Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 1[edit]

Wikipedia Articles for deletion → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion[edit]

The result of the debate was deleted. -- John Reaves 21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect which was originally created in May 22, 2007. No page moves nor significant history, only the redirect's creation. A quick google search reveals that searching for this exact term quickly points to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The title is long with a capitalized letter within its text, making the search term implausible. So, I suggest deletion. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 21:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Implausible? It's a mistake I've made. Despite being a cross-namespace redirect, anyone typing in this phrase is obviously looking for the project page. --UsaSatsui 22:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but we should study its plausibility. Anyone typing the entire redirect term knows exactly where it is, and if they see a red link, it's because they forgot the colon (:). This can simply be re-edited to include it, whether in a search or during a discussion (irrelevant to the fact that during searches, most users just use shortcuts). Additionally, this is the only CNR of its kind (i.e. to XfDs). This nomination is part of an effort to reduce the number of CNRs. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 23:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see your point, but I don't see how it is harmful, and I do see how it is useful. It's not like there would be any confusion with an article of this name. --UsaSatsui 00:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree with UsaSatsui. It's an easy mistake to make. Yes, it's obvious but it's several extra steps to fix once you've made the mistake. Why not make things easier for editors? There is no possibility of confusion with anything other than the Wikipedia process page. (By the way, I suspect it's the only one of the XfDs because it is far and away the most heavily trafficed of the deletion processes. It's also the one that attracts the most new participants who are likely to make that mistake. By the time you "graduate" to RfD, you know the ropes.) Rossami (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keeping this sort of redirect can mislead people into thinking we regard our meta processes as equally important to encyclopedic content. The precedent that XNRs are in themselves undesirale is clear. The utility of this is dramatically reduced by being a redirect with mixed capitalisation. As the nom points out, AfD can easily be located with a few new steps - there is a different between facilitating navigating the encyclopedia and encouraging laziness in meta process. Meta discussions should be supporting the mainspace, not vice versa. Keeping this would make it very difficult to decide where to draw the line in future. WjBscribe 22:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While this is certainly a plausible typo and so possibly useful as a redirect, it is nonetheless a cross-namespace redirect and should be deleted, as explained by WJBscribe above. I'm not sure how useful it actually is, in any case - when I search for 'wikipedia articles for deletion' (decapitalised), AfD is in the first few links; I presume that would also be the case for this term if the redirect was deleted. Terraxos 18:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I tested it. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 10:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't feel that it should be deleted -just- because it's a cross-namespace redirect. Are those expressly forbidden someplace? I can't find -any- page on XNRs. --UsaSatsui 14:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, you're right. They are not forbidden as a general policy. The applicable guideline is Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects, which discusses the pros and cons of these redirects. Basically, they should be decided on a case-by-case basis, which is why I nominated here. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 20:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. Wikipedia's deletion process is not an encyclopedic subject, and even if it was, the target of this redirect does not cover it in an enyclopedic manner. Including a redirect in the encyclopedia itself is therefore inappropriate. "The enyclopedia itself" has a strict definition (main namespace excluding shortcuts with prefixes such as WP:) which needs to be preserved in order to make redistribution feasible – Gurch 14:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia-namespace → Wikipedia:Namespace[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 22:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect which was originally deleted in May 28, 2006 for the same reason as this nom (for being a CNR), and recreated in July 23, 2006. No page moves nor significant history, only the redirect's creation. A quick google search reveals that searching for this term, with or without the dash, quickly points to Wikipedia:Namespace. Additionally, the article "namespace" already contains a hatnote linking to the same Wikipedia policy. So, I suggest either deletion or redirecting to the target Namespace. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 21:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've restored the full history pending the discussion here. Not being a page-move leftover, I don't have a strong opinion on this one. Rossami (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirecting it to namespace isn't a valid option, as the Wikipedia-namespace has nothing to do with the concept described in the article namespace. No opinion (yet) on whether to delete the redirect. Melsaran (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Chow (food) → wikt:Chow (food)[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 21:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect from a page that was transwikied. It doesn't add value, though, because it's an implausible search string, it's only linked from the transwiki log archive, there's no Wiktionary page at the location of the redirect, and there's already a correct Wiktionary link at Chow (which is a disambiguation page, and a more likely location for someone looking for info on "chow"). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – this page doesn't even exist at Wiktionary, and we do already have a disambiguation page (with a link to Wiktionary) at Chow. Melsaran (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page has history and used to have inbound links. It was later m:transwiki'd though the pagehistory was not moved during the transwiki. Normally, we'd keep it to assure compliance with GFDL. In this case, however, the transwiki'd page was deleted from Wiktionary (as redundant) so no content was incorporated, rendering the GFDL concerns moot. I guess it can be deleted as routine housekeeping. If it is kept, fix the page so it points to wikt:chow correctly. Rossami (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Museo_dell'Opera_del_Duomo → Siena_Cathedral[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 21:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term Museo dell'opera or Museo dell'opera del duomo is a generic designation for museums, especially in the Italian region of Tuscany, holding works of art on temporary display which formally belong to the nearby church, cathedral or duomo. Redirecting the entry in question to the Page about the Duomo of Siena is wrong for two reasons: For one, such a museum is merely affiliated to a duomo, not being a part of it itself, and for second, there is one such museum for each major church in at least Florence, Pisa and Siena, all bearing the same main name appended with the name of the city (like di Firenze or di Siena for disambiguation. docpi 18:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Philippines → Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. If people wish to move Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines to Wikipedia:WikiProject Philippines, this can be requested at WP:RM... WjBscribe 21:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect suggests that there was at one time an active WikiProject Philippines. Looking at the deletion logs and history for this page, it is apparent that there never was an active WikiProjece Philippines. Therefore, the redirect is misleading. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/World Music → World music[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 21:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

procedural nomination This was proposed for deletion by User:Chubbles with the reasoning "improper redirect" User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only history reveals article creation on September 8, 2007 as a redirect. No move history logs. This page is intended as a sub-page to list requested articles related to World Music. Generally, this would qualify as keep for its potential use as a WP:REQUEST list, however, given its limited use (i.e. no articles have been listed), I recommend deleting this link and creating the World Music WP:REQUEST list as a sub-section of the Wikipedia:Requested articles/music page, just like other music categories and subjects are listed. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 12:57, 1 October 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_October_1&oldid=1074855083"