Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 13, 2009

Wikipedia:EVULA[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 23#Wikipedia:GURCH, Wikipedia:EVULA, Wikipedia:ZN → User/User talk

Nominating for deletion. An inappropriate use of the Wikipedia namespace leading to an even less appropriate personal essay. BlueSquadronRaven 17:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the dates. It was over a year ago. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I'll try to find the more recent one. –xenotalk 18:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I misremembered, it has been cited by other xFD'en, but not discussed directly. –xenotalk 18:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Humorous Wikipedia-space content is allowed if clearly tagged; and wikipedia-space redirects to userspace personal essays have long been allowed. I see no particularly compelling reason to delete this - it is clearly tagged so as not to appear misleading. While I agree with the recent trend towards deletion of pure vanity WP: redirects to users' talk pages, I do not extend the same agreement to WP: redirects to user essays. ~ mazca talk 18:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the difference between the "vanity redirects" you mention and this one, given the subject matter of the alleged humour. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A vanity redirect goes straight to an editor's user or user talk page. This does neither. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like that'll be a shock. Totally unmoved by the nominating statement, especially given the "even less appropriate personal essay" comment about a joke. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That might be compelling if it were, you know, funny. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhh... so the whole point of this is WP:DONTLIKEIT. Silly me, I thought there was a real reason. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to be that simplistic, you could use that on any of these discussions and shut them down. I've made my case in my nomination. I notice your statements on my argument hardly amount to a refutation of it, only your opinion of it. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no refutation because I consider there to be little to refute; as I stated, I'm unmoved by the nominating statement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - widely linked, and not just by the author. Also highlights writers' megalomaniacism, which I think is important to have as a record of the same. –xenotalk 19:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No reason to delete. Redirects are cheap, and this is one is being used as a joke by a valued editor. I don't understand why people who contribute significantly in other areas are not allowed to have a little fun. J.delanoygabsadds 19:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Help me out here, does that fall under WP:ILIKEIT, WP:NOHARM or WP:ITSFUNNY? My guess is all three. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it falls under Wikipedia:Contributors matter. –xenotalk 19:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) What xeno said. J.delanoygabsadds 19:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, at least two of the things you linked to only apply to the article space. WP:NOHARM specifically says:
As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes - it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. [emphasis added]
and WP:ITSFUNNY says:
Articles should be kept or rejected because of ideas such as notability, verifiability, and lack of original research - not because they meet an editor's subjective view of humor. There are more appropriate places, even on Wikipedia, than in the article space. [emphasis added]
so your argument there also falls to pieces. J.delanoygabsadds 19:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Eh, no reason to delete it really. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:RFD#DELETE: it's not offensive, nonsensical or confusing, not a WP:CROSS from article space, not broken and not unuseful. I certainly disagree with the nominator's statement that it's an "[in]appropriate personal essay". If you don't find a joke funny, don't laugh. That doesn't mean that others can't. Jafeluv (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep EVula is right.--Lenticel (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:EVULA being cited in the WP:EVULA RfD. I think the world might implode. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, so that should explain the interdimensional squid-faced anomaly that's nibbling in my arm.--Lenticel (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not a big deal. I've linked to it a few times. Isn't there an encyclopedia here somewhere to be written? As mentioned above, contributors matter. We should worry more about content and less about what valued editors do to keep up their morale. It's not coming from article space, so Special:Random won't take one to this page. hmwithτ 16:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per those above. Highly doubtful that WP:EVULA would be used as a redirect to anything else, thus it's not an issue that it's in use. Directs to a user sub page/humorous essay, not a user or user talk page, thus is not a vanity redirect. No reason to delete this, especially considering the number of pages listed from "What links here". Lara 18:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The issue with cross-namespace redirects is that readers may trip across them and end up in areas where they didn't intend to be (from article space to project or user space). In this case, it's a project space redirect to the user space. It's entirely unreasonable to think that a reader would trip across this. In the absence of any demonstrable harm caused by the existence of this redirect, I see absolutely no reason to delete it. And I would appreciate it if nominating statements contained a bit more nuance. The nominating statement here is pretty lackluster. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. This is not causing any harm, and I don't find it even slightly inappropriate on this occasion. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: users have long been afforded the right to link to essays in userspace with a cross namespace redirect from projectspace, even as shortcuts. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

My Posse Don't Do Homework[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep.--Aervanath (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link from Dangerous Minds to My Posse Don't Do Homework redirects back to Dangerous Minds article. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the correct thing to would be to unlink the self-redirect, not nominate it for deletion. –xenotalk 17:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've de-linked it from the Dangerous Minds article, but the redirect itself should definitely be kept. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia-mode[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete all except International Wikipedia/Homepages and Wikipedia policy/Foul Language. Those two will also be removed from article space, but they will be retitled as subpages of the most relevant project page.--Aervanath (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These have been moved to Wikipedia talk:Multilingual coordination/International Wikipedia Homepages and Wikipedia talk:Profanity/Original debate, respectively.--Aervanath (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preffered action: deletion. These are all cross-namespace redirects (first group: to Wikipedia; second group: from (forbidden) subpages in the mainspace to Wikipedia; third group: to other namespaces) out of the main namespace with Wikipedia in the name of the redirect. I have not nominated all such crossnamespace redirects, only those which seem implausibe search terms, not really help ful to a normal reader or editor. IF I have listed some which do have a particular reason to exist, they can of course be kept. But I doubt that such reason exists for most of them. Fram (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • support deletion for Wikipedia/Our Replies to Our Critics - only linked to by talk pages. Not checked the others. No clue why it was even on my watchlist. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as far as I can see all of these are deprecated, undesirable cross-namespace redirects with no particular reason for continued existence. ~ mazca talk 19:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some of these, especially the subpage ones, are old moves that may warrant a note in the edit history of the target. However, none of them currently meets the standard for inclusion in mainspace. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirects from mainspace to other spaces are evil.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unuseful redirects from article space. Jafeluv (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • International Wikipedia/Homepages has ancient history (a Larry Sanger edit from 2001) that shouldn't be deleted. If the history is merged somewhere useful, I don't really care whether it stays or goes (I never managed to understand what was all *that* bad about cross-space redirects). Similarly, Wikipedia policy/Foul Language shouldn't be deleted without being saved somewhere, it is somewhat interesting to see very old civility debates. Do any of the others have interesting history? Kusma (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree those both have interesting histories, and that it would be a shame to lose that. doncram (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

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

various New Haven County, CT, redirects[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete all except for two which were withdrawn by the nominator. Only two deletions out of all of these were objected to, and in those two cases it would best just to create a redlink in the target article, which is more likely to cause contributors to create an article at that title.--Aervanath (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a second batch of Connecticut NRHP-related redirects now covering NRHP HDs listed in National Register of Historic Places listings in New Haven County, Connecticut, per discussion at Talk:List of RHPs in CT, in order to reopen red-links instead. The NRHP HDs are each wikipedia-notable topics, and need not be redirected. The redirect targets are town articles, some of which have no mention whatsoever of the historic district, others of which have brief mention but which does not preclude having a separate article. Separate articles may detail the contributing properties and be quite long and specific. Showing redlinks in the corresponding list-articles of NRHPs in CT is highly preferable, allowing for new editors to create articles at these valid NRHP HD topics. It is intimidating and difficult for editors to override redirects. These and other arguments developed more fully in discussion of the first batch, for 10 redirects for Tolland County, CT, whose discussion was concluded with their deletion. doncram (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks OK to delete. It's not clear why this was directed in this manner. --Orlady (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Seymour article has information on the HD and other information relevant to the topic of the Downtown Seymour Historic District, making the redirect useful to Wikipedia users. --Orlady (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Aervanath noted in closing the similar Tolland County batch "While certain of the target articles contain information about the history of the town, and some contain a small list of sites of historical interest, none actually discuss the historic district as such. Per WP:Red link, "red links help Wikipedia grow", as they encourage people to build articles to fill the gap, whereas redirects do not." The Seymour article's mention of this historic district along with several other NRHP listings should be changed to a redlink to the NRHP HD name as well. doncram (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Waterbury article seems to contain everything but the kitchen sink (no, the sink might be there, too), and it has information about the downtown HD and several photos that are probably of the HD. A person wanting information about the Downtown Waterbury Historic District would find value there, and would get far more value from that article than from a redlink. --Orlady (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Aervanath's comment in closing the similar Tolland County batch. Best to delete and add a redlink to Waterbury article. doncram (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks OK to delete. It's not clear why this was directed in this manner. --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the stub at Russian Village, or move Russian Village to the full historic district name if that is preferable. --Polaron | Talk 14:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeting makes sense. I edited the redirect as Polaron suggested. --Orlady (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good we agree the original redirect did not make sense. I've moved the NRHP HD info to the NRHP HD name, and added a bit more, and converted "Russian Village" to a disambiguation page. If someone wants to create an article on the "village" at "Russian Village, Connecticut" they could do so, but any further discussion should not be here. Thanks, this one is resolved, i believe, so am striking it out. doncram (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The islands article is an appropriate place to discuss the district. The entire island group is in the district. --Polaron | Talk 14:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is/was no mention of the NRHP HD in the article, but if u say there is substantial overlap then a separate NRHP HD article needs to be created and/or the NRHP HD is to be discussed as part of Thimble Islands article. Merger vs. split discussion to occur elsewhere. I'm striking this out here. Thanks. doncram (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request now completed. doncram (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who might close this discussion here, Polaron is the editor who set up most or all of these redirects, and whose views have evolved to accept that almost all of these turn out to be inappropriate. Orlady has involved herself as well, perhaps in her perception to be in appopriate opposing response to me. Anyhow, everywhere they do not differ from me, at least, there is clear consensus. doncram (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the above statement. For me, it should be ok to delete all but "Stony Creek-Thimble Islands" and "Russian Village". --Polaron | Talk 02:40, 21 July 2009 (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/2009_July_13&oldid=1142588028"