Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 5

Users creating the articles would probably find this offensive, fails WP:CIVIL. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, theres no need for it Pumpmeup 02:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, "crap" means something entirely different from "hoax articles", in addition, this redirect is potentially offensive. Melsaran (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Although consensus, oddly enough, seems to hold that referring to another's contributions as crap is acceptable, this is inappropriate.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article's a hoax, then it is crap. It's no better than calling someone's contributions vandalism or nonsense. Rocket000 19:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not because it's offensive, but because "crap" spans a lot more than just hoaxes. JuJube 23:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete potentially offensive and 'crap' could refer to plenty of things. Hut 8.5 17:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but I'll create CAT:HOAX as a replacement shortcut. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JuJube and Shalom. Rocket000 19:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect; it's theoretically possible that the original would be used as a search term to find an article. Also, redirects to Special pages don't work anyway, so it will just be confusing to users who might have benefited from it. --ais523 11:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Redirects to special pages don't work, so there's no reason to have them. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Entirely unnecessary. The sign-up link is obvious. --- RockMFR 14:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally un-needed. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. David Pro 18:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are two different persons. Tyāgarāja is a composer of Carnatic music whereas M. K. Tyagaraja Bhagavadar is a Tamil singer in 1930s. This was prompted by a comment at Talk:Tiruchirapalli where a user commented on the difference. Fore more on M. K. Tyagaraja Bhagavadar, see http://www.geocities.com/anar51/mkt.html RC 03:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If M. K. Tyagaraja Bhagavadar meets the qualifications for an encyclopedia article, then just overwrite the contents of the redirect with some text demonstrating his notability. There is no need to delete a redirect from the pagehistory before creating an encyclopedia article. (However, if nobody does that before the discussion is closed, delete the redirect in order to prevent confusion. Despite the similarity in names, M.K. does not appear to properly refer to the 19th century composer.) Rossami (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:User and Wikipedia:Users

These two redirects target Wikipedia:Wikipedians.

I think that at least Wikipedia:User would be more appropriate pointing to the same place as WP:USER. Users to either Category:Wikipedians or to stay directed at Wikipedia:Wikipedians. (There is also WP:EDITORS as well...) Obviously there are a lot of links that would need repairing, and this would require the use of a bot, hence why I'm listing this for discussion here. - jc37 03:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as they currently are. It doesn't matter where WP:USER points - the natural target for Wikipedia:User(s) would be a page that discusses the users of the site. --- RockMFR 14:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 'Users' to 'Wikipedians' is a sensible redirect, and 'User' is just the singular version of that. Since Wikipedia:Wikipedians has a link at the top of the page to Wikipedia:Userpage anyway, I don't really see a problem here. Terraxos 18:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]