Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 22[edit]

Spectacles testicles wallet and watch → Sign of the Cross[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. If someone knows what this phrase means, then they'll know to search by the proper term. If someone doesn't know what this phrase means, then these redirects are meaningless as it's not explained at the target. Also, 647 Google hits doesn't show much use so unlikely search term anyway. -- JLaTondre 11:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the following:

Do we really need five redirects from different variants of a punchline of an irreverent joke that isn't even mentioned in the article they redirect to? I think not. Delete all. —Angr 20:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, we have five because the page was moved several times before the mover finally got it right. So if we keep any, we probably keep all. I'm not sure that we need any of them, though. Rossami (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - probably not notable [clarification: notable enough to merit its own article] as a meme, but not just something made up in school. No point in deleting all but one... the point of a redirect is to aid navigation, and four plausible mirrors is better than just one. Don't see why they should be deleted. — xDanielx T/C 07:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To make it clear, I'm not arguing we delete all but one, I'm arguing we delete all five. The joke isn't mentioned in the article; and anyone who knows the joke already knows what it refers to. —Angr 14:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's sometimes taken outside the context of the joke (or the handful of jokes), though. If I only read this I'd understand what the meme referred to, but if I read, say, this or this, I'd probably be clueless. Not likely to have a lot of utility, but redirects are free, and these ones are harmless as far as I can see. — xDanielx T/C 00:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Until that link, I never knew there was a joke. I always assumed that it was just a mnemonic for the order. Rossami (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Only if Western Christians invariably keep their wallet in their left jacket pocket and their watch in their right one, while Eastern Christians invariably keep their wallet in their right jacket pocket and their watch in the left one... —Angr 05:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, since redirects are cheap. David Pro 12:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no problem with these. Definitely viable searches. GlassCobra 20:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no one is going to search for these - just fodder for those who cannot create articles to modify these into something we'd rather do without. And most Roman Catholics I know have their watches on their wrists and wallets in their back pockets (males) or in their purses (females) - which brings to mind that women aren't crossing themselves - lacking testicles. Carlossuarez46 16:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't see how these aid navigation. Someone looking for "sign of the cross" will search for that term, and those looking for information about "Spectacles, Testacles, Wallet and Watch" will find none in the target article. They seem more likely to confuse than anything else. WjBscribe 19:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Given the peculiar permutations of capitalisation, punctuation, and misspellings, all of these strike me as unlikely search terms. Also, per Carlossuarez46, whose argument effectively counters the principle that "redirects are cheap". – Black Falcon (Talk) 22:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

SMS aggregator → Jamba[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 18:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no reason (to my eyes, at least) why this redirect should exist. shoy 17:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - doesn't seem to be any clear connection to anything on that disambig page or pages mentioned there. SkierRMH 02:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an attack redirect against Jamba!, a cell phone ringtone provider. GlassCobra 20:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Roman cities → Category:Roman towns and cities[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. Cross namespace redirects from articles to categories are from past practice those most likely to kept, and in this case there is a pretty clear consensus that this one is helpful. WjBscribe 19:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace --Closedmouth 13:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Anyone looking for "Roman cities" should be sent to this category. Mainspace→Category redirects are good, especially when lists have been turned into categories. --- RockMFR 15:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment in that case, shouldn't it use a soft redirect? 132.205.99.122 19:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, we usually use soft redirects when normal redirects don't work. In this case, the redirect works fine. --- RockMFR 23:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a list would be ideal (mainspace-to-catspace is a bit odd since categories generally don't have encyclopedic introductory prose), but I'd say keep as better than nothing. — xDanielx T/C 07:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should this be a new policy or guideline? Because there are numerous deletions here for cross-namespace redirect for this sort of case. 132.205.99.122 19:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the guideline just says that "you might want to delete a redirect if . . . it is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace." Article space to category space is kind of borderline -- technically it is going out of article space but category space caters primarily to the reader as opposed to the editor, so it's a lot closer to article space then, say, Wikipedia space. Anyway, I'd say it meets the "useful for searching" condition very clearly, and probably the fifth (helpful for random browsing) as well. The page doesn't seem to have made its way into Google's cache yet, but when it does I'm sure it will aid those searching for this information. — xDanielx T/C 00:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • if we have been removing useful redirects like this, it is time we stopped doing so. DGG (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's probably useful and probably better than a humungoid list, and for redirects "useful" and "better this than that" to my mind are valid arguments - a certain essay notwithstanding. I also agree with DGG here. Carlossuarez46 16:16, 29 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_22&oldid=1053161960"