article is created with a capital "V". There could be confusion over which article was nominated. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would only happen if we change our naming conventions. And, in this case, someone looking at the incorrect address would see the new AfD, for even more confusion. The redirect being there will signal to whoever creates the AfD page that the other name exists, so it can be sorted out. So this is actually an argument to keep the redirect.--Abd (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand- let me make a hypothetical situation. A couple of years from now, someone makes an article about a company, book, etc. that uses a capital letter on the second word. I've checked to see if an article has old AfDs by typing "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_for_deletion/article" in my address bar. Somebody does that for this article, and hits the AfD, and doesn't notice the "redirected from" or case of the letter "v". Now they're thinking that the newer article was AfDed, and if they didn't see the discrepancy, is posting at village pump, editor assistance, or otherwise, asking why there's an AfD without a deletion in the log; or, if it's kept, how the AfD is older than the article. It would just be confusion, and once the AfD ends, wouldn't have much of a use. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly don't want to tendentiously argue. I agree that there is a very small chance of confusion from this, but think that the confusion would easily be resolved. I.e. the user would try to create the AfD on "Asset Voting" and would find the Redirect, which would point to the existing AfD, which obviously is about a different subject. So the *situation* would be clear to anyone with a clue as to how the wiki functions. They would look at the Redirect. And we could put a note after the redirect, right on the page, why it is there. Classic solution here would be disambiguation, I think. But look at the probabilities: there would have to be a book or some other proper noun, "Asset Voting." The chance of that is very, very small, probably will never happen -- though I wish it would! -- and if so, by that time, we might need a disambiguation page anyway. Second possibility is to just name the new Afd with (2nd). Harmless. There would be a note in the AfD that the prior AfD was about a different subject. So, on the one hand, a speculation that there might be a moment of confusion for a relatively experienced user, vs. what I see as almost certain confusion for quite a few probably inexperienced users. How many, I don't know, but because I think this is going to be a rising topic, given recent books and internet discussion, it could be hundreds or thousands. Having thought about it this much, now, I've become far firmer on Keep. Your call, folks. By the way, sorry for making the error in the first place! But I had no idea that someone would propose the redirect for deletion! (He later realized it was a mistake, hence his withdrawal of the nomination above.)--Abd (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: AfD is now closed (no consensus, defaulting to keep Asset voting). I urge closing this RfD as well, preferably deleting this unnecessary, confusing, and redundant redirect. B.Wind (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

WikiProject → Wikipedia:WikiProject[edit]

The result of the debate was No consensus (keep). -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly to the redirects previously deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_10#Cross-namespace_redirects_to_WikiProjects, these are another batch of cross-namespace redirects to WikiProjects from article space. The same argument applies: because of the automatic redirection from WP: to Wikipedia, and the autosuggestion feature recently added to the search box, these sort of redirects are no longer necessary to find WikiProjects. As they are unneeded cross-namespace redirects, they ought to be deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think. "no longer necessary" is not an argument for deletion if they are harmless. If there is harm in keeping these, I'd certainly withdraw my keep. --Abd (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The harm in this case comes from not properly separating the encyclopedic content from the encyclopedia-building content, which can confuse casual readers and editors alike. The main article namespace is supposed to be reserved for articles, so getting rid of unnecessary non-article content that's been placed there for historical reasons is a net plus. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I often accidentally type "Wikiproject:whatever" instead of "Wikipedia:Wikiproject whatever" and it is much easier if there's just a redirect to the right page. The mistake is an easy one to make and an obvious one, so why not have the redirects to help everyone out? Alinnisawest (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With the current functionality of the search box, you don't need cross-namespace redirects to do this. If your search defaults are set up to search the project namespace, typing "WikiProject Foo" in the search box will automatically prompt you to search for "Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo" instead. That wasn't the case before, so there was some call for such redirects. However, they aren't needed anymore. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but who uses the prompt, anyway? I have a slow connection, and I'd have to wait about five minutes for the prompt to load. It's a lot quicker and much easier for users with slow connections to just get redirected to the page they need to go to. Alinnisawest (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments of theoretical harm are minor compared to our need to assist our own readers and editors. I see no possibility of confusion over these titles. Anyone attempting to go to a "wikiproject" page is going to expect to find a project page, not an encyclopedia article. The argument that these are unnecessary just because you could use the search box is also irrelevant. Not everyone navigates that way (and even for those who do, the new search algorithms are not nearly as perfect as is being made out here). Rossami (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete those with the colons (i.e. starting with "Wikiproject:), and keep the rest. I can see the usefulness of these, but those with the colons look like they're in a namespace that doesn't exist. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely helps navigation. I just recently started to use the WP tag before the project's name, even established editors simply type the WikiProject's name to find one. Squash Racket (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with the exception of the first two, per nom. CNRs blur the line between the encyclopaedia and the project to build the encyclopaedia, and as the whole purpose of the encyclopaedia is to be able to take it away and use it, they should be avoided wherever possible. The redirects are harmful as all the pages (with the exception of the first three) contain terms that people would use to search the encyclopaedia for articles, and they will clutter up search results both here and elsewhere, where they will also create live broken links. The pages have a trivial edit history, except the last which should be hist merged. matt br 22:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I discovered this RfD when I needed the redirect, so clearly I'm voting keep. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it quite interesting that the original (linked) discussion seemed to be a pretty unambiguous delete, while this discussion seems to be shaping toward a keep. What's different? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to forget that consensus can change. B.Wind (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've linked a shortcut, but I'm not sure what that demonstrates -- I'm not asking whether these two discussions are coming out differently, but why they so directly contradict each other. When two discussions produce such vastly different results simply because a different group of Wikipedians was randomly selected, the implication doesn't seem to be that consensus has changed but rather that it may not have existed to begin with. Perhaps the issue needs wider discussion, lest we continue to make these deletion debates random dice rolls. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as cross-namespace. "WP:" shortcuts are shorter, so these redirects don't lessen the amount of typing required. Khatru2 (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of typing isn't the issue at hand, it's the convenience and ease of use for users. The point of redirects are to help users who accidentally type the wrong thing- which all of the above redirects are for. Alinnisawest (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i could see myself trying to find a wikiProject and typing in WikiProject:(name). So I believe that are very useful, thats how i too found this discussion in the first place. Printer222 (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too many dissimilar redirects in one proposal. Here's how I would suggest to handle them:
- Keep the ones with the colon format: WikiProject:Comics - As an active WikiProject participant in several projects, I think it is best to make it easy for people to get to the projects no matter how they type the names.
- Weak keep on the ones without a colon: WikiProject Auckland - Without the colon, these could be more misleading as to whether they are articles or not. I still think that making it easier for people to get to the projects is important.
- Keep the WikiProject and WikiProjects since having an encyclopedic entry for them is appropriate, but it makes no sense to duplicate the information already in the Wikipedia: namespace.
- Delete the others. Specifically, delete the following ones: WikiProject: United States presidential elections, WikiProject:WikiProject Chaotic/Participants, WikiProject Novels/Peer review/Grey Griffins/archive1, WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 1, Issue 1 - July 2007
- Breaking it up into manageable chunks like this would probably build better consensus. If we can't break it up, then I'd vote to Keep all of them and then renominate the problematic ones individually. --Willscrlt (Talk) 05:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:DRAMA → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[edit]

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus to retarget. VegaDark (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems inappropriate to me. It doesn't seem to have any use other than as a dismissive or mean comment on someone's actions ("He's just creating WP:DRAMA by reporting me") or as a joke. The first is uncivil, the second is inappropriate as I don't believe joke redirects should point to serious pages. Finally, it trivializes WP:AN/I...I'm sure there are a lot of people who bitch and moan about stupidity there, but AN/I is a very important page, and I think people need to know they can go there if they need to, lodge a complaint, and it will be taken seriously...redirects like this one hinder that. There has to be a better target for this redirect. UsaSatsui (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget, sounds like it should be pointing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre. - Bobet 18:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Bobet. Inappropriate and an unlikely search term that mocks a serious noticeboard which is vital to maintaining the sanity of operations. Also, I have a feeling that this was created to highlight and poke fun at the amount of 'drama' on WP, when all it has succeeded in doing is create (a small amount) more! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:56, May 28, 2008 (UTC)
Keep as is per previous RfD and AN/I thread. The redirect is not "mean" or "dismissive"; it doesn't hinder anything, and while I'm usually not a fan of WP:HUMOR, this doesn't bother me. {{Humor}} is allowed in Wikispace, and this was a good natured joke. Honestly, this nom is not based in policy. - auburnpilot talk 20:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Retarget~~ Keep,~~This is an offensive redirect.~~ Jokes don't belong in what is effectively part of the user interface. On the other hand, perhaps we should look at the occurrence of Wikipedia:DRAMA I'll come back. --Abd (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC) I came back. Per arguments below, I've changed to keep. --Abd (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No retarget. The WikiProject doesn't need another shortcut. This shortcut has historically been used to point to WP:ANI - there is no good reason to change it now. Either keep as is or delete it. I'm leaning towards keep, since the reason given is dubious. I doubt the presence of this redirect has in any way affected who goes to ANI or what goes on there. If you have a problem with a particular user's usage of this redirect, tell them about it. --- RockMFR 01:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure ani needs any more shortcuts either, especially ones that aren't actually used to find the page. - Bobet 16:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep humor in wikipedia space; if you don't think it's an apt title you've never had WP:AN/I on your watch list, imo. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Humor is fine for pages like this. But we shouldn't be making a joke out of ANI. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Drama: A situation having vivid, emotional conflict. Yea, sounds like ANI to me. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 15:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, could one of you please explain why retargeting this to something that is actually related to the title is a worse choice than keeping it as a redirect that no one has ever used except to make snide commentary? Yes, ANI contains drama. That's really very clever, but doesn't mean the redirect has any value. Usefulness>nerdy inside jokes, and I don't see any comments stating that this was ever used for anything else. - Bobet 16:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how retargeting it to WP:THEATRE is gonna be any more helpful. Anyone looking for a Wikiproject on theatre is gonna try that first. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 17:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about a disambiguation page? Seems to help people find Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre while maintaining (arguably improving) the cheeky commentary many users hold dear. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think that would work. Currently the point of this redirect is that people can link to WP:DRAMA in discussions, and surprise people with their cleverness when it actually takes them to ani. There would be no reason to do that if it was a dab page, since they'd have to pipe the link to the correct target (which would mean they might as well link with LOL DRAMA I'M FUNNY). You could add a dab link to wp:ani, but that would just lead to the shortcut being retargeted by most random passers-by, since that's the most obvious solution. You could retarget to the theatre wikiproject and add a dab link to ANI on that page, but it would eventually get deleted because it makes no actual sense. - Bobet 11:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Excellent reply, thank you. That said, I beg to differ regarding the "point" of this link -- in my opinion, almost all inside jokes of this nature are best as easter eggs that should rarely ever be used in actual discussion. If a dab page like this discourages people from using the link in rude, inappropriate ways, then that's arguably an okay solution to that problem, no? It's the only solution I can think of that (might) placate both significant groups of opinion here. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Short, easy to remember and apposite. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Quite fitting. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep (edit conflict) I think it's pretty harmless. Plus, I got a kick out of it. hmwith τ 18:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget, while I love it to death, as it stands I must agree with User:Bobet on this matter. There are other projects like WikiProject Theatre which need it more than ANI. Besides, typing WP:ANI is faster than typing WP:DRAMA, effectively rendering the 'shortcut' fairly unnecessary. FusionMix 22:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre already has four WP:shortcuts. How many do they need? - auburnpilot talk 23:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they need a shorter one, they could use WP:PLAY or WP:PLAYS or WP:P/ART or WP:PARTS or WP:PART or WP:SCENE. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's already been used at a lot of pages as a redirect to ANI. Changing it would break a lot of links on old talk page discussions. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anyone uncomfortable with making a joke out of ANI is taking Wikipedia way, way too seriously. Evouga (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per those above. I can see the humor intended, but this isn't a good kind of humor. It's basically saying anyone who makes a report there is creating drama, which isn't fair to those reports that aren't drama, even if they're the minority. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per above. While I love this redirect, and it is frequently an appropriate description of AN/I, it's just not that useful - whereas a redirect to the Theatre WikiProject actually might be. Jokes in WP-space are fine, but not when they get in the way of actually helping to improve the encyclopedia. Terraxos (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the ability to self-relativate is a good thing. Some humour doesn't hurt anyone. And lightening things up seems very useful as well FelisLeo^Talk! 13:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please use this redirect in a fashion that's actually funny. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sex with my GF was getting boring so I watched the WP:DRAMA instead. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 03:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not what I meant...but still, rofl --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the same place WP:WIKIDRAMA currently points, which is Wikipedia:Is wikidrama bad?. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's funny because it's true. If you can't handle the heat, get out of Wikipedia.--Tombstone (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Johannes Kepler University of Linz → Johannes Kepler University Linz[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedy close - this should be discussed on the talk page(s) of the pages in question, there is no need for an RfD discussion. Non-admin closure. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:03, May 28, 2008 (UTC)

Should not contain a redirect but rather the actual content of the article, see discussion at Talk:Johannes Kepler University Linz. Alib (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. This is something to work out on the article's talk pages. Not here. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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