Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 3, 2014.

Price targeting[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 dabify. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I tried, I could find a source to mention this as a synonym for any of the various price differentiation strategies. As far as I can tell this is a common phrase without a particular definition or close relationship to price differentiation (you can target a price at a single goal). Someone else already protested against this redirect a few years back on the talk page of the target article. No article is currently linking to this redirect. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget or Disambig. This is getting 15-30 hits each month, which is well above background noise, so it shouldn't be a red link. Price point is one posisble target, but I think the nominator is right that there isn't a single precise meaning which makes it suited for a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was able to find something more concrete in [1] about "central banks operating targets" one of which can be "Under price targeting, a central bank accommodates any temporary shifts in the demand or supply of monetary base to avoid that the interest rate move away from its targeted level. [...] Under quantity targeting [... something else happens]". So Monetary policy#Types seems a good target (pun intended), where it seems to match "Price Level Targeting". Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I think that whoever created the redirect confused it with targeted pricing, [2] which "as the term is commonly used by practitioners, refers to the practice where a firm tailors its prices of a product to individual customers based on some discernible differences in their preferences, willingness to pay, buying behaviors, etc. [...] On the surface, targeted pricing is nothing new and merely a form of price discrimination." Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

CAT:Novel stub[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, no consensus, delete, and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this were a properly formed shortcut (which it isn't, as they're all in ALL CAPS), do we really need a shortcut to this specific category? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this is getting a lot of hits (up to 30 a month) so there is evidence it is being used and no real reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I understand this comment pertains to the earliest one listed, CAT:Novel stub. That one says "61 in the last 90 days" for me now [3], which calculates to 20/month not 30/month. Apart from a single one-day peak of 20, the long-term average is 15/month. -DePiep (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These still sound like a broken record. There are thousands of "improperly" formed shortcuts, so that's no reason to delete. To answer the nom's question, "really need" is not measurable nor is it a reason to delete. This is a pseudo-namespace shortcut and therefore a major exception to the reasons to delete. It also falls under k5's reason not to delete. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 00:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, especially the two without a prefix. They receive about ~10-15 pageviews per month. In my experience, that WikiProject has not wanted redirects to their stub templates, and I expect they will not want redirects to their stub categories. I would be less opposed if active members of the relevant wikiproject came and indicated they believe this is a useful concept, per notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#Redirects to stub categories. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Hip Hop stubs" and "Scottish people stubs" -- XNR, non-pseudonamespace -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to their eponymous article page (make redirects into mainspace then). Redirect to article trumps any need for R to a maintenance category. Adding: in the first one, "stub" singular is a misnomer and so an uncommon name (we don't cover typos in shortcuts). I would not mind deletion for any of these. DePiep (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting there is one more: CAT:FUS -> Category:Fictional universe stubs. As this discussion is nearing its natural end, I am happy to list this extra redirect separately after the close of this discussion. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Arabic MS-DOS[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. --BDD (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not explained at all in the MS-DOS article. � (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, everything's fine with the redirect.
It isn't discussed in the MS-DOS article at present, but the redirect still makes sense as the MS-DOS article is the most likely article to provide information about these special variants of MS-DOS in the future and that's why we redirect established proper names like "Arabic MS-DOS" (aka ADOS) and "Hebrew MS-DOS" (aka HDOS) to the MS-DOS article. (The redirects also contain #hash links like #ADOS for convenience, in order to make it easier to expand the MS-DOS article in the future.)
Arabic MS-DOS and Hebrew MS-DOS are localized versions of MS-DOS considerably different from Western issues of DOS in order to support the different PC hardware used in these regions (for example, their video cards and printers support multiple switchable hardware codepages, keyboards support additional commands, and system BIOSes provide additional services not implemented in Western BIOSes). These variants of DOS come with many special drivers, TSRs and utilities considerably different or not found at all in Western issues of MS-DOS, they are much more different than different language variants in Western issues of MS-DOS, that's why redirects like "Arabic MS-DOS" and "Hebrew MS-DOS" exist, but we don't have a similar set of redirects for "French MS-DOS", "German MS-DOS", "Italian MS-DOS" etc. (which are basically the same, except for the language of messages).
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirects are there for the benefit of readers, not editors. Anyone searching for this topics should be informed straight away that Wikipedia has no information about it, not sent on a wild goose chase. Siuenti (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The MS-DOS article may well be "the most likely article to provide information about these special variants of MS-DOS in the future", but until it does, we shouldn't be creating redirects for topics we don't have. — Scott • talk 21:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Keep as content now exists. — Scott • talk 11:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this were deleted, the link in the ADOS disambiguation page would turn red. Maybe someone would start an article on the topic. —rybec 01:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage creation of a possible new article.--Lenticel (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have examined these special versions of DOS at a very detailed level years ago I planned to write about them somewhen in the future anyway (when time would allow), but I now felt encouraged enough to add a paragraph about them to the MS-DOS article for a start. See below. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep now that there's content in the target article about it. Since I'm an eventualist, I wish you well in your MS-DOS endeavors.--Lenticel (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No longer necessary now that we have a paragraph on ADOS etc. in the MS-DOS article. See below. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you! Keep now John Vandenberg (chat) 11:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added a paragraph on some of these special localized versions of DOS (ADOS, HDOS, DOS/V, etc.) to the MS-DOS article, so that we now have a proper target for "Arabic MS-DOS" etc. I planned to do this anyway (somewhen in the future) and that's why I originally created these redirects and disambiguation pages in order to built the necessary infrastructure. This paragraph can be expanded over time by people who are familiar with these issues of DOS (including myself). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User talk:Diablorex/purge[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 the IP's solution. The user is indefinitely blocked, so this probably won't matter much, but should he ever return, he can feel free to contact me if he's unhappy with this solution. --BDD (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect from userpage to mainspace. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'keep. Redirects from user subpages to the mainspace are rarely problematic and I see no evidence that these are in any way harmful so there is no benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • These redirects are also in a blocked user's userspace (indeffed since 2010, lost talk page access in 2011). There really is no use for there. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: these are in the User_talk: space for a reason--they contain messages posted to the (blocked) person's talk page (check the histories). Wikipedia doesn't have a policy of deleting pages created by blocked editors before they were blocked, nor of deleting the talk pages of inactive accounts. —rybec 03:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

April 20, 2003[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 13:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't all of these exact date redirects from 2003 and 2004 be deleted so that we can see Wikipedia biographies of people who were born or died on a particular date within that time frame? Hoops gza (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Redirecting individual dates not notable for individual articles is standard practice and the target should list the notable people who died on days in that month. If you want to see a list of everybody who died on a particular day, then you want to investigate either WikiData or some sort of database query for relevant fields in the infobox and/or persondata templates. I confess to not knowing how to do that, but a request at the Wikipedia:Help desk would proablby be enlightening. Thryduulf (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally dont like these redirects, but consensus is to redirect them somewhere rather than delete them, and April 2003 is a decent location. "April 20, 2003" isnt a useful search term but, if someone does want to search on that, it is possible to go to Special:Search and enter "April 20, 2003". The results are full of hits to navigational pages, which are not true hits on all three terms in the query. It is usually easier to browse to April 20 and look for '2003' in the page text. There may be a better solution for full date redirects, but I think it would need to be considered as an RFC. So, keep the status quo, unless the nominator can describe a use case that significantly benefits from this redirect being deleted. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried searching for the date as a phrase, but the search page didn't work correctly for me; I've posted about it at [4]. Searching for April 20, 2003 without quotes, I found articles that weren't mentioned in the April 2003 article--along with lots of spurious results, of course. Currently, this redirect takes people to an incomplete article about the topic they searched for. If the redirect is deleted, they'll just see an entry from the deletion log. Deletion seems unhelpful, so it would be better to keep this redirect. If this nomination is intended to encompass other redirects for specific dates, such as all of the ones for 2003 and 2004 (why those years?) it would be best to seek wider participation, perhaps with an RFC. —rybec 02:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

AF-2[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 disambiguate. WJBscribe (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion - it makes no sense as to why this should be redirected to Furylfuramide. Letsbefiends (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. 5 seconds with Google shows that Furylfuramide is also known as AF-2. (Why? Don't ask me, I'm not a chemist.) I've expanded the article to reflect that. — Scott • talk 21:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate I'll add a sample dab underneath the redirect. There are many uses for AF-2, and its variants on Wikipedia already. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per anon. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per anon. --Lenticel (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Love & Girls, Linguafranc[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. WJBscribe (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same arguments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 17#Love & Girls (Linguafranc). It is misleading, and naturally implies a song called "Love & Girls, Linguafranc" Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - anyone who searches for that term is clearly looking for the single, so we should send them to what they're looking for. The idea that a redirect implies anything is entirely unsupported, and flatly false. WilyD 11:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Why would anyone search for that term? If they're looking for the song "Love & Girls" they would type in that and similarly with "Linguafranc" Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, perhaps they heard the whole single played, but can't remember it's title, so they take that guess. If they're not that familiar with music singles (i.e., they were born sometime after 1970), they might not be familiar with how singles are titled, and take this reasonable guess. It's dancy pop-songs, so perhaps alcohol is involved, which is likely to make recollections fuzzy.
But that's entirely the wrong question anyways. Start with the premise that someone has already typed in Love & Girls, Linguafranc, because those are the only people who are ever going to encounter this redirect. Are they a) looking for information about the single, or b) not looking for information about the single? Given that answer, should we a) direct them to the relevant information? or b) stick our middle finger in their face and say "Tough shit, you didn't guess correctly what we titled the article, so you get nothing!" ? WilyD 16:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the only person who typed it in is the creator. If a reader is searching for the single it is most likely they will type in the actual name (Love & Girls) and not "<song>, <othersong>". Regardless, if they type it in anyways they would still be shown the desired article near the top of the search results. (case in point: A search for "Girlfriend, Alone"). I am really failing to see the logic behind this weird redirect. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The stats say other people have used the redirect. Anyone who types in this term is looking for the page they're being sent to. That they might otherwise manage to stumble across it is not reason for us to be unhelpful, spiteful dicks to them. WilyD 09:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about these stats? Because it seems more like those 60 views is the result of people who visit the redirect after engaging in/watching the related discussion(s). I doubt it's from any uninvolved readers. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Not my exhaustive argument.)
NB: The creator (myself) not directly informed of discussion (I happened to get here via Special:Watchlist).   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: You really don't think so? There are plenty of songs out there titled with a comma inbetween. A reader would not type in [[<song name>, <other song name>]] to get where they want. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No special "song" problem: To be more precise – I see no special "song" problem, whist any general "things with commas in" problem is unlikely and, if such should occur, well handled by long-standing WP mechanisms – <! (This comment is ironic.)>Meanwhile, if such were an issue, the sky would've fallen long ago, Cassandra! </! (This comment is ironic.)>
I reserve comment on what I'm not thinking, real or otherwise. If you're suggesting that I may be lying, please bring evidence. If you've speaking in double-bound irony, I suggest positive/definite phasing is better for consensus and likely to appear less antagonistic.
Happy new inter-solstice.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. Nobody is accusing you of lying, not everyone is saying you're right either. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let them search for the band name or the song. Not difficult. — Scott • talk 17:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Requiring them to correct guess what they ought to search for is a hostile treatment of readers on our part with no encyclopaedic benefit. Why would we want to do that? WilyD 19:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suppose readers search for when they look for this song? If they know the title, wouldn't they just search for that? What makes you think they would search for "<songtitle>, <othersongtitle>". Anyways, wikipedia has a search function for this; does it really make sense to make a redirect for every possible search term out there?? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this wasn't created to aid searches. Instead, the creator wanted to use it in articles. The intention was that an article could contain two links to this redirect, one piped to read "Love & Girls" and the other piped to read "Linguafranc". When a reader followed one link, the other would be coloured as visited. However, the editor who opened this discussion opposes [5] such usage. —rybec 18:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Rybec: Thanks! That's a decent summary, alluding to much of my unstated counter-rationale, which seemed redundant given the weakness of the proposer's seemingly imaginary rationale.
The more germane element of your point might be that the Love & Girls, Linguafranc redirect is not currently well suited to such a discussion, it being at the nub of a content dispute involving two pages locked by Only: Love & Girls and Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album). If an administrator – or other sufficiently qualified uninvolved editor – should come along, agree and call a rain check on this, I hope it's been more interesting than <! (This comment is ironic.)>sudoku </! (This comment is ironic.)> for all participants.
Happy new inter-solstice! (Hemispherically unbigoted seasonal greetings Я us! ;)   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Searchability is not the sole justification of redirects in WP and if there's an aim to engender a one-to-one relationship between search-terms and search results, please elaborate on it.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

C:WRONG[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing statement: Of the 3 editors who expressed a clear preference for a particular course of action, two supported the nominator's proposal to delete. If all arguments are well-founded in policy, then that 3:1 majority amounts to a rough consensus to delete. However, WP:NOTVOTE, and the closing admin's role is to review which of the arguments are more solidly founded in policy, which could lead to a different weighting of the !votes.
Both sides pointed to WP:SHORTCUT, a guideline which has been revised several times recently. In the previously stable version, the "C:" prefix is in a list of prefixes described as "less commonly used", while in the current revision that list is described as those which "do not enjoy broad community support". This contrasts with a list of prefixes described in the current version as "may be used freely" and in the stable version as "commonly used". A wider discussion is underway in various locatons about how to view the less commonly used prefixes, and until that is resolved it better to accept the stable version as reflecting a more durable consensus. (Consenus can change, but in this case it is not clear whether there is now a broad consensus for something closer to deprecation of the "C:" prefix).
However, it is clear from even the less-strongly worded stable version of the guideline that the "C:" prefix is less widely used. That leaves editors with some discretion about how to assess particular uses of it.
Given that discretion, another principle was offered, from WP:RFD#KEEP, where point 4 notes the merits of not breaking links, and point 5 suggest keeping them if they are useful. In addition, WP:RFD#DELETE point 6 offers an exception to the general principle of deleting CNRs: "The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects". The linked Wikipedia:Pseudo-namespace has been revised many times in the last 6 weeks, but the version of 12:44, 22 November 2013 appears to represent a stable wording of this section. Its list of pseudo-namespaces does not include the "C:"prefix". So I judge that redirects using the "C:" prefix are not covered by WP:RFD#DELETE#6, and that editors have discretion to weigh the harm caused by breaking links versus the harm which they may (or may not) consider caused by the use of such a namespace prefix.
This is supported by John Vandenberg's examples of previous RFDs which have deleted redirects using the "C:" prefix: 1, 2, 3, 4.
This redirect was less than 4 weeks old when nominated, and has not been widely used, so arguments about the harm caused by its deletion carry little weight. I therefore see no policy-based reason to attach different weights to the 4 !votes, and since only the redirect's creator expressed an explicit preference to keep the redirect, I weigh that as a consensus to delete.
Note that future discussions of other "C:" CNRs may reach different conclusions about the balance between harm done by deletion, versus a desire to move to standardisation of prefixes. Other cases should weighed on their own merits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate recent creation of a 'C:' WP:PNR to a bizarrely infrequently needed maintenance category, consisting of pages that are WP:CNR, that are incorrectly categorised. Per the editing guideline Wikipedia:Shortcut, 'CAT:' is the "commonly used" shortcut prefix for Category pages. 'C:' redirects that were created before 'CAT:' became canonical are kept for historical reasons. The creator mentioned this PNR at the policy review happening at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC:_On_the_controversy_of_the_pseudo-namespace_shortcuts where the creator says "C:WRONG has already been used on talk pages in several situations because it is short, descriptive and much shorter than its target." In fact, those talk posts are all by the creator, except for one by User:Nick_Levinson at Template_talk:R_template_index about the creator using C:WRONG in edit summaries.
I add that "WRONG" in Wikimedia parlance is typically used to refer to "wrong version"/"pages locked during edit wars" see WP:WRONG. I would expect CAT:WRONG be used in a way that matches the existing usage, such as Category:Wikipedia pages protected due to dispute. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yes, this is a recent creation of a PNR, yet it is not inappropriate since PNRs may be "used freely". Your characterization of "bizarrely infrequently needed maintenance category" is inappropriate because you didn't see that cat just a few weeks ago before I cleared it. It is needed every time a contributor miscats a redirect, which has been quite frequently, here lately. Back to C-colons – this is a valid PNR that, for the most part, is used in the same manner as CAT-colon shortcuts. Longstanding community consensus allows these to be used freely by contributors, and I find this shortcut to be very useful. If you don't use these shortcuts, then you cannot have a realistic grasp of their usefulness, their harmlessness and just how helpful they can be. Not one item at WP:RFD#DELETE has been cited by the nom, nor do any of those apply except for d6, which says that PNRs are a "major exception". In addition, k5 at WP:RFD#KEEP applies to this nomination, as well as the final sentence of WP:RFD#HARMFUL. So it appears that the nom has not fulfilled the requirement to cite valid reasons for deletion. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
used freely is a quote from an essay, not a guideline. About time PE starts using this knowledge.
C: is not a name for a namespace in any way.
Harmful it is, because if breaks namespace naming and user expectation (both before and after the column). Polluting mainspace.
d6 does not imply a free pass to create a fantasy name outside of common naming. -DePiep (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
used freely is a quote from an essay, not a guideline.
In an effort to start "using this knowledge", let me gently remind you, DePiep, that some essays are similar to policies and guidelines because they are essays about community consensus, like the one found at WP:CNR. Longstanding community consensus should never be brushed off as if it does not exist, whether it's found in a policy, a guideline, an essay or on the talk page of any Wikipedia page. Consensus may be changed over time, but it takes more than an editor's disregard for it to change it!
C: is not a name for a namespace in any way.
Nobody here has said otherwise – that's why it's called a "pseudo-namespace", which is a valid, useful and harmless prefix that is protected by longstanding community consensus.
Harmful it is, because if breaks namespace naming and user expectation (both before and after the column). Polluting mainspace.
We shall have to agree to disagree on this, DePiep. These PNRs do not "break" anything; there are plenty of articles that also begin with one or more letters and colons. Nor is any reader's expectation broken, since if they click on a C-colon shortcut link, they have found it in context, which would explain to them that when they click the link, they will land on a category page. No harm – no foul. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 12:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can quote yourself endlessly, but the essay is not a guideline nor a conclusion of a "consensus". -DePiep (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Shortcut does list C: among the "less commonly used" pseudo-namespaces. —rybec 18:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a lot of weird text has creeped in those pages. Actually, it says "is useed as", not "is defined as" nor "is". Also note the redcutionary text that is with it. DePiep (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it says "is useed as", not "is defined as" nor "is".
Thank you, DePiep! You have just established that C-colon shortcuts are "useful"! (is used as) – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 13:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What? The text "is used as" doesn't exist in either Wikipedia:Shortcut or Wikipedia:Namespace. Also, even if it was, DePiep established no such thing. As Rybec points out, the only place C: is mentioned at all is in the former, where it's exceedingly briefly described as one of several pseudo-namespaces that are "less commonly used. for a variety of reasons". That's so vague that I wouldn't rate it as a guideline at all. It was added by RockMFR with the stipulation of being deprecated in April 2007, which he/she revised in August 2007 to the current text. Those comments were based on his/her observations of RfDs. It's years overdue that the situation with regards to the existence of C: redirects at all was reviewed with further RfDs. So far, I'm not seeing any support for this one bar your attempts to interpret policies and guidelines to support "I like it" arguments. — Scott • talk 14:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re Paine Ellsworth: I point to the text that says "is used" not "is defined". So nothing about being "usefull" can be concluded from my statements nor from the quotes from WP-pages. (See below for actual wording, which is not relevant in this point).
Also I note, Paine Ellsworth, that your dismissive, paternalising attitude is not helpful for your argumenting.
Re Scott. Huh? I respondeded to Rybec, who quoted & concluded from WP:SHORTCUT. The page does say:
The following pseudo-namespaces are less commonly used, for a variety of reasons:
C: Category:
I stated that it is incorrect to say "pseudo-namespace .. C:", because C: is not defined as a pseudo-namespace anywhere. I also stated that the verb in the text is "to use", not "to define" nor "to be". Simply, that "use"-age is not a guideline or anything such; it is a statement that does not prove rightfullness. So the page introduced by Rybec does not support their statement on two points.
I am not sure If I get the whole of Scott Martin's reasoning (some contradiction I missed? My not-exact quotes are confusing?). My point is, "C:" is not pseudo-namespace, and Rybec has not shown otherwise. -DePiep (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cahnged the wording in WP:SHORTCUT to accord facts [6]. -DePiep (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's some confusion here, but we're actually in agreement! I thought that you were making an exact quote, but that was a misunderstanding on my part. Paine was claiming that you had shown C: is "useful", and I said that you had not done that. My comments were very similar to yours that "use"-age is not a guideline or anything such; it is a statement that does not prove rightfullness. — Scott • talk 16:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, fellows, please forgive my leg pull above ("used" of course does not always translate to "useful"). DePiep, I sincerely do not mean to sound dismissive or paternalistic. We are all volunteer contributors here and we all deserve some AGF here. I think we're all after the same thing, which is to improve this encyclopedia. So it's all right if we disagree on some issues. As long as we keep talking, there is nothing that can't be resolved. Editing Wikipedia should be a fun and rewarding experience. The fact that I find this shortcut useful and you don't see any use for it is an issue that we can discuss and resolve, I'm sure of it! Also, since there is ongoing discussion at the Village pump, it is best if any and all controversial changes await the outcome of that discussion. So your edit here has been returned to status quo until that discussion ends and the consensus is either upheld or changed. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 01:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mean to sound like it, then don't do it. -DePiep (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever your revert means (see its talkpage; you did not provide any backup for your claims), it does not change the fact that C: is not a pseudo-namespace. -DePiep (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Revert in question means that things should not be changed in the middle of a discussion. The C: is a pseudo-namespace until the community says it is not a pseudo-namespace. These are just facts, DePiep, these are not me trying to sound "like it". Your opinion is just as important as anyone else's, including mine. However, only the consensus of the community can change a longstanding community consensus. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 14:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where is defined that C: is a pseudo-namespace? -DePiep (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in our talk page discussion, as well as in the Village pump discussion, the developers in their Bugzilla bug reports refer to all redirects that begin with one or more letters and a colon as a "pseudo-namespace", except of course for WP: and WT: shortcuts. Wikipedia volunteer contributors have followed the developers' lead. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 23:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would like to note that I have used this shortcut a lot in edit summaries. A typical edit summary goes "rm inappropriate Rcat to depopulate C:WRONG". So if this shortcut is deleted, there will be a lot of edit summaries with red links in them. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 05:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If deleted, someone looking at your edit summary will find the deletion log, which will point them to this RfD page, after which they will know what you were depopulating. "rm inappropriate Rcat" should be sufficient for most people, as WP:RCAT has documentation about what are the appropriate Rcats, and there is a talk page for them to ask any questions they may have if they dont want to ask you directly on your talk page. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a lot of work to put editors through, especially new editors, but if you think that's right, okay then. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 06:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ...And this is exactly why polluting the record with stuff that you made up just to save yourself a few keystrokes is a bad idea. Editors will benefit far more in the long term from general adherence to established protocols. Claiming "new editors" as being some kind of victim here is, frankly, egotistical. — Scott • talk 11:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Causing redlinks in editsummaries (or talkpages and talkpage archives) rarely is a reason not to delete, arguments PE mentions included. New editors (are following editsummaries with code-named shortcuts, really?) see what it is: a bad pagename. -DePiep (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - if anything, the deletion of this malformed shortcut will serve as an education to new editors. And yes, that is perilously close to being a fait accompli argument. I will assume good faith and not imagine that Paine has deliberately seeded edit summaries with this shortcut in the hopes of assuring its preservation. — Scott • talk 13:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Link rot is a Bad Thing. That's why we leave redirects behind when we move pages, and why we need to have a good reason to delete things. Leaving redlinks as a lesson to people not to use links some people in the future don't like is one of the least convincing arguments for deletion I've seen - not only will it not work (there is no way anybody can know), but it goes against good practice guides everywhere. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the patronizing lecture, buddy! In future, to avoid link rot, don't create garbage links in places that can't be fixed. — Scott • talk 19:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) And what "garbage links" would those be? Certainly it isn't the one under discussion here (neither garbage nor created by me). As for "can't be fixed", I take you are proposing to prohibit links in edit summaries, ban mirrors, stop people bookmarking Wikipedia pages, and wipe their memory? Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Garbage such as "C:WRONG", obviously. And no, of course I'm not. I suggest you try reading what I wrote again. I think I'll quit replying to you now as your signal level is dropping rapidly. — Scott • talk 20:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
re Thryduulf: still, not a reason to Keep, as you know. This is not your first XfD. Also, I note that you try to pull this argument some general discussion. If you want to take the "Delete" out of XfD, this is not the place. -DePiep (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? I am all for deleting things that should be deleted, as you will see from the many things I have !voted to delete and nominated for deletion. I just feel that the encyclopaedia is best served when we don't delete things there is no benefit in deleting, such as this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • C:omment. You can't see my face but I'm smilin', my fellow volunteer editors. I've been called many things, and I must say I am getting a little tired of the obvious personal attacks against me. You, Scott and DePiep, make it so very hard to AGF anymore. What you must realize is that the discussion at the pump is not over, and the existing status quo remains in place at least until that discussion has ended – perhaps (I do hope) for much longer. What that means is that this shortcut is still under the protections of the guidelines. And what that means is that it is a useful, harmless pseudo-namespace shortcut and I use it freely and often. And I sincerely hope that I can continue its use long after this RFD chat is over. And you can take those wonderful personal attacks and shove them "you know where"! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If only you could link to those "guidelines". And cut out smearing accusations about AGF. -DePiep (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines reflect general practice, which is codified in discussions such as this one. No general practice is on display with this malformed shortcut. The only support for it comes from Paine Ellsworth, who also happened to create it and uses it for himself, and who has so far failed to advance any arguments beyond misrepresentations of process, appeals of utility to imaginary editors, and "I like it". — Scott • talk 13:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Enirco Cerulli[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. --BDD (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created after the creator user:Paine Ellsworth fixed a spelling mistake on the Harar article. This is not a common misspelling. The only google results for this misspelling are mirrors of the spelling mistake on Wikipedia. See google:"Enirco Cerulli" - 9 hits, all copies of Wikipedia article Harar, which for the "article.wn.com" pages is merely SEO junk inserted to boost pageviews. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If this was wrong, then I've been doing it wrong for years. I find a misspelled link in an article, and I figure if someone misspelled it as a link, then the typo is a valid Wikipedia search term, as well. You do what you think best, John. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 01:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be helpful if you justified this specific redirect, responding to the rationale for its nomination. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's odd. I thought that I had justified it when I specifically wrote valid  W i k i p e d i a  search term, John. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible misspelling. Paine Ellsworth had no hand in the creation of {{Berlusconi II Cabinet}}, yet that template contained the misspelling "Enirco" [7]. A search of the Web for "Enirco" turns up many instances where "Enrico" was obviously intended, and even an Internet domain, enirco.com. —rybec 05:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a plausible typo, with no rationale for deletion. WilyD 08:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - good faith nomination. However, this is a plausible typo. Middayexpress (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible misspelling. --Lenticel (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

7.0.2[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 702 (disambiguation). Anybody is free to add the missing entries. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 13:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many software packages with a version of 7.0.2; it is also used in document numbering schemes. In short, typing this into search should go to the search results, or an extensive and likely unmaintainable dab page, but not to one product. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. You appear to be all over me today, John. I created this redirect as the result of a discussion about the metadata of an image file, which resulted in T57977. I made it to fix a red link in another image file's metadata and with full knowledge of the liklihood that it would probably have to be disambiguated at some point like I did with 6.0. I just haven't gotten around to it, yet. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 01:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or disambiguate: this is unlikely as a search term. The nominator has a point in that this scheme of version numbering, with more than one ".", is not used exclusively by Apple. Hence I would tend not to search for just "7.0.2" by itself (with which this redirect interferes) but would instead search for something more specific such as "Lotus 7.0.2".
  • On the page with the 777F photo, if one scrolls down to the end and clicks "Show extended details" (or views the page with Javascript disabled), the 7.0.2 link is visible.
  • A search of the articles for "7.0.2 software" turns up 24 pages [8] and a search for "7.0.2 version" turns up 28 [9], including many of the same pages as in the first results. If there are around 35 to 50 unique items, that's longer than many disambuguation pages, but it isn't unworkable. Must a disambiguation page track the latest version of a software package? —rybec 05:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to an existing dab page or make it into a dab page. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • REtarget to 702 (disambiguation) and add 7.0.2 variations there -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 702 (disambiguation) - the current target isn't good, but the DAB is clearly logical. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Unused XNRs and PNRs[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 no consensus. WJBscribe (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These cross-namespace redirects (XNRs; Wikipedia: → Category:) and pseudo-namespace redirects (PNRs; CAT: → Category:) are leftovers from an RfD in January 2007. In that extremely poorly-attended discussion (only three users participated), weak support was given to retaining these particular redirects out of a list of many others on the basis that they could possibly be useful. Well, that was seven years ago, and since then they've failed to gain a single incoming link between them. So the hypothesis of some use being served in keeping them has been shown to be incorrect. — Scott • talk 14:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is no way to gauge the usefulness by using the What links here page, hence the caution in bold in the lead: "Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as the only reason to delete a redirect." And they are not just "XNRs", they are also pseudo-namespace shortcuts, which are a major exception to the deletion of XNRs. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 23:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These have been around for seven years; if people were using them for navigational purposes, those same people might be expected to have used them in discussions, too. That it hasn't happened doesn't prove they're unused, but it's an indication.

I can't see deleted contributions, but from Special:Contributions/Ciswvb it looks like someone made an account, created these, then abandoned the account. I've left a note on Ciswvb's talk page.

If someone shows up and writes "I use these" that would be enough reason to keep them. Otherwise, why? —rybec 01:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • What evidence do you have for your statement that people would necessarily comment about redirects they use for navigation? I've been using T:AC for months but don't recall ever had reason to talk about it. Anyway, strong keep the redirects in Wikipedia: space as blatantly obviously harmless, and keep the others in the abscence of any evidence of harm. Thryduulf (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that people would necessarily comment, but given that--unlike T:AC--these have been tagged with {{Rfd/core}}, people who use them for navigation will not be taken to their intended page, but will instead see a big red banner informing them about this discussion, warning that the redirect may be deleted, and requesting "please share your thoughts on the matter".
According to stats.grok.se, CAT:PAV and Wikipedia:PAV each got around 75 requests in the last 90 days, with less than half as many requests for the others. It shows zero hits for WP:PAV. If people were using these for navigation, I'd expect to see WP:PAV in use, not just Wikipedia:PAV. —rybec 02:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP is a namespace alias for Wikipedia and so WP:PAV and Wikipedia:PAV are exactly the same page, it is not possible to delete one and not the other. People seeing the RfD notice requires them to use the redirect while the notice is up there, for lightly user redirects this is not guaranteed and not everybody seeing the notice will choose to comment. Thryduulf (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion from years ago to tag the target, proposed at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Notifying current targets, seems to be useful for these redirects. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP is indeed a namespace alias for Wikipedia, but the traffic logs and stats.grok.se distinguish between the two. When using shortcuts for navigation, I personally prefer to type "WP" rather than "Wikipedia". I thought that that preference was not an unusual one, but I see now that WP:CSD only had 453 requests as against ~23,500 for Wikipedia:CSD. The 0 hits for "WP:PAV" [10] may not be as indicative as I had assumed: if the same ratio holds as for WP:CSD vs. Wikipedia:CSD, only 1 in 52 requests is for the shorter form. With only 76 requests for the long form, 0 for the short form is consistent with that.
It's true that "not everybody seeing the notice will choose to comment", but if interrupting their browsing with a big red notice, warning of deletion, and inviting them to comment turns out to not be enough to induce people to comment, it would be reasonable to conclude that they don't care--especially for redirects like these, which would be used more by people who edit the site rather than only reading it. —rybec 09:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rybec, pardon the belated response, but I've taken a look at the creator's deleted contributions. I can confirm that all of them are the creation of Wikipedia:, WP:, CAT:, and C: redirects to categories, making this probably the strangest WP:SPA I've ever seen. --BDD (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why do you say they're unused? Did you use grok.se to check for hits? (usage =/= wikilinks) -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the 'PAV' redirects (especially CAT:) are harmless enough and are sufficiently used to justify being kept, unless there is a more appropriate target for them. Delete the PPAWMPA redirects; that is not an intuitive shortcut. PMP and PMPI are not receiving a lot of pageviews. IMO CAT:PROT, CAT:MP, CAT:IMG are better ways to find those targets, and any subcats should start with those prefixes to improve learnability. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If all of these are deleted, then the target pages may be without shortcuts. At least, no other shortcuts are documented on the pages and I didn't notice any others when I took a quick look at their "what links here" lists. —rybec 09:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete only the Wikipedia: ones, and unbundle the rest. While PNRs are technically CNRs, it's disingenuous to lump these all together as CNRs. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Assume some good faith, please. Title and description modified accordingly. — Scott • talk 18:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No bad faith accusation intended, though perhaps I could've used a less strong word. You're probably aware that *NRs have been a hot-button issue recently, so this was partially an expression of frustration with how these discussions have gone. --BDD (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to highlight that since some users, like me, have different opinions on CNRs and PNRs, I don't believe it's particularly helpful to discuss them as a bundle. --BDD (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_3&oldid=1142587366"