Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 September 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 17[edit]

Game Boy micro Wireless Adapter → Game Boy Advance Wireless Adapter[edit]

The nominated redirect was Kept. History maintained for merge (even though very minor). -- JLaTondre 00:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fork created and later merged back in. No history to speak of (it was copied word-for-word from the target page) and nearly all incoming links have been removed. Highly unlikely search term. Hbdragon88 00:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

WWE television ratings and World Wrestling Entertainment television ratings → Category:World Wrestling Entertainment television ratings[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 00:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-space redirects out of article space, pointing towards a category. Oakster (Talk) 22:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as there is nothing inherently wrong with linking to category namespace from articlespace. They seem relatively useful, somewhat to prevent accidental redlinks but mostly to prevent listcruft being created when there is a category to serve the same purpose. BigNate37(T) 22:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia in popular culture/Messy version → Wikipedia in popular culture[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted, borderline G6 speedy. Kusma (討論) 07:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from a subpage that is not a likely search term. Nobody will look for the target there. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 20:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect is a holdover from a pagemove. This page was used in the editing process which led to the current version of the target page. The redirect keeps alive any links in history which referred to the "messy version" as the pages were being developed. Rossami (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At 05:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC), User:Cyde speedy-deleted this redirect with the comment CSD G6 (housekeeping). This redirect did not qualify under the deliberately narrow definition of that speedy-deletion case. Housekeeping allows the deletion of a redirect in order to facilitate a page move to that title, not to arbitrarily "clean up" the automatically created redirect after a pagemove. I have temporarily restored the redirect and re-opened this discussion in order to allow the discussion to continue. Rossami (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, there's absolutely no reason to keep this page whatsoever. It contains a whopping two revisions: one containing nothing, simply showing that it has been moved to its real name, and another with the {{rfd}} tag placed on it. Rossami's reasons are without merit; according to him, we should never delete anything, because every single little edit "documents the editing process". Well guess what, Wikipedia isn't a project to document the editing process of every little thing we do here; it is an encyclopedia, and "Wikipedia in popular culture/Messy version" contains no content and is not an encyclopedia article, so it must be deleted. --Cyde Weys 19:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a straw-man argument. I have never argued that "we should never delete anything". What I have argued is that the pagemove process automatically creates the redirect for a reason. In that regard, pagemoves are different from other edits. If you honestly believe that redirects created by pagemoves have no value, you should first petition to have that feature turned off. Until then, I'm going to continue to give the benefit of doubt to the developers who did, after all, write our software that way on purpose. Rossami (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the developers put that feature there since it is good in almost all cases. But there are always exceptions, and I think this is one of them. As "what links here" says that no page other than this links to the redirect in question, I don't think there is any problem with deleting it. 01:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes. Rossami, the auto-creation of a redirect to the new page is not a "policy" decision by the developers. It's simply the most useful and convenient default action which can be easily modified by deleting the redirect. So let's not misconstrue that. Thanks! -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The software also automatically enacts autoblocks, and so by your logic that means they are always a good thing and should never be undone, correct? --Cyde Weys 01:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article was moved to the subpage, and moved back a minute later. TimBentley (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: pretty standard case of subpage redirect that should be deleted. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Cyde. Khatru2 06:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia commentary/Project Sourceberg → Wikisource[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 02:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from a subpage that is not a likely search term. Nobody will look for the target there. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 20:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: At 05:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC), User Cyde speedy-deleted this page with the comment CSD G6 (housekeeping). This page has significant history and did not qualify under the housekeeping speedy-deletion case. I have restored the redirect and reopened this nomination in order to allow this discussion to finish. Rossami (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, there's absolutely no reason to keep this page whatsoever. If you look at the "article" history, all it contains is a series of redirects. There's nothing worth preserving. Rossami's reasons are without merit; according to him, we should never delete anything, because every single little edit "documents the editing process". Well guess what, Wikipedia isn't a project to document the editing process of every little thing we do here; it is an encyclopedia, and "Wikipedia commentary/Project Sourceberg" contains no content and is not an encyclopedia article, so it must be deleted. --Cyde Weys 19:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, a straw-man argument. I'm not even suggesting that this particular redirect should be kept - I abstained on that point. I merely argued that this page does not meet any of the deliberately narrow speedy-deletion criteria. Abuse of the speedy-deletion criteria can not be tolerated if we are to maintain confidence in that system. Rossami (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia/Dievdirbiai → Kryždirbiai[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 02:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from a subpage that is not a likely search term. Nobody will look for the target there. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 19:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "search term" argument is irrelevant. Redirects do much more than just support the search engine. However, this redirect is the result of a pagemove and the history shows that the only prior editor was the person who moved the page. Delete as routine housekeeping. Rossami (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Various transwiki redirects[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 02:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and associated talk pages. No longer needed. MER-C 12:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:LAWYER -> Wikipedia:WikiLawyering[edit]

The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 01:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a bit of talk at Wikipedia talk:WikiLawyering about whether or not the apparent association of "lawyer" with "wikilawyering" is offensive to people who practice law. Since the page already has another shortcut (WP:WL) it may be prudent to delete this shortcut since several people have perceived it as offensive. >Radiant< 10:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep LAWYER is a perfectly acceptable redirect. It's like Wikipedia:Vote stacking - there are both redirects for WP:VS and WP:STACK. If there's an issue with the name the article itself should be changed; the redirect shouldn't be deleted. Hbdragon88 04:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The stated perception of the term as offensive are good examples of the term. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's the only obvious abbreviation - David Gerard 10:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

David Korotkin → Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show)[edit]

The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 01:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korotkin was the first contestant of the U.S. version of Millionaire. The first contestants of any game show are not particularly notable, and a redirect is not appropriate for this instance. Tinlinkin 08:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He's not notable, but anyone searching that term should be directed to the most appropriate page. If we delete, it will just encourage people to make a page for the guy. Dgies 19:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a more appropriate page in mind. --65.95.17.19 02:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Salt bomb → Salted bomb[edit]

The nominated redirect was speedy deleted per CSD R1. BigNate37(T) 22:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Targeted article doesnt exist and has very little chance of being created. The history of the redirect also makes it look like a joke. Storkk 10:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - CSD R1. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Alberto Nassetti → Alitalia[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 01:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information to be found in the Alitalia article about Alberto Nassetti MikeZ 13:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alberto Nassetti was a Alitalia test pilot who died in 1994 in a crash. A plane was named after him [1]. Not good as a redirect, delete. Pavel Vozenilek 20:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Editor Review → Wikipedia:Editor review[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted --Cyde Weys 05:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect, not of general utility to our readers. There's already a shortcut to Wikipedia:Editor review, namely WP:ER. FreplySpang 14:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Assrocket → John H. Hinderaker[edit]

The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 01:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack on living person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Chittleborough (talk • contribs) 23:13, 17 September 2006

  • Keep and target with {{R from alternate name}}. This term appears at John H. Hinderaker and the article was actually written there before being moved to its current location. As long as the term is explained at the target article, this nickname redirect should stand. BigNate37(T) 23:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term only appears in the target article because it was written as an attack (older versions of the article are even worse than the current one). Snide nicknames from political opponents can be notable (and retained) if they are in common popular use without Wikipedia's help; otherwise, we shouldn't be spreading them. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 17:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not the place for discussing the merit of the term's inclusion in the article. If it appears there, redirect from it—we don't preside over article content here, that's what the article and its talk page are for, everyone can edit Wikipedia. If it shouldn't be in the article, fix it and then make note of such here, until then the term appears at the target which is an obvious keep per WP:R. BigNate37(T) 17:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2006_September_17&oldid=1084304911"