Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 10[edit]

"Plectu's Fantastic Intergalactic Revue" → Plectu's Fantastic Intergalactic Revue[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. —freak(talk) 07:53, Mar. 16, 2007 (UTC)

I moved this to comply with article naming conventions i.e not using non ASCII characters for emphasis alone. I would like the redirect deleted. Phatom87 19:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Doesn't comply with naming conventions, and unneeded. bibliomaniac15 01:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the target article is kept (a point that seems questionable right now), keep until all the prior editors of the page have been notified of the move. Those redirects are automatically created by the pagemove process for a reason. Rossami (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as stated above. Simply unneeded. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 03:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Battle of Plataea (427 BC) → Battle of Plataea (Greco-Persian Wars)[edit]

The result of the debate was One kept & one deleted. Battle of Plataea (Greco-Persian Wars) kept as possible search term. Battle of Plataea (427 BC) deleted as it's factually incorrect (the target is about the battle of 479 BC). -- JLaTondre 14:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I first bumped onto the original article Battle of Plataea (427 BC),it was misleading.Although the article was named after the homonym battle of 427 BC ,it was instead a non important synopsis of the homonym battle of 479 BC (of Greco-Persian wars).I started editing it and today I renamed it to Battle of Plataea (Greco-Persian Wars).Unfortunately ex post facto I found out that there is already a serious article about the latter (stupid I) named Battle of Plataea. So please delete either only Battle of Plataea (427 BC) or both the former and Battle of Plataea (Greco-Persian Wars) because now rather than a misleading article there is a double misleading redirect.again stupid I ;-) Thanatos666 21:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Cross-namespace[edit]

The result of the debate was no action. There is no consensus for adapting this method of redirect deletion nominations. -- JLaTondre 14:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automatically-generated list of cross-namespace redirects, copied from here. XNRs are generally considered to be not a good idea, although there are some exceptions if they are useful. So most of the XNRs on this list should probably be deleted.

Since this list is rather long, dropping all of them on RFD is probably not the most productive approach. Instead, let's take a leaf out of WP:PROD. I am going to advertise this list widely and leave it in place for two weeks. During those weeks, anyone who objects to a redirect's deletion should remove it from the list below (and optionally, list it on RFD for further discussion). After two weeks, the remainder could be deleted. >Radiant< 09:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. This is not how this should be done. This will create an absolutely ungodly mess. Many of these have edit histories that need to be merged, incoming links to be fixed, etc. Many of them are already being speedied even though they don't meet any speedy criterion. This is getting rather annoying since hardly anybody wants to do it properly. --- RockMFR 15:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add onto that... if this can be done properly (most incoming links removed, non-trivial edit histories merged, etc), then I would support it. But I'm not sure that can be done with this sort of approach. "Okay here are a few thousand articles — you have two weeks to check them all. In the mean time, random ones will be speedy deleted and the list will constantly be changing." --- RockMFR 20:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I commented below, I oppose any kind of mass clean-out without discussion, especially of redirects in the Help, Special, Wikipedia Talk and Wikipedia sections. Many of the redirects on the list are appropriate for deletion but many are not. Unless a speedy-deletion criterion already applies, the histories of each page have to be carefully evaluated and the merits of individual redirects weighed. That requires discussion.
    The suggestion that we can somehow weed through them all in a week or two is, unfortunately, ridiculous. The section on Wikipedia links alone is over 600 lines long. To properly decide if a redirect should be removed from the list requires investigation into the history, investigation of inbound links, etc. That takes time. This problem took a long time to develop. We must allow the time needed to fix it properly. Rossami (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep listed indefinitely - the page is useful, a deadline of two weeks is not. --Random832 18:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved from March 2 to keep in line withe whole two weeks thing.
  • Keep all for now. No need to have a mass clear-out here. The list is useful to work from to nominate articles here, but I think a case-by-case approach remains best. WjBscribe 01:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per the necessary merging of histories, etc. that will require some work. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 03:04, 13 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_March_10&oldid=1088719124"