Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 28, 2010

Template:PrettyQuotation[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 Kept. Not causing any harm. Also, as nominator has been removing any article use prior to nominating, without going through all of the nominator's edits, there is uncertainty as to whether people have found this useful. Leave it for awhile and then it can be renominated if no one is really using it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deletion: not likely to be used174.3.121.27 (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is only used, but used on multiple pages, by MastCell. I invited his views but he has declined to comment, here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Prettyquote[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 Kept. This template was in use in article space prior to nominator replacing it with the target. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deletion: not likely to be used174.3.121.27 (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - contrary to the nomination this is widely used and deletion would leave red links all over the place. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not used on article space.174.3.121.27 (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I came here via the "this redirect is being considered for deletion" banner on the widely-referenced essay WP:A7M. Clearly this is being used. It makes no difference if it's not being used in article space, unless there is a positive reason for deletion other than "not likely to be used". Thparkth (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No longer used.174.3.121.27 (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is and the fact that it is primarily on talk pages is irrelevant. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

William Sloper[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 expanded into an article, no longer a redirect. Non-admin close. —  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the incoming links to William Sloper point to the Titanic passenger; all are for a British Member of Parliament from another period. The Titanic Sloper does not appear to be notable. Choess (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:SELFPUBOK[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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

confusing redirect. Guideline is about criteria for inclusion of self-published sources. Redirect lends a false blanket impression that self-published sources are 'OK' period. Dlabtot (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC) also redundant with WP:SELFPUB Dlabtot (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator did not appear to be confused, but nominator does disagree with a position that this shortcut was used to defend. I think this looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Or does WP:IDONTLIKEIT create a false blanket impression that the nominator doesn't like anything, period? My point is that shortcuts are cited in context, and they're linked to what they cite. What's most likely is that it will be used has it has been, in sentences like "Although this source is self-published, it refers only to itself in a non-self serving way, and is therefore acceptable as per WP:SELFPUBOK. If someone says "My self-published blog about Shakira is reliable as per WP:SELFPUBOK," anyone can verify the citation simply by mousing over the shortcut. However, the previous statement is akin to saying "Keep as per WP:ILIKEIT" in an AfD. I don't think anyone has been confused by that. I'm open, however, to another shortcut for the overly long Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 19:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects can't be "used to defend" a position - they are simply shortcuts to an article or policy. In this case, the policy could either mean the use of the source is 'OK' or 'NOTOK'.
What do you mean "could mean"? Anyone can see what it does mean, by simply mousing over or clicking. Editors who see unfamiliar shortcuts and don't check them out have a whole other set of problems.
By 'could either mean' I meant 'could either mean'. In the future, please make your comments in your own section. Please do not insert your comments inside of mine. Thank you. Dlabtot (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is therefore no more appropriate to have redirects such as WP:SELFPUBOK or WP:SELFPUBNOTOK, than it would be to have redirects to WP:Identifying reliable sources such as WP:NOTRELIABLE and WP:ISRELIABLE. Dlabtot (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate shortcut, which already exists, and has for a long time, is WP:SELFPUB. Dlabtot (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That redirects to a different page, which you're aware of, because you originally had the redirect pointing to the wrong place. However, that different page (WP:V) has the same text on it as where I added the shortcut on (WP:RS), which means there should be a note stating that it appears in two places, since WP:SELFPUB can't shortcut to two places. As the author of the template, I vote Speedy Delete. I'll fix the issue with the rule in two places later. Besides, WP:SELFPUBOK its already pretty much served its purpose for me as the GOCE template isn't going anywhere. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 22:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as the creator opines, the priority is to sort out the pages; having identical text on different pages is not good practice. In addition, at the WP:IRS section, there are two hatnotes, in the same section, that take readers to WP:V where they will find no additional information! This new redirect simply adds to the confusion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Usertag-Energy-Development-Sustainability[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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:28, 28 May 2010 (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/2010_May_28&oldid=1148047449"