Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 November 11

November 11[edit]

Super Baby method → Metal Gear Solid[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted. —Centrx→talk • 08:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page is not linked. A plot detail that is mentioned once without any importance towards it TheEmulatorGuy 23:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 23:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as well. -- Renesis (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Tactical, Espionage, Action." → Metal Gear Solid[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted. —Centrx→talk • 08:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page is not linked, and users are very unlikely to type that in (it's a rarely used subtitle properly called Tactical Espionage Action - with no quotes, full stops or commas TheEmulatorGuy 23:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extremely unlikely that a user will search for this. --- RockMFR 23:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

C:// → Anemia[edit]

The result of the debate was speedied as G6 (housekeepking), reverting page-move vandalism. (If some one wants to created it with one slash, pointing to Drive letter assignment, I have no objection. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exists only because of an act of page-move vandalism by Jkvandeusen (talk · contribs), AFAICT. -- Smjg 23:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to redirect it to Drive letter assignment, but it is an unlikely search term. --- RockMFR 23:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That might be ok as a spelling disambiguation, but probably better to delete it.

Comment The anti-vandal bot has not done well here. It should have dealt with it when it corrected the page-move vandalism, but it only partially corrected the vandalisms. After the error was corrected the anti-vandal bot, put one the vandals deeds back! The anti-vandal bot may need a software patch. 89.240.114.89 14:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should a page with two "/" ie "//" have been allowed to be created. Which is being treated literally and which is being treated as a meta-character? This is question to programmers. 89.240.114.89 14:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I am not a programmer for MediaWiki, so this is just a guess, but it seems like the "/" character (such as in this title) is actually part of the title (in other words, not a meta-character at all), and that the magic comes in interpreting the title afterwards, to attempt to create an illusion of a hierarchy. -- Renesis (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages don't exist in the main namespace, so neither of them are meta-characters – Gurch 04:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment. Instead of blanking, please tag it with {{db-pagemove}} (although I used G6 in the actual delete log). That should handle the vandalbot problems. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shortpages → Wikipedia:Shortpages[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted M a rtinp23 13:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect. MER-C 09:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Renesis (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cross-namespace and only one incoming link. Khatru2 19:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-needed. Hello32020 20:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; cross-namespace redirects shouldn't be encouraged. The search function works fine. Ral315 (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as confusing CNR. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I can see no reason here to delete. Cross namespace redirects shouldn't be arbitrarily deleted, the number of incoming links is not important as shortcuts are for people to type in the search box rather than in articles and the search function does not work fine, and is widely admitted not to work fine. Hiding Talk 21:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

RPG Maker → RPG Maker Series[edit]

The nominated redirect was Belongs at WP:RM. -- JLaTondre 00:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to move the target to the redirect's name space, but the move system will not allow me to until the redirect is deleted. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 00:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that you're looking for Wikipedia:Requested moves. Picaroon9288 00:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Frank gehry → Frank Gehry[edit]

The nominated redirect was kept. Common typos, misspellings, and capitalizations are appropriate redirects. —Centrx→talk • 08:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason there should be Frank_gehry and Frank_Gehry. We don't have frank_Gehry, nor do we have frank_gehry, or fRank_Gehry for that matter. For conciseness of search results and consistency of the encyclopedia it helps to have a single article called Frank_Gehry. Dheerav2 01:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, we keep plausible typos, miscapitalizations, and the like because it helps with searching. The software the Wikipedia runs on doesn't automatically send queries for "Frank gehry" to "Frank Gehry", so redirects are created to bring searchers to the right article. Picaroon9288 02:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- sounds to me like a reason to re-write the search engine. I don't create additional websites with miscapitalized names, redirecting to my site, just so that people who search for my site in Google can find me. Google does that work for me. In fact, I think the Wikipedia search is so poor that I always use Google to search Wikipedia. Dheerav2 19:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We actually do have "frank Gehry" and "frank gehry" (automatic capitalization). -- Renesis (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a perfectly reasonable redirect to me, although it could use a {{R from other capitalisation}} tag. ~ BigrTex 00:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't quite understand the reasoning here. Wikipedia already seems to do case-insensitive searches: I just did a search for 'cornell University' and it seems to work perfectly despite the fact that there is no such redirect with that case spelling. does that mean that we should be creating 'cornell University' now? What about cornell University Press, Cornell university press, Cornell University press, cornell university Press, and conell University press and create all those redirects to Cornell University Press? I think that for consistency ALL articles on wikipedia should have either NO redirects based on case changes, or ALL POSSIBLE permutations of case changes. i think the former is simpler because the search already takes care of it just fine. I'm more concerned that when you do a search on Frank Gehry on wikipedia, the first few you see are the stupid redirects to the same place, whereas it would be much nicer to see *different* various real articles that include Frank Gehry as the first page of search results. In other words, if I search for Frank Gehry, my TOP results should be "Frank Gehry, Sketches of Frank Gehry, 2007 in archetecture, Easy Edges, ..." and it's annoying and irritating that the first page of results is "Frank gehry<redirect>, Frank Gehry<redirect>, Frank O. Gehry<redirect>,..." instead. bottom line, i think it's redundant and inconsistent with the rest of the encyclopedia, and there should be consistency through all articles about this issue. Dheerav2 19:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: First of all, a major problem with the MediaWiki software (at least the version used by Wikipedia, someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that it has no capability for initial lowercase letters, so cornell University isn't just a redirect to Cornell University, it's the exact same article. Second, alternate capitalizations serve another strange purpose on Wikipedia—mixed case redirects allow the "Go" functionality from the WP search box to go directly to the article, no matter what capitalization was used. See Other capitalisations, to ensure that "Go" to a mixed-capitalisation article title is case-insensitive on the page Wikipedia:Redirect#othercapitalization. So we don't need to create every permutation, just one mixed case redirect. It's confusing, but it's all we've got right now. -- Renesis (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From rereading your link, apparently the "Go" menu actually works for all of these variations (Francis Ford Coppola,Francis ford Coppola,Francis Ford coppola,francis Ford Coppola,Francis ford coppola,francis ford coppola), but obviously links to them don't. The question then comes of whether we'd prefer red links for weird capitalization in an article, or a blue link through a redirect that also causes multiple hits on a "Search". I'm of the opinion that I'd rather have blue links, thus my keep. ~ BigrTex 21:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now-obvious reasons. Danny Lilithborne 08:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Typeface:talk/archive1 → Talk:Typeface/archive1[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted. Picaroon9288 20:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archive mistakenly created in the main namespace. The single incoming link has been addressed on the talk page. Khatru2 04:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it; no possible controversy. Chick Bowen 20:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Pardoner's Tale → The Pardoner's Prologue and Tale[edit]

The nominated redirect was Keep. Note that in a different world a single television episode would be merged with the main show, and "The Pardoner's Prologue and Tale" may anyway warrant moving to the more common title. —Centrx→talk • 08:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had tagged this article for speedy deletion under "housekeeping" so The Pardoner's Tale (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode) could be moved here, but it was rejected because "this is the standard name for the Chaucer tale and should remain a redirect".

According to our diambiguation guildlines, naming conventions and WT:TV-NC, the article The Pardoner's Tale (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode) should be named "The Pardoner's Tale" unless something else already has that name.

A redirect doesn't count as "something else already having that name". That's what top disambiguation links are for (what i mean is something along the lines of "The Pardoner's Tale" is a Law & Order episode. For the one of the Canterbury Tales, see The Pardoner's Prologue and Tale" at the top of the article, instead of what is currently on The Pardoner's Prologue and Tale).

Some people may say "The Pardoner's Prologue and Tale" is a more important, more broad, more significant, etc. topic, but that doesn't mean we ignore standard naming conventions. Isn't that way the article Scared does not redirect to Fear, but is instead an article for a little-known album? --`/aksha 06:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - move is controversial with no consensus to do it either. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - move is not controversial. It follows exactly what WP:TV-NC states to do. Every other Law & Order episode disambiguates only when needed. If you claim it's controversial, please explain why. Other editors are advised to take a look at WT:TV-NC, where there is clear evidence of consensus, as well as a group effort by several editors to get articles moved. --`/aksha 10:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, most people looking for this name will want the canterbury tale, not the episode of a TV show named after it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course a redirect "counts" as something already being there. The TV episode would be the much worse option. If the move is controversial enough, we should definitely not set a precedent of siding with the TV episode just because it's popular recently. (WP:NOT) -- Renesis (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please note the distinction between policy and guideline, which is germane here. Common sense trumps consistency. Chick Bowen 19:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even the episode description links to the redirect to get to the Chaucer story. ~ BigrTex 00:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of one of the most important and influential literary works in the English language is far, far, FAR more notable than just another episode of just another US television show, especially one specifically named after the literary work. The episode should be disambiguated, not the tale. --Charlene 10:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not asking for the tale to be disambiguated at all. The full name is "The Pardoner's Prologue and Tale", which is where the article exists. "The Pardoner's Tale" is a redirect to "The Pardoner's Prologue and Tale", so i'd assume "The Pardoner's Tale" is a short-form or a nickname. Which is why i'm asking for the redirect (not the artical) to be deleted so another article, which by proper naming conventions shares the name with the redirect (not the article) can use the name. The "Pardoner's Prologue and Tale" may be notable and important and all, but it doesn't mean redirects towards it take piority over other articles. It's the same thing as why Scared can be used for a hardly none album, when it would otherwise be a sensible redirect for the far more important article Fear. And it's not contraversial. If you don't believe me, go take a look at the talk page WP:TV-NC yourself. There's a clear consensus and a group effort to get articles with unneeded disambiguation moved. --`/aksha 11:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, "The Pardoner's Tale" is not a short form, it's the name of the thing--it's just that we combine the Prologue and the Tale into one entry. As WP:TV-NC, that's a consensus for the naming of TV pages, it certainly does not override our existing redirect policy. If you really think that high-value redirects should be deleted in accord with that rather out-of-the-way guideline, you'll have to propose a change to Wikipedia:Redirect and bring it up at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). There is absolutely not consensus to go around deleting redirects. Chick Bowen 17:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Chaucer work is so unambiguously the primary usage of this term that the television series episode is named after it. There is no reason for the redirect to point elsewhere. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 18:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- sigh i'm sorry if this sounds incivil, but i'd really appreciate it if people actually read the proposal before answer to it. I'm not asking "for the redirect to point elsewhere". I'm asking for the actual article to be moved there, and a header disambiguation link used (instead of the current method of disambiguation of actually adding brackets to the article title). --`/aksha 06:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google shows that "The Pardoner's Tale" is a MUCH more common name for the Chaucer work than "The Pardoner's Prologue and Tale". On the grounds of relative notability of the Canterbury Tale and the TV show I think we should keep the redirect as it is. I realize this will give a redirect priority over an article. EdJohnston 04:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bummer → Boomer (film)[edit]

The nominated redirect was Converted to disambig. I did not include the film in the list. -- JLaTondre 14:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inexplicable redirect. The common use of 'bummer' is entirely unrelated to the redirect target (a Russian film about a BMW), and it doesn't seem like a plausible typo. Russ (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Makes no sense. -- Renesis (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe the issue here is the Russian letter "у" (in Бумер) which is often transliterated as "u." So the official English title is intended to fit the English word "Boom" but the redirect is based on the closer transliteration. This is not a keep vote, though, since I still couldn't tell you where the second "m" comes from. Chick Bowen 19:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A single-letter Russian typist's typo, like Bumer is a solid redirect, but as it is, risks confusion with the slang term "bummer". --Dgies 08:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sister projects → Wikipedia:Sister projects[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted & orphaned as not Wikipedia specific. -- JLaTondre 02:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect. Not an exclusive Wiki term either. Renesis (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fix all of the incoming links from templates and categories, then delete. Khatru2 19:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless you want to write a an article, and then set up a {{disambig}} like Redirect ~ BigrTex 01:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why write an article and create a disambig for a topic that doesn't need an encyclopedia article in the first place? This term really only pertains to Wikipedia. Therefore, it should only be in the Wikipedia namespace. -- Renesis (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; cross-namespace redirects shouldn't be encouraged. The search function works fine. Ral315 (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong (orphan and) Delete (and I don't know why my attempt a few hours ago didn't go through.) Potential encyclopedia article about sister projects of any project, so it's not an exclusive Wiki term. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Arthur Rubin that there is a likelihood of conflict; "sister project" could be an encyclopedic topic in itself. -- Visviva 12:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikiprojects → Wikipedia:WikiProject[edit]

The nominated redirect was Kept as no consensus. The term, while it can apply to other wikis, is primardoesn't seem to be notable enough for an article so little chance of a conflict. It it ever does, we can readdress then. -- JLaTondre 03:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect, term is not Wikipedia specific. Khatru2 20:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless you want to write a an article, and then set up a {{disambig}} like Redirect ~ BigrTex 01:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one is in some use. In each case, it was a clear reference to the MediaWiki concept of Wikiprojects and the author intended to reference Wikipedia:WikiProject. Omission of "Wikipedia:" is apparently a plausible typo in this case. Rossami (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as CNR -- Renesis (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; cross-namespace redirects shouldn't be encouraged. The search function works fine. Ral315 (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as CNR (and not Wikipedia specific; could apply to other Wikis). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See no reason to delete here. Cross namespace redirects should not be arbitrarily deleted, the redirect is of use and the search function is widely regarded as not working fine. Don't understand the point about this not being Wikipedia specific. When that becomes an issue, start the discussion again. Hiding Talk 22:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A "Wikiproject" could be on any Wiki, not just Wikipedia, and CNRs are bad unless clearly the only plausible use. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikiproject → Wikipedia:WikiProject[edit]

The nominated redirect was Kept as no consensus. The term, while it can apply to other wikis, doesn't seem to be notable enough for an article so little chance of a conflict. It it ever does, we can readdress then. -- JLaTondre 03:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one has been deleted and recreated several times with no RFD debate. Same as above: cross-namespace redirect, term is not Wikipedia specific. Khatru2 20:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless you want to write a an article, and then set up a {{disambig}} like Redirect ~ BigrTex 01:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments made at "Wikiprojects" above. Rossami (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as CNR -- Renesis (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; cross-namespace redirects shouldn't be encouraged. The search function works fine. Ral315 (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rossami. JROBBO 07:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no confusion with encyclopedic content visible so far -- is there something like a "Wikiproject" anywhere that anyone might want to look up on Wikipedia that is not a WikiProject? Kusma (討論) 15:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See no reason to delete here. Cross namespace redirects should not be arbitrarily deleted, the redirect is of use and the search function is widely regarded as not working fine. Hiding Talk 22:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A "Wikiproject" could be on any Wiki, not just Wikipedia, and CNRs are bad unless clearly the only plausible use. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cross namespace redirect. Polonium 22:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Various Wikiproject redirects[edit]

The result of the debate was keep all. M a rtinp23 18:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are all cross-namespace redirects. Khatru2 20:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Since it appears that there is considerable support to keep these redirects, I have decided to break them down into smaller groups based on number of incoming links to try to a reach consensus if any of them should be deleted:

Numbers 8, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, and 32 have no incoming links other than from automated bot pages about cross-namespace links.
Numbers 3, 9, 12, 17, 18, and 19 have only one relevant incoming link. Of those, the incoming links of numbers 17 and 19 are from the user pages of the creators.
Numbers 5, 7, 16, 20, 25, 29, and 33 have only two relevant incoming links. The incoming links of number 20 are from the user page of the creator.

Again, I hope this helps. Khatru2 10:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing specifically which makes this practice wrong. As per redirect policy, a cross-space redirect can only be deleted if It is a cross-space redirect out of article space (such as one pointing to the Wikipedia namespace) which might conflict with a real article title. However, while WP:, P:, WT:, etc. shortcuts are technically in the main article space, they should not be deleted as they in practice form their own "pseudo-namespace" that does not conflict with articles. I highly doubt that there are going to be any legitimate articles starting with "WikiProject" or "Wikiproject" anytime soon. This is an acceptable usage of redirecting, and allows for people who have forgotten or don't know that they need to put "Wikipedia:" in front of the title to find the project. Ostensibly anyone searching for a WikiProject is not looking for an article. Girolamo Savonarola 21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't believe anyone would be wasting their time worrying themselves about whether such redirects should exist. It is obvious they exist solely to assist with navigation, and as Girolamo says, they do not impinge on the use by other article names. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the purpose of having different namespaces then? Is there a pseudo "Wikiproject:" namespace with which I am not familiar? Several of these pages are a result of page moves from when a Wikiproject was incorrectly put in the main namespace. Many of them have no incoming links. There is precedent for this as well, see Wikiproject:Countries/Newsletter [1] .E2.86.92_Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Countries.2FNewsletter for example. If you would like, I can nominate them separately. Khatru2 22:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would imagine the precedent might have to do with the fact that the page was a subpage of another. Nonetheless, the current guidelines clearly state otherwise, and the purpose, as mentioned before, is to facilitate navigation. Which is the very reason for redirects - so that you don't need to get the article name perfect, if there is a better name for it. As I said before, if there were to be a case for an actual Wikipedia article that would use any of these names, then that would be something to appraise on a case-by-case basis, but otherwise, it seems to me that they are fairly obvious, of minor value, and no harm. Girolamo Savonarola 23:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand your point. However, you may wish to look at the section on the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Precedents page about "Should redirects to other spaces be kept?":
      "There appears to be no hard and fast rule for redirects from one namespace to another, although they are often inherently suspect. In general, they are kept if there is enough support/usage for them, but short a high level of usage, they are often deleted.
      
      Redirects from the main article namespace to other namespaces (Wikipedia:, Meta:, all Talk:, etc) are particularly problematic, as Wikipedia:Avoid self-references explains, since many sites take only a copy of the Wikipedia article content, without taking the rest of the system. A good initial filter is that redirects from the article namespace to other namespaces should only exist if there's no usage outside Wikipedia for the term. (Use of the {{Selfref}} template may also be appropriate.)"
    I agree that there would be no conflicting articles for these pages, but most of them are unused. Also, I think it is easier to facilitate navigation is through the use of "WP:" shortcuts like WP:CSB instead of typing out Wikiproject:Countering systemic bias. I also noticed that User:Pippu d'angelo created Wikiproject Sicily page and his/her user page is the only incoming link. In situations like this, I think it makes more sense to pipe the link instead of creating a redirect page for your own personal use. Khatru2 23:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these aid navigation. The actual WikiProjects need to be in Wikipedia namespace, but these redirects help people save time. You type less into the search box, and be redirected where you want to go without wasting your time potentially typing as many as these 10 keys:

W i k i p e d i a :

We really don't need to delete/reserve these pages because they have no other use apart from improving navigation like this. -- Paxomen 23:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as aids to navigation ~ BigrTex 01:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article namespace is for articles, redirects and disambiguation pages. It is where we deliver a clean, professional product that can be reproduced in other media, such as printed paper. It should betray no sign of behind-the-scenes production, maintenance and management activities. Hesperian 03:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:5P, WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:HI, and all the rest of the WP redirects are in article space. Do you want them deleted? Picaroon9288 04:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They should either be deleted or a WP: space created for them. And yes, I'd take the featured article stars off the featured articles too. But this discussion is only about what this discussion is about. Hesperian 04:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unlike some CNR's that I have supported the deletion of (Notability → Wikipedia:Notability, CFD), I see no possibility whatsoever for these to conflict with and/or be confused with encyclopedia articles. Picaroon9288 04:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no possibility of confusion or conflict with these redirects. They do aid navigation. Whether additional redirects (shortcuts) could or should be created is irrelevant. Spot-checking the "what links here" shows that while some are currently unused, others are clearly useful to a significant number of users. Rossami (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. These pages do aid navagation a lot and save us a lot of time and effort.

I know many cases where more than one article on the same subject were created and expanded on the same time, because the articles titles had very small differences(e.g. capital letters) and the users didn't know about that. We then had to spend some effort merging them toegether. Those redircet pages solve these problems or at least minimize it. Jidan 10:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's nothing wrong with a separate WikiProject pseudo-namespace (as opposed to the general WP: pseudo-namespace), but it needs to be established by a general discussion on exactly that subject - not by the weight of inertia (though inertia can be a good argument for how things ought to be), and not by a single unpublicized vote on RfD. I suggest the nominator (or anyone else) consider a discussion of this issue outside the confines of the current process. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 18:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Cross-namespace redirects shouldn't be encouraged. The search function works fine. Ral315 (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, silly nomination; also keep in mind that even if there are no wikilinks to a page, it might still be in use (bookmarked, by using the search button, etc). Lankiveil 01:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per the guy with Greek letters that I can't read because the font is illegible. JROBBO 07:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless the WikiProject pseudo-namespace is endorsed by concensus, in the appropriate forum, which is not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 18:38, 13 November 2006
Keep. See no reason to delete here. Cross namespace redirects should not be arbitrarily deleted, the redirect is of use and the search function is widely regarded as not working fine. Also point out that the above comment works from a flawed premise, as our default is to keep. The consensus to delete needs to be built. Hiding Talk 22:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. M.K. 22:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all Cross namespace redirects. Namespaces were created for a reason. Polonium 22:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Guidelines[edit]

Just to mention this again, in a clearly visible space:

As per redirect guidelines, a cross-space redirect can only be deleted if:

It is a cross-space redirect out of article space (such as one pointing to the Wikipedia namespace) which might conflict with a real article title. [emphasis mine]

As far as I can tell, this renders the whole pseudo-namespace argument moot. Unless an argument is broached regarding the likelihood of real articles with these titles, then the cross-space redirect is a valid usage under current guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola 21:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Redirect/DeletionReasons (the portion of WP:R you quote from) lists reasons for deleting and keeping redirects, but it does not attempt to be an all inclusive list for deletion or keeping. Extrapolating from that list to claim that a redirect can only be deleted if it exactly matches something on that list is not warranted. If the community consensus is to delete something not matching the list, it gets deleted. Please note that this is not a statement on whether these redirects should be kept or not. It is a statement only on the claim that guidelines require them to be kept. -- JLaTondre 22:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the whole point of guidelines was to indicate commonly held consensus points so as to prevent recapitulation of arguments for each individual instance. Of course the community can do anything with consensus, but the guidelines exist to prevent the need to re-invent the wheel every discussion. Girolamo Savonarola 13:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. However, your comment that "a cross-space redirect can only be deleted if" is not in keeping with those guidelines so that's moot. The guidelines list possible deletion reasons. There is nothing that says if doesn't match the list that it cannot be deleted which was your initial claim. -- JLaTondre 16:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as unecessary CNR's. Eluchil404 14:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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