Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 28[edit]

You know you're a Vancouverite when → User:Mkdw/Vancouverite[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD R2. Punkmorten 12:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Vancouverite should be considered as well. Mainspace redirects should never redirect to a user page, especially an unencyclopedic one. — Selmo (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?[edit]

The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. John Reaves (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite argumentative and somewhat uncivil, this redirect has become somewhat popular in deletion debates over the last month or so. Perhaps rather than just deleting this, a solution of the same type as was applied to WP:VAIN is in order, but I don't think it should remain in place as-is. Dekimasuよ! 11:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I failed to note (and initially notice) that this is the second nomination for the shortcut. Per the suggestion of that nominator, I have created WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and I will replace the shortcut text on the page in question. Hopefully that will hold up. Previous deletion debate ended as no consensus. Dekimasuよ! 12:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment: Since the nomination and the noting of the new redirects on the page, they have been used a few times. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS works in a more civil way than WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: here. Is quite civil, in comparison with its older counterpart: here (from an editor who voted keep below). WP:WAX works quite acceptably: here. These were the first three pages I looked at, and appear to show an overall improvement in tone. Dekimasuよ! 12:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, this is rather WP:BITEy. Concur with deletion. >Radiant< 11:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do not think anyone would be seriously offended by this redirect, and it takes them to a page where this form of argument is discussed respectfully and there is an explanation of why it does not carry much weight in deletion discussions. It is unlike WP:VAIN, which makes a direct accusation of a character flaw (vanity) in the person it is directed at. Sam Blacketer 12:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inherent in citing this redirect is "I think that the nominated article is crap," and the citation is given in reply to someone else's keep vote. That sounds unnecessarily hostile to me. WP:POKEMON isn't an offensive shortcut. This can have a better one, too. Dekimasuよ! 12:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do accept that, but it's not necessarily targeted at a contributor. While we are discussing offensive redirects, what about WP:BOLLOCKS? That is a very offensive term in Britain, and I'm guessing it only survives because it's much less known in the USA. Unfortunately I seem to have drifted into a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS form of argument myself! Sam Blacketer 12:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure I would agree that Bollocks is particularly offensive in the UK these days. --Spartaz Humbug! 23:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note that WP:VAIN has been moved to WP:COI for precisely this reason. Personally, I'd be offended that someone called an article I'd worked hard on crap, especially when, as it is with so many of our deletion discussions, it's a topic where the author cares a lot about it. William Pietri 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I know this is itself a sort of OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, which is ironic - but, what about WP:DICK. That one is even inherently intended to be targeted at another contributor directly, rather than simply as a description of their argument. --Random832 13:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:DICK itself was deleted via a Vfd debate and doesn't exist on the Wiki. It's now a soft redirect rather than a real one. If this is turned into a soft redirect I won't mind it so much (see comment on WP:VAIN above); that will discourage its use. I would appreciate it if we stopped talking about other painful redirects here. This one is not well-established and is a good candidate for bud-nipping. Dekimasuよ! 13:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I count almost 200 uses of this redirect. I think you're too late. Rossami (talk)
        • Discounting logs and discussions of the redirect itself, it has been used in 72 different AfD discussions so far. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedians may not be really offended but its a redirect we can do without. Tellyaddict 16:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and block nominator for disrupting Wikipedia, this has already survived a deletion discussion very recently. Nardman1 17:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator apparently made a mistake, and has apologized. This being a discussion, did you have an argument for keeping the redirect? Thanks, William Pietri 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I don't think it's appropriate to re-nominate it so soon after the other discussion. Nardman1 21:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your request for blocking someone who made a mistake and apologized is even more disruptive. The fact that is nominated again so soon also indicated that more people noticed that some editors are offended by this redirect. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also it ended no consensus, not keep. DanielT5 18:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it makes sense and I like a little humor here and there, the intended use of this is in deletion debates, where it will unnecessarily encourage conflict. —Dgiest c 17:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Deletion discussions are plenty contentious already. There's absolutely no need to make it easy to violate, intentionally or accidentally, core policy WP:CIVIL. I'm also ok with a move to anything that doesn't denigrate the article in question. William Pietri 19:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotes needless incivility. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as nominator the previous time, my argumentation can be found there. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:CIVIL is a policy. Referencing the contributions of thousands of editors as "CRAP" (given how frequently the redirect is used in AfD, yes it is applied to the edits of thousands of individuals, if not more) is hardly civil by any standard. If the issue is to have a redirect to WP:AADD#What about article x?, something like WP:OAE (standing for "Other Articles Exist") or WP:WAX (standing for "What About X") serve equally well and I would say better as they are much shorter. -- Black Falcon 23:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per WP:BETTERMORECIVILREDIRECTNAMESAREOUTTHERE (→Netscott) 00:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We just closed this not more than what, a week ago? I still don't see how this redirect is harmful. --- RockMFR 04:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is harmful because people, especially those new to Wikipedia, might get the notion that we are calling their contribution or the subject of the article crap. Looking through recent uses of it, I note three negative reactions: [1] [2] [3] And I see it used a fair bit in discussions with the afdnewbies tag, which means that people who are most likely to misunderstand it are the ones seeing it. William Pietri 04:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While slightly harsh in its language, the contexts where I've seen this redirect used made the choice of language generally appropriate. It's not a label that your contribution is bad, it's a comment that the other guy's stuff is bad - and that your argument is invalid. I don't think the proposed alternatives convey the same clarity of meaning. Rossami (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't that only be true if the tag were CRAPEXISTS? It seems to me that adding OTHER means that we are not only calling, say, the Pokemon aricles crap, but the one under discussion as well. Thanks, William Pietri 05:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Even Wikipedia articles are not censored for children or overly sensitive adults -- which appears to be the only possible rationale for deletion -- and this redirect is not even for mainspace. The phrase is widely known and widely referred to, and the redirect should remain up so as not to break all the existing links, let alone disable new ones. If you must shield your eyes from such relatively mild things, surely you must never dare click the Random article button, lest much worse (with photos) sully the purity of your screen. -- Ben 07:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redirect is not offensive because of the use of the word crap, but because this redirect is mainly used in AfD discussions and (implicitly) calling an article by another editor "crap" can hardly be considered constructive discussion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nomination was about civility, not censorship. If I say "your strong keep vote is CRAP" it doesn't encourage the evolution of consensus in deletion debates. Dekimasuよ! 09:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is an accurate, humorous summary of the sort of argument that is used. Furthermore, given that this was in an RfD less than a week ago, having another RfD for it now is less than helpful. On the whole, I think people need to lighten up. A lot of the delete arguments seem to hinge on WP:SHORTCUTSIFINDPERSONALLYOFFENSIVEAREUNACCEPTABLEBECAUSEISAIDSO (please no one turn that into a link). JoshuaZ 07:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with this redirect is, however, that many people fail to see the humor in it. They take it seriously and rather than helping the AfD discussion forward, it polarizes. Most importantly, alternatives are easy to come up with and are already available. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It ended two weeks ago, but anyway. At least I didn't renominate it after it was kept. The previous debate ended in no consensus. Continuing discussion can create consensus. Dekimasuよ! 09:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd agree that people need to lighten up. Until they do, we have to work with the people we have. Some people have taken offense at this. More will. Further, understanding the humor depends on context, context which newbies don't have, meaning this is WP:BITE-y unless used much more judiciously than it has been so far. William Pietri 19:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is it being overly sensitive to express distate when a user refers to the collective good-faith effort of multiple other editors as nothing more than "crap"? This is not about censorship or sensitivity. Words matter. There is a world of difference between writing "Your comments have been considered unhelpful and have been reverted" and writing "You fucking bastard! You have nothing better to do than waste other people's time and fuck around on this site? Go to hell, asshole!". There is a difference between writing that "Your contributions are valued, but may not be suitable for Wikipedia" and writing "Wikipedia is not the place to dump your crap.". Words matter. WP:CIVIL is policy. This redirect is optional and can be replaced. Experienced users who know about WP:AADD may still understand what the redirect references and may not take the demeaning of their efforts (even if usually not in bad faith) to heart. New users will not. They will take this at face value. They will assume that someone is calling the result of their effort "crap" and will naturally take offense. No, this is not a matter of oversensitivity, or of a failure to grasp humour, or an attempt to override WP:NOT#CENSOR. It is a matter of basic consideration and appreciation. Should the following not be the message that we ought to convey: Even though your contributions are not appropriate for Wikipedia and will be removed, we appreciate your good-faith effort to add to the encyclopedia (and we will not insult you). We encourage you to continue contributing to Wikipedia, and ask that you review and adhere to our various policies and guidelines. If you wish to become a regular and valued contributor to Wikipedia, we will welcome you and help you along the way as best we can. Most importantly, we will not demean you or your efforts as long as they are made in good faith. We hope you will find contributing to Wikipedia to be an enjoyable experience. -- Black Falcon 09:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need for incivil redirects like this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" sounds more like an invitation to go edit something else. "WP:OTHERJUNKEXISTS" is better, but has a vaguely euphemistic, kindergarten-y ring to it. The main argument I see in the Delete crowd is that it's judgemental - the trouble I have with this argument is that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is invoked in response to somebody else saying, in a nutshell, "article X is crap, but article Y is also crap". In other words, the quality of the proposed AfD is rarely debated within a thread that contains WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - the person to whom it's directed feels that the article is junk, otherwise it'd be a meaningless non sequitur. --Action Jackson IV 04:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which I could understand, but I don't think that is the context in which it's being used. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of megachurches. I don't think Doc Glasgow was trying to make the argument that the school articles on the EN Wiki are crap; it seems that he would vote keep for any of them, too. Regardless of the merits of that keep argument, he is being told that both his opinion on the schools and his opinion on the churches are crap. Dekimasuよ! 12:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. One example where this was mis-used. This runs against every AfD I've participated in (not a ton, but more than a few), but maybe I just happen to avoid the discussions where terms are mis-used. So. If we get rid of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, then it's still possible to type "those articles suck, and this one sucks too". Should we maybe require users to use keyboards without the letters "s", "u", "c", and "k"? To phrase it a different way - if someone can mis-use an average leaf of lettuce to induce severe and lasting emotional distress, is the problem A) with lettuce, B) with the mis-use of the lettuce, or C) with the person mis-using that leaf of lettuce? I'd say mostly "C" with a little "B". If (hypothetically) WP:NOT, WP:BIO, or WP:OR can be mis-used to insult, does that mean we should get rid of them? ("WP:NOT for you", "you should be struck about the head with a wooden WP:OR", whatever) The argument really doesn't hold water. --Action Jackson IV 21:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's a difference between someone typing an insult and someone linking to an insult that is a Wikipedia page! There's a difference between one editor typing to another "You are an idiotic bastard" and typing "You are an idiotic bastard as per this Wikipedia essay/guideline/policy!" People will be uncivil no matter what is done; the most we can do is warn them against it. However, what you're calling for is for us to condone incivility. How would you feel if someone redirected the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, moron! Read the policies! to WP:WINAD? Is that acceptable as well? -- Black Falcon 22:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no incivility in making the assertion that the existence of one crap article does not justify another. If it were called WP:YOUARECRAP that would be a different story, but it is not. —ptk✰fgs 03:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Offensive comments can be made both against individuals and their contributions. Saying to another editor "What you have contributed so far is crap" is uncivil. -- Black Falcon 07:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For such occasions, there is always WP:DICK. —ptk✰fgs 07:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It may border on incivility to state that an article is "crap," but it's the choice of the user making that argument. Wikipedia is not censored. Krimpet 03:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is the choice of the user. But should there exist a Wikipedia link that they can include in their statement? Should this incivility be sanctioned by allowing a redirect of that name to exist? There's nothing that still prevents an editor from writing: "Other crap exists" without reference to an actual WP link. -- Black Falcon 07:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've been pointing out "Wikipedia has a lot of useless crap" isn't an argument for keeping this article for ages. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to its use in XfD debates. I favour the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS alternative as it does the same thing without being potentially offensive. I have no problem with people using the word crap, and its up to them whether they use to be civil or not, but we shouldnt hand them something in Wiki space which arguably looks official. DanielT5 18:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only because WP:CIVIL is a policy. I do agree with the users expressing their desire to keep this redirect in saying that it feels a bit much like paranoid censorship to remove things that 'someone' might find 'offensive' and while I am not keen on that particular line of reasoning - Wikipedia policy exists for a reason. As stated above removing the redirect would in no way prohibit the use of the term 'crap' in discussions, but unfortunately as a redirect it has the appearance of endorsement by Wikipedia as a whole, doesn't sound very neutral, and again, violates policy. Arkyan 21:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this redirect is typically used because a nominator is comparing it to other pages which do not meet standards, either - knowing that they do not meet standards. The moniker appears appropriate in such a case. --Haemo 02:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I always thought I was an old fogy but I personally don't think the term "Crap" is that offensive.Spartaz Humbug! 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point isn't whether you find it offensive; I don't either. It's whether people whose articles are referred to as crap find it offensive. They do. Since there are polite ways to express the point, I think it's a WP:CIVIL violation. William Pietri 01:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uncivil and counterproductive. TFD has a long history of deleting "cleanup" templates like {{crap}}; this is precisely the same issue. Telling someone that the existence of similar articles isn't a valid argument might (possibly, occasionally, once in a while) convince them of your point. Telling someone that the existence of similar crappy articles isn't a valid argument never, ever will. —Cryptic 22:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please note the exxistence of a relevant VFD discussion about calling articles "crap" at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005#Template:Crap and associated Category:Crap. All of the same arguments are applicable (insulting, biting newbies, unnecessary given existence of replacements, etc.). That TFD discussion ended with a strong consensus to delete. -- Black Falcon 02:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-I'm sorry, but I can't see how labeling one's contributions as "crap" could be anything but uncivil (and, frankly, a borderline personal attack, in my opinion.)--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

ME:A, ME:S, Me:A, Me:S and Me:T[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 04:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All redirect to various subpages of the Middle Earth Wikiproject. Non-standard prefix, I'm not sure if this is such a good idea. >Radiant< 09:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unnecesary cross-namespace redirects. Dekimasuよ! 11:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not useful. Sam Blacketer 12:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They can easily be replaced with something more standard. Gavia immer 15:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't want to set a precedence. John Reaves (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Radiant, it is a non standard prefix, not relevant.Tellyaddict 16:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cross-namespace should be used with care. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was just about to nom these for the same reason. --- RockMFR 04:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, personal uses. Causesobad → (Talk) 14:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thusday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday → List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force villains[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. —Centrx→talk • 16:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result of a new article with a misspelled name (Thusday instead of Thursday), which was moved to the correct spelling, and now has moved to a new article. I doubt that anyone will ever stumble upon this redirect. No incoming links. :: ZJH (T C E) 05:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If some one actually bothers typing this out, there's a good chance a typo will be made. John Reaves (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If someone actually bothers typing this out, there's a poor chance they will make exactly this typo. 08:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No one is going to type that exact string again. — Randall Bart 08:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely pointless. It's highly unlikely that someone would even bother to type this out. PeaceNT 10:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have no knowledge the comic/TV programme or whatever but of what I can see is that the days of the week being typed in is not relevant to the article.Tellyaddict 16:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is relevant as the name, when correctly spelled, was a nickname for a villain group in one episode. But anyone going to the trouble to type this will either spell Thursday correctly or make other typos as well. —Dgiest c 17:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the typo arguments. — xaosflux Talk 04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Punkmorten 12:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what this? I think just people with malfunctioned head will use this so-long and unrelated redirect. Causesobad → (Talk) 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If someone actually bothers typing this out, they deserve to hit a red link :) DanielT5 18:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Matcha → Maccha[edit]

The result of the debate was Withdrawn John Reaves (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been requested Maccha be moved to Matcha. Discussion on the Maccha talk page is in favour of the move. However, Matcha is a redirect (to Maccha) with a non-trivial history ... or, more precisely an almost trivial history: two edits. To allow for the page to be moved I request Matcha be deleted. Jimp 05:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This will be taken care of by the admin that does the requested move. I suggest this request be withdrawn. John Reaves (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This could be a common spelling error, definitely should keep.Tellyaddict 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be kept once the move is complete, there isn't really a need for this rfd, the moving admin will delete the page to make way for the move. John Reaves (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I withdraw it. Note: I wouldn't suggest that Maccha be deleted once moved to Matcha. Jimp 19:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Weiman republic → Germany[edit]

The result of the debate was Redirected to Weimar Republic. John Reaves (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a misspelling of "Weimar". No links. No reason someone would be looking for this. — Randall Bart 08:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Plausible typo? —Dgiest c 08:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Impossible to fat finger. People misread r as n all the time, but with a space after? I don't know the policy on redirects for misreadings. Is there a way to know how often this redirect gets hit? — Randall Bart 08:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I can tell, there are no tools to detect page views. John Reaves (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Weimar Republic. I think it's common for people to use a name that "sounds" German when they can't remember the actual title. John Reaves (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per John Reaves, plausible redirect. The general policy seems to be 'don't go out of your way to create typo redirects, but don't delete the plausible ones, either'. -- nae'blis 15:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be a plausible misspelling. --- RockMFR 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And retarget, obviously. --- RockMFR 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, might be a plausible mistake, and it certainly does no harm (which, contrary to AfD, is an argument for keeping redirects). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, per JR. Causesobad → (Talk) 14:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ellen Degenerate → Ellen Degeneres[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G10 and then salted by NYC JD. —Dgiest c 18:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Rename a page → Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep John Reaves (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect, no incoming wikilinks (although there's an incoming external link to it on the Help Desk at the moment, which is how I noticed), not as helpful as many XNRs are. --ais523 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I have to be honest, when I joined here months ago I found the navigatino to be really bad and I had to bookmark everything and some things (but not as many) I still have bookmarked now just for easiness, it would be easier for newcomers if this was kept.Tellyaddict 16:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's intentional. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; and when searching for things in an encyclopedia, people shouldn't inadvertently come across things that aren't part of the encyclopedia, but notes on how to help make it. The real problem here is that the method for getting the search box to search properly for Wikipedia-space pages is unclear (you have to search, then click 'Wikipedia' and 'Help' (in this case) at the bottom of the screen, then click Search again); but surely it's better for people to only come across the help and process pages if they want them, not when they're just searching for an article? --ais523 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, cross name space. Should be used with care. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I frequently have no idea how to do something, and will type something like "image tags" into the search box (which is another cross-namespace redirect) Nardman1 02:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the comment above about searching. John Reaves (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unlikely search for people looking for encyclopedia information, and the resulting page is sufficiently explanatory not to confuse anyone. Nardman1 02:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, it's highly unlikely that anyone typing this into the search box is looking for encyclopedic information. There are a ton of these, by the way: speedy deletion, BJAODN, npov, speedy keep, arbcom, user talk, blocking policy, CHECKUSER, etc. Perhaps this is an area where we should clafify policy -- Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects is marked as inactive and kept for historical interest. That would be better than having individual RFD discussions on each one. Dave6 talk 04:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, this is very, very useful for new users, since they don't know rename a page actually performed through the function "move". Also, new users won't know about the redirects which contain the prefix: "Wikipedia:..." or "WP:...". Causesobad → (Talk) 17:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Evidence above shows that it is helpful for new users. It is not in the way of any actual article. Rossami (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete While helpful to users, cross namespace stuff is bad, and when it isn't of a regular form (like WP:FOO]])) can be inconvenient for upstream users of our content who just want the article space material. JoshuaZ 07:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cross-namespace stuff like this can complicate third-party use of mainspace content, and new users can still use the search tool to find instructions on how to rename a page. I agree that the policy on cross-namespace redirects should be clarified. Krimpet 04:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cross-namespace redirects are typically a bad thing, yes, but as stated above it is highly unlikely to come in to a conflict with a future mainspace article of the same name, and serves a useful purpose to new editors. Arkyan 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia talk shortcuts[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 04:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Wp talk:cvu
  2. Wp talk:lds
  3. WPP:BooksTalk
  4. WPP:seriesTalk
  5. WP T:CVU
  6. WP talk:AFD
  7. WP talk:AfD
  8. WP talk:ALASKA
  9. WP talk:Air
  10. WP talk:CVU
  11. WP talk:NC
  12. WP talk:RFAr
  13. WP talk:VFD

Similar to items previously considered here, these are shortcuts to wikipedia talk pages using nonstandard forms, rather than WT:. None is heavily used, and all have well-formed alternative shortcuts now. They should be deprecated in favor of the standard shortcut form. Gavia immer 16:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete assuming they all have WT: versions of themselves. John Reaves (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essentially cross-name space redirects. Should be used with care. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Reabers and Morgan. Also note that none of these redirects is in wide use, so it isn't like we are losing much by deleting them. JoshuaZ 07:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WT: is the de facto convention now. All of these have trivial edit histories and just a few incoming links. --- RockMFR 08:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with WT:. mattbr30 10:43, 4 March 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_28&oldid=1138574548"