Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 March 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 15, 2013

Paradise MusicWerks[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deletion. It's just a circular redirect. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Circular redirect, where no clear alternative exists. Tgeairn (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:TNT delete The company exist(ed) but may not have been notable enough. The redirect was created as a claim that it had been bought up by someone else, which claim was contested. For now, wipe the slate clean. Mangoe (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G8. --BDD (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

MediaWiki Markup Language[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete MWML and Retarget MediaWiki Markup Language to Wiki_markup. The note at the top of Wiki markup does essentially the same thing without the mess of a cross-namespace redirect. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely cross-namespace redirect: while MediaWiki markup language exists - obviously - "MediaWiki Markup Language" doesn't. Much less "MWML". Even considering attempting to fix it for article space, we don't currently have a redirect to MediaWiki or wiki markup for "MediaWiki markup language"; I don't think we should have one for this either, and certainly not the abbreviation. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The reason for the redirect was to alleviate confusion between MWML and Wiki_markup which says:

Wikitext language, or wiki markup, is a lightweight markup language used to write pages in wiki websites, such as Wikipedia, and is a simplified alternative/intermediate to HTML. (Click edit to see this page in wiki markup.) Its ultimate purpose is to be converted by wiki software into HTML, which in turn is served to web browsers.

There is no commonly accepted standard wikitext language. The grammar, structure, justification, keywords and so on depend on the particular wiki software used on the particular website. For example, all wikitext markup languages have a simple way of hyperlinking to other pages within the site, but there are several different syntax conventions for these links. Many wikis, especially the earlier ones, used CamelCase to mark words that should be automatically linked. In MediaWiki, this convention was replaced with the … notation, which Wikipedia calls "free links".[1]

Different Wiki programs may support use of different sets of HTML elements within wikitext. In some cases, permitted HTML elements may be configured by individual wiki sites. MediaWiki supports many common HTML tags.

My own confusion and troubles finding what I wanted to know about was the cause for the redirects, which I don't see as harmful and are the destination of some Shortcuts I made if I remember correctly. — T13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 16:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're confused about something, the solution is almost certainly not to create redirects. Especially for things that don't exist. I see you did the same for "ReGex" [sic] last year. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suppose there are some cross-namespace redirects, but any such redirects would need to be supported by a very good reason. New editors should spend time learning the standard operating procedures before embarking on creating a serious of unhelpful redirects and templates. Wikipedia is not a test website where editors try things out. Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful, and not getting in the way of anything. Mainspace-to-Help isn't as much of a problem as mainspace-to-somewhere else, like -to-MediaWiki talk, because we often point readers to Help: namespace pages directly. Nyttend (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as recently created cross namespace redirects. There is a general consensus against cross namespace redirects unless there is a very good reason to keep them. No-one has provided a good reason why these should be kept. If the subject is notable, write an article about it. If not, it should not be in article space. 82.132.212.222 (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget MediaWiki markup language to Wiki markup as that already has a hatnote to the help page. I have no opinion about MWML. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't object to that... but this RfD is about "MediaWiki Markup Language" [sic], which is a thing that doesn't exist. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    MediaWiki markup language and (what I intended to type) MediaWiki Markup Language should redirect to the same place as a standard capitalisation variant. Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Decisor[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget to Decider. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'decisor' does not exist in the English language; it's a Spanish word with approximately the same meaning as the Hebrew word פוסק‎. Even in English texts, the transliteration 'posek' is almost always used. Therefore, this redirect qualifies for deletion under #8 of WP:RFD#DELETE. Bobby Tables (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • We could retarget to decider (or more precisely, The Decider, where it redirects). It might be wise to add Posek to that page either way. --BDD (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looking through google web and book results the word is used in English, e.g. [1][2][3] (it's used sufficiently often that the redirect gets 10-15 hits most months, with occasional peaks higher than this). It almost always refers to a Posek, rarely it means a "decision maker" in another context (the only other significant use is the name of a computer program that doesn't appear to be notable). All this adds up to a synonym that is neither novel nor obscure (let alone very obscure), and a clearly useful redirect. A hatnote at Posek would definitely be appropriate to Decision maker and Decider if those were articles, however they are both redirects (to Decision making and The Decider respectively) so I'm not certain (although I wouldn't object). Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
n.b. I've had The Decider moves to Decider per WP:THE. I've also added Posek there. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Decider. That, I think, is the logical target now that Decider has been made into a dab, and the odds are this will be used as a typo or translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amorymeltzer (talk • contribs) 17:29, 1 April 2013
  • Just to be clear, I also favor retargeting to Decider now. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Decider for the reasons listed above. The word seems to make more sense as a form of "Decider" when used in English terms. Steel1943 (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Soveja River[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was No longer relevant; an article has been written at this title. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated for speedy deletion by Afil (talk · contribs) with the rationale "Incorrect". I had honestly never even considered the rivers of Romania before now, so this is just a procedural nomination. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_15&oldid=1138578993"