Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 November 25

November 25[edit]

Presidency redirects[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. --- RockMFR 18:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nom on behalf of User:MosheA, who asked for some help nominating these. I'll let him speak for his own arguments, or see User talk:Luna Santin#Redirections for Deletion (permalink). – Luna Santin (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here is why:

On this template, there are a few inconsistencies. Every presidency page should not, in theory, link to the president himself. For example, the article Presidency of James Monroe does not exist, and consequently, does not redirect to James Monroe. However, a few presidency links on here, i.e. the ones listed above, due indeed redirect to the actual president, and these redirection pages should be deleted. --MosheA (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Andrew Jackson redirect because it was the result of this AFD discussion. No opinion yet on the others. Rossami (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually think the Andrew Jackson redirect should be deleted as well. It makes no sense that Presidency of Franklin Pierce does not link to Franklin Pierce, yet the Presidency of Andrew Jackson links to Andrew Jackson. It's a bit irregular. Plus, although the outcome of the aforementioned discussion was "redirect", it was actually a narrow tie, if you count the nomination. Delete - 4 (Rackabello, θnce θn this island ^Speak!, Goochelaar, Mandsford) Redirect - 4 (12 Noon, TonyBallioni, SkierRMH, Burntsauce). I am of the opinion that either every red-linked presidency page should link to the president, or just be left alone until the actual article is created. And personally, I vote for the latter. --MosheA (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all If it is inconsistency that worries you, create redirects where they do not exist. All of these would be valid search terms, and redirects are cheap. Xoloz (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment I have followed my own suggestion, and made redirects for every name on the list, since -- as I said -- all are reasonable search terms. At a minimum, I would say the original ground of this RfD is now moot, having been superceded by events. Xoloz (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Redirect was the result of the AfD, but beyond that I can't see anybody typing in "Presidency of Andrew Jackson" instead of "Andrew Jackson". --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 03:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the label is actually a typical way of distinguishing between biographical facts solely about the man and the socio-political facts of his tenure in office. If nothing else, it is common in schoolbooks. Xoloz (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Redirects are cheap. These do no harm and may be of some use. WjBscribe 00:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes, they do no harm, yes, they are probably useless because I doubt that anyone who could spell the name right would search for his presidency this way. Are we going to also allow Birth of Andrew Jackson, Childhood of Andrew Jackson, Adolescence of Andrew Jackson, Education of Andrew Jackson, Sexual life of Andrew Jackson, Pre-presidential career of Andrew Jackson, Post-presidential career of Andrew Jackson, and Death of Andrew Jackson also as redirects as they are also plausible. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited → Wikipedia:How to copy-edit[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An old cross namespace redirect. Still in Camel case but no one is going to search for this and there are no links to it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix-wiki (talk • contribs) 13:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The old redirects are explicitly protected per the rules above, especially the old CamelCase redirects. This particular redirect documents a pagemove from long before the system documented the pagemoves in the edit history and even before we had the separate namespaces. The redirect preserves the attribution history (a requirement of GFDL) and ensures that any old links (including external links) will still work. Rossami (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- History can be merged pretty easily, if attribution is important (although I don't see that any of the content from these old revisions is being used, currently). Are we really obligated to keep out-of-date external links from six years ago working? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Short answer - yes. Read the Wikipedia commentary on GFDL for more.
    Slightly longer answer - history mergers are neither as easy or error-proof as your comment implies. Redirects are cheap - far cheaper than the effort needed to cleanup and repair such good-faith contributions. Rossami (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rossami above. Terraxos (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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