Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 September 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 3[edit]

Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/archive toc → Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/archive toc[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. Singularity 05:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect created after a page move. Current traffic to the page will be extremely low and it is very highly unlikely that anyone unfamiliar with the Wikipedia namespace would be looking for this page in the article namespace. May also appear in search results for terms containing some of the words, cluttering them and possibly causing confusion. No significant history and no incoming links except from CNR lists. mattbr 21:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No incoming, CNR, moved after 1 day, etc... --- RockMFR 21:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per all the above. ChrisDHDR 07:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RockMFR/nom, possibly even G6 (housekeeping) or G2 (test page i.e. mistakenly created). Melsaran (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Melsaran. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 20:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

*eckō → Eckō[edit]

The result of the debate was Withdrawn. -- JLaTondre 19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the mark of clothing deserves a redirect that can only boast a * infront of it. There is no comment in the article mentioning this as an alternative title or even any reason why it should be there. ChrisDHDR 19:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Retired nomination, I didn't see the obvious references to the redirects name in the article. Please excuse me for my ignorance. ChrisDHDR 19:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Joint nomination involving "?" and "!"[edit]

The result of the debate was delete all. Singularity 05:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Joint nomination of the following

I can understand the ??? and ?!?! to a limited degree, even if it seems a bit absurd, but the rest are just a bit over the top. I cannot recall anyone ever using 6 "?" to show they are surprised and probable will never. I therefore propose them all for Deletion, even if I understand the first two, but they deserve a debate. ChrisDHDR 18:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all: implausible search targets, not useful link targets. I give redirects a lot of leeway, since they're so cheap, but this is just pointless and silly. Xtifr tälk 04:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Xtifr. Possible WP:CSD#G1. I'd only consider retargeting ??? to ? (disambiguation), since it's commonly used. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 14:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all – misleading, ??? can mean a lot of things other than "unknown". Melsaran (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

---- (by Edvardas Gudavičius) → Keturi brūkšniai[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 23:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not something someone would type since the redirect ---- already exists for the same purpose. The brackets are unnecessary due to the fact that there is no need for disambiguation since the aforementioned link already exists for this purpose. ChrisDHDR 18:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. ChrisDHDR 18:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Err, you are the nom... Melsaran (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose what does it bother leaving this around? Ewlyahoocom 22:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unharmful redirect that was automatically created as part of a pagemove. Deleting it costs more than ignoring it. Rossami (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: pretty obscure, but still remotely plausible as a search target, and redirects are cheap. Xtifr tälk 11:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tax honesty → Tax protester[edit]

The result of the debate was retarget Tax honesty and Tax Honesty Movement to Tax protester history, where the term is mentioned. Delete Tax Honesty Movement, Now. WjBscribe 11:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable related term, but not referenced in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also
Tax Honesty Movement → Tax protester
Tax Honesty Movement, Now → Tax protester
The first is a protected redirect created shortly after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax Honesty Movement was closed as a delete, and the second seems to have been a fork of the first. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my !vote. See below.
  • Inquiry/Comment I'm not that familiar with the process of deleting redirects (actually, I'm not familiar with it at all). I believe that new users who tend to push tax protester arguments here in Wikipedia occasionally add the term "tax honesty movement" in various places, with a link, perhaps not realizing that the term "tax honesty" etc., simply redirects to "tax protester" (which, in my view, it should). Maybe the redirect should be retained, just to keep things flowing back to the tax protester articles??? I don't know. Famspear 17:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps it would be better if something about the "Tax Honesty Movement" were placed in the tax protester article. But a cursory study doesn't find that it was ever there. "...Now" should be deleted as an attempted fork after the first one was protected as a redirect, though.
      In the event something sensible about the term "tax honesty" appears, I'll withdraw the first two nominations. "...Now" still needs to go. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The "Tax Honesty Movement" is a group of people who are by definition "tax protesters" - arguing that taxes need not be paid because there exists some massive government conspiracy involving the President, Congress, the Courts, and various law enforcement agencies to assess taxes which do not really exist. Which is akin to a "Solar Honesty Movement" espousing that the Earth is in fact static and the Sun revolves around it, with all accounts to the contrary being part of a conspiracy to deceive the public. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Alternately, these could be redirected to Tax protester history, which does mention the recent use of the phrase "Tax Honesty Movement". bd2412 T 19:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The Tax Honesty Movement is not the same thing as Tax Protesting. The Tax Honesty Movement maintains that there is a legal federal income tax, and it defines certain specific types of income that may be taxed. Unlike tax protesters who are trying to get out of taxes based on 16th amendment arguments or individual sovereignty or something like that, Tax Honestly looks directly at the law and says "here, these people have to pay taxes, and the rest of the people do not". Before deleting this page willy-nilly, we should allow it to develop and progress as it is a very different thing from what is described in the Tax Protest article. Magnus 21:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect the first two to Tax protester history#Other names used. (Note that, as Tax Honesty Movement is a protected redirect, this second re-redirect requires consensus.) Delete Tax Honesty Movement, Now as an attempt to recreate Tax Honesty Movement while it was protected as a redirect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With all due respect, the term "tax honesty movement" is just an alternate name coined by tax protesters to describe -- tax protesters. The term "tax honesty" was coined because the term "tax protester" had acquired such a negative connotation over the years. This discussion has already been well hashed out in Wikipedia -- around early 2006, if I recall. From a legal standpoint, there is no appreciable difference between saying someone is a "tax protester" and saying someone is part of the supposed "tax honesty movement." I have studied this for years, and I have yet to find a single argument by a "tax honesty" advocate that is not in fact a tax protester argument (a legally frivolous argument about the nature of Federal income tax laws). Not a single instance. Famspear 00:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, but could you insert something about that in the tax protester article. The "principle of least surprise" suggests the source of a redirect should appear in the target article. I don't think I could do a good job. (And I still think ..Now should be deleted as a patched fork. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. See what you think. Yours, Famspear 01:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Alex Jones (disambig) → Alex Jones[edit]

The result of the debate was merge history and delete. WjBscribe 22:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: page "Alex Jones (disambiguation)" also exists. This is a misnamed DAB page! Nominated for deletion because most (if not all) people will go to the correct DAB page name. See Comments for "Matte" below. JohnI 10:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for history and because the act of deleting it consumes more resources than leaving it in place. This is where the disambiguation page existed before it was moved to the current location. (And while I concede that many people on this page don't value keeping these for history, IT IS NOT MISNAMED! This used to be the preferred naming convention for disambiguation pages.) Rossami (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non compliant by using the old "disambig" and not the new "disambiguation". More importantly, this redirect completly defeats the purpose of a disambiguation page (which is meant to disambiguate between many subjects and not 1). ChrisDHDR 12:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge history, then delete. Rossami is ignoring a strong consensus that these pages are harmful. See:
    among others. He's also (clearly) wrong to claim that it's not misnamed by current standards, no matter what past standards may have been. On the other hand, this one, unlike all the previously nominated ones, is not simply a leftover from an earlier page move, so the history probably needs to be merged to Alex Jones (disambiguation) before it's deleted. Xtifr tälk 04:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You are selectively ignoring the other decisions where redirects of this format were not found to be "harmful". While consensus on the value of history may have changed, I am frustrated that we are trying to decide it in this piecemeal fashion rather than in some more centralized discussion. Rossami (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only other decision I'm aware of is one that was rejected as being too broad, which lead to the recent series of individual nominations. The consensus that these are harmful has arisen from that series. Now that we seem to have a consensus, I agree that broader nominations would be better. And it's not that I don't value history; it's that I find the bad precedent argument quite compelling, having had to help deal with a few cases of runaway bad precedent in the past. Xtifr tälk 12:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of the naming convention used, it is not currently a disambiguation page at all, so in that case it is misnamed. Also, you don't keep a page simply because of the history - merge it. That should be a policy - "Keep the history, not the page." -Rocket000 23:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed the target back to a dab. It had been re-targeted after this nomination. The new target was not more notable than the other subjects so the target should be a dab and not redirect to any one individual. -- JLaTondre 01:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge history, then delete per Xtifr. This type of page is harmful in two respects: (1) it creates confusion and may result in the continued creation of misnamed disambiguation pages; (2) it is excess clutter for users (like myself) who utilise Special:Allpages and Special:Prefixindex. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

ANC (disambig) → ANC[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: page "ANC (disambiguation)" also exists. This is a misnamed DAB page! Nominated for deletion because most (if not all) people will go to the correct DAB page name. See Comments for "Matte" below. JohnI 10:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for history per the arguments immediately above. Note: The pagehistory shows that is page was previously discussed in an RfD and kept. Rossami (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non compliant by using the old "disambig" and not the new "disambiguation". More importantly, this redirect completly defeats the purpose of a disambiguation page (which is meant to disambiguate between many subjects and not 1). ChrisDHDR 12:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there is a consensus that these are actually harmful, and a strong precedent for deleting them (see nomination above). Xtifr tälk 04:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Matte (disambig) → Matte[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: page "Matte (disambiguation)" also exists. This is a misnamed DAB page! Nominated for deletion because most (if not all) people will go to the correct DAB page name. JohnI 10:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

  1. Newcomers may be confused and think that this is an alternative allowable spelling of "disambiguation",
  2. The redirect makes no sense, the standard is to type "Foo" or "Foo (disambiguation)". As this is an uncommon spelling (ie "disambig") almost no one will know it exists.
  3. Therefore, because it is both harmful (confusing), and non-useful I propose it should be deleted.
  4. See precedence at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 27#Krka (disambig) → Krka -- JohnI 10:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Matte is now a disambiguation page. Pointing the once-standard disambiguation page name to the correct page might have some use to someone. Deleting the page costs more than ignoring it. Rossami (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non compliant by using the old "disambig" and not the new "disambiguation". More importantly, this redirect completly defeats the purpose of a disambiguation page (which is meant to disambiguate between many subjects and not 1). ChrisDHDR 12:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there is a strong consensus that these are actually harmful, and ample precedent for deleting them. See "Alex Jones (disambig)" above. Xtifr tälk 04:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

School killing → School shooting, School massacre → School shooting[edit]

The result of the debate was retarget School killing to School violence, and School massacre to List of school-related attacks. WjBscribe 23:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting these two redirects. They are inappropriate. Not all school killings have used guns, such as the Bath School Disaster or the Osaka School Massacre. --klausner (Talk) 04:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we've said the school violence article is in need of revamping and expansion. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 11:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed--not all killings & massacres are done solely by folks with guns. A centralized school violence page that deals generally with all levels of violence with appropriate links to specific pages on different patterns is probably the most cogent organization. — Scientizzle 19:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both: I made the original proposal, but I think RockMFR's plan is better. klausner
  • Retarget or delete – school killings are not necessarily the same as school shootings, and therefore this redirect is misleading. School violence is a fine target though. Melsaran (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both. Misleading. Both are forms of violence - not necessary forms of shooting. -Rocket000 21:25, 10 September 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_September_3&oldid=1142588226"