Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 4, 2008

WP:BOO → Wikipedia:WikiProject Halloween[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retargeted NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This shortcut is to a failed biographical proposal. I would like to co-opt it for a more scary purpose, especially since the failed proposal has two shortcuts.--otherlleft (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Create Sounds like a great new target. MBisanz talk 14:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an excellent (and novel) short cut. Easy to remember... and what does "BOO" mean again? 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, which I believe has already been done. -- Ned Scott 02:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Allegations of apartheid → Israel and the apartheid analogy[edit]

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to Apartheid (disambiguation). -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect used to be an article, which was deleted (full disclosure: by me) earlier this year after an extremely contentious AFD. There's now a bit of an edit war brewing over whether it should redirect to Crime of apartheid or Israel and the apartheid analogy. Neither seems to be to be an especially good target, and right now it's causing needless controversy. No articles link here, which further shows the lack of need for this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have boldly retargeted it to Apartheid (disambiguation) to avoid a double redirect. In looking at the background, I am amazed at the number of "Allegations of **** apartheid" or "Allegations of apartheid in **** " mentions in articles and redirects. I'm not sure if this nebulous phrase has been given too much undue weight in Wikipedia, but I'd rather either see it all weeded out (check the search for "allegation apartheid" without the quotes) or perhaps convert the redirect into a dab page. I just don't know - either way, some sort of protection may be in order. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect to Apartheid (disambiguation) (although that page seems to be under threat itself; it was just turned into a redirect, which I reverted...). This page is probably worth keeping for its historical value (it was the subject of a great deal of argument, and to an extent still is), but I agree that there isn't a hugely relevant target for it at the moment. Terraxos (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, delete. User:Jayjg has explained why he got rid of Apartheid (disambiguation), and he was justified in doing so; but if that page is a redirect, there's nowhere useful for this one to point to. Given the controversial history behind it, I'm coming round to Sarcasticidealist's point of view that it's probably best deleted altogether. Terraxos (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd like to see all of the "Allegations of X apartheid" pages disappear. Apartheid has one specific meaning - and only one - in the same sense that The Holocaust is unique. But this needs to be discussed, not just on one editor's talk page but either on the talk page of the appropriate article, or - better yet - at the appropriate WikiProject. In the meantime, until there is consensus regarding Apartheid (disambiguation) it should be left as a dab page with Allegations of apartheid as a redirect pointing to it. Temporary keep. B.Wind (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Fimian → Keith Fimian[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the redirect originally, but changed my mind. Bwrs (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - since originator of redirect has put it in RfD, it has been tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G7. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I objected to the speedy and removed the tag, per statement above. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the above note intended to be counted as a vote to delete? Bwrs (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not a vote - it's a discussion. The majority does not always rule at RfD (or AfD, or CfD, or IfD, or...). 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - obviously useful as a redirect, and can potentially be turned into a disambiguation page if we ever have more than one article on people with this name. Terraxos (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. Right now it doesn't matter one way or the other. If it's G7'd I wouldn't lose any sleep over it; if it's kept, it can be overwritten when something more appropriate can be written there. B.Wind (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of C programs in Wikipedia → Category:Articles with example C code[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-referential redirect to a category, improper CNR. MBisanz talk 03:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

SGpedians' notice board → Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internal "shortcut" to a wikiproject, does not link to content nor is it a likely search term. MBisanz talk 03:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/question I don't think this type of cross space short cuts are a good idea but is there a definite policy on this? --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 18:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia Duplicate pages → Wikipedia:Proposed mergers[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely CNR to a Wikipedia process, does not link to content. MBisanz talk 03:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Official Policy → Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines[edit]

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to Policy which covers both the concept and dabs to Wikipedia policy. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper redirect to a Wikipedia page, does not link to content, WP policies are not the only official policies MBisanz talk 03:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to policy. 140.247.251.27 (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ordinarily I am not opposed to cross-namespace redirects. But this one is a little bit presumptuous, so I have no objection to deletion. (Pending the outcome of this RfD, I changed it temporarily to a disambiguation page.) Bwrs (talk) 05:25, 4 November 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_November_4&oldid=743233210"