Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 30, 2008

User:Numpty454 → Prince Albert Piercing[edit]

The result of the debate was Converted to soft redirect. Redirecting user pages to articles is disruptive as it interferes with communication. New users are confused by redirects and even experienced users will sometimes miss that it redirected and leave comments meant for the user on the target's talk page. The target of the redirect is irrelevant. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect crosses namespaces, and should be speedied. BE WARNED ABOUT THE TARGET LINK. Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 23:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and warn the user, who has already been warned for vandalism, and also edited talk pages aggressively. It's possible to shorten the time of discussion on grounds of disruption. Cenarium (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block the user for at least 24h; he's had enough warnings. A note to B-Ball110: R2 only works if the article is the redirect to the userspace, not the other way around. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 01:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is a userpage of a Wikipedia editor (redirects from userspace to article space are permitted; the reverse is not). The decision should be left to the editor whose namespace contains the redirect. If someone really thinks this is a violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he/she/it should take it to WP:MfD, which deals with userspace deletions. B.Wind (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and let me place this in bold so everyone can see it clearly cross name space redirects are only a problem when it's from article space -> project space, not the other way around. Thank you and good night. -- Ned Scott 04:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be saying keep were it not for the target article. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 04:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what the target article is. We even have Wikipedians who've placed nude images on their userpages. It doesn't violate anything. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I recall a nude image being placed on a userpage, there was a Chinese fire-drill over it and the image was removed. In all honesty and even assuming good faith, I do know Wikipedia is not censored, but I heavily doubt the redirect's target was chosen for anything but the shock value of the image in the lead paragraph. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 04:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect was part of a series of disruptive redirects made by the user [1], [2], [3] followed by acts of vandalism on different articles. This kind of redirect is in complete violation with the spirit of userspace: facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia (in bold too so that you can clearly see what I write). This redirect is very offending for some people, you just can't contest that. A bit of consideration for others please, not#censor states it clearly that we can introduce objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content in article space, it doesn't mean that we can put this anywhere, or redirect, it's the same. This venue is appropriate enough for dealing with this, we should really stop with nonsensical bureaucracy. Cenarium (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am a very strong defender of NOT CENSORED in article space, but this is not at all acceptable in userspace. It wouldn't be acceptable as content, and its not acceptable as a redirect. As this is Rfd, this is an appropriate place to get rid of it . The user's contribution history is not at all reassuring. I have asked him to remove the redirect--nobody seems to have thought of doing that. Ned, please reconsider your opposition. DGG (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's simply disruptive to be redirected to an article when you expect to viewing someone's userpage, so remove the redirect. John Reaves 14:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the page seems to have been changed to just list the redirect as an item on it--the image does not appear unless you click on it. I think that takes care of the matter. DGG (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree. Close as moot? -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 19:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WINAD → Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept (no consensus). If an article on WinAd is ever created (& survives), then these can be re-targeted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(also Winad)

There is an adware called WinAd. I don't know if it's notable enough to deserve an article but it still has 88700 hits on google, so I think that we should delete both or create the article WinAd, delete WINAD and redirect Winad to WinAd. Cenarium (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination and also a cross-namespace redirect. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cross-namespace redirect. The existing WP:WINAD is an acceptable short cut for Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary as initials are often used for short cuts in Wikipedia namespace. Repointing the similar redirect to a nonexistent article is never a good idea. In fact, having such a redirect is grounds for speedy deletion of the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which one exactly ? It's indeed a cross namespace redirect and it's why I brought this here, I forgot to mention it. These things are generally to be discussed, for example MOSDAB. The adware called winad makes the redirect inappropriate, but I haven't found anything notable outside Wikipedia called MOSDAB. Cenarium (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try CSD R1: Redirects to deleted pages and to nonexistent pages, including redirect loops that do not end with a page with content.. If the target is a blank page, then the blank page could be subject to speedy deletion a couple of ways, most likely A3 (no content). Note that a redirect to a blank page would be exposed to CSD R1 if the blank page is itself deleted. B.Wind (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So my nomination was unclear, I mean:
          I thought that you wanted to apply a speedy criteria to Winad. Sorry, Cenarium (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it could be confused with an encyclopaedic article. (See also my comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 3#MOSDAB → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).) mattbr 18:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as two of our oldest pages, both created long before the implementation of separate namespaces and heavily linked throughout the project's history. More than that, they are still actively linked and, in every case I checked, being used with the clear intent to refer to the Wikipedia policy page. So far, there appears to be only a remote and theoretical possibility of confusion among our readers. That is not sufficient reason to disrupt our readers and the project's history.
    If an article about the software is ever created that demonstrates that the topic meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria (a questionable assumption right now), then the Winad redirect can be overwritten to point to the WinAd spelling. Deletion of the pagehistory is both unnecessary and unhelpful to our readers who might want to know where the redirect used to point. Rossami (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The deletion log will link to this discussion, it's used as a shortcut for the convenience of some users, but is it really so hard to type WP:WINAD, or WP:NAD ? It's deprecated as a link (WLH says), and as a shortcut too I think, WP:DICT is widespread. Have you imagined the number of readers who looked at winad for the adware and have been redirected to this project page ? A google search for winad adware returns 24500 hits, the adware is cited by various security sites. The mainspace is the article space, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not for maintenance or wikistalgia (no...), it has been a long time since different namespaces were created, and for good reasons. I can't see any satisfying alternative. Cenarium (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you really think that an acceptable article can be created about the software, be bold and overwrite the page. We don't need to delete the current contents before doing so. In the meantime, the deletion log is not visible to all users without a lot of extra work - steps that new users (the very people who will be trying to follow this old link) won't necessarily know how to do. The redirect serves a purpose of helping future readers who are trying to follow old discussions. Rossami (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The adware might not be notable enough for inclusion, but, in any case it's misleading, and it's unfair to use Mainspace like this, as it means that we consider our wp:WINAD more important and disregard the adware. The deletion log is apparent when you click on the red link (when logged in). New users are not aware of these kinds of shortcuts. Cenarium (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:찾기 → Wikipedia:Searching[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, unsure what the purpose of this is. These two (as well as the one below) seem to be the only two Asian-language redirects in the Wikipedia namespace. This, that and the other [talk] 08:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently, Wikipedia:찾기 is no more useful because the Korean system message in search pages here was changed like that: "Wikipedia의 찾기 기능에 대한 자세한 정보는 도움말 문서를 참고해주세요." Formerly, a link to Wikipedia:찾기 is contained in the Korean message, but not now. Therefore, as the person that created Wikipedia:찾기, I support to "delete" the page. ― Yes0song 10:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlikely search term on enwiki, especially given the special chars. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 17:58, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as unlikely search term in en.wiki--Lenticel (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of the special characters. An unlikely search term on en.wikipedia. Midorihana~いいですね? はい! 05:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:保護されたページ → Wikipedia:Protection policy[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what this is for. This, that and the other [talk] 07:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misguided attempts to link to the Japanese-language equivalent, perhaps? -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 08:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Appropriate redirect for the Japanese (ja.wikipedia.org) (translate) Wikipedia, however, should not be a redirect on the english (en.wikipedia.org), unless its an english lang. redirect. --Hu12 (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlikely search term on enwiki, especially given the special chars. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 17:58, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

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

KamehameHa → Kamehameha[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no specific reason as to why this redirect exists. Appears to be an unneeded typo ATPIT. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Close call, but typo is possible, thus making this a useful redirect. B.Wind (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Plausible typo, and could be a long holdover from Camelcase? Mastrchf (t/c) 04:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per B.Wind. Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 01:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what other redirect variants should be necessary? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Might be left over from CamelCase; typo is also possible. Midorihana~いいですね? はい! 05:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page was created too recently to be a holdover from the CamelCase days. My suspicion is an artifact of a pagemove from before the software automatically recorded the moves in the edit summaries. Doesn't seem especially helpful but not harmful either. Cheaper to leave it alone. Rossami (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_30&oldid=1063338956"