Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 8, 2011

Communist Party (bolsheviks) of Lithuania and Belorussia[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 Keep. Ruslik_Zero 19:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary miscapitalization —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If this redirect were deleted and anyone actually types Communist Party (bolsheviks) of Lithuania and Belorussia in the search box, they will automatically go to the right article anyway. We should not have a proliferation of alternative capitalization redirects that take the user to the article that they would have gone to anyway. And what about the claim that redirects are cheap and don't cost anything? That is actually not true. Redirects do cost something in two ways. The default behavior of Wikipedia is to accept capitalization errors without comment or redirect, so if the user enters Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of lithuania and belorussia or Communist party (Bolsheviks) of Lithuania and Belorussia Wikipedia takes them to the right page without comment. Why should they get a top-of-page comment saying redirected from Communist Party (bolsheviks) of Lithuania and Belorussia for miss-capitalizing Bolsheviks but no top-of-page comment for other miss-capitalizations? So the first problem with redirects of this type is that the user is confused by the fact that sometimes, capitalization errors result in "redirected from" warnings and sometimes they don't. Worse, if the user enters a miss-capitalization that includes bolsheviks and other words miss-capitalized, they may get a redirect warning that confuses matters further, implying that Bolsheviks was the only word miss-capitalized. The user experience of an encyclopedia should be more consistent. The second problem with redirects of this type is that they clutter up the list of search box suggestions created by Wikipedia, making it harder to find the one the user actually desires and making it more likely that the user will accidentally click on a search box suggestion that is not the one they wanted. —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The wiki software automatically creates these redirects during the pagemove process for several very good reasons (which have been extensively discussed in the past). While Anomalocaris' arguments about the behavior of the MediaWiki search engine are correct, that is not the only way that our readers navigate the encyclopedia. Unless the redirect was created as the result of pagemove vandalism or is deliberately confusing, it should be left in place. Rossami (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no good reason has been given why we should delete this redirect that was the result of a page move. Whether someone sees a "redirected from" message at the top of their page or not is probably the most trivial thing I've ever seen suggested as a reason to keep or delete. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WP:WORLD[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.
Moving discussion to a more appropriate forum. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute on the target for this redirect. The existing target has existed for over five years and is well known for that purpose; however, in November, a user redirected it to instead point to Wikipedia:Systemic bias. I recently reverted it back, but the user who changed it has since disputed the target on the shortcut's talk page. I'm therefore bring it here for wider community discussion. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why not? What are you on about? RfD is for discussing redirects and where they are targeted or whether they should be deleted. This is exactly where this discussion should take place. Per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Header, "Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic redirects." - that's exactly what this is. 23:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
RfD isn't the place to advertise editorial disputes about where to point redirects. If the talk page can't help (and it doesn't look like there's actually been much discussion there yet) then RfC is generally the place. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is RfD for?! So your saying all of the discussions here where we discussed where to point a redirect are in the incorrect place? You're suggesting it should only be for deleting redirects? There's a reason RfD is not called "Redirects for deletion" (and similarly CfD and TfD), it's because we also discuss other redirects and whether they should be retargeted. Mhiji 23:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I originally created this here based on what I found at Wikipedia:SHORT#Changing shortcuts, which makes no mention of using RfC.
Based on the direction above, I've now created an RfC. If it should have been left as as RfD, it can all just be reverted back at that point. Otherwise, at least an RfC is started (although, there is no RfC sorting category for shortcuts, so I left it as an uncategorized RfC for now). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The respective Talk pages are the place to sort out routine editorial decisions like the proper target for a redirect. This page is titled "for discussion" because a deletion nomination may end in a decision other than 'delete' or 'keep as is'. And it may be appropriate to escalate especially difficult cases here. There was never an intent to create this as an arbitration board for all redirect discussions, though. Rossami (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So why isn't there a category for it at RfC then? And Wikipedia:SHORT#Changing_shortcuts is wrong then? There's been hundreds/thousands of discussions about where a redirect should be targeted. If RfD should only be for nominating for deletion, that should be specifically stated in the header and Wikipedia:SHORT#Changing_shortcuts (and probably other pages) needs changing. But it makes no sense discussing the outcome of redirects in 2 different places. Mhiji 18:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ALT[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 keep. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "MOS:" pseudo-namespace redirect which does not link to Manual of Style pages. See also the arguments at and outcome of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_3#MOS:, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_20#MOS:POKER, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_21#MOS:DERM and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_13#MOS:DABCU. Mhiji 22:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this appears to be an in use redirect (30-60 hits/month) to a page that could conceivably be part of the manual of style, does not conflict with anything in the article namespace and does no other harm. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, per the comments at the previous discussions, "MOS:" pseudo-namespace redirects should redirect to Manual of Style pages - it's confusing and potentially deceptive when they don't. We shouldn't be keeping these because they might "conceivably be part of the manual of style" - the point is they aren't part of MOS. We shouldn't be passing them off to be MOS pages when they aren't. Mhiji 22:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the majority of the page views are because it was linked to from Template:Infobox television/doc (it's not now), a very widely used infobox. Mhiji 22:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point of redirects is to help people find what they are looking for, and in this case I believe it does. How do you know the page views are the result of it's inclusion in a specific place - last time I investigated this (albeit some time ago) such information didn't exist. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, admittedly I don't know, but it's very very likely - it's not linked to from anywhere else. You're suggesting people are just randomly typing the letters MOS:ALT? Even if they are, the vast majority will be because it was linked to. And I don't think the page views are particularly relevant in this case since the redirect is misleading (and I'm not alone in thinking this - again see the comments and outcome of the previous discussions), definitely a reason to delete. Mhiji 23:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia:Alternative text for images is not currently titled as a Manual of Style page but that's effectively what it is. I see no possibility of confusion and some possible benefit. Rossami (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well propose that it's turned into a MoS page then. Unless it is this shouldn't exist. WP:ALT is shorter anyway, so I don't see what possible benefit there is? This shortcut is confusing, misleading and deceptive. If a user types in a "MOS:" pseudo namespace redirect, they expect to be (and should be) taken to a MoS page. They shouldn't have to then double check that they are actually looking at the MoS when they get there. Mhiji 18:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether the page is officially part of the manual of style or not does not change the fact that Wikipedia:Alternative text for images includes guidelines on Wikipedia's house style for alternative text for images. If people find what they are looking for it doesn't matter whether it was where they thought it was or not. The length of the shortcut is not relevant either, what's relevant is whether people use it or not (and the stats show that people do). For example, the existence of WP:NOT#DICT is not a reason to delete WP:NOT#DICDEF or WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I realise the length doesn't matter. My point was, no-one has explained what benefit there is from having this shortcut in addition to WP:ALT. What benefit do we have from having this too? As I've said (and other's comments at the previous discussions) this could be confusing/misleading/deceptive which is definitely a reason to delete and I can't see any benefit from having it... Should we also have an "MOS:" shortcut for all of the other "WP:" shortcuts here?! No. That's ridiculous. "MOS:" redirects should lead to MoS pages - it's just common sense. Mhiji 20:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are asking the wrong question. The right question is "what benefit do we get from deleting this redirect". Once a redirect is created, we get no server space back from deletion, no processing occurs faster, no one's workload goes down. All deletion does is add a record to the database. The only argument for deleting a redirect is if it is somehow harmful to the project. Being confusing would be an example of harm but that's a value judgment and must be balanced against people who say in good faith that they find the redirect useful (or who demonstrate that it's useful by using it). Note: Nothing in that logic says that we should preemptively create such redirects - only that once created in good faith, they should usually be left alone. Rossami (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • But no-one has come forward and said that they find it useful. But myself and other editors in the previous discussions have been concerned that this might be misleading/confusing/deceptive. So you don't really have an argument... If someone came forward and said "I use this redirect, find it useful and would miss it if it was deleted" that would be different. The only reason this got hits was because it was linked to - without that link, no-one is going to type in "MOS:ALT" when it isn't advertised anywhere and the advertised shortcut is "WP:ALT". And I wasn't saying that we should delete it because of server space etc... I never mentioned that. There is definitely an argument that this is misleading/confusing/deceptive and you still haven't provided any reason why this might be of benefit to anyone. Mhiji 13:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • How do "clearly useful with 30-60 hits" and similar statements lead you to believe nobody finds it useful!? Links to pages on Wikipedia are not only internal, they exist on external sites (including mirrors that are not always up to date), in people's bookmarks and in people's heads - just because you regard "WP:ALT", "WP:SNOW", etc as a single unit, doesn't mean that others don't see them as "ALT" and "SNOW" and apply the prefix they think most likely to that. Additionally, they may just guess the shortcut - earlier today I had cause to look for Wikipedia:Manual of style (dates and numbers), so I typed MOS:DAN into the search box and got there, only to find that the advertised shortcuts are WP:MOSNUM, WP:DATE and MOS:NUM, and despite it being unadvertised it's received 4-10 hits each month since June. As I've explained to you in at lease one other discussion, just because you think that something wont be used after you've removed links to it doesn't mean that it wont be used. We need to wait for the evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Again, it only received that number of hits because it was linked to. It's common sense. As with the other discussion, we could wait a month or two when there are fewer page stats and then go through this whole process again - that seems pointless. But we should delete it now because its misleading/confusing/deceptive - definitely a reason to delete. There's nothing wrong with MOS:DAN - it links to a MoS page, so it's not misleading in any way. It's a perfectly valid shortcut and clearly it's useful as you have found it useful. When you guessed the shortcut you prefixed it with "MOS: because it was the MoS page which were looking for. Because WP:ALT isn't a MoS guideline (and it's not even a style guideline!), it's unlikely anyone would guess this. If someone guesses the shortcut to be MOS:ALT, they would also, similar to you, expect to be taken to a MoS page. If we don't restrict "MOS:" shortcuts to MoS pages, the MoS becomes meaningless. Mhiji 14:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, you think it only received that number of hits because it was linked to, and you think that because it is no longer linked to that nobody will use it. It is not common sense to delete something that people find useful - and personally I find linking to pages that could be MOS guidelines with the MOS: prefix very useful - exactly as useful as linking to pages that are MOS pages with the WP: prefix is. Additionally, MOS:ALT is a style guideline in that it details Wikipedia's house style about when to use alternate text for images, and when they are used what they should contain. I honestly don't see why it devalues or otherwise harms the MOS prefix to use it for pages that give style guidelines but which are not explicitly part of the manual of style. What benefit does deleting this redirect have? Even if only 1 person continues to use it (e.g. perhaps because they have been using it while it has been linked) then it continues to be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Don't be silly. How could this be a MoS guideline? It's nothing about style at all... Using that logic, you could claim that nearly all project pages are "style" guidelines: WP:SC describes the style in which shortcuts are used on the site, WP:REDIRECT decribes the style in which we use redirects, WP:CONTACT describes the style in which users can contact us! So you think it would be acceptable to have MOS:SC and MOS:REDIRECT too, and by that logic for nearly all the other WP: shortcuts? We have a Manual of Style for a reason. There's a reason pages are part of the MoS and others aren't. There's a consensus as to which pages are part of it and which aren't - you can't just name any page Wikipedia:Manual of Style (xxxxxxxx)". These shortcuts should also reflect that consensus too. If I moved Wikipedia:Alternative text for images to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Alternative text for images) everyone would go mental and revert it immediately. I've said loads and loads of times why this redirect should be deleted. It's misleading/confusing/deceptive. But you continue to ask "What benefit does deleting this redirect have"?!!? - so that we don't mislead/confuse/deceive our users. You (or anyone else) have still not provided a reason to keep it. And if you don't think we should have created it in the first place and that we shouldn't create others, we shouldn't keep this one. This one will encourage others to create others mimicking it, completely undermining the MoS... Mhiji 16:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly useful with 30-60 hits, and doesn't seem to be confusing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

VP:VAND[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 delete. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. Mhiji 22:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this is redundant to the correctly-titled WP:VAND and all-but unused (max of 4 hits/month in the last three months). Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. VP?? What's VP?? -- œ™ 23:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

This decade[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 Delete. Per Snottywong—does not worth an effort. Ruslik_Zero 19:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If a reader doesn't know the current year or decade, why do we need to have a pointer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - 20+ views in the half month it's been in existence suggest this is used. It doesn't conflict with anything that I'm aware of, and if it did then it could be replaced with a hatnote. I don't see a need to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason to delete. It's not ambiguous, misleading, doing any harm etc. Redirects are cheap. Mhiji 17:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the design of an electronic encyclopedia, one objective is that searches in the main namespace should have permanently stable results. In 500 years, I would hope that the article Hubert Humphrey will either still be about Hubert Horatio Humphrey, Jr. (May 27, 1911 – January 13, 1978), or, if there is a much more famous Hubert Humphrey by then, the article will have a hatnote linking to the twentieth century Minnesota senator and U.S. vice president. But what about This decade? On January 1, 2020, is the redirect supposed to flip suddenly to 2020s? Is this change supposed to happen automatically, or is Wikipedia supposed to have automated systems to make this happen? And if it isn't supposed to change, why would anyone in 2032 want the article to point to 2010s? This is in the category of "seriously insidious". No, No, No! —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, unless it can be automated to provide the current decade, it shouldn't exist. Delete per Anomalocaris. Mhiji 03:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur that this kind of link is a maintenance nightmare and should be deleted. However, cleaning it up will be a significant task. It must be properly orphaned before deletion. Rossami (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I was apparently confusing this with another page. Comment withdrawn. Rossami (talk)
    • How is it a significant task?! There's only one link to it. Mhiji 18:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing 1 character once a decade is hardly an onerous task. Nobody bats an eyelid at the need to update countless talk pages, templates, DYK pages, the main page, etc on a daily basis. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we're going to have it though, it should update automatically. There's a reason we don't have someone go to Today and update the day every day - instead it just automatically updates. I don't think it's possible to have a redirect do this (it breaks the redirect), so we shouldn't have it all (unless the software is changed to allow this). Mhiji 20:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you're that worried about it, then I'm sure a bot owner will be able to add one edit a decade to their bot's work load. I get the impression though that you're clutching a straws to find a reason why this should be deleted. I really don't understand why you think it's a big deal that there may be a few minutes (at most) every ten years when it doesn't work properly. It was about a week into 2011 before the automated links to the stats for redirects for RfDs was fixed to link to December 2010 rather than December 2010 and nobody complained. Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Clutching at straws? We're trying to save Wikipedia from a bad idea! People don't search for My hometown in Wikipedia expecting to see an article about their own hometown, and they don't search for This decade expecting to see an article about, well, this decade. It's a Heffalump trap. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It wasn't a week in, I changed it on 3 January (and what are you on about? - you complained on the 2nd - and I doubt there were many people on here on the 1st). BTW, that's still not fixed. Someone really needs to (but I'm not sure what I'm doing)... The principal with that is the same as this - we shouldn't have to update that on 1 January and 1 February every year (and we shouldn't have to get a bot to do that either - we should fix the problem instead). We should be efficient and automate everything we can - bots are useful in some circumstances, but we shouldn't have to use them for these. We should create Wikipedia so that if everyone stopped editing it would still work in 100 years time. Mhiji 15:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused, redirects not interesting. Now what is the problem at all? -DePiep (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither being "unused" nor "not interesting" are reasons to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The 20+ views it has received were most likely all from the redirect's creator, new page patrollers, and anyone who has looked at this RfD. This is a silly redirect. If it is turned into a disambig page like Today is, it might become more useful. But anyone who is looking for information about this decade would almost certainly type in "2010's" or "2010s", not "This decade". And, ensuring the page is maintained in the future is not as trivial as it seems. You can ask a bot to maintain it, but who knows if that bot will even be around 10 years from now. It's more likely that this redirect will go unmonitored and either never get changed or get changed very late. It's just not worth the effort. SnottyWong chat 22:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Current decade[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 Delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If a reader doesn't know the current year or decade, why do we need to have a pointer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - 30+ views in the half month it's been in existence suggest this is used. It doesn't conflict with anything that I'm aware of, and if it did then it could be replaced with a hatnote. I don't see a need to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason to delete. It's not ambiguous, misleading, doing any harm etc. Redirects are cheap. Mhiji 17:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at #This decade. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Anomalocaris and my comments at #This decade. Mhiji 03:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualified delete per the discussion immediately above. Rossami (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean "qualified"? There aren't even any links to this one. Mhiji 18:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting. I remember many, many links when this came up before. Looking at the page history, though, I may be confusing it with a close variant that was previously discussed. I'll try to find a link to that prior debate if I can. Rossami (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments at #This decade. SnottyWong comment 22:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

IVRI[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 retarget to Indian Veterinary Research Institute. No consensus to add a hatnote to the article, although that issue can be addressed through talk-page discussion and normal editing. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably speedy G10 Apparently "ivri" is a non-standard transliteration of the ancient Hebrew word considered the source of the English word "Hebrew". Still, the redirect is misleading, especially with the other one just below. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore to original target Indian Veterinary Research Institute, which was generating 40-80 hits a month until the target was changed on 24 December. A hatnote at the research institute's article will suffice if a link to an article on the Jews or other similar topic is warranted (I have no opinion on this). Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Although, I don't think the hatnote is necessary. Mhiji 16:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf and omit the hatnote. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. No opinion on the hatnote. Rossami (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ivri people[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) 00:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably speedy G10 Apparently a non-standard transliteration of the ancient Hebrew word considered the source of the English word "Hebrew". Still, the redirect is misleading, especially with the other one just above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No reason to delete. It's not ambiguous, misleading, doing any harm etc. Redirects are cheap. Mhiji 17:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, it is misleading, if the other redirect has any credence. (And the disambiguation page would be a WP:DICTDEF, suitable for deletion, even if it were accurate that the words have that meaning in English.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is a classical WP:NOTMADEUP thing. Google, for instance, knows nothing about this term. The redirect was only viewed 5 times in the last December (all on the same day). Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Awties[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 Delete. Lenticel (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was in Wikipedia for a while, but no evidence it was ever used outside of Wikipedia. Not in target article. Not really a plausible misspelling of "Aughties", which is reasonably placed in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTMADEUP. Mhiji 17:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Awties" does seem to me to be a reasonable transliteration of "Aughties" and potentially helpful to those who hear it rather than read it. I'm not sure how valuable Aughties really is but as long as it stays, this one seems no worse. Keep. Rossami (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Spezial:Beobachtungsliste[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 keep. Rossami (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, non-English cross namespace redirect. Mhiji 02:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Please keep it, I find it very useful! --Regression Tester (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With 100-200 hits each month since at least June, I'd say that this is a very useful redirect. It does not conflict with any article, and is unlikely to be confused with an article, so I see no reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Foreign words are appropriate redirects for foreign concepts, but not for Wikipedia concepts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? —David Levy 05:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's useful (I use it regularly) and I can't see how keeping it hurts. --Berntie (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not English, this is the English Wikipedia, the "topic" is not a non-English topic either. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A non-English watchlist redirect isn't comparable to a non-English article. —David Levy 05:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People obviously find it useful, and no one has explained how it causes any harm. —David Levy 05:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. its useful. no harm in keeping it. Amada44  talk to me 20:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not in the namespace, so I can't see how it hurts. I use it regularly. --Windharp (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Help:Scary transclusion[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 delete. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. Why are transclusions scary? Mhiji 02:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, stats show this is all-but unused (7, 5 and 1 hit in October-December) and apparently not logical - a quick look at some of the revisions of the target around the time this redirect was created doesn't give any clues either. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:GFDL-Author[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 keep. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused license template redirect. Kelly hi! 02:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Redirects from other capitalisations, including for templates, are a Good Thing, and the stats show that this is actually used (10-20 times a month) so I see no reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect from other caps are not good for license templates, because these images are moved to Commons with bot assists, and it just makes life harder for everyone to program bots to recognize all these redirected templates. When the bot doesn't recognize them, it's more work for the people transferring images to Commons to get the license right. The people uploading the files can somehow manage to find the correct template. Kelly hi! 03:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't know that it's used. http://stats.grok.se isn't case sensitive. So both collectively get around 10-20 hits a month. We can't tell, so that's not an argument to keep. Mhiji 13:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In a choice between making life easier for new human users and making life easier for experienced bot editors, I will always vote for the new users. Bot writers can find other code either to add to the redirect or to the bot to solve this problem. Rossami (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Not the Wikipedia Weekly[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 Delete both. Ruslik_Zero 19:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross namespace redirects. Mhiji 02:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q: How are these unnecessary? There was a rename of the program, somewhat late into it. So "unnecessary" in the rationale needs explanation to me. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was renamed they are no longer necessary. We already have WP:Not the Wikipedia Weekly which redirects there. I'm not proposing deleting that. But why do we need a redirect from article space for this (especially as it doesn't exist any more)? Article space should be for articles. Mhiji 12:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in addition to Professor marginalia's comments, these both get around 20 hits per month, suggesting that they are actual useful to some people. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Missile range[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 keep with a recommendation to convert to a disambiguation page. Rossami (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to redlink this article instead of redirecting it. All missile ranges are NOT spaceports. In fact, a minority of all the missile ranges in the world are also spaceports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daedraug (talk • contribs) 23:48, 22 December 2010

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 02:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Editnotices[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 Keep. Mhiji 15:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. Mhiji 01:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong keep. If you read the history of this page, and the target page, you will see that this is the root for most of the edit notices templates. As such it's a very likely page for people to look at (evidenced by over 200 views per month). There isn't content at this title, but it redirects to where the whole system is explained. As duplicating the explanation here would be both unnecessary and wrong, this redirect is very much necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Thryduulf. It is the root of the edit notices template system, which has an unusual structure due to technical limitations (it was part of Mediawiki: space before being moved to template space in response to developer concerns). The redirect is very useful to people trying to understand how the system works. Dragons flight (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Portal:Wikipedia essays[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 Keep. If renominated in the future, the subpage redirects should be nominated too. Ruslik_Zero 19:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. Mhiji 01:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (after replacing incoming links). The "Portal" namespace is for reader-facing, encyclopedia-focused content. The page's creator sought to expand its scope to include editor-facing meta-content (Wikipedia essays). Subsequent discussion showed that there was no consensus for (and significant opposition to) the idea, so I moved the page from Portal:Wikipedia essays to Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays showcase (thereby leaving behind the former as a redirect).
    The page has been inactive since March and has occupied its current title since October, so it's safe to delete the potentially confusing/misleading redirect after the incoming links have been updated. —David Levy 02:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No real problem with confusion for our readers and it does document a relatively recent pagemove. The MediaWiki software automatically creates redirects because we know they are helpful to readers who may, for example, remember reading something at one title and need help finding it at the new location. Rossami (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. There is real potential for confusion. Readers typing "Portal:Wi" into the search field will see Portal:Wikipedia essays as a suggestion. Those clicking through will arrive at a page that is neither a portal nor relevant to them (unless they happen to be editors, which most are not).
    2. The issue of users remembering the title and seeking the page would be of greater concern if it were active (or even formerly active for a significant period). As it stands, this essentially is an abandoned experiment. —David Levy 16:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: 1 - Interesting point. My first question was "What would you expect to see when typing 'Portal:Wi' into the search field". I couldn't think of anything especially confusing so I tried it. My top hit was to Portal:Wisconsin, hardly a source of great confusion and easy to figure out in the search page results. The really interesting thing, though, is that I had to scroll all the way to the bottom of the list before I got the next result with the exact text "Portal:Wi"xxx - Portal:Wikimedia featured content/Commons-picture as it turns out. This redirect doesn't even show up. Neither do the portals for wine, wicca or winter. I'm not sure why the search engine is behaving that way but while there's considerable potential for confusion, it doesn't seem to be made worse (or better) by the redirect. Rossami (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to have misunderstood. I referred above to "readers typing 'Portal:Wi' into the search field." Upon doing so, this redirect appears as a suggestion (screen capture). And if someone types "Portal:Wik" (perhaps in search of portals whose names begin with "Wikipedia"), the situation is worse (screen capture). Those clicking through arrive at an abandoned experiment that is neither a portal nor a page of relevance to non-editors (as the "Portal:" prefix conveys). —David Levy 03:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is deleted, then all the subpage redirects should be removed as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm neutral as far as !voting goes, but just wanted to say a couple things. Not all x-namespace redirects are bad and shouldn't be deleted just for being cross-namespace, or any other pedantic reason. Also, per the "abandoned experiment" comment, neither of those words apply to the page. It was meant to be a portal just like any other, not an 'experiment', and pages don't get 'abandoned' just because noone'e edited them in a while; as long as it still exists and is still enjoyed it is an active page and able to be updated by anyone at anytime. -- œ™ 08:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I strongly agree that cross-namespace redirects aren't inherently bad. I even support the retention of some from the article namespace.
    2. The page wasn't "meant to be a portal just like any other"; it was an attempt to change the the namespace's scope, and this failed to garner consensus. (That's the experiment to which I refer.) As a result, this redirect sends readers seeking a portal (as defined by the Wikipedia community) to a page containing an entirely different type of information of no relevance to non-editors.
    3. I don't mean to imply that the page has no potential value and cannot be revived. I'm pointing out that it's long-inactive (and lacked any sustained period of activity in the first place) in response to Rossami's assertion that users might remember the old title and use it to seek the page. —David Levy 13:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request - Since it appears that the primary concern with this redirect is it's effect on the search box autocomplete function, I think this can be solved by adding a template to the page that excludes the title from the prefill list. I thought that {{unprintworthy}} could do that job (see here) but either I'm having a cache problem or that's not the right template. Does anyone remember the correct template? Rossami (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a feature that I was aware of before reading that link. Based on an unscientifically small sample, it appears to be working for me. Try the instructions at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache to see if that fixes it for you (if sorted an unrelated error with my contributions list the other day). If it doesn't try asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Thryduulf (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2011 (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/2011_January_8&oldid=1142587641"