Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 25[edit]

Delusionism → meta:Delusionism[edit]

The result of the debate was retarget to Delusion. mattbr 08:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly mainspace self-reference of the sort that should be avoided – Gurch 17:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Terraxos 02:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Delusion. This is a potentially useful search term for that target, and hence using it to redirect off to meta is completely wrong. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I agree with Gavia immer, I suggest retarget this redirect to Delusion. David Pro 23:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary CNR with no useful page history. I created the correct page at Wikipedia:Delusionism, which then soft redirects to the meta page. I also added shortcuts (WP:DELU and WP:DELUSION), which should aid in navigation. I see that no pages link to the redirect in question, so I see no potential harm in deleting it. In any case, the closing admin should add a link to the now correct page during his/her deletion summary for users who find the page deleted. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 01:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Poodle rock → Glam metal[edit]

The result of the debate was delete - doesn't seem to aid navigation, not mentioned at the target. WjBscribe 17:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with {{rfd}} but never listed here. I don't know what's wrong with it – Gurch 17:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inclusionists → meta:Inclusionism[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 17:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly mainspace self-reference of the sort that should be avoided – Gurch 17:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Terraxos 02:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; no need to retarget anywhere. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Exopedian → meta:Exopedianism[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 17:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly mainspace self-reference of the sort that should be avoided – Gurch 17:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Terraxos 02:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; no need to retarget anywhere. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Yes Man(Movie) → Yes Man (film)[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with {{rfd}} but never listed here. I don't know what's wrong with it – Gurch 17:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I assume the issue is the parenthetical disambiguation at the end, which is in an unusual form. More importantly, it's not spaced, and that makes it quite unlikely to be used (especially in combination with the capital M in "Movie"). While this was the original title of the article, there's no useful history at the redirect. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep because it documents a pagemove early in the article's history and pagemoves are generally considered useful history. Also, it doesn't meet any of the "delete if" criteria for redirects. My opinion is "weak" because the pagemove is documented in the pagehistory and the move was conducted the same day the article was created. However, the original editor does not appear to have returned to the page since and may or may not know about the corrected title. Rossami (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gavia immer; the combination of the lack of a space prior to the parenthetical disambiguator and the erroneous capitalisation of "movie" makes this an unlikely search term. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, multiple errors in title, unlikely to be useful. GregorB 16:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Operacja wileńska → Operation Wilno[edit]

The result of the debate was keep WjBscribe 17:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish spelling redirect to article currently discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Wilno was recently created by User:Piotrus to make a WP:POINT there  Matthead discuß!     O       15:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Operacja wilenska → Operation Wilno[edit]

The result of the debate was keep WjBscribe 17:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Polish spelling redirect to article currently discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Wilno was recently created by User:Piotrus to make a WP:POINT there  Matthead discuß!     O       15:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wilno offensive → Vilna offensive[edit]

The result of the debate was keep WjBscribe 17:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another Polish spelling redirect created by User:Piotrus when he was at it  Matthead discuß!     O       16:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Warhawk → Multiple[edit]

The result of the debate was Closing per WP:SNOW as disambiguation - only one person (who was edit warring) disagrees. While most votes go towards redirecting it to Warhawk (disambiguation) our own guidance states that the disambiguation page should be at Warhawk itself. violet/riga (t) 15:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an ongoing edit war regarding this redirect. It has been switching back and forth between War Hawk and Warhawk (disambiguation). As blocks for 3RR violations haven't caused the folks to stop and discuss it, I'm bringing it here for wider community input. Procedural nomination with no opinion on my part. -- JLaTondre 01:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Warhawk (disambiguation) The redirect and the disambig spelling are identical, and I believe all disambig links are relatively noteworthy. The less contentious option is to let the reader decide which article they are looking for, since it's pretty hard to guess with these articles. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why on earth would you redirect it? Pagrashtak made the correct suggestion - move the dab page there. That is the structure supported by WP:DISAMBIG. violet/riga (t) 08:41, 26 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_25&oldid=1138575031"