Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 April 22

April 22[edit]

WikiProject District of Columbia → Wikipedia:WikiProject District of Columbia[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 00:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left over from the move of a recently-created page obviously intended to be a project page. No incoming links – Gurch 22:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CNR. JuJube 01:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. YechielMan 03:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:UT → Category:Wikipedia[edit]

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to Wikipedia:Utilities as it's original destination. As the target page is inactive, I doubt anyone will complain if a new page wants to claim it. -- JLaTondre 00:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, i am not considering this for deletion. This seems to be the only template. Strange. Anyway, i have no idea why this redirects to this category and am proposing it redirects to either Wikipedia:Userboxes, Wikipedia:Template messages or Wikipedia:User talk Simply south 22:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People generally bring redirects here when they think it might be necessary to delete them, as deletion is "special" (it requires "consensus", and an administrator to perform it). Those who think the redirect's target should be changed, but there is no possibility for deletion, will frequently just go ahead and do it. I'd suggest Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace in this case; Wikipedia:User talk is a redirect itself, and the other two already have two-letter shortcuts – Gurch 22:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be redirecting to Wikipedia:Utilities. --- RockMFR 00:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page cited by RockMFR says that WP:UT is a shortcut to it. YechielMan 03:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Odd... it hasn't pointed there since 2005. I'd suggest pointing it back, but that page seems to be inactive, so I don't think there's much point – Gurch 09:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Btreive → Btrieve[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep ~ Anthony 00:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect, shouldn't be encouraged. Wikilinks that go to wrong spellings should be corrected. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Redirects from plausible misspellings are allowed. The redirect page should have the corresponding template added, I think it's R from misspelling or something similar. YechielMan 19:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Redirects from common typos are OK. Anyone who can't remember that "i before e" thing should still be able to get to the article. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oddly enough, I actually remember searching for this article using this exact misspelling. "I before e" misspellings are pretty common. --- RockMFR 01:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I thought that was the point of redirects, to take you to a page where there was an alternative title or you made a common spelling error. Keep. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 01:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, redirects from misspellings are so common (and desirable) that we have Category:Redirects from misspellings for them (which has over 400 entries under 'A' alone) and a standard template, {{R from misspelling}} to add them to that category (which I've gone ahead and added to this one). Xtifr _tälk 09:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, wikilinks that go to the wrong spelling should be fixed, but the main use of redirects is to assist users using the search box. Would you prefer they get a 'page not found'? --Golbez 23:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Shocker Toys" → Toys[edit]

The result of the debate was restore article and rename to Shocker Toys. Article prior to redirect needs to considered fully at AfD if someone believes it should be deleted. This isn't the place for these discussions. WjBscribe 16:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid redirect I contend that the current redirect has little merit. The company actually exists and could have its own wiki page. As such, it makes little sense to have it redirect the way it does. This does prove to make it difficult to search for any information about the company. The quotation marks around the name are also unnecessary --Avatar of chaos 08:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unredirect and move to Shocker Toys. After that, it can be tagged as A7 or placed at Afd if appropriate. --- RockMFR 01:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

James surowiecki → James Surowiecki[edit]

The result of the debate was deleted: the MediaWiki software already handles capitalization differences, even if it is a name in the deletion log. —Centrx→talk • 14:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect. Zero incoming JianLi 21:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This can be used as a common misspelling. Simply south 22:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not actually a misspelling, as it differs only in capitalization. Entering "james surowiecki" into the Search box will automatically bring up James Surowiecki if james surowiecki doesn't exist, so it's not necessary for that. The only instance I can think of in which it would be useful is if someone tried to james surowiecki from an article, in which case it will show up blue only if this redirect is in place. Since the name should always be capitalized in an article, however, showing a red link would seem to me to be the desired behavior in order to encourage its correction, so it is unnecessary for this reason also. On the other hand, we have hundreds of redirects like this, and I don't think it's doing any harm, so there is no pressing need to remove it – Gurch 22:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding (which could well be wrong) is that the name of a deleted article actually remains in the database (for undeletion, logs, etc.), and the automatic case-correction only works for names that aren't in the database. So, we wouldn't have needed this if it hadn't been created, but now we need it simply and solely because it was created. It's almost a catch-22. Xtifr _tälk 10:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, likely search term, no need to let people see a list of search results when we can also directly bring them to the article they are looking for. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That's what redirects are about. They're cheap. Likely search term, if all in lowercase. Why was this nominated in the first place? Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 16:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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