Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 30, 2008

Template:Please leave this line alone (HELLO) → Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)[edit]

Also
Template:Please leave this line alone people (sandbox heading) → Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)
Template:Please leave this line alonvve (sandbox heading) → Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)

The result of the debate was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All three of these are redirects to an obselete template formerly used in the sandbox, but currently not in use at allIt's been pointed out to me that this is still used. Regardless of whether the template is retained, these three redirects are useless experimentation and ought to be deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete all of these were created as test pages, by people who didn't leave the line alone 140.247.240.170 (talk)
    • the target template is still in use on Wikipedia:Sandbox, sometimes it gets deleted but the sandbox bots restore it quickly. 140.247.240.170 (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, so it is - I was under the impression that it had been replaced entirely by the editnotice, but it seems I was wrong. In any case, these redirects still are not needed. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per IP above. None of these are even close to worthwhile search items, most definitely not the "(HELLO)", not the "alonvve", and emphatically not the "people." All three look like someone playing around here. B.Wind (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Per IP. — neuro(talk) 14:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pointless and far from useful. Playtime is over. 147.70.242.40 (no relation), temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

MOS:UNLINKDATES → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date autoformatting[edit]

The result of the debate was withdrawn on the realization that this is a more widespread practice that I was aware. –xeno (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating these again (previous discussion here) simply because they are cross-namespace redirects, having the prefix "MOS:" which does not exist - and we should not encourage this practice. Please do not conflate this with the contentious issue of whether or not the unlinking should be done - the redirect is simply improper. WP:UNLINKDATES is an appropriate replica of these. –xeno (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. –xeno (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I didn't realize this was a more widespread practice than I thought: Special:PrefixIndex/MOS:. Thoughts? –xeno (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions: 80 Manual of Style redirects. Are there any guidelines on when we should be using MOS? I know the "false namespace" system is fairly recent - are there any guidelines from the developers on when it works, why it was created, etc? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confused face: what false namespace system? –xeno (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep them for now. The MOS: prefix is fairly widely used. The prefixes for a while were considered a 'pseudo-namespace'. Even the disputed guideline on Cross-namespace redirects said that "Pseudo-namespace redirects (CAT:, P:, MOS:, etc) may freely be used". Until the policy is changed and those pseudonamespaces are formally deprecated, the useful ones should be kept. Those two are definitely useful. Rossami (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    K, withdrawing. cheers. –xeno (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Obese Illegitimate Child → Fat Bastard (character)[edit]

The result of the debate was G3'd by B. Non-admin closure. — neuro(talk) 14:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical unlikely redirect that appears to have no reliable sources to back up the claim that this sobriquet was ever actually used in a review. All of the sources indicate that someone else supposedly once called the character by this alternate name in a review. "Bastard" is also an attack word when referring to children from a non-marital encounter. Otto4711 (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Obesity -- A Growing Health Problem → Obesity[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical, highly improbable redirect, anyone searching for the obesity article is going to hit it first in the searchbox. None of the content from the personal essay that this started out as appears to have been merged to the main article so it does not appear the history is needed. Otto4711 (talk) 06:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur that the first version of this page was an inappropriate essay. I can't tell from the respective articles' edit history whether any of the content was merged, however. We should probably keep the redirect in order to ensure compliance with the attribution requirements of GFDL. While it's a pretty useless search term, redirects do more than just support search. I don't see this redirect doing any harm. Rossami (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - I don't understand why GFDL would require us to keep it? The history is there if it's needed. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it existed as a POV fork for a mere 44 minutes. Since then, it's one redirect after another. Had the fork been kept, it would have most certainly been deleted. On that basis, the likelihood of having anything required by the GFDL in the redirect's history is virtually nil, and there really is no point in keeping the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Horizontal dividing line → Help:Section[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-referential CNR, does not point at content. MBisanz talk 02:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this one. Not appropriate as a CNR and not specific enough to refer to anything else. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't even consider retargeting to Dividing line, which if ever created would have to be a dab page, with all the different uses of the phrase in Wikipedia articles. Divider doesn't look like a promising target as it is also a redirect to division, a dab page. B.Wind (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Summary field → Help:Edit summary[edit]

The result of the debate was no consensus. WJBscribe (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate neologism of a wiki term, also a CNR. MBisanz talk 02:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikilink → Help:Link[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep. Lenticel (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate CNR to helpspace, maybe a retarget to the Mediawiki or wiki. MBisanz talk 02:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this one. I don't see a reader following this link expecting to find anything except the help documentation. The term is frequently used here at Wikipedia. We shouldn't make it harder than it already is for new readers to figure out our obscure jargon. Rossami (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That's a pretty obvious one, actually. Nothing else they could possibly be looking for. --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

This is a minor edit → Help:Minor edit[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely CNR to the help space, does not link to content. MBisanz talk 02:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep useful to explain the meaning of the phrase. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unlikely CNR, nothing other than CNR pages and deletion notices link to it. — neuro(talk) 14:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Elizabeth I of Russia → Elizabeth of Russia[edit]

The result of the debate was RFD not applicable. This is a page move request which belongs at WP:RM. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this redirect is deleted, it will make way for the move of Elizabeth of Russia to Elizabeth I of Russia. It's very confusing with it this way, because if the article remains titled the way it is, it may mislead stupid people to believe there is one famous Elizabeth from Russia, when in fact there are probably many. Marcus2 (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ask an admin for the page move. If he/she agrees, the admin could apply CSD G6 (non-controversial housekeeping) to the redirect and then make the move (of course, this should be done only if the proposed move is not controversial). This would be the equivalent of overwriting the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Q In reliable sources, is she referred to as Elizabeth I? If not, keep, and do not move. –xeno (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ahhh if the noms only reason is for a move, you could just copy the contents from one into the other, blank the original and put in a redirect to the new page... although this way the history would not be moved... hmmm... nvm. --Pmedema (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Leftist anti-Semitism → New antisemitism[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no established relation between "new antisemitism" and "leftist anti-semitism", nor is any reason given to link "new anti-semitism" with the left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donadio (talk • contribs) 16:40, 30 October 2008

  • Delete, insinuatory redirect. Fills no encyclopediatic function. --Soman (talk) 14:55, 3 November 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_October_30&oldid=1138576323"