Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 1

Cross-namespace redirect. UsaSatsui (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The WP:LAME shortcut works just fine, and if someone knows to search for "lamest edit wars", they'll be able to add a namespace prefix to it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pyrospirit. Anyone looking for this page will know to type the "WP:" prefix. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. –Pomte 03:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No need for this.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found my way to this discussion page after searching for "lamest edit wars". I wouldn't have known to add the WP: tag, and might not have found my way to where I was looking for without the redirect. Unless the placeholder becomes needed for an actual encyclopedia article on lame edit wars (an unlikely contingency, I think) I see no need to delete the redirect.78.86.128.70 (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cross-namespace redirects not allowed. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no longer a "wilderness" section in the target article (Runescape). The last time it was a section appears to be late November. There are only passing references to the term "wilderness" (in an inappropriate "in-universe" style, I might add). This redirect does not serve to point the user to encyclopedic information about the topic, it now just associates a fancrufty term with a game. TheBilly (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because it documents the creation of text which was, at one time, merged into the page. Anyone reviewing the page history will need to be able to trace the attribution of the content. The title is sufficiently disambiguated that it doesn't appear harmful and even the passing reference is probably sufficient in this case. Rossami (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above, and also because there is a possibility of further merging the material, with some discussion of a possible deletion review on the article. It doesn't do any harm, and it does some good by preserving an article history that has some useful content (if not enough for its own article). Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. –Pomte 03:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

procedural nomination: this comes to RFD after a minor mixup. User:Dtrebbien meant to WP:PROD this redirect with the reasoning "This is a useless redirect; Hilbert, the name of a person, will always be capitalized by those typing the title." I am bringing this here as redirects are not eligible for PROD-based deletion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-Redirects from alternate capitalizations are extremely common, they're quite logical search aids.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. One of the primary purposes of redirects are to support capitalization variants and errors. Rossami (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep People don't always capitalize names when searching as it can be a hassle. –Pomte 03:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's there in case people forget to capitalize the name. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical. GrittyLobo441 (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of The Boondocks characters this is a character from that show. In the end it was not nosense but a badly targeted redirect. --67.68.154.217 (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of The Boondocks characters#Recurring characters, which I have just done to help the IP out. It came to the dab page by a bot fixing a double redirect. –Pomte 10:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thugnificent is a character, so the redirect is fine. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical redirect. David Pro (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article makes no mention of this phrase, so it seems pretty nonsensical to me. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even if it was his quotation it wouldn't be worth a redirect.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Nonsense. Victuallers (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. David Pro (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplicate comment. See nomination above. Rossami (talk)