Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 20, 2009

King of kings7[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy delete (R3). Magioladitis (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before I changed this to a redirect, the text of the article made it clear it was about I Love New York 2. However, I can't see how this title is a plausible redirect, so taking to Rfd. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - implausible / repeatedly re-created. Likely a nickname that someone wants to publicize.  7  23:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I can't find any salient references online about this at all. If someone comes forward with one, it should be created then. —mako๛ 00:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gone. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:$[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request. This has been deleted before, through TFD, so it has not been deleted as a redirect. It was nominated as something else, then changed to a redirect during the debate, and then deleted. However, I feel that*WP:CURRENCY, which means that US dollars are by far the most common type of dollars that en-WP will be linking to. Redirects for convenience are commonplace in templatespace, and I believe that this one is an appropriate piece of shorthand. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unless there's evidence that shows a currency other than US dollars are used as frequently. Aiken ♫ 12:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There isn't - the escudo and the peso were the major alternatives (the Brazilian real and Mexican peso are probably now the most-used "alternatives"). The euro usurped much of its use when Portugal and Spain adopted it as their unit of currency. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - currencies should be spelt out to avoid any ambiguity, and single-character template names should be reserved for utility templates, and preferably not used in the main namespace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zocky (talk • contribs) 09:19, 21 October 2009
    Is there a policy on single-character templates names? The first part doesn't apply, as this is just a redirect to the appropriate template. Were that template to spell out "US dollars" this would still be a useful redirect to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I could make {{Capital a}} and make it spell out "A". That would be about as useful as what you are proposing. And I don't know or care about whether there's an explicit policy page regarding templates with single-interpunction-character names. I do know and care that we have the long-existing and widely used {{!}} and {{-}} and that to my mind is an emerging naming convention which makes sense. Zocky | picture popups 12:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes more sense to invent new rules during an RfD discussion (and inconvenience editors who might want to make use of the current shortcut) than... what, exactly? I'm not "proposing" anything: the redirect is live and deployed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete US bias, any currency that uses "$" and isn't the US dollar is being discriminated against. People from those locales are probably rightly confused on why their currency becomes American money when they use the template. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Chris and his references to WP:CURRENCY above. Obviously, there is US bias in this but folks have already covered why that bias is justified in this case. —mako๛ 00:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of course the US dollar is meant most often. But by deleting this template, we are forcing editors to be more specific. Afterall, we aim to make WP more global. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, shows US bias. If no other countries used the symbol, that would be one thing. But if even one other country uses it, it seems to inappropriately favor the US. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Muhammad P.B.U.H[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The initials P.B.U.H. contradict these guidelines. Upon doing a WLH on this page, I found none. Besides, a search for any PBUH-inclusion proceeding the "Muhammad" search, the Wiki software will suggest Muhammad anyway. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 03:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep + Comment - just wanted to point out that the page has been viewed a lot recently (105 times in Oct, 89 times in Sep). I am somewhat bothered by the lack of a period after the final H but otherwise I don't see any harm in keeping the redirect. To me the high level of hits per month indicate the that page would likely get recreated quickly when others search for it in the future.  7  03:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment - also considering that Muhammad PBUH (without periods) has survived since 2007 these might be reasonable search terms. The missing period at the end bugs me (R3 / implausible typo-ish) but it was not recently created so R3 is not relevant. The naming conventions cited are relevant and the name of the proper article follows those conventions, however they don't need to apply to redirects. For those who don't know (I didn't) PBUH is described here.  7  03:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an apparent reasonable search term. Aiken ♫ 12:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible typo of a search term -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think we can apply a little WP:IAR in this case in relation to those guidelines. Helpful redirect for many.. especially Muslims. -- œ™ 00:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --- Seems like a useful and used search term and there's doesn't seem to be real space for an argument about where it should point. The manual of style doesn't extend to redirects were even misspellings are frequently allowed. —mako๛ 00:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We don't use this form in articles, but it's a useful redirect for search purposes. --Zundark (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Making a point[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep as the target explains the difference. Tikiwont (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this redirect, as it is misleading since the guideline is not merely about making a point. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a section of the target discusses the use of the WP:POINT short cut and its distinction from making a point. Since WP:POINT is targeted there, so should Wikipedia:Making a point. B.Wind (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think it is misleading. It doesn't say "Make a point", it describes "Making a point". Aiken ♫ 12:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I don't see any real potential for harm or confusion here and I can imagine that folks have and might want to continue linking to the redirect. Unless there's a more appropriate place to point this, WP:POINT seems about on point to me. —mako๛ 00:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Herndon Elementary School[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete, with the creation of a disambiguation page encouraged. It's clear from this brief discussion that the current target of this redirect is misleading and generally unhelpful. Due to the large number of schools with this name no redirect to one of them is ever going to be useful - until someone puts the effort into producing a disambiguation page here, it is best left as a redlink. ~ mazca talk 21:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and prevent re-creation, name is used in multiple places and incoming links lead to confusion. Elementary schools should be red or unlinked unless there is a notable school by that name. Unless it is famous, any notable school with this name should be specified with a city as well. Because of this and the huge number of such schools I recommend locking the name. In the alternative, redirect it to a future article Herndon Elementary School (disambiguation). The incoming links can give some idea of what would go in a dab article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tend to agree with nom, but disagree with keeping links red if they will never be turned blue. Also, I think it's appropriate for the disambiguation to stay where it is, without adding the (disambiguation) on the end. Aiken ♫ 12:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no existing dab. Formerly this school and the other one were specific schools. Later, they were turned into redirects to that particular school's district or city/region. Later, they were moved to a more specific name, leaving these redirects behind. These redirects can be deleted, leaving redlinks throughout the project. They can also be pointed to xyz-school (disambiguation) or, as you implicitly suggest, be turned into dab articles in their own right. Any of these solutions is okay by me. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Cook Elementary School[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete, with the creation of a disambiguation page encouraged. It's clear from this brief discussion that the current target of this redirect is misleading and generally unhelpful. Due to the large number of schools with this name no redirect to one of them is ever going to be useful - until someone puts the effort into producing a disambiguation page here, it is best left as a redlink. ~ mazca talk 21:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and prevent re-creation, name is used in many places and incoming links lead to confusion. Elementary school links should be red unless there is a notable school by that name. Unless it is famous, any notable school with this name should be specified with a city as well. Because of this and the huge number of such schools I recommend locking the name. In the alternative, redirect it to a future article Cook Elementary School (disambiguation). The incoming links can give some idea of what would go in a dab article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tend to agree with nom, but disagree with keeping links red if they will never be turned blue. Also, I think it's appropriate for the disambiguation to stay where it is, without adding the (disambiguation) on the end. Aiken ♫ 12:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no existing dab. Formerly this school and the other one were specific schools. Later, they were turned into redirects to that particular school's district or city/region. Later, they were moved to a more specific name, leaving these redirects behind. These redirects can be deleted, leaving redlinks throughout the project. They can also be pointed to xyz-school (disambiguation) or, as you implicitly suggest, be turned into dab articles in their own right. Any of these solutions is okay by me. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

T:ITNBOX and other Template redirects[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep all. Killiondude (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Cross-namespace redirect; essentially orphaned, harder to transclude than the template itself (would need to use an extra character to transclude mainspace pages). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Multiple T: RFDs grouped together as they will likely share the same fate.  7  02:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it's used as a shortcut when one wants to get to the template (for reference) from the search box (see here). It is not meant to be a shorthand way to transclude the template. Whereas the interface will automatically redirect something like WP:UAA to Wikipedia:UAA, the same is not true for templates. There are others out there as well (more)  7  01:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just didn't get a chance to nominate all of them tonight; I'll wait on the others for the outcome of this discussion. Anyway, it is worth noting that some of these (like T:TT) aren't used at all according to page view stats, and those that are used are still no more than maybe 10 hits a month. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since this now pops up at the UAA edit window, making it unnecessary for those most likely to use it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but by that argument T:AIV should also be deleted. I guess I am just thinking that it never hurts to have a shortcut to help you reference a page... and I would go so far as to say that T: could be added to the interface as a automatic redirect to Template: for all pages.  7  02:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that T:AIV should be deleted along with the others, but as I said, I just didn't get around to nominating all of them. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've only ever used T:WPTECH as a shortcut. As the template doesn't really get edited much, I don't have a particularly strong opinion on whether the redirect goes or stays. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all they are shortcuts and are used as such. I don't see anything wrong with any of these... Tavix |  Talk  00:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid Pseudo-namespace redirects that should be kept unless a particular one conflicts with an article title, in which case it can just be overwritten with the article text. There's no use in nominating all of these redirects.. if one such as T:TT for example is not useful then just nominate that particular one.. most others are used often as shortcuts. Also, if we're going to start deleting these pseudo-namespaces then we should also be discussing what to do with the other ones that are also cross-namespace, such as P: for Portals, C: for categories, or H: for Help pages. -- œ™ 03:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After all, these redirects are useful. -- ISLANDERS27 05:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Like a year ago we deleted a lot of this kind of cross-namespace redirects. We have to establish a policy to reduce Pseudo-namespace articles and not increase them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are shortcuts. Cross-namespace redirects, with the exception of redirects to the User: namespace from article space are perfectly acceptable and do not violate any usage guidelines. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Unrefsect[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete by User:Rich Farmbrough CSD R2 (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect; essentially orphaned, harder to transclude than the template itself (would need to use an extra character to transclude mainspace pages). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Away with it! Speedily! Gone! Rich Farmbrough, 01:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I would have done that, but it technically falls outside of R2 (which excludes redirects to project, user, and template pages, amongst other things). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Selfref[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect; essentially orphaned, harder to transclude than the template itself (would need to use an extra character to transclude mainspace pages). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User en-hk[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect to userbox; implausible search term, orphaned. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Leftover redirect from pagemove. Useless and yucky. -- œ™ 03:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as an inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. -- ISLANDERS27 05:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Not used, not useful, and problematic for reasons that the nom and others have already covered. —mako๛ 00:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User WP Romantic music[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect to userbox; implausible search term, orphaned. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - implausible and unused.  7  02:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Eww -- œ™ 03:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per User:7. -- ISLANDERS27 05:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my comments on the previous RFD. I see no reason this should share a fate that is any different. —mako๛ 00:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

UBX:SRY[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect to userbox; implausible search term, orphaned. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as there is no UBX: subspace. There is no significant history worth saving, either. B.Wind (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another leftover redirect from a pagemove. People need to know when to uncheck the "Leave a redirect behind" box when moving pages.. In fact, maybe someone should edit MediaWiki:Movepagetext to add a mention for these situations.. I would but, not sure how to word it. -- œ™ 03:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • IIRC, only admins have that option. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- As B.Wind hs pointed out, there is no UBX: namespace. —mako๛ 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User Rotterdam[edit]

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per G7. Tikiwont (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect to userbox; implausible search term, orphaned. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per Drilnoth. Utterly useless redirect that's left over from a move from article space. TheFeds 06:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For some reason this template has not been deleted. Hey, delete it, I have no use for it anymore. This deletionist attitude is the reason why I quit contributing anyway. JHvW (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and per my comments on the the substantially similar redirects above. I don't understand why these article namespace redirects to user boxes would be treated any differently and don't think these should have been listed separately. Most of these seems like mistakes. —mako๛ 01:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User MandatorySignin[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete - could have been speedy under G7 (a user moved a page there, immediately moved it somewhere else, and asked that the resulting redirect from the second move be deleted), or as R3 (unlikely typo - transcluding a mainspace page is difficult; no one would do it accidently). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect to userbox; implausible search term, orphaned. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Obviously a brain fade on my part. When I move these out of mainspace, I usually uncheck the "leave a redirect behind" box. Thanks for catching this one.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (G7) per Fabrictramp. TheFeds 06:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and per my comments on the the substantially similar redirects above. I don't understand why these article namespace redirects to user boxes would be treated any differently and don't think these should have been listed separately. Most of these seems like mistakes. —mako๛ 01:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User JHvW/Love[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect to userbox; implausible search term, orphaned. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per Drilnoth. Utterly useless redirect that's left over from a move from article space. TheFeds 06:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For some reason this template has not been deleted. Hey, delete it, I have no use for it anymore. This deletionist attitude is the reason why I quit contributing anyway. JHvW (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is about deleting the redirect to the template, not the template itself. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no objections to the deletion of the template itself, as stated. JHvW (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and per my comments on the the substantially similar redirects above. I don't understand why these article namespace redirects to user boxes would be treated any differently and don't think these should have been listed separately. Most of these seems like mistakes. —mako๛ 01:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_20&oldid=1136083716"