Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 17[edit]

Batman villain bibliographies → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batman villain bibliographies[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 15:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, an article page is redirecting to an Articles for Deletion debate. Except there never was an article there in the first place. Odd. Anyway, the debate closed months ago and there is no need for a redirect like this one pointing at it – Qxz 16:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Definitely unneeded. --- RockMFR 17:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any redirects from article space to process. Gavia immer 18:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Comparing the histories confirms that this was a user mistake. Rossami (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Batman villain bibliographies" was just an umbrella term used for an AFD about three articles at once. It looks like it was just created in the main space by mistake and then moved. Koweja 17:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Writing a good article → Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept (no consensus). -- JLaTondre 15:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New cross-namespace redirect. No incoming. --- RockMFR 23:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, got a bit lazy with the copy/paste >_< --- RockMFR 01:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Well with respect, when I was new here in October I found it very hard to navigate around and had to add many things into my favourites, now I can navigate easily but for new users this would make there time here a lot easier.TellyaddictEditor review! 11:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I know cross name redirects are generally a bad idea but there is some logic behind this one. "Writing a good article" is likely to be typed by a new user who doesn't understand that projectspace is different. Its pretty clear that someone who enters the term will not be looking for an encyclopedia article but for guidance on how to write an article. As such, this redirect is probably more helpful than it is harmful. WjBscribe 18:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The last thing we need to do is make it even harder for new users to find out who to contribute properly. Rossami (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, rather unlikely search term for an XNR, better information is available from mainpage/comportal. >Radiant< 11:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely search term and cross-namespace. --Rbraunwa 00:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Edit counter → Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters[edit]

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to Counter (disambiguation). Edit counter has a low probability of ever being an article, but edit counters are used outside of Wikipedia. The suggestion to re-target to where there is a xnr dab link makes sense as it satisfies both sides concerns. -- JLaTondre 15:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopediatic cross-namespace redirect GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It means its easy to search for whn you want to do an edit count. The only problem may come when people are clicking random article RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the pat answer, I know, but Google comes up with the right result regardless of the redirect's presence. [1] --Interiot 01:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cross-namespace with no incoming. Long precedent of deleting these. --- RockMFR 23:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all cross-namespace redirects. --Interiot 01:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, it is a cross name redirect but once again the navigation would be much easier if this was kept.TellyaddictEditor review! 11:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; an "edit counter" is not an encyclopedic topic, and has no significance outside of Wikipedia – Qxz 14:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an encyclopedia topic. Gavia immer 18:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that there is no plausible encyclopedic topic actually means that there is no real reason to remove the cross-namespace redirect. XNRs should only be deleted when there's a need to get rid of them. Titoxd(?!?) 21:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Titoxd. Rossami (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia hurts itself by making new editors dig through content to locate a suitable help guide. Cwolfsheep 03:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Counter (disambiguation), which contains a selfreference link to the Wikiproject. That way, people just searching won't accidentally end up in project space when they were looking for an article, and people who need to know about edit counters will find the correct page. --ais523 10:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Retarget per ais523. Seems like sensible middle ground- no XNR and information about Wiki editcounters is still easy to find. WjBscribe 10:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Edit counter" is not an encyclopedia topic, and shouldn't be a redirect. Or change to "WP:Edit counter". --Rbraunwa 00:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Artemius Foul:a fantasy novel about a wicked boy,just like Harry Potter → Artemis Fowl[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 15:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly implausible – Qxz 01:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Entirely useless redirect. --- RockMFR 03:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ridiculous. Will never be used. Exists only as a POV statement. WjBscribe 06:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WJBscribe and RockMFR. -Yupik 09:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of USAF Aerospace Support Wingfs aassigned to Strategic Air Command → List of USAF Aerospace support wings assigned to Strategic Air Command[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 15:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely that someone would type this misspelt first attempt when the other better spelt version was available Buckshot06 07:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a recently created page. The redirect was automatically created as the result of a pagemove (to correct the misspelling). The redirect serves to point the original editor and any early readers to the new title. Redirects do more than just support the search engine! Rossami (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original author can check contrib history for the article. Someone needs to tell the editor that they need to follow our naming conventions and not mash the keyboard when creating new page titles. Ignorance is not a reason to keep a redirect from an unlikely typo. --- RockMFR 23:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely typo- will not be searched for. The creator will probably assume they created it under the correct name (and if they don't they can jsut check the history). WjBscribe 04:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely typo, per User:WJBscribe. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:User OK Go fan → Template:User OK Go video:HIGA fan[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Jersey Devil (author request). --- RockMFR 03:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect automatically created when the template was moved. I, the template's creator, wish for the original template's redirect to be removed because it serves no purpose (the template was created today). Powerfulmind 19:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. In the future, you can tag with {{db-author}}. --- RockMFR 23:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of economics consultancies and think tanks → List of think tanks[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of economics consultancies → List of think tanks[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, we used to have an article listed at List of economics consultancies and think tanks. After no objections on the talk page, I moved the article to List of think tanks and removed all economics consultancies as the vast majority were redlink spam. I made sure to tag all existing articles on the listed consultancy firms with [[Category:Economics_consulting_firms]]. So now that this is implemented as a category, there is no need for the lists. - Aagtbdfoua 19:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nobody Knows(song) → Nobody Knows (disambiguation)[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep John Reaves (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serves no real purpose, since Nobody Knows (song) (with the space) already exists as a redirect. PC78 20:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It does serve a purpose. Someone could easily mistype and leave out the space. Redirects are cheap. This one is harmless and could be helpful to some users. WjBscribe 04:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, but we shouldn't have redirects for every conceivable typo. The "redirects are cheap" argument can apply to pretty much any redirect listed here, but it doesn't mean we should keep them all. PC78 11:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is the wrong target for the redirect. Someone who knows enough to type the "(song)" part clearly wants the song, not just something called "Nobody Knows", so it should point to Nobody Knows (song) not the disambig page. DMacks 08:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because Nobody Knows (song) is also a redirect to the dab page, since there are a number of songs with this title. PC78 14:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • D'oh. Okay, makes sense. DMacks 14:54, 21 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_17&oldid=1146637345"