Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 December 6

< December 5

December 7 >

December 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 6, 2008

Roolback → Wikipedia:Rollback feature[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highly unlikely misspelling for a CNR to non-content. MBisanz ^talk 04:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Red Link → Wikipedia:Red link[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper CNR to non-content. MBisanz ^talk 04:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I proposed deletion yesterday. This would confuse people reading Wikipedia content in other places, as the help pages wouldn't be included. A real article on red links would still be basically a self-reference, cause they are a wiki feature and Wikipedia is the most prominent example. It's not the only one of course, but the purpose of red links is pretty obvious on any wiki, so there isn't much need for an article. — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 10:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Isn't this supposed to be salted already, or is that only true for Red link? Either way, the use of this text as an example of a red link means that it needs to stay a red link. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and creation protect. It would be confusing for a reader interested in 'red links' to be redirected to Wikipedia's red link policy. I would think that Red Link should be protected for the same reason as Red link ("This page has been created as a permanent red links for demonstration purposes, meta comments, and interface demonstrations"). If an article was to be created on the subject of red links, it would be at Red link rather than Red Link per the naming conventions. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

TF:HR → Wikipedia:ROBO/DNE[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no task force pseudospace, improper CNR to non-content. MBisanz ^talk 04:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TF:HR is a task force created by User:Dank55 regarding a focus on home robotics. I placed it on DNE because there has been lack of activity. Please contact Dan if he wants to pursue this task force and thanks for notifying me. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 08:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MBisanz's reasoning, as usual. We did that about a year ago as I recall when Jameson and I were both new, and I hadn't thought about it since. I keep hoping that we'll see interest in home robotics on Wikipedia, but I haven't seen evidence of it yet. Thanks for alerting me, Jameson. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 11:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Given the circumstances, I think deleting this would be appropriate. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 10:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Project Galatea → Wikipedia:Project Galatea[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper CNR to a project, does not link to content. MBisanz ^talk 04:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hannity & Idiot → Hannity & Colmes[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How ridiculous that this be listed as a redirect.... I've never heard Alan Colmes being referred to the "Idiot" on the program. It's unnecessary and biased. United Statesman (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added another very similar redirect to the same target. In my opinion both should be deleted, and they may as well be discussed together. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete the first one as an attack page, and so tagged. The second one should probably be deleted as well. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Turns out speedy was declined. Oh well. Delete both. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is an explanation of sorts at Talk:Hannity & Idiot. PhilKnight (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think unpiping a wikilink is a good reason to create a redirect like this. It's also a 2 year old explination. That link is on the page anymore anyways. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good example of why there should be no time limit for speedy deletion of attack pages. Emphatic delete both and salt, especially in light of Alan Colmes' announcement of his leaving the series. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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