Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 28

February 28

You know you're a Vancouverite when → User:Mkdw/Vancouverite

WP:Vancouverite should be considered as well. Mainspace redirects should never redirect to a user page, especially an unencyclopedic one. — Selmo ^(talk) 22:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Inappropriate use of a cross namespace redirect. —Dgies^t c 22:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Attempt to suborn Wikipedia for own use. Sam Blacketer 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete blatant violation of WP:REDIRECT. John Reaves (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, very unwarranted cross name space redirects. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?

Quite argumentative and somewhat uncivil, this redirect has become somewhat popular in deletion debates over the last month or so. Perhaps rather than just deleting this, a solution of the same type as was applied to WP:VAIN is in order, but I don't think it should remain in place as-is. Dekimasuよ! 11:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I failed to note (and initially notice) that this is the second nomination for the shortcut. Per the suggestion of that nominator, I have created WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and I will replace the shortcut text on the page in question. Hopefully that will hold up. Previous deletion debate ended as no consensus. Dekimasuよ! 12:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is rather WP:BITEy. Concur with deletion. >Radiant< 11:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not think anyone would be seriously offended by this redirect, and it takes them to a page where this form of argument is discussed respectfully and there is an explanation of why it does not carry much weight in deletion discussions. It is unlike WP:VAIN, which makes a direct accusation of a character flaw (vanity) in the person it is directed at. Sam Blacketer 12:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Inherent in citing this redirect is "I think that the nominated article is crap," and the citation is given in reply to someone else's keep vote. That sounds unnecessarily hostile to me. WP:POKEMON isn't an offensive shortcut. This can have a better one, too. Dekimasuよ! 12:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do accept that, but it's not necessarily targeted at a contributor. While we are discussing offensive redirects, what about WP:BOLLOCKS? That is a very offensive term in Britain, and I'm guessing it only survives because it's much less known in the USA. Unfortunately I seem to have drifted into a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS form of argument myself! Sam Blacketer 12:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that WP:VAIN has been moved to WP:COI for precisely this reason. Personally, I'd be offended that someone called an article I'd worked hard on crap, especially when, as it is with so many of our deletion discussions, it's a topic where the author cares a lot about it. William Pietri 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I know this is itself a sort of OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, which is ironic - but, what about WP:DICK. That one is even inherently intended to be targeted at another contributor directly, rather than simply as a description of their argument. --Random832 13:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DICK itself was deleted via a Vfd debate and doesn't exist on the Wiki. It's now a soft redirect rather than a real one. If this is turned into a soft redirect I won't mind it so much (see comment on WP:VAIN above); that will discourage its use. I would appreciate it if we stopped talking about other painful redirects here. This one is not well-established and is a good candidate for bud-nipping. Dekimasuよ! 13:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedians may not be really offended but its a redirect we can do without. Tellyaddict 16:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and block nominator for disrupting Wikipedia, this has already survived a deletion discussion very recently. Nardman1 17:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator apparently made a mistake, and has apologized. This being a discussion, did you have an argument for keeping the redirect? Thanks, William Pietri 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I don't think it's appropriate to re-nominate it so soon after the other discussion. Nardman1 21:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it makes sense and I like a little humor here and there, the intended use of this is in deletion debates, where it will unnecessarily encourage conflict. —Dgies^t c 17:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deletion discussions are plenty contentious already. There's absolutely no need to make it easy to violate, intentionally or accidentally, core policy WP:CIVIL. I'm also ok with a move to anything that doesn't denigrate the article in question. William Pietri 19:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotes needless incivility. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as nominator the previous time, my argumentation can be found there. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CIVIL is a policy. Referencing the contributions of thousands of editors as "CRAP" (given how frequently the redirect is used in AfD, yes it is applied to the edits of thousands of individuals, if not more) is hardly civil by any standard. If the issue is to have a redirect to WP:AADD#What about article x?, something like WP:OAE (standing for "Other Articles Exist") or WP:WAX (standing for "What About X") serve equally well and I would say better as they are much shorter. -- Black Falcon 23:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:BETTERMORECIVILREDIRECTNAMESAREOUTTHERE (→Netscott) 00:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We just closed this not more than what, a week ago? I still don't see how this redirect is harmful. --- RockMFR 04:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is harmful because people, especially those new to Wikipedia, might get the notion that we are calling their contribution or the subject of the article crap. Looking through recent uses of it, I note three negative reactions: [1] [2] [3] And I see it used a fair bit in discussions with the afdnewbies tag, which means that people who are most likely to misunderstand it are the ones seeing it. William Pietri 04:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ME:A, ME:S, Me:A, Me:S and Me:T

All redirect to various subpages of the Middle Earth Wikiproject. Non-standard prefix, I'm not sure if this is such a good idea. >Radiant< 09:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecesary cross-namespace redirects. Dekimasuよ! 11:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not useful. Sam Blacketer 12:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They can easily be replaced with something more standard. Gavia immer 15:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't want to set a precedence. John Reaves (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Radiant, it is a non standard prefix, not relevant.Tellyaddict 16:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cross-namespace should be used with care. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was just about to nom these for the same reason. --- RockMFR 04:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thusday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday → List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force villains

Result of a new article with a misspelled name (Thusday instead of Thursday), which was moved to the correct spelling, and now has moved to a new article. I doubt that anyone will ever stumble upon this redirect. No incoming links. :: Zachary Hauri ^{(T C E)} 05:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If some one actually bothers typing this out, there's a good chance a typo will be made. John Reaves (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone actually bothers typing this out, there's a poor chance they will make exactly this typo. 08:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete No one is going to type that exact string again. — Randall Bart 08:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely pointless. It's highly unlikely that someone would even bother to type this out. Pea ceNT 10:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no knowledge the comic/TV programme or whatever but of what I can see is that the days of the week being typed in is not relevant to the article.Tellyaddict 16:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is relevant as the name, when correctly spelled, was a nickname for a villain group in one episode. But anyone going to the trouble to type this will either spell Thursday correctly or make other typos as well. —Dgies^t c 17:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the typo arguments. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matcha → Maccha

The result of the debate was Withdrawn John Reaves (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been requested Maccha be moved to Matcha. Discussion on the Maccha talk page is in favour of the move. However, Matcha is a redirect (to Maccha) with a non-trivial history ... or, more precisely an almost trivial history: two edits. To allow for the page to be moved I request Matcha be deleted. J i m p 05:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This will be taken care of by the admin that does the requested move. I suggest this request be withdrawn. John Reaves (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could be a common spelling error, definitely should keep.Tellyaddict 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be kept once the move is complete, there isn't really a need for this rfd, the moving admin will delete the page to make way for the move. John Reaves (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I withdraw it. Note: I wouldn't suggest that Maccha be deleted once moved to Matcha. J i m p 19:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weiman republic → Germany

Obviously a misspelling of "Weimar". No links. No reason someone would be looking for this. — Randall Bart 08:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Plausible typo? —Dgies^t c 08:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Impossible to fat finger. People misread r as n all the time, but with a space after? I don't know the policy on redirects for misreadings. Is there a way to know how often this redirect gets hit? — Randall Bart 08:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I can tell, there are no tools to detect page views. John Reaves (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weimar Republic. I think it's common for people to use a name that "sounds" German when they can't remember the actual title. John Reaves (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per John Reaves, plausible redirect. The general policy seems to be 'don't go out of your way to create typo redirects, but don't delete the plausible ones, either'. -- nae'blis 15:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a plausible misspelling. --- RockMFR 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, might be a plausible mistake, and it certainly does not harm (which, contrary to AfD, is an argument for keeping redirects). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Degenerate → Ellen Degeneres

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G10 and then salted by NYC JD. —Dgies^t c 18:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Derogatory redirect. Has been deleted before – so please block page recreation too. TexasWalkerRanger 11:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as attack page and add salt. Dekimasuよ! 12:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insulting and inflammatory. --Ozgod 12:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete (or retarget to Rush Limbaugh, I've heard him call her that.) --Random832 13:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. John Reaves (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insulting as mentioned by other users above.Tellyaddict 16:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rename a page → Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page

Cross-namespace redirect, no incoming wikilinks (although there's an incoming external link to it on the Help Desk at the moment, which is how I noticed), not as helpful as many XNRs are. --ais523 16:23, 28 February 2007 (U T C)

Keep I have to be honest, when I joined here months ago I found the navigatino to be really bad and I had to bookmark everything and some things (but not as many) I still have bookmarked now just for easiness, it would be easier for newcomers if this was kept.Tellyaddict 16:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's intentional. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; and when searching for things in an encyclopedia, people shouldn't inadvertently come across things that aren't part of the encyclopedia, but notes on how to help make it. The real problem here is that the method for getting the search box to search properly for Wikipedia-space pages is unclear (you have to search, then click 'Wikipedia' and 'Help' (in this case) at the bottom of the screen, then click Search again); but surely it's better for people to only come across the help and process pages if they want them, not when they're just searching for an article? --ais523 17:24, 28 February 2007 (U T C)
Delete, cross name space. Should be used with care. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I frequently have no idea how to do something, and will type something like "image tags" into the search box (which is another cross-namespace redirect) Nardman1 02:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the comment above about searching. John Reaves (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unlikely search for people looking for encyclopedia information, and the resulting page is sufficiently explanatory not to confuse anyone. Nardman1 02:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, it's highly unlikely that anyone typing this into the search box is looking for encyclopedic information. There are a ton of these, by the way: speedy deletion, BJAODN, npov, speedy keep, arbcom, user talk, blocking policy, CHECKUSER, etc. Perhaps this is an area where we should clafify policy -- Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects is marked as inactive and kept for historical interest. That would be better than having individual RFD discussions on each one. Dave6^talk 04:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk shortcuts

Similar to items previously considered here, these are shortcuts to wikipedia talk pages using nonstandard forms, rather than WT:. None is heavily used, and all have well-formed alternative shortcuts now. They should be deprecated in favor of the standard shortcut form. Gavia immer 16:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete assuming they all have WT: versions of themselves. John Reaves (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially cross-name space redirects. Should be used with care. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]