This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 24, 2010
Wikipedia:INDECISION2010
[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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasKept. --JLaTondre (talk)15:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect appears to be a form of commentary on the nature or outcome of the elections.Tijfo098 (talk)21:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There's alsoWP:INDECISION2009, by a different humorist.Jafeluv (talk)09:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's a play on a bit that they did on the Daily Show during the US election. -DJSasso (talk)12:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's funny-ish, but ... meh. At least end use inWikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Header. --Black Falcon(talk)17:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Why not?/ƒETCHCOMMS/01:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As Fetch I am not seeing why this should be deleted. →GƒoleyFour(GSV)04:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The short form is displayed at the top of the page, and while voting is ongoing, the short form may be used to get to the ARBCOM election page. Needs to be kept as we're right in the middle of this. Next year, can decide whether or not to use this particular term again.Saebvn (talk)16:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I was actually trying to use this redirect, as it is the only one of the redirects to the ArbCom elections that I can actually remember (because I find it funny). What's the harm in keeping it?Jenks24 (talk)05:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Jenks. It's effective because it's funny, and does not constitute biased or inappropriate commentary on the elections. --Lear'sFool08:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.Veil of ignorance (disambiguation)
[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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasDeleted. --JLaTondre (talk)17:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The target is not a dab page.Jafeluv (talk)17:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.- 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasspeedy closed as wrong forum. The procedure inWP:RM should be followed; perhaps simply tagging {{db-move}}. NAC.Bridgeplayer (talk)18:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion. The name of the sportsperson is "Bajrang Lal Takhar" and not "Bajranglal Takhar" (185000+ google hits for the former and 3000 hits for the latter). So, the current article should be moved from "Bajranglal Takhar" to "Bajrang Lal Takhar." However, this cannot be done till such time that the existing redirect at "Bajrang Lal Takhar" is deleted. Hence, I propose deletion.Gurubrahma (talk)14:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.- 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasDeleted. There are at least 3 other Brendan Gallagher's mentioned in Wikipedia articles. None of which currently seem notable enough for articles so a dab page is not appropriate. Redirecting to this target is also not appropriate as our users may not be looking for the hockey player. This is a case where the search function is better than a redirect. --JLaTondre (talk)16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see Gallagher's article deleted at this point as I don't see it as useful at this point. The author of the article want it to remain, citing point 2, 3, 4 and 5 atWP:REDIRECT#KEEP. I don't see enough information about Gallagher to warrant an article or redirect. There are more than one hundred players selected in the 2010 NHL Entry Draft currently playing in North American junior leagues, should they all get a page which simply redirects to their current team? Or is there something noteworthy about Gallagher which warrants an article at this point?—Precedingunsigned comment added byHo-ju-96 (talk •contribs)
- Delete: This would never survive as an independent article at AfD; Gallagher is a low round draft pick currently in the junior leagues, and completely fails the criteria ofWP:NHOCKEY. Ravenswing 11:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Redirects should only be created if there is a high likelihood the article will be created/searched in the future and the page it is redirecting too is strongly connected. Neither of these things are true of this redirect. Creating redirects for every player ever drafted would clog up the wiki and cause issues for other people with the same name getting articles down the road. -DJSasso (talk)11:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DJSasso's argument that redirects should only be created if there is a high likelihood the article will be created is, first of all, incorrect – the future creation of an article is not a reason for a redirect, but in any event, the hockey player is on track for a professional career, and therefore has a very high probability that he will someday meet the notability requirements for his own article. And I do not believe for a second that the name “Brendan Gallagher” is so common-place that its redirect will “clog up the wiki” as suggested.Dolovis (talk)15:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He was drafted in the 5th round. It is very common for someone drafted that low to never reach the levels required to meet notability. If he were a 1st or 2nd round pick I might be more inclined to agree with you. I also never said the name was common, but that redirecting non-notable individuals often causes more problems than it helps. -DJSasso (talk)15:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL. Being "on track for a professional career" is not a valid keep reason. Not to mention that going from a non-notable junior player to a non-notable minor league professional would not justify a future article. Creation should happen after notability is achieved, not before.Resolute18:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm flabbergasted that an experienced editor would ever try to get "on track for a professional career" past people. A good part of the reason forWP:CRYSTAL is that "sure things" often aren't. Want a list of every NHL first round draft pick who never played a single game in the majors? Through the 2001 draft, it'sseventy-two of them. Ravenswing 14:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It is a useful redirect and should be kept. This is a redirect for a Major Junior ice hockey player who was drafted by theMontreal Canadiens in the2010 NHL Entry Draft. He does not currently meet the notability standards set out atWP:Hockey, but he is listed as an NHL prospect at all on-line hockey data sources, including NHL.com. Whether or not this would survive as an independent article at AfD is not relevant, because it is not an article – it is a redirect. As a redirect it meets the criteria to be kept per reasons #2, #3, #4, and #5 of theReasons for not deleting redirects guidelines.Dolovis (talk)15:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually doesn't meet most of those (2, 3 & 4). It might possibly meet 5, however, if anything creating the redirect hinders rather than helps. Red links are good, and they help you know when an article might need to be created. By creating a redirect like this you take away the red link. In this case an article wouldn't be created, however, in the future it might be eligible for an article and by turning it into a redirect you hide the fact that we are missing the article. -DJSasso (talk)15:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I suppose I could see a marginal use for this to be redirected toList of Montreal Canadiens draft picks (as you did withLance Bouma and the Flames list), but overall I don't see this as a useful redirect as "Brendan Gallagher" is only trivially mentioned as being on the roster on theVancouver Giants article. Given that the majority of these redirects will never be turned into articles and will undoubtedly be forgotten, we are setting ourselves up for a mess of redirects that point to articles that will have no mention of the names being pointed to these team articles.Resolute18:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per -DJSasso's andResolute's points above, specifically ties intoWP:REDIRECT#DELETE #10 -Pparazorback (talk)09:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Frekin' everyone's gonna come to Wikipedia to see about this guy. This guy's on fire!NHL Hockey: NHL Draft Profile - Brendan Gallagher,Gallagher has three points as Giants beat Hurricanes in fight-filled affair,Gallagher's two power-play goals put Vancouver over the Silvertips 4-2,Gallagher, Manning score twice as Giants defeat Winterhawks 7-3,Gallagher scores 4 to lead Vancouver to a 6-2 victory over Prince George,Gallagher counts two goals and an assist as Giants blank Bruins 5-0,Gallagher scores twice to lead Giants to 6-2 win over Rebels,Musil and Gallagher both score twice as Vancouver Giants tame Prince George 7-4,Gallagher scores twice as Vancouver Giants top Saskatoon Blades 5-2,Gallagher scores twice, Vancouver Giants edge Regina Pats 4-3 in WHL play,Gallagher's five-point night lifts Vancouver Giants over Chilliwack Bruins 9-4,Gallagher nets pair as Vancouver Giants beat Brandon Wheat Kings 5-2. But I didn't see enough for a standalone biography article. --Uzma Gamal (talk)12:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not really the point, the point is this redirect will just lead him to the team page which only mentions him as being on the roster and that is all it will likely ever mention. We are talking about the redirect itself not the player. -DJSasso (talk)15:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.- 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasMixed. First three deleted, next two kept, and last one re-targeted toPortal:Sports and games. --JLaTondre (talk)20:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted fromWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 17#Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Africa as there have previously been no discussion on the subject of these cross-namespace redirects.:| TelCoNaSpVe :|06:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Portal:List of M*A*S*H episodes and the Russia ones could probably be deleted as useless, but there is no compelling reason to. The others should be redirected to the appropriate portal, as plausible. —innotata22:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these redirects point to good targets, but not all should be deleted.DeletePortal:Game - the title is ambiguous (seeGame (disambiguation)) and the redirect is practically unused.DeletePortal:List of M*A*S*H episodes - a list of episodes is not something that should be a stand-alone portal page and the redirect is unused.Weak deletePortal:M*A*S*H (TV series) - although this could be a plausible redirect toPortal:M*A*S*H, the redirect is unused and anyone who starts to type the title would see the main portal page in the search drop-down list.Weak keep the two Russia-related redirects for now, as there are many incoming links at the moment.RetargetPortal:Sport and games toPortal:Sports and games. --Black Falcon(talk)22:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget within portal space, unless they are inappropriate within portal-space (for example "Portal:Russia/New article announcements" - which has incoming links but mainly from a 2006 user talk page spam as far as I can see.Rich Farmbrough,19:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.Portal:United States of America
[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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasKeep three, but delete Portal:Palestinian National Authority..Courcelles08:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted fromWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 17#Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Africa as there have previously been no discussion on the subject of these low-traffic redirects. They are also implausible because of their length, the autocomplete should be able to locate the portals without the need of these.:| TelCoNaSpVe :|06:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep why is "Portal:United States of America" implausible?? It's the formal name of the country the portal addresses.76.66.194.212 (talk)05:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – harmless.McLerristarr | Mclay106:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think we need to keep the US one. Regarding the other three I have no expertise in them but they all seem plausible to me. --Kumioko (talk)13:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepPortal:United States of America - little-used, probably thanks to autocomplete, but not implausible.KeepPortal:State of Palestine - this probably should be the title of the portal, as its scope seems to be theState of Palestine and not just thePalestine geographic region.DeletePortal:Palestinian National Authority
andPortal:Cricket (sport) - it isthey are almost completely unused, and the autocomplete would resolve any searches for itthem. --Black Falcon(talk)22:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Comment if you wanted to be sure to link to the sport's portal and not the insect's portal, "Cricket (sport)" seems plausible enough.76.66.194.128 (talk)05:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete onlyPortal:Palestinian National Authority, per Black Falcon.Rehman13:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.You miss the point - the U is capitalised deliberately - it means "you".Rich Farmbrough,19:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasRe-targeted toJohn Romero#Doom II and Final Doom where idclip is described. --JLaTondre (talk)15:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted fromWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 17#User:Pkukiss to discuss this low-traffic, implausible redirect.:| TelCoNaSpVe :|06:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - helpful redirect that isn't all that implausible (it's the noclip code forDoom II).Sideways713 (talk)10:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - practically unused (c. 10 pageviews per month) redirect, with no incoming links and no essential page history, from a cheat code in a single game (actually, if I understand correctly, one installment of a series). Perhaps more importantly, the code is not even mentioned at the target page(added later: and, per Sideways713's reasoning below, probably should not be mentioned)
; in fact, the target article suggests that "noclip" is the noclip code forDoom II (seeNoclip mode#Description). --Black Falcon(talk)20:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Comment I removed the claim that "noclip" is the noclip code forDoom II, which it isn't (itis the noclip code forDoom 3, but I didn't put that in). I didn't replace it with any mention of "idclip" either; no other noclip codes are specifically mentioned, and ifidspispopd (which is the original Doom noclip code and regularly gets 200 views/month) isn't mentioned in the article, there's no reason idclip should be.Sideways713 (talk)09:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep not recent (four years old).Rich Farmbrough,19:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.- 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasKept. --JLaTondre (talk)17:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted fromWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 17#User:Pkukiss to discuss this low-traffic, implausible redirect.:| TelCoNaSpVe :|06:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the second sentence ofVive, Viva, this is clearly not implausible in the least, and is a perfectly fine redirect. The traffic that it garners is quite irrelevant. It's a good redirect that does an appropriate job.Uncle G (talk)19:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with Uncle G. The redirect's title is mentioned multiple times in the lead of the target article, and the redirect itself receives c. 100 pageviews per month, which is (in my opinion) well above the threshold of "low-traffic". --Black Falcon(talk)20:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.- 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasDeleted. --JLaTondre (talk)14:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted fromWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 17#User:Pkukiss to discuss this low-traffic, implausible redirect.:| TelCoNaSpVe :|06:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - plausible alternative transliteration.Bridgeplayer (talk)15:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Contrary to Bridgeplayer's suggestion, "Kapkinoe" is not a plausible transliteration of Greek "Καρκινος". This redirect is therefore misleading, and should be deleted. —This, that, andthe other (talk)09:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete perThis, that and the other. --Black Falcon(talk)20:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – The target of this redirect,Karkinos, now redirects toCancer (constellation).McLerristarr | Mclay110:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.Convicted politicians
[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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasRe-targeted per Black Falcon. --JLaTondre (talk)15:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are low-traffic redirects from mainspace to category-space.:| TelCoNaSpVe :|07:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -Convicted politicians - this target was agreed at RFD just last month. Premature renomination but in any case a good target.Bridgeplayer (talk)01:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -Hotel chain andNickel alloys - instances where a redirect to a category is obviously helpful.Bridgeplayer (talk)01:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget -List of Linux distributions toComparison of Linux distributions as helpful retargeting.Bridgeplayer (talk)01:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget -Open-source search engine toWeb search engine; the existing target ofOpen-source search engines.Bridgeplayer (talk)01:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget all, in the following manner:
- Convicted politicians →Category:Politicians convicted of crimes - parent category to the 'by nationality' category
- Hotel chain →Hotel - eliminates the need for a cross-namespace redirect, and without pluralization (?)
capitalization (i.e., "chain" instead of "chains"), we cannot assume that the reader is searching for a listing of hotel chains - List of Linux distributions →Comparison of Linux distributions, per Bridgeplayer
- Nickel alloys →List of alloys#Alloys of nickel, where the category is linked
- Open-source search engine →Web search engine, per Bridgeplayer.
- --Black Falcon(talk)23:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget all as per Black Falcon. --Ϫ04:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.- 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasNo consensus. There is no consensus for deletion. Of the 5 or so that have main space alternatives, they have been redirected. As for suggestion to restore articles or create new lists, any editor that wishes may be bold and do that. If there are issues, they should be worked out at the applicable articles' talk pages. --JLaTondre (talk)20:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are low-traffic redirects from mainspace to category-space.:| TelCoNaSpVe :|07:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. Many mainspace -> category-space redirects are useful, and these particular ones are extremely helpful to readers seeking this information who might otherwise be unaware of our category system or how to get to it. --Ϫ14:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all - helpful redirects. I would add that though most are low-traffic some are not. Several have 1-300 hits in some months.Bridgeplayer (talk)20:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I was checking the incoming links and usage statistics of the redirects, I noticed that the redirects which received many views tended to be ones with incoming links from the mainspace. Redirects with no such incoming links (e.g.,2003 election,2003 elections) have tended to receive less than 30 hits per month. I have replaced all incoming links, except those generated by{{Election results by year}}, so usage should begin to return to negligible levels. --Black Falcon(talk)17:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. Mainspace -> category redirects are confusing to new editors and play havoc with maintenance lists. No objection to making these into disamb pages that also have a "see also" section pointing to the category. --Fabrictramp |talk to me03:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, I agree with Fabrictramp that cross-namespace redirects of this type are harmful and blur the distinction between lists and categories (something that is a consant source of problems atWP:CFD). In addition, their existence facilitates ambiguous links ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]) within articles. Lastly, the existence of these redirects turns otherwise red links blue, and discourages the creation of proper articles or lists for these topics.
After checking each redirect's incoming links, page history, and pageview statistics, I think the best course of action would be to:- Revert the following redirects to a prior revision and, if applicable,rename them toElections in {Year}:
- 1998 election tothis revision
- 1992 election tothis revision
- Elections in 1996 tothis revision
- 1997 election tothis revision
- Elections in 2000 tothis revision
- Retarget the following redirects to a corresponding mainspace article or list:
- 1990 election toElections in 1990
- 1990 elections toElections in 1990
- 1991 election toElections in 1991
- 1991 elections toElections in 1991
- 1992 elections to1992 election (to be renamed toElections in 1992)
- 1996 election toElections in 1996 (to be restored)
- 1996 elections toElections in 1996 (to be restored)
- 1997 elections to1997 election (to be renamed toElections in 1997)
- Elections in 1997 to1997 election (to be renamed toElections in 1997)
- 2000 election toElections in 2000 (to be restored)
- 2000 elections toElections in 2000 (to be restored)
- Delete the following cross-namespace redirects:
- 1993 election,1993 elections,1994 election,1994 elections,1995 election,1995 elections,1998 election,1998 elections,1999 election,1999 elections,2001 election,2001 elections,2002 election,2002 elections,2003 election,2003 elections
- Strong delete the following cross-namespace redirects which should be redlinked to encourage article creation:
- Elections in 1994,Elections in 1995,Elections in 1998,Elections in 1999,Elections in 2001,Elections in 2002,Elections in 2003
- Strong delete the following ungrammatical or non-standard cross-namespace redirects, all of which receive low traffic (exceptElection 2000, which had incoming links that I replaced):
- Election 2000 (attribution for the pagemove ispreserved in the page history ofElections in 2000),Elections 2000,Election 2001,Elections 2001,Election 2002,Elections 2002,Elections of 2002,Election 2003,Elections 2003,Elections 2004
- I am almost inclined to suggest "delete all, and let editors to start over", but I suspect that would not have consensus. --Black Falcon(talk)17:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Black Falcon's recommendations, on the assumption that they will be carried out at the closure of this CfD. --Ϫ00:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete whatever you do. The worst thing that could happen is for someone to type "1992 election" into the search form and get nothing at all. I don't have a strong opinion about the best thing to put there, but something a little iffy is much better than nothing.Croctotheface (talk)10:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? Thisis absolutely nothing at all. If someone were to type “1992 election” and got a redlink instead of a redirect, that would at least be an incentive for them to put some material into the article, but, right now, as a redirect it sits on something that could be fleshed out into an actual article and points to a different page while the redirect itself would never be noticed, except for a little “redirected from” notice at the top of the page.:| TelCoNaSpVe :|02:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Links should exist (or not) to help the readers, not to "incentivize" or cajole or annoy into action the tiny fraction of Wikipedia readers who are also editors. If you're concerned that there should be an article there, put it there.Croctotheface (talk)04:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would rather keep a redlink without information than an article with incorrect information, or even more so than a non-article page. No information > bad information.:| TelCoNaSpVe :|04:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.- 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasKeep all.Courcelles08:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Low-traffic, cross-namespace redirects to the portal namespace. Please also takethis previous rfd into account when !voting.:| TelCoNaSpVe :|08:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "List of portals" as useful to our readers andSpeedy keep "List of lists" which has history dating back to October 31, 2001. No comment on the rest, except for the slight concern over the sudden interest taken by the nom in indiscriminate mass deletion of cross-namespace redirects. --Ϫ14:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep most - It looks like most of these should be kept. --Kumioko (talk)13:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In principle, I think that most of these should be deleted, but there are just too many at once to properly evaluate.ANE Resources and most of the other redirects to subpages almost certainly should be deleted, butAstronomy portal andMath portal for instance are heavily used (400+ pageviews per month). Until someone has checked each redirect's page history, usage and incoming links, I can't support deletion. I think smaller group nominations of these redirects—based on shared characteristics other than being a cross-namespace redirect to the Portal namespace, such as redirecting to a subpage, having a certain capitalization, being misspelled, receiving very low traffic, and so on—would be useful.
For now, I support deletion of the following, which I have checked to confirm that they have no essential page history, no significant incoming links (which cannot easily be removed or replaced), and little traffic (< 30 views per month):ANE Resources,ANE Topics,ANE portal,ANE resources,ANE topics,Basic topics,Basic topics list,Events in Singapore,Genocide Portal Logo List,List of Refernce Tables,Oregonportal,The UK Trams Portal,The uk trams portal,Ukrainian portal andWilliam Shakespeare Portal. --Black Falcon(talk)21:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - What -possible- justification is there for removing these redirects? They're simply aliases to another (often harder to remember, often with more typing involved) page. I -greatly- prefer to type 'list of portals' than whatever the ugly alternative is. If there's a lot of programming/memory overhead for these aliases ... and there shouldn't be ... that's a programming problem. I consider the aliases to be a -big- plus.Twang (talk)02:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The primary justification usually is that they're cross-namespace, seeWP:CNR for an explanation. --Ϫ23:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.Change title of a Wikipedia page
[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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was RESULT wasdelete. --Orlady (talk)16:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Low-traffic, cross-namespace redirect.:| TelCoNaSpVe :|08:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.- 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasMixed results in accordance with Black Falcon's recommendations. --JLaTondre (talk)03:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are low-traffic redirects from mainspace to category-space.:| TelCoNaSpVe :|08:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.- 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was RESULT wasretarget toUser (computing), along with other redirects mentioned by Black Falcon.Orlady (talk)15:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Low-traffic, cross-namespace redirect.:| TelCoNaSpVe :|08:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to suggest retargeting toUser (computing), which contains a hatnote link toWikipedia:Username policy, but "Changing Username" just is not a likely search term for that article.Delete, I suppose. Note alsoSwitching user names andSwitching usernames, which are less plausible and less used. --Black Falcon(talk)20:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete,including the two proposed by Black Falcon.Rehman01:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects within the encyclopaedia proper should not drop out of the encyclopaedia into the editorial plumbing. None of these three have any significant edit history, and I agree with Black Falcon. If there's no appropriate place in the encyclopaedia proper to redirect to, these should be deleted.Uncle G (talk)09:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
