Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 June 8

In order to make possibile the move of the target article to this title, which was the orginal title of it and the most correct translation from Italian. Checco (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You can do that most easily through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process. As long as it's not controversial (and this doesn't appear to be), it does not need discussion here. I would do it myself except for one question - does the history need to be merged or can the current history be simply overwritten? (I note that you are the only significant contributor to the page so far.) Rossami (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either way it is ok. Can you move the article, then? --Checco (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a category. I don't think this is acceptable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep while technically a cross namespace redirect, it's a rather logical one that is still pointing to encyclopedic content. It could also help editors from making a list, if they were not aware the category existed. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - agree with Scott above. Potentially useful, and mainspace-to-category isn't as bad as other cross-namespace redirects since categories (well, this one at least) are reader-oriented and linked to from mainspace. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep per above. Potentially useful in some circumstances. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 07:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete because it's a misnomer. We have WP:CLN to tell us the difference between categories and lists; this redirect is referring to a category as a list, which isn't technically correct. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]