Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 September 25

September 25[edit]

Wikipedia:We sincerely hope that you will refrain from being a penis → Wikipedia:Don't be a dick[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 15:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humorous but pointless redirect, created as a result of a link from User:Ambi/Quotes#from the meta talk page for WP:DICK which no longer exists. Currently has no incoming links, and is unlikely ever to be searched. I realise I'll be accused of having no sense of humour for nominating this, but it ought to be deleted. Terraxos 22:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The referenced quote still exists, it's just moved; it's now at: User:Rebecca/Quotes#from_the_meta_talk_page_for_WP:DICK.

Keep -- nomination does not mention any of the reasons listed above. Lack of links is specifically listed as irrelevant. While I'm delighted by anyone working to clean up the Wikipedia namespace, deleting this is not a useful part of that job. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This is a highly unlikely redirect, and someone's attempt to make another absolutely silly redirect like this one...but "Don't be a dick" isn't really a humor page. Plus, this comes off as kind of offensive and pointing someone to it seems kind of uncivil. If someone really wants to direct someone to WP:DBAD in this way, they can do it just like I did with the horribly long redirect above. There's no need for redirects that exist only as personal jokes. --UsaSatsui 07:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The joke has run its course. Time to let the page be deleted. Rossami (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it's mildly amusing, there's no actual use for it, and that's evident by the lack of links. hmwith talk 17:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Longest war → Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War[edit]

The result of the debate was delete Longest war and Longest war ever, retarget The Longest War to List of wars. WjBscribe 15:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also The Longest War and Longest war ever. Mainstream historians do not consider this the "longest war ever", or even a real war at all. See also List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity for comparable examples of non-real wars of equal or greater length. Pharos 20:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 'The Longest War' because the edit history shows that content from that page was merged into the destination page. (It could be deleted if someone really wants to go to the effort of a history merge but that seems more trouble than its worth.) Delete 'longest war' to prevent possible confusion. As Pharos notes, many disagree with the categorization. Delete 'longest war ever' because it's grammatically incorrect and because all google hits on that phrase refer to something altogether different. Rossami (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment couldn't The Longest War be renamed as a subpage of 335? 132.205.44.5 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why it couldn't be moved to Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War/The Longest War; the article history would be preserved equally well. I am just annoyed at the prospect of someone happening to type in "the longest war" in the search box, and finding this thing which is not even considered a war by historians. Now, if someone were to write a sourced article on List of longest wars (a difficult task, because of varying definitions), that would certainly be a good place for these types of redirects to point to.--Pharos 20:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because we don't use subpages anymore. The Pagename/Subpage structure was deprecated years ago. By the way, even if we did still use subpages, moving it as you suggest would still cause the result to pop at the top of the search results. If you ever do write the article on the "list of longest wars", you can always overwrite the current redirect. Rossami (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, my understanding is that subpages are deprecated for the locations of published articles, but not necessarily for ancillary pages specific to editing. Regardless, if you still feel we have to keep the redirect for technical reasons, I suggest (until such time as "list of longest wars" is created) that it simply redirect to something really generic, like List of wars or maybe just war.--Pharos 22:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - For that, we use Talk pages, not subpages. The only place I can think of where we still allow subpages is within the Userspace (and even there, only within the limits of the userspace policy). I don't have any objection to retargetting the page, though. Be bold. Rossami (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, I've retargeted it then. Thanks.--Pharos 18:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

In-universe → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect. I was going to link to this in an article, then I realized it went to the Wikipedia namespace. (To a section that no longer exists.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocket000 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For purposes of furthering discussion, can you summarize, in a couple lines, the nature of the article you'd like to write? (cause otherwise, this Redir should prob be deleted.) ThuranX 02:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of discussion nomination is this? It says nothing for us to comment about. The person listing something here needs to start the discussion. Give us something to reply to, something to comment upon. Doczilla 05:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was recently created as a cross-namespace redirect. It is not a holdover from a pagemove. The redirect has only one inbound link from an article page. That link attempts to define the term (which it probably should not do because Wikipedia is not a dictionary) and definitely does not refer to the policy page. The redirect is used on some user Talk pages. Its use on Talk pages is more ambiguous but in almost every case, was accompanied by an explicit reference to the MOS. The connection from this title to the Wikipedia policy page is not intuitively obvious. Unlike most CNR nominations, I can see some possibility of confusion here. Delete and replace the inbound links with cross-wiki links to wikt:in-universe. That seems more in line with the intent of the authors using this phrase. Rossami (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rossami above. Cross-namespace redirects are generally a bad idea, and this one could easily be confusing or unhelpful. Should probably exist as a WP: shortcut instead. Terraxos 22:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary cross-namespace redirect, especially seeing as this isn't a Wikipedia-specific topic and can be misleading to readers who are looking for encyclopaedic articles and not the inner workings of Wikipedia. Melsaran (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Rossami. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 10:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly redirect to Fictional universe?--Pharos 20:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Pharos. >Radiant< 11:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget or Delete (and change inbound links per Rossami). hmwith talk 17:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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