User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2007/July

RFD Nomination of mya (unit) & Bya
As mya (unit) & Bya were not redirects, it was not proper to redirect them and then nominate the redirects for deletion. If you wish to nominate an article for deletion, you need to use PROD or AFD. RFD is only to be used to nominate redirects. If you wish to propose replacing an article with a redirect, that should be discussed on the article's talk page. By the way, when you do redirect an article, please replace the entire content of the article with a redirect. The redirect should not just be added to the top of the article. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 22:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input, but what happened was a little different. I took from talk:mya (unit) that people weren't happy with the articles but left them as they were.  I considered them to be irreparably broken and decided to be bold.  I created the redirects.  Another editor Special:Contributions/82.16.7.63 decided to undo without explanation.  I read wp:prod but came to the conclusion that it was telling me a redirect was the appropriate choice rather than prod, as there was a suitable target at Annum.  I reverted again (putting the redirect back) and added the Request for redirection tag.  In hindsight, undoing and RFDing in one step was an error, apt to cause some confusion.  I'm not proposing we delete the redirect but rather that we keep the redirect.  I have to admit the process seems rather arcane, but I have no doubt it has developed to be this way for sound reasons.  For one thing the initialism RFD makes no sense.  My poor old pre-Object-oriented programming brain wants a finite state machine or flow chart.LeadSongDog 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand what you were trying to do. However, that's not what you actually did. :-) When you listed them at RFD, you stated for both of them "is an entry that IMHO should be deleted or moved to wiktionary". That is a call for deletion, not redirection. Anyhow, RFD is primarily for debating deletion. It can also be used for discussing where a redirect should point when there is more than one option, but it's not designed for discussing if something should be an article or a redirect. The article talk page is better suited for that. If you cannot get the anon to discuss it, I would recommend tagging the articles for merging. That will bring more eyes to discuss it. Let me know if that didn't make sense. -- JLaTondre 00:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the guidance. I'll take it for now that I should not redirect, but how do I know when the discussion on the talk page is complete?LeadSongDog 06:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The decision taken was retarget, which seems to be an unlisted shorthand. Can someone explain what it means? LeadSongDog 18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the decision was speedy close, which means that the discussion was ended prematurely. The reason, per Redirects for discussion, was that it was not a valid request (hence JLaTondre's invalid nomination remark). Anyways, what retarget means is to change the target of the redirect. Keep implies leaving the target of the redirect as-is, while a retarget means it should point somewhere else but should not be deleted.  Big Nate 37 (T) 19:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I sit corrected once more.  Perhaps the definition of retarget could be added to the shorthand list.  Is it just me, or does everyone have their head explode the first time through an RFD? LeadSongDog 19:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)