Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 23, 2008

☼ → Sun[edit]

The result of the debate was Retargeted to what seems to me to be a reasonable target at Miscellaneous Symbols. Since nobody participated after the target was changed, I will assume there were no objections to it. If those that supported deletion have a problem with the new redirect, you are free to renominate at any time. VegaDark (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect; doesn't seem like someone would type in an obscure symbol like that in search of a page on the sun. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unlikely search term as it's a special character. Midorihana みどりはな 04:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm pretty sure we don't have that symbol on our keyboards. Unlikely search term. SamB135 (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that I saw that there are a few of these UniCode characters as WP redirects for either their geek humor value, or as placeholders to recover from Grawp related stuff...maybe someone else remembers more? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 08:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are many, many Unicode redirects and past consensus has been to keep them unless there is some other problem with the redirect (e.g., the redirect is incorrect and no good target exists). The definition of this character is "white sun with rays" - the current redirect seems correct to me. --- RockMFR 16:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to a list of Unicode characters. (Probably originally created by a then banned user in violation of his ban.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found a proper list of unicode charactes on my comment below, thanks for the idea, I had not thought of simply checking the Unicode article --Enric Naval (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BOLDly redirected to Miscellaneous_Symbols, it's the one that says "WHITE SUN WITH RAYS". Can someone look at the other symbols listed on the page to see if they are all redirected on the same way? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:GURCH, Wikipedia:EVULA, Wikipedia:ZN → User/User talk[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace vanity redirects. The same reasoning applies as below for WP:BIA. We really don't need a redirect to a random user subpage for every user, and I don't see why these would make for an exception. And I really don't want to start explaining to every new user why they can't have their own redirects, even if someone else has one and they think they're way cool. The only reason these are still around, while WP:BIA is getting deleted, is because people feel that the users beyong the redirect targets are somehow more important than others, which only serves in creating a more special user class, which is a really horrible idea. - Bobet 12:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The issue of being a "cross-namespace redirect" is moot. These are not in the article space and have no possibility of confusion with encyclopedic content. Essays, for example, are moved from the Wikipedia space to the user space and back all the time. Many of those redirects are perfectly appropriate.
    The argument that these are "vanity" redirects is relevant (but I have no opinion on it). Rossami (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia:GURCH and Wikipedia:ZN. With all due respect to the users in question, I think the "vanity" issue is quite relevant, and so is the issue of breadth - do we really want to authorize anyone and everyone to have a redirect to their main user page (or main talk page, or both) from project space? Weak keep Wikipedia:EVULA; as Rossami says, we allow project space redirects to user space essays (the alternative doesn't work), and this is, just barely, a user space essay. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' GURCH and ZN and keep EVULA (or make a new discussion on it) per Gavia immer. --Eivind (t) 13:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, a group consisting solely of me, Bishonen and Evula is a "special user class". *snort* Meh, I don't care what you to with them – Gurchzilla (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because WP:GURCH, WP:ZN, and WP:EVULA are used as justification for WP:BIA doesn't meant they are valid justification. Per Gavia immer, WP:EVULA is a reasonably well-cited user essay. Regarding the other two, I don't see why user talk pages can't be WP redirect targets. There's a difference between unwarranted self-importance (wow! I'm so cool!) and well-intended satire. Remember, redirects are cheap. If these start proliferating everywhere (like guestbooks and userboxes have) then we can reconsider, but it doesn't look like that's happening. Also, the "special user class" slippery slope argument is tiring. Don't give the redirects any significant special extra meaning, and users won't see any special meaning in them. GracenotesT § 17:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:GURCH redirects to Gurch's talk page. It's a potentially very useful shortcut. WP:EVULA is a cited essay as above.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep them all for lack of guidelines about them, notice that Wikipedia:REDIRECT#Reasons_for_deleting does not talk of redirects from WP space into user space. There is no previous consensus about this so we can start forming here a new one. I call for keeping these ones and draw a line on the sand about not creating new redirects to pages that are not essays. See my rationale at the WP:BIA discussion --Enric Naval (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all To my surprise, this still hasn't really become an issue yet. I've often wondered what mess would come up if people suddenly were racing for acronyms to point to their userspace, but so far so good. Like Enric says above, it would be a good idea to establish some guidance for the future. -- Ned Scott 06:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per my reasoning in bstones redirect seen below. There currently is no reason to delete these types of redirects (Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons_for_deleting). Please link a valid reason or criteria that does not allow for users to use a redirect out of wikipedia space, otherwise this is presumptuous and lacking in prior consensus. My suggestion would be to start a discussion first, and then nominate everyones redirects. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Sets bad precedent, don't want to start seeing these pop up for every user, which keeping these opens the door for. VegaDark (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kinda Angry Keep Thank you very much for actually informing me that this deletion request was placed (note: this is sarcasm). EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up Okay, the fact that I'm mildly peeved about not getting a notification about this aside, the GURCH and ZN redirects should probably go. A redirect to a person's talk page is less helpful, but I'd consider my redirect to be similar to any other essay in userspace; the fact that it's my username is only because that's (a) part of the humor, and (b) because something like WP:EVULAISALWAYSRIGHT is ridiculous. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, I think that nobody warned Bishonen either. I left him a message just in case --Enric Naval (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The GURCH and ZN redirects have no obvious purpose. The EVULA redirect goes to a completely useless page, regardless of it being tagged as an essay/policy/stupid. The only real reason we are even discussing this is because these are all current or former administrators. The pages they redirect to are of no significant importance. --- RockMFR 16:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ROARR? Oh, for... oh, I see. "Zilla Noticeboard"...? Please note that only little Gurch and little Bunchofgrapes appear in history. Little Bishonen does not, and knows nothing about it. [1] Suggest redirect WP:ZN to User:Bishzilla. All welcome to Bishzilla Dispute Resolution Board And Swedish Massage Parlor a k a WP:DRBASMP! bishzilla ROARR!! 18:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep all. As I argued on the WP:BIA RFD, these redirects are pretty harmless, and longstanding consensus has been to allow them; and in a few cases, they can actually be fairly useful. I don't see the need for deletion; if there's a better location for WP:ZN to point to, then it can be retargeted, but until there is, I see nothing wrong with redirecting it to Bishonen's talk page. Terraxos (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it's time to start thinking on a "UT:" namespace that automagically redirects to "User_talk:" --Enric Naval (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just linked to WP:EVULA in an MFD. How I am supposed to find this page without the convenient redirect? That's why we have redirects. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:EVULA, delete the others. WP:EVULA has some outside use...people might link to it to make a point. How is this different from WP:BIA? Because WP:BIA doesn't have any real value to it (Evula's page has the value of sarcasm, plus...well, they did it first). As for the other two, nobody's user page is significant enough to merit a WP shortcut...except maybe this guy, and I'm not even sure he should have one. If these two can have redirects to their pages, why can't I? Or anyone else? --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have mine. Be my guest. As User:Bishzilla was trying in her roundabout way to explain above, I don't want it. Bishonen | talk 18:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep EVULA, no opinion on the others. As said above, the EVULA page is barely an essay, and can have a redirect as such. I don't care about the others, as they are harmless, and the slippery slope argument never has held much water for me. Until masses of newbies demand redirects, it isn't a demonstrated issue. On the other hand, the users in question don't seem to care whether the redirects are there or not, and I don't think that they are particularly useful.--Dycedarg ж 21:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Li Desheng → Mao Zedong[edit]

The result of the debate was no longer relevant rfd as redirect has now been written over with an actual article about the person in question. -- KTC (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Li Desheng, a former member of the Chinese Communist Party Politiburo Standing Committee is not the same person as Mao Zedong, former Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party. Hence, this redirect makes no sense DOR (HK) (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Misleading redirect. --EivindJ (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From comments on the Talk page and the edit summaries, the nominator wants to create an article on this person. Assuming that he meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for biographies, just overwrite the redirect with actual content. There is no need to delete the redirect before creating the article and nothing wrong with having a redirected version in the old pagehistory. Be bold and write the stub. (But don't blank the page first. That's too often associated with vandalism.) Rossami (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Heliogabalus (God) → Elagabalus (deity)[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep. VegaDark (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

correct capitalization is Heliogabalus (god); only 2 incoming links, which have now both been re-pointed to the new redirect. Finally, I don't think that anybody would type a search query with a capital G when looking up Heliogabalus. Bwrs (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is just a minor capitalization variant. It doesn't harm anything for it to exist, and it is potentially useful, albeit slightly less so than some capitalization redirects. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Gavia immer notes, redirects for capitalization variants are accepted. The fact that the redirect is currently an orphan is irrelevant. Rossami (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as normal capitalisation variants redirect. KTC (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Seathwaite (Borrowdale) → Seathwaite Fell[edit]

The result of the debate was no longer relevant as redirect have been overwritten with article entry from WP:AFC. KTC (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name of a settlement (the hamlet of Seathwaite in the Borrowdale valley) is used to redirect to an article on a hill (Fell being a local name for hill in this area of northwest England). The redirect conflicts with an attempt to write an article about the hamlet which has a notable history regarding the grapite mine. The graphite mine is not located upon the Fell. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As we've said often before, you don't need to delete a redirect before creating new content at the same title. As long as the subject is meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria (the guidance on hamlets is vague but the relevant standards for a mine might be at WP:CORP), just overwrite the redirect with content. There is no need to delete the redirect before creating the article and nothing wrong with having a redirected version in the old pagehistory. Rossami (talk) 21:01, 23 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_May_23&oldid=1146391853"