Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 12[edit]

WPT: → Wikipedia talk:[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 03:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lots of cross namespace redirect. don't remember a policy that says WPT can be used to redirect to wikipedia talk namespace 219.75.39.230 10:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think the more common form is "WT", as in WT:RFA and WT:AFD. If any of these have corresponding "WT" shortcuts, then perhaps they can be deleted, but only if all links to them are updated first. If there isn't a corresponding "WT" shortcut, one should be created; I've created WT:1.0/I and WT:BC, but there may be others – Qxz 15:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, they now all have corresponding "WT" shortcuts – Qxz 15:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There are many shortened versions of page titles such as WP:AIV leads to Wikipedia:Administrator Intervention against Vandalism so this should be kept because it's no different to any ther redirect.TellyaddictEditor review! 15:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but as I said above, the standard prefix for such shortcuts seems to be "WP:" for Wikipedia pages and "WT:" for Wikipedia talk pages – 95% of shortcuts are in this form. Using WT: rather than WPT: for everything would be more consistent, which is probably a good thing – Qxz 15:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you want to discuss such a broad class of redirects, they need to be tagged with {{rfd}} so that users of the redirects know they are being discussed here. Otherwise this is likely to result in a procedural closing as "keep" because process wasn't followed. Gavia immer 17:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm working on completely the nom and cleaning up the links now. Ugh, this takes forever... --- RockMFR 01:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, only WPT:CMC, WPT:P, WPT:RFM, WPT:TBP, WPT:DYK, and WPT:RFA have incoming. --- RockMFR 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. All these pages are unnecessary cross-namespace redirects that go against the normal WT naming conventions for the Wikipedia talk space shortcuts. Nomination is now completed, all articles tagged. All pages now have WT versions. All WPT pages are orphaned or in the process of being orphaned. --- RockMFR 02:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since these were probably created for convenience by people not understanding the WT convention, they might try innocently recreating them after deletion unless gently educated on their talk pages. —Dgiest c 06:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, harmless type-in shortcuts. Kusma (討論) 10:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all; useless duplication of WT:, especially now that RockMFR has done his thing. Thanks for doing the work, by the way. Gavia immer 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All per aforementioned reasons, the fact that they are useful, and the fact that they aren't in the way of anything or confusing anyone. Possibly change prefix, but retain all suffixes. 10:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Changed to Delete Since they've been changed to the standard "WT:, might as well get rid of 'em then. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 20:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already created equivalent "WT:" redirects with the same suffix, and RockMFR has changed links to them; there's no risk of those getting deleted – Qxz 20:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in favor of more standard [[WT:]] shortcuts. >Radiant< 14:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my earlier comments – Qxz 20:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Normally I would say keep as redirects are cheap and someone may still use them as a type-in shortcut. But here I think its worth deleting them to support the standardisation process to [[WT:]]. If many are recreated then we'll know there's definitely a demand for them, but I doubt that'll happen. WjBscribe 03:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

At Yankee Stadium (album) → At Yankee Stadium[edit]

The result of the debate was delete —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 07:08Z

redirect is superfluous. Article was initially created with unnecessary (album) in title: there are no other works called "At Yankee Stadium". Skyraider 04:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This redirect should be the other way round, its more likely than not people are going to miss the album bit off the end when typing into the search box so not necessary to keep.TellyaddictEditor review! 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see how this causes any harm, and someone could come looking for the article at the old title. Redirects are cheap. delldot | talk 01:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There may be off-Wiki links that use the old title. This way people using them get redirected to the right article. WjBscribe 03:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah fair enough- I should have checked. Speedy delete. WjBscribe 06:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy-delete. History of the pages shows that the page was originally created by Skyraider who is the only person who edited it prior to the pagemove. Since it was moved within minutes of creation, I doubt that there are any off-wiki links to the old name.
    Skyraider, in the future you can tag such pages for immediate deletion with {{db-author}} rather than go through this process. Rossami (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Home from the Hill → Hilary Hook[edit]

The result of the debate was converted to disambig. There was also a 1960 movie by the same name (but different subject) as well as a BBC documentary based upon the book. -- JLaTondre 18:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Hilary Hook makes no reference to Home from the Hill -Sunshine 15:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Because it doesn't seem to make any mention in the article then it's not relevant. TellyaddictEditor review! 16:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Home from the Hill is a book written by Hilary Hook. I will note this in the article. YechielMan 00:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Never mind, it's already there. At any rate, the redirect is relevant. YechielMan 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As book is mentioned in author's article. Nowhere else to redirect and user looking for info on the book will at least get some information. WjBscribe 03:00, 15 February 2007 (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/2007_February_12&oldid=1140416993"