Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 5

The nominated redirect was Kept (although personally I don't think it's necessary) --Cyde Weys 01:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling, no other purpose, no links andersonpd 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Implausible typo. --Sbluen 04:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not recent enough for that, but still delete. --Sbluen 04:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Typo redirects are a good thing, and I've made that typo before. Dgies 04:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not many people probably have. This is the only page with unifrom in its title[1] --Sbluen 05:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Plausible typo. Also, see WP:RFD#When should we delete a redirect?, non-criteria #5: "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." BigNate37_T·C 06:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's useful for someone to just be taken right to the page if they get the keys mixed up (as everyone does). Having used Wikipedia on slower computers, I can't tell you how annoying it is to wait for the search page and then have to type in the page again and wait for that to load. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A conseviable mistake. I know I have typed from as form and vice versa in the past. --Edgelord 21:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it's a rather common typographical error, and so the conclusion of BigNate, inter al., is correct (I'm not at all a fan of redirects from misspellings, even where such redirects are plainly useful, contra WP:RFD#When should we delete a redirect?, but I'm confident that no consensus exists for our general removal of such redirects). Joe 23:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted --Cyde Weys 01:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlinked inter-namespace redirect. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Everyone knows that colons are used in these. --Sbluen 04:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cross namespace should only be used when absolutely necessary or for transitional purposes. People can always use the "Search" button next to the "Go" button. --StuffOfInterest 11:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Rbraunwa 02:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as cross-namespace redirect. Viridae^Talk 11:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted --Cyde Weys 01:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect, Wikipedia:Avoid self-references --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 20:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If I type in Creating a new article I want to be redirected on how to do that.. not offered the suggestion to create a new article on creating a new article.. The self refference rule doesn't apply to Wiki Rules and FAQ's. --DjSamwise 20:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We can't create an article name for every possible thing people might type in. He have a "help" button on the screen. Fan-1967 20:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's quite likely that people will type this—perhaps more likely than that they will discover the tiny "Help" link. --zenohockey 20:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. A person who cannot find their way to the vast amount of help already available is unlikely to seek help by keying in this title. -- RHaworth 07:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That does not appear to be a speedy deletion criteria. Which criteria do you think applies to this redirect. --Edgelord 21:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cross namespace should only be used when absolutely necessary or for transitional purposes. People can always use the "Search" button next to the "Go" button. --StuffOfInterest 11:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not an encyclopedia topic. Rbraunwa 02:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per above and as a cross-namespace redirect. --Hetar 05:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as cross-namespace redirect. Viridae^Talk 11:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No, it won't be found by searching without resetting the search default to include WP namespace. Septentrionalis 15:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per non-criteria 2 and 3 . The fact that someone felt the need to create this article as recently as this month indicates that new users do not know how to navigate the search engine across namespaces and that this redirect can serve a useful purpose for some people. Rossami (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's a help button in addition to the search box. -- JLaTondre 00:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted --Cyde Weys 01:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect, Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 19:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If I type in Creating a new article I want to be redirected on how to do that.. not offered the suggestion to create a new article on creating a new article.. The self refference rule doesn't apply to Wiki Rules and FAQ's. --DjSamwise 20:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We can't create an article name for every possible thing people might type in. He have a "help" button on the screen. Fan-1967 20:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's quite likely that people will type this—perhaps more likely than that they will discover the tiny "Help" link. --zenohockey 20:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Quite likely"? They won't type "Create new article" or "Create article" or "New article" or "Start new article"? How many things are there that they might type? How many of these do you want? Fan-1967 21:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason I started it in the first place is because it's exacly what happened to me. ;) --DjSamwise 21:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • ... and what makes you think the next person will try exactly the same phrase? Fan-1967 22:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...So make redirect for all the dozen phrases someone might try. If there's a technical reason for the imposition of WP:ASR here, that's one thing (it's hard on the servers to transition between namespaces)...but even then, this needs to be an exception. Creating new pages is obviously one of the most important things any new editor needs to know how to do. We should make it as easy as humanly possible. --zenohockey 01:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commence new articulation. That's what I would type. BigNate37_T·C 06:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is a slippery slope and the precendent that keeping this and the above would set could see two dozen more variants of this redirect being added. BigNate37_T·C 18:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I had similar problems with userbox, which was also deleted. --Sbluen 18:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cross namespace should only be used when absolutely necessary or for transitional purposes. People can always use the "Search" button next to the "Go" button. --StuffOfInterest 11:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stuff. Joe 23:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cross-namespace. Rbraunwa 02:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No, it won't be found by searching without resetting the search default to include WP namespace. Septentrionalis 15:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't believe that justifies having a prominant self reference appear for someone searching for clothing article manufacturing. BigNate37_(T) 03:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per non-criteria 2 and 3. (same reasoning as the discussion immediately above). Rossami (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's a help button in addition to the search box. -- JLaTondre 00:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted --Cyde Weys 01:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

potentially confusing: there are many 15th Dukes, and no reason to prefer the Duke of Hamilton over any other Nunh-huh 12:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 22:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not useful. Rbraunwa 02:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all of these; effort by a single topic newbie who does not appear to understand masking. Septentrionalis 15:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- Infrogmation 18:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted --Cyde Weys 01:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

potentially confusing: there are many 14th Dukes, and no reason to prefer the Duke of Hamilton over any other

• Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 22:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not useful. Rbraunwa 02:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- Infrogmation 18:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted --Cyde Weys 01:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

potentially confusing: there are many 13th Dukes, and no reason to prefer the Duke of Hamilton over any other

• Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 22:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not useful. Rbraunwa 02:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- Infrogmation 18:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted --Cyde Weys 01:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

potentially confusing: there are many 11th things, and no reason to prefer the Duke of Hamilton over any other

• Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 22:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not useful. Rbraunwa 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- Infrogmation 18:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted --Cyde Weys 01:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

potentially confusing: there are many 10th things, and no reason to prefer the Duke of Hamilton over any other

• Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 22:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not useful. Rbraunwa 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- Infrogmation 18:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was turned into a disambigution page. --Zoz (t) 17:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

potentially confusing: there are many Duchesses named Anne, and no reason to prefer the Duchess of Hamilton over any other

• Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 22:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Sofixit - make it into a disambiguation page for all of them, then, no reason to delete something that might be useful. -- nae'blis 16:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a disambiguation page. I agree with nae'blis and turned it into a dab page. --Zoz (t) 17:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted --Cyde Weys 01:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect makes no grammatical sense and would be difficult to locate Hintha 00:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Huh? --StuffOfInterest 00:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 22:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not useful. Rbraunwa 02:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a mess but it's part of the documentation of the history of the pagemoves. It's important to keep these around so we can fully understand what happened to the article. Rossami (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There is no requirement to maintain page move history. -- JLaTondre 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Deleted --Cyde Weys 01:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On top of being cross namespace, redirect doesn't appear to serve any useful purpose. Was created by a user with a history of disruptive edits. StuffOfInterest 00:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't make sense. --Zoz (t) 22:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not useful, cross-namespace. Rbraunwa 02:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. —Misza13 ^{T C} 20:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV redirect. --jh51681 04:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted by Misza13 ^{T C} 20:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page turned into a Redirect because the disambiguation page had only one valid entry in it. Redirect is pointless because no disambiguation is needed. BigE1977 18:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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