Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 July 23

23 July[edit]

Wikipedia is communism → Wikipedia:Long term abuse/The Communism Vandal[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted --Cyde↔Weys 00:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as we don't have an article or a redirect at Willy on Wheels, I think we shouldn't have a redirect from the article namespace to the depths of the vandal-fighting process. We do have shortcuts (WP:WiC, WP:☭, WP:TCV) for quicker navigation. Zoz (t) 15:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Misleading, detrimental to searching, self-reference and cross-namespace. BigNate37_T·C 17:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Yank sox 22:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Feature article → Wikipedia:Featured articles[edit]

The nominated redirect was redirected to Editorial. —freak(talk) 16:56, Jul. 28, 2006 (UTC)

Cross-namespace Gizza^Chat ^© 12:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Feature article is clearly not an encyclopedia topic, and so shouldn't be a redirect either. Rbraunwa 12:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of other sites have featured articles. This is potentially confusing / misleading. --Zoz (t) 14:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cross namespace redirect. Viridae ^Talk 01:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to editorial. In my high school English course in Australia, we refer to feature articles as opinion pieces with a by-line, much like what is called an Op-ed in the US. A google search and this search for "define:feature article" shows this is a widely used term. Graham talk 12:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah, I do think it should redirect to Editorial. I have seen it used it that context. Gizza^Chat ^© 07:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, misleading. Kusma (討論) 13:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Editorial, I believe this is somewhat common usage, and an encyclopedic redirect should always be favored over a non-encyclopedic one. --Cyde↔Weys 14:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-ref GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete articles should not redirect to WP: space.--Firsfron of Ronchester 23:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A feature article is not the same thing as an editorial, it is more a piece on something general like beaches, rather than current events, and in some cases means the main cover article. —Centrx→talk • 05:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Editorial, or failing that, a similar article genre piece. It is conceivable that an article could actually be in this name as magazines typically have feature articles, so there should be commentary about them on their own presumably. Ansell 07:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about redirecting to editorial, in British English at least a feature article and an editorial are two separate things, with a feature typically being a glossy, in depth reporting piece and an editorial being an opinion piece. Currently feature, a disambig page, currently points to feature journalism, but that's a red link (as you can see). So I'd suggest delete the current redirect and wait until somebody gets around to creating feature journalism before changing to a new redirect. --Daduzi ^talk 08:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Biography infobox → Gary Mule Deer[edit]

The nominated redirect was was deleted by EWS23. --Zoz (t) 15:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unrelated to target page Computerjoe 's talk 08:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G6 as housekeeping - this redirect was created by a pagemove with edit summary stating wrong title. BigNate37_T·C 09:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. I tagged it with db-because. --Zoz (t) 14:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edit summary and Edit summaries → Help:Edit summary[edit]

The nominated redirect was Delete. —Centrx→talk • 18:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both are cross-namespace redirects. -- ADNghiem501 07:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Shouldn't be in the encyclopedia namespace. There are other ways to find the target. Rbraunwa 12:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True; but I just searched "edit summaries" for my first look at this topic. I would argue that leaving this redirect in qualifies as not biting the newcomers. Also qualifies as engineering the tool for the user, not the user for the tool, IMHO. Thanks. --00:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish people would please stop citing WP:BITE in these cross-namespace redirect discussions. WP:BITE means don't be mean, not favor the newbies over the encyclopedia. Let's say a newbie is trying to edit an article but he doesn't really understand template syntax and he munges up a template, ruining the entire look of the page. WP:BITE says don't lose your head over it and go crazy at him, but at the same time, you have to revert his bad edit to fix the page and keep the encyclopedic content intact. It's the same way with cross-namespace redirects; maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedic content (everything in namespace 0 should be encyclopedic) is more important than a cross-namespace redirect of dubious usefulness. Newbies aren't likely to just randomly type in "Requests for adminship" ... they'll most likely first find it through a link anyway. A non-cross-namespace link, by the way, which is important, because it helps newbies understand the namespace system and how it works to keep the encyclopedic content separate. --Cyde↔Weys 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cross-namespace redirect. jni 05:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, aids in accidental linking (useful for talk pages), no collision with encyclopedic content (other than "namespace purity") has been shown. Kusma (討論) 09:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these aren't even Wikipedia-exclusive terms (they come up in versioning systems in computer programming, for instance). They also come up in document editing systems. We shouldn't favor a redirect of dubious usefulness into another namespace when encyclopedic content could be linked to instead. --Cyde↔Weys 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The "dubious" usefulness is currently amply evidenced by more than 500 incoming links (which should in any case be orphaned before deletion, if that is the outcome). Kusma (討論) 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, those can easily be fixed by bot (in fact, I will do so later tonight). Need I remind you that inertia is a poor reason to continue doing something wrong, though. If we allow this as a reasoning, within another year it might be 1,000 bad links to a cross-namespace redirect. --Cyde↔Weys 16:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not talking about inertia, I am just showing the evidence "more than 500 times, people found this useful" to counter your "dubious". Kusma (討論) 16:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll tell you why they are dubious: because someone foolishly included this XNR in the boilerplate talk page warning message to use edit summaries. Very few of those incoming what links here are even from people who were consciously aware they were using an XNR; they just wanted to warn someone to use edit summaries. Once the links are fixed there's no purpose in keeping this old XNR around; the templates aren't using it anymore and all of the old links on the talk pages will be fixed too. If it's a redlink and people try to do it again they will realize they were doing something wrong and they will have to learn about namespaces. Frankly, I see people citing WP:BITE a lot, but I think it's actually more of a disservice to the newbs to coddle them to the point where they don't even have to learn about the namespaces and separation of encyclopedic content from non-encyclopedic content. --Cyde↔Weys 16:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Used outside of wikipedia - cross namespace redirect especially eggregious. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete–I never thought I'd say this :)–per Cyde. Joe 04:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
d GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Keeep. Extremely useful redirect. There is no harm done in having a few cross-namespace redirects. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read my comments? "Edit summary" is a term used outside of the narrow field of Wikipedia, so there most certainly is harm being done by squandering it on self-referential navel-gazing. --Cyde↔Weys 20:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:OttawaMetro → User OttawaMetro[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted, damn userboxes ... Cyde↔Weys 15:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cross-namespace redirect that was seems to have been mistakenly created by a user trying to create a userbox. The page was moved to User OttawaMetro, a page being considered for deletion below. —Mi ra 06:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rbraunwa 06:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also, account for such user does not exist. -- ADNghiem501 07:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirect was created by mistake, has no use, no such user exists, no incoming links. --Zoz (t) 14:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. -- NORTH ^talk 02:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

User OttawaMetro → Template:User OttawaMetro[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted, damn userboxes ... Cyde↔Weys 15:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As with the redirect immediately above, this seems to have been mistakenly created. The page has been moved into the proper namespace at Template:User OttawaMetro. —Mi ra 06:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does indeed look like an error. Rbraunwa 06:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- ADNghiem501 07:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirect was created by mistake, has no use, no such user exists, no incoming links. --Zoz (t) 14:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. -- NORTH ^talk 02:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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