Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 17[edit]

Misc redirects to the Portal: namespace[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. —Centrx→talk • 18:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Dated redirects to the Portal: namespace[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. —Centrx→talk • 18:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User Gujarat → Template:User Gujarat[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. He knows what happened. —Centrx→talk • 18:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from article space to a userbox, left over from page move – Qxz 11:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep until creator has been notified that his page was moved, then delete it. We don't need the CNR, but the userbox creator should know what happened. Gavia immer (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also recommend deleting User:Gujarat, a redirect from the userspace to the template space. --- RockMFR 01:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Portal–related redirects to the Portal: namespace[edit]

The result of the debate was no consensus. John Reaves (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a re–nomination of all the redirects to the Portal: namespace which are non–standard shortcuts, are in a pseudo–namespace, or contain portal in them from the mass nomination by Radiant! yesterday. None of them have a significant history (except Solar system portal as described above) and should be deleted because they are a non–standard shortcut, are in a non–standard pseudo–namespace, and/or provide no advantage over the current convention. Also:

All of these are unlikely search terms, not useful as shortcuts because they're not actually shorter, and cross-namespace redirects. >Radiant< 09:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Addition of the Wikiportal:Poland selected anniversaries months which, since the nomination, I have discovered and moved, creating the redirect. mattbr 09:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot. Consider setting up standard WP: shortcuts for those pages that are in active use and don't have them – Qxz 11:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - the first two could easily be replaced with proper shortcuts; the rest are all at least as long as their targets, so they aren't shortcuts. Gavia immer (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. We really don't need these. WjBscribe 18:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Aside from the above, on the ones with portal in the title, if a search is made using these terms, the first referent is the named redirect. So when a portal is sought, the searcher will find the portal. Otherwise they are harmless and help those who don't think so categorically. --Bejnar 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Even though these are nonstandard, and may not seem useful, we must consider that we are trying to make the encyclopaedia easier to access for any. Although wikipedians may not use these redirects, we have to consider how new users may navigate - especially if they've already been to the portal page once, but haven't learned about namespaces. Locriani 06:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as Locriani said. Also, such a mass nomination of this scale can't be decided by just a small group of people. There needs to be voices from the portal people too, to be fair. And I wonder if the creators and contributors of each of these portals have been notified? I was maintaining two of these portals and only accidentally ran into this nomination. Other portal maintainers probably wouldn't even have a slight idea that their redirects are going be deleted. I also don't unstand the logic behind. Are there really more benefits of deleting these instead of keeping them? From my experience, they are useful. Back then before there were redirects to the fish portal, I was watching my boyfriend trying to get to the fish portal, and he didn't have any clue how to do it. He didn't even know that all portals are in a different namespace. He kept typing "fish portal" and "portal fish" until I told him it's "portal:fish". And that was exactly why I put these redirects. Just because we are more experienced editors, it doesn't mean we can ignore other people. --Melanochromis 11:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Completely agree with Locriani and Melanochromis. Such redirects are very useful for non-wikipedians, and are clearly regarded as such by a large number of wikipedians who have created the redirects (numerically superior to the few here who wish to delete them). No such deletions should be made unless agreed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals. Gralo 12:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (maintainer of the Energy Portal)[reply]
  • Keep. Utility to general readers outweighs general principle about cross-namespace redirects in this case. CMummert · talk 02:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User talk → Wikipedia:Talk page[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. —Centrx→talk • 18:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is a cross-space redirect. Second, as it is the prefix of the "User talk:" namespace, it may cause confusion. Third, the redirect has no useful page history: all edits have been to change where the page is targeted or to inappropriately tag it for speedy deletion. Black Falcon 07:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: At 04:00 18 March 2007, this page was "speedy deleted as a cross-namespace redirect" by User:1ne. That is not a valid speedy-deletion criterion. The out-of-process deletion was reverted and this discussion reopened.
  • Weak delete. Personally, I see no possibility of confusion here. The redirect has been around since Jan 2005 and has a significant number of inbound links. However, most of those uses seem to be user errors - people typing [[User talk|Foo]] when they mean [[User talk:Foo]]. In this rare case, I think a redlink will help the users learn the correct grammar. The redirect is unable to take users where they expected to go. Rossami (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Elona → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elona Bojaxhi[edit]

The result of the debate was coverted to disambig. WjBscribe 02:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history, this redirect results from a Bot trying to fix a double redirect. It definitely can't stay as is- XNRs to deletion discussions are a pretty bad idea. But it might be a useful redirect if retargeted elsewhere. Any thoughts on possible targets? WjBscribe 01:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Monastery of Elona [1] Pavel Vozenilek 01:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget if an appropriate target is found; delete otherwise. We shouldn't have redirects from article space to process. Gavia immer (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak disambig. If someone creates an article on the monastery, then it should probably be a redirect to that, but in the absence of such an article, I have made a disambig out of it. Neither blue entry is that significant so I wouldn't object to its deletion. -- JLaTondre 16:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm perfectly happy with that disambig page as a placeholder prior to the monastery article being created. Seems to cover what people might be looking for. WjBscribe 18:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Redirects to Wikiprojects from abbreviations[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another batch of redirects to Wikiprojects and related boards/collaborations from the mainspace. These are from a variety of abbreviations, some of which may well be used as search terms for encyclopedic contents. Given the availability of 'WP:' redirects like these are completely unnecessary XNRs. WjBscribe 01:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. mattbr 08:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, any of these could be replaced by a WP: shortcut, and most targets have them already. Gavia immer (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep all. Highly useful. --MacRusgail 18:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In particular I agree with the Scribe that some of these are plausible search terms for radio stations and such. YechielMan 20:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, use WP: shortcuts rather than arbitrary ETLAs. >Radiant< 10:18, 19 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_17&oldid=1075371640"