Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 14[edit]

Redirects to special pages[edit]

The result of the debate was eleven deleted, three re-targeted, see edit histories for further information. —freak(talk) 07:38, Mar. 16, 2007 (UTC)

Special pages cannot be redirected to, hence these cross namespace redirects are completely useless. Some are even misleading, like New user account. There's more listed at Special:Brokenredirects but they aren't nominated because I can't be stuffed right now to list them all. MER-C 11:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Redirects to special pages don't work and aren't going to work in the future. Incidentally, does anyone know why we don't have a speedy deletion criterion for completely nonfunctional redirects? Gavia immer (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Those special pages are almost impossible to find. Even though they don't function as normal redirects, these redirects are about the only way to get to the page. Furthermore, many of the ones listed were the original location of the page (before the creation of the Special: namespace). (If you look carefully, you'll even see that NewTopics is an old CamelCase example.) None of these create any possibility of confusion with article titles. Even with limited functionality, they are useful to many people. Rossami (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost impossible to find? There's a link to Special:Specialpages on every page. It's one of the standard toolbox links. That's a much easier way to find the special pages then remembering an arbitrary name of a redirect. -- JLaTondre 19:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I do think that the amount of links and easiness to get to special pages on wikipedia is a little bad, its better now but its still worth keeping them.Tellyaddict 18:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the ones in article space. No opinion on the Wikipedia: & WP: ones. The redirects don't work so there's no point to keeping. As an index to special pages, the Special:Specialpages link in the toolbox is much better. Also, User preferences most certainly does conflict with a possible article. An encyclopedic article can most certainly be written about user preferences (history of dealing with, means of storing, etc.). -- JLaTondre 19:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Special pages are pretty easy to find given that typing the wrong special page name gives a link to Special:Specialpages (Try Special:gywbfsb for example) making these arbitrary redirects of little use- you have to make a conscious effort to remember them. Given that these redirects don't work and are unlikely to anytime soon there is a strong case for deletion. Ones from the mainspace are particularly problematic, but I see no reason to keep the other two either. WjBscribe 23:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the main space ones, not too bothered with the WP: and Wikipedia ones. As system-generated pages, they should not be linked to from the article namespace. Plus you are only ever one click away from Special:Specialpages. mattbr 00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except NewTopics. Keep NewTopics as I'm pretty sure I've seen many external links pointing to this page. --- RockMFR 01:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, not useful enough for XNRs. >Radiant< 08:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Lindner Ethics Complaint of the 83rd Minnesota Legislative Session → Arlon Lindner[edit]

The result of the debate was no consensus. John Reaves (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect; no one would look for such a long title. All links (except for the Wikipedia maintenance links) have been re-linked. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect was automatically created as the result of a pagemove. The pagemove was the result of this recently closed AFD debate. The redirect serves to consolidate editing and to direct the original editors of the page to the proper location. Being long does not make the redirect "useless". Rossami (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article was at Lindner Ethics Complaint of the 83rd Minnesota Legislative Session for some time, there may well be external redirects pointing towards that title. WjBscribe 18:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with nominator, the title is just too long to lead to an article with such a short title.Tellyaddict 18:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, is anyone seriously going to type that in the search box? --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per WjB's reasoning, there could be other sites linking to the article where it lived for a while. --Maelwys 18:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

1944 D-Day Operation Overlord → 1944 D-Day Operation Overlord (videogame)[edit]

The result of the debate was Not a redirect. This is a disambig so WP:RFD doesn't apply; use WP:AFD instead. -- JLaTondre 13:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added Template:otheruses4 to 1944 D-Day Operation Overlord (videogame) article, this disambig page is not needed for such a narrowly named article — MrDolomite • Talk 12:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

1984 Olympics → 1984 Winter Olympics[edit]

The result of the debate was Not a redirect. This is a disambig so WP:RFD doesn't apply; use WP:AFD instead. -- JLaTondre 13:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no other olympic pages have yearly redirects, the navbox templates on all Olympic articles will help an editor find the one they need. — MrDolomite • Talk 12:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A (programming language) → TargetArticle[edit]

The result of the debate was Not a redirect This is a disambig so WP:RFD doesn't apply; use WP:AFD instead. -- JLaTondre 12:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

short disambig page, information from this page has been added to A (disambiguation). — MrDolomite • Talk 12:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gale Pollock (Acting) → Gale Pollock[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only Gale Pollock on wikipedia, no need to have the title as such, which is misleading anyway, is this person Acting as Gale Pollock or an actor/actress? :) — MrDolomite • Talk 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not the standard form for parenthetical disambiguation, and no possibility of confusion. If another Gale Pollock gets an article, a better redirect can be created. Gavia immer (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The redirect was the result of a recent pagemove. It will make sure that the editors who contributed at the original title find the new location and contribute their edits there. Rossami (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While normally I'd be sympathetic to Rossami's argument, in this case, I think the misleading use of "Acting" outweghs the benefits to the contributors. The contributors can still find the article with the redirect deleted via their contributions list which will show the new name. And if we're really concerned, we could drop them a note as they both seem to be active. -- JLaTondre 16:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and JLaTondre. WjBscribe 18:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per previous comment. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above --Maelwys 18:34, 20 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_14&oldid=1138574792"