Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 July 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 18, 2008

Wikipedia:RFP → Wikipedia:Requests for page protection[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. No consensus for the change. It has been around for along time & has quite a few links. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This probably being a semi-widely used redirect, I thought I'd better bring this to discussion before considering making any changes. I'd propose that this redirect is re-targeted to the new Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Currently, it goes to requests for page protection, which already has a similar redirect, WP:RFPP. Some people already think that this goes to the Permissions page, and have been using it in userrights logs recently. I think it would be best to change it.

Should this be changed, at the top of the Requests for permissions page, we can note that "WP:RFP redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for page protection." Rjd0060 (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It could go either way, in my eyes, and I think people are going to be looking for page protection far more often than looking for permissions. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The hatnote at the top of the RFPP page is sufficient. I grant rollback on average once a day, and an RfPP on average 6-10 times a day, so the latter is likely to be the more popular target. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I use the shortcut WP:RPP, this one can be used as well. The note at the top of the target page is the best we can do to avoid confusion either way. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 00:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retargert RFPP is only one character longer, and RFP does stad for request for permissions, so I think it should be retargeted.--Serviam (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no reason it couldn't point to either. The question here, though, is that if someone who doesn't know the exact acronym types in "WP:RFP", will they be looking for a request on page protection, or a request for permissions? I think the former is far more likely. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This does make me wonder if it would be helpful to make disambig-type pages for some shortcuts. -- Ned Scott 05:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and/or possibly redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions) as Requests for Rollback was recently renamed to handle Accountcreator requests as well. Hamako 18:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to disambiguation page. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguationize to the target and nom's proposal. Has this ever even happened before? Disamb in project namespace? TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 21:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We already have WP:PERM and WP:RFPERM going to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Checking whatlinkshere for WP:RFP, it has 500-1000 current uses, by people who (presumably) think it is going to WP:RFPP. I don't see the urgency to usurp WP:RFP to go Requests for permission. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection already has a hatnote mentioning Requests for permission. My guess is that protection will be 10-100 times more popular than permission for most users. (It's a more frequent need). EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Final Draft for International Standard → ISO 639-3[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of such final drafts for ISO standard. It is unacceptable to redirect it to a certain one. ✉ Hello World! 08:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to dab. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 00:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Such a general term should not refer to a specific standard. Kjetilho (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't believe this redirect has any current uses. Per Kjetilho, it is not appropriate in any case since there is more than one international standard, and 'final draft' is a poor specifier. EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final Draft for International Standard / FDIS seems to be a specific state in the ISO approval. So disambiguation isn't helpful as it could refer to any ISO Standard that is or has gone though that stage. Rather the opposite, if an ISO article such as SO/IEC 10967links to it, it would ideally lead to an explanation. As we currently do not seem to have such information, delete.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

FDIS → ISO 639-3[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason as above ✉ Hello World! 08:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the converted dab above. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 00:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused, unhelpful and ambiguous. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per reasoning above and the lack of alternate target.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:27, 25 July 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_July_18&oldid=1145632044"