Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 16

Pipe trick → Help:Pipe trick
The nominated redirect was Deleted -- Cyde Weys 13:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Cross namespace redirect, orphaned (only 4 links previously) Renesis13 21:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, could mean something IRL. Kusma (討論) 07:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as cross-namespace. Rbraunwa 13:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- ADNghiem501 01:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, kinda sounds like an obscure skateboarding trick to me. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 00:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable YouTube Users → Notable YouTube users
The nominated redirect was speedy deleted by Robdurbar under CSD R1. -- ADNghiem501 22:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Dead end redirect... the target has been changed to a category.--Isotope23 19:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

WP:FURSECUTION → Harassment
The nominated redirect was Deleted -- Cyde Weys 13:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Really silly redirect, serves no purpose, probably just trolling. I speedied it already, but the redirect got recreated, so I'm nominating it here. --Conti|&#9993; 18:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep Calling it trolling is Assume bad faith. Fursecution is a term that means harassment.  That is all.  Anomo 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fursecution is a term pretty much solely used by trolls nowadays, just look at the first few google hits. Not that that's the point, but rather the motivation behind the creation of this redirect. --Conti|&#9993; 19:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a direct to the harassment article like WP:STALK, WP:Stalk, Wikistalking, WP:HA, WP:HAR. I meant it to save time typing.  Anomo 19:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sourced, in which case it should be a soft redirect, instead. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sourced? Should there be a references tag in a single redirect?  It is a dictionary term. Visit  Fursecution.  Anomo 20:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that does not make sense as a reason to delete. --Edgelord 21:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no justification for keeping it, unless you wish to imply that all Wikipedians are furries. The best reason I can think of for keeping it would be a plausible mispelling of a plausible miscapitalization of WP:Persecution (which also doesn't exist).  But, still, it's just wrong, as a redirect.  It might not be misleading, but it's wrong.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if that is a valid criteria for deletion. --Edgelord 00:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, probably a neologism—standard dictionaries (newer ones, even) do not have this term. The link given does not equate this with harassment, it is pretty clearly mentioned to be used as a form of persecution or as a retort for said persecution. This site, which focusses on furry topics, discloses it is a greatly debated subject in the first sentence of the article's body. And persecution is not the same as harassment. This may have been created in violation of (the essay) WP:INSULT, since the only actual use of this redirect at present is Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Fursecution vandal. This redirect has no practical uses per WP:R (we have much shorter shortcuts) and makes a bad precedent. This simply does not make sense if given serious thought.  Big Nate 37 (T) 10:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser → AutoWikiBrowser
The nominated redirect was Deleted. —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect, unilaterally deleted three times by three different administrators (Cyde, AmiDaniel and Mushroom). Rather than become the fourth, I'm bringing it here. I still say Delete, though – Gurch 16:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Cross-namespace, not useful. Rbraunwa 17:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. cross-namespace. —dima /sb.tk/ 03:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not delete!!! -- Skapur 22:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I use AWB all the time, but there's a reason for namespace. In fact, maybe somebody can write a nice article about AWB itself. ;) &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 00:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- ADNghiem501 01:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete is there anything that can be done to stop it being re-created again? I suppose not. Martin 10:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact that independent users keep recreating it in good faith is a clear indicator that people are having trouble finding the WP-space page.  If someone ever writes the article about AWB itself, simply change it from a redirect then.  Rossami (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete yet again, XNRs need a damn compelling reason to exist, and "because people keep doing it" isn't a good reason. People also keep trying to turn Wikipedia into MySpace, but that doesn't mean we should just give in.  -- Cyde Weys  20:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you use AWB on non-Wikipedia wikis, the link goes to AutoWikiBrowser here (because the link syntax of the program is Pill- 21:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Pill-. Possibly make an article. Notability isn't a policy, but a set of guidelines, and an article that is interesting to a large number of users shouldn't be forbidden on that basis. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * AWB is nowhere near notable enough to get an encyclopedia article. -- Cyde Weys  04:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I checked out the software notability guidelines hoping to create a stub, but it would wind up being the victim of AfD and get us nowhere.  Big Nate 37 (T) 10:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The AfD police must really be failing as I see much less worthy software getting articles that never get deleted. --- Skapur 11:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What? You see articles worthy of AfD and you don't nominate them!? Heresy! But seriously, at Wikipedia, precedent due to lack of strength in enforcement numbers does not nullify policy. Lots of people patrol AfD entries, so simply nominate articles you find and that's half the battle. Having said that, this simply does not belong in article namespace. It's a slippery slope; the worse we make the standards, the more editing help we get—editors who are seriously discouraged for not finding this in the WP namespace without the CNR are not worth compromising the integrity of the 'pedia for. Delete.  Big Nate 37 (T) 19:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, harmless: no confusion with encyclopedic content possible, obviously directs people who search for it to the right place, and invisible to all non-editors except for those who happen to browse Special:Allpages. Kusma (討論) 14:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy/temp → Talk:Creation-evolution controversy/temp
The nominated redirect was Deleted -- Cyde Weys 19:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Cross namespace redirect (to talk page}!Polonium 14:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC) The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
 * Keep to document the pagemove. (This move was made prior to the MediaWiki release which started automatically recording the pagemoves in the edit histories of both pages.)  It also prevents the Talk page from being incorrectly tagged for speedy-deletion as an "orphaned Talk page" by the bots.  Rossami (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Indext of Topics in Alternative Medicine → List of terms and concepts used in alternative medicine
The nominated redirect was Deleted. —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete this misspelling as no pages link here. --apers0n 14:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. You didn't read the Note at the top of the page: "We do not delete redirects simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as a reason to delete a redirect." --Zoz (t) 14:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: The original reason given was not clear enough - the page is spelt wrongly, and the reason that the lack of incoming links was mentioned is because sometimes a commonly misspelt wording could be a common search term and this could be shown by having links from talk pages or user pages etc. but this page serves no purpose whatsoever. --apers0n 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete as unlikely search term.  Big Nate 37 (T) 00:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -AED 06:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dekete. I missed the misspelling the first time I read it. But because of it, this redirect is not useful. Rbraunwa 13:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR → Three-revert rule
The nominated redirect was Deleted since it's been orphaned. -- JLaTondre 12:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Cross-namespace redirect, deleted three times previously, twice by Cyde and once under CSD G4, but I can't find a deletion discussion of any kind, so I'm bringing it here rather than G4-ing it again. I say Delete – Gurch 14:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep unless orphaned, more than 500 incoming links. Breaking these links is worse than cross-space redirecting. Kusma (討論) 14:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Will orphan it myself if necessary – Gurch 16:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good. Once the redirect is orphaned, I don't really care. Kusma (討論) 16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The links can be fixed. And the other argument for cross-namespace redirects (that they aid new users) doesn't apply here, because 3RR is no more transparent to new users than WP:3RR. Rbraunwa 14:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm fixing a lot of links to cross-namespace redirects right now with WP:AWB, so this will be orphaned before long. — sjorford++ 16:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This kind of thing just encourages more cross-namespace redirects to Wikipedia namespace. -- Renesis13 21:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fix it now before it becomes worse.  Creating red links by deleting will force the correct redirect rather rapidly.--Tbeatty 23:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- ADNghiem501 01:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Anything with that many inbound links will be impossible to keep orphaned.  There are references to it all over the history pages.  By the way, the original version of this page was created by an anon user asking the question "What is/are the Wikipedia 3RR?"  I don't know what better evidence you could ask for that our readers need these redirects.  Rossami (talk) 10:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment you are wrong. Our readers do not need this redirect, our rookie editors do. Any reader expecting a serious encyclopedia would not care about 3RR. Self-refs detract from the quality of the article namespace. Pretending that self-refs are not a problem is foolish. Having said that, it may be less of a problem than having grossly uninformed editors, but you are painting the issue in a rather one-sided light. Those are the two conflicting interests: sacrificing the quality of the encyclopedia, or making it more difficult for new users to learn about the wiki. In this specific instance, 3RR is probably one of the more useful self-refs and as such may merit keeping despite WP:SELF. Either way, I abstain.  Big Nate 37 (T) 18:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: You make an interesting point about the distinction between readers and editors.  However, I consider that a blurry distinction because we should always be encouraging all our readers to become rookie editors.  On your other points, I suspect that we will have to agree to disagree.Rossami (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I like what you said, and agree. Even for me, I often want to type Userboxes, or 3RR—it is shorter than having to append "Wikipedia:"—that's lost time for my editing. — [  Mac Davis ] (talk)
 * Delete: per the usual arguments, plus, it has already been deleted 3 times. --Hetar 07:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment what if we had a template, similar to deletedpage, but instead of saying the page is protected it can talk about self-refs in passing and have a disambig link to the effect of "perhaps you are trying to find WP:[pagename]?"  Big Nate 37 (T) 16:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete yet again, XNRs need a damn compelling reason to exist, and "because people keep doing it" isn't a good reason. People also keep trying to turn Wikipedia into MySpace, but that doesn't mean we should just give in.  -- Cyde Weys  20:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Needless self-reference.  I have orphaned it. --Rory096 07:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Eidgenössische Polytechnikum Zürich → ETH Zurich
The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 12:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC) There are over 10 redirects to the main article at this time. The complete first page of a search for this institute gives only redirects. For the sake of search quality (under rule #1), 5 obsolete redirections have been marked for deletion. Furthermore, the institute itself has never used names of these 5 redirections listed here, thus using these names creates confusion for users who are not familiar with this institute (under rule #2). Additionally, this specific redirect name is severely incorrect, grammatically.

The few articles which were using one or the one redirections were updated to the proper namings of this instutute.

ETH Affiliate 129.132.210.173 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete all. I don't like redirects from names to abbreviations. (I would prefer the other direction). But if these aren't correct names, there's no value to keeping them. Rbraunwa 14:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is why we have redirects. My search screen gives ETH Zurich as the first result when I search for it. What's the problem here? -- nae'blis 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich → ETH Zurich
The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 12:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC) see above 129.132.210.173 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep, I changed my mind to keep this one, after looking at the logo which says "Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich]], so this is a logical redirect to keep. 132.205.93.88 03:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment if you are the nominator, then you're at a dynamic IP and if you had logged in with a username we could speedy keep redirects that you withdraw your nomination from. (Addendum) hmm, actually in this case we couldn't because of a delete all vote above that I missed. Nevermind.  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: i am the nominator, and i want them all deleted of course (please read the argumentation above) Generalstudent 08:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is why we have redirects. -- nae'blis 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology at Zurich → ETH Zurich
The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 12:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC) see above 129.132.210.173 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep, I changed my mind to keep this one, after looking at the logo which says "Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich]], so this is a logical redirect to keep. 132.205.93.88 03:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is why we have redirects. -- nae'blis 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

ETH-Zürich → ETH Zurich
The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 12:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC) see above 129.132.210.173 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is exactly why we have redirects 132.205.93.195 22:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: you are obviously not aware of the argumentation above or you simple ignored them. have you even tried searching for people of this university? it becomes quite painful with 16 redirects that show up everytime you do a search with the name of this university. your shortsightedness continues on irgnoring the concequences of edits like a moving of the main page, which becomes a tidious task if every redirection page has to be corrected. and consider that you are promoting the spreading of false knowledge by allowing wrong names of this university (granted, this is of minor consequence, but still...). this strange fellow from the canadian university "concordia" has also blocked me from deleting these references twice in the past week, when i tried to delete these redirections without discussion, since i took the deletions for granted (look at the history of these pages where i have also put up argumentation while this user simply prevented the deletions without any argumentation). i would strongly suggest that you mind your own business without interfering with me anymore. i really doubt that you even know the content of the page at discussion. i started to take care for related pages of the university a few weeks ago and you are the only one so far who has managed to make me quite annoyed... Generalstudent 11:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No Personal Attacks - Wikipedia policy concerning behaviour. Please read it. 132.205.45.148 23:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:please, tell me exactly which sentence you consider an attack, and i will consider an apology if i find it necessary... Generalstudent 11:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment you accused me of being strange. You insulted by point of origin. You seem to consider your POV the only POV that is acceptable. I pointed out to you that you were violating process by renominating to PROD, and you accuse me of being obstructionist to your personal views. If you've read the reasons we have for redirects, you'd see that we have redirects for common misspellings or alternate spellings, normally. If you'd read the rules for PROD, you'd note the procedures people can use for removing PROD. This entire process, Redirects for Discussion is to allow people to express alternate views. Yet you use it to attack me instead of stating your views. I lodged an objection to *one* of your listed redirects up for deletion, and I did it without attacking you. This is a group process. PROD is for uncontested deletion. IF there is an objection you bring it elsewhere, where it may be discussed. Don't attack people for discussing their views if they do not match your own. The process here is to reach consensus on a group view, and that is done through discussion. It is not for the enforcement of your own viewpoint. 132.205.93.88 03:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:i don't think that they are many who would agree with you that strange fellow is an insult. i don't get what you mean with You insulted by point of origin, please clarify. I agree with you that this is a place for discussion. but where are your arguments? i have given many arguments in the first place, and in my opinion any of them would be enough reason for deletion. i don't see any counterarguments from you that are directed towards my argumentation. 84.72.40.90 07:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment you are wrong in using PROD to delete Redirects. PROD specifically states that it does not handle redirects, *and* PROD specifically states that you may not reinstate a PROD tag after someone, for whatever reason removes it. You violated both these clauses in the use of the PROD procedure. 132.205.45.148 23:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: i am very new to wikipedia, there many pages of rules that i haven't read through. however, i think it is common practise that more experienced users introduce new users to rules, you could have told me twice that there exists a special page for deleting redirections... but, of course, you didn't tell me anything... and i'm still missing your argumentation. stating which rules i didn't obey has nothing to do with the matter at hand, and helps nothing to make your point whether to delete these redirects or not. In my opinion redirects are to enable authors to use multiple acceptable names for the same thing, such as MIT for Massachusetts Institute of Technology, etc. However, i don't see the purpose of redirects in making even misspellings work... this way errors will stay forever in the articles and no one will care about them since they simply work. Since everyone is discussing the quality of Wikipedia articles, this is clearly undesired. Generalstudent 11:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * 2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
 * The above rule is what I'm using for keep, because it is what a redirect is for. Your entire basis of argument is that things are spelled wrong, or are not official names. Those are the entire reason redirects exist. While only common alternate spellings or common typos are usually kept for redirects obviously, and terms commonly used to describe something even when it is not an official name. See Dubya. It does not promulgate usage of wrong names in the articles, because presumably, people like yourself will patrol the articles and correct the content. 132.205.93.88 03:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: but you see, i do not have that time to take more extensive care for the articles about the university. and as far as i know i'm the only one here in the englisch wiki who actually cares for these pages. you can't possibly expect that i correct the errors on any related page i see... and so far i was the only who actually corrected the mistakes and brought up the discussion to minimize future errors... my entire basis of arguments??? i think i have to point you to my argumentation:

'''There are over 10 redirects to the main article at this time. The complete first page of a search for this institute gives only redirects. For the sake of search quality (under rule #1), 5 obsolete redirections have been marked for deletion.''' Furthermore, the institute itself has never used names of these 5 redirections listed here, thus using these names creates confusion for users who are not familiar with this institute (under rule #2). Additionally, this specific redirect name is severely incorrect, grammatically.

The few articles which were using one or the one redirections were updated to the proper namings of this instutute. 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep per anon. —dima /sb.tk/ 03:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is why we have redirects. -- nae'blis 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Polytechnic of Zürich → ETH Zurich
The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 12:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC) see above 129.132.210.173 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep, this is why we have redirects. You are not responsible for ensuring that all redirects are orphaned, don't worry. That's why it's a wiki... -- nae'blis 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore video on YouTube - numerous redirects
The nominated redirect was deleted. Note that there are no incoming links, and the creator already knows where the articles was moved. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * DCI Group's - Al Gore's Penguin Army - video scandal → Al Gore's Penguin Army video
 * ExxonMobil YouTube video scandal → Al Gore's Penguin Army video
 * DCI Group-YouTube video scandal → Al Gore's Penguin Army video

The titles are all POV. The controversy is covered in the article Al Gore's Penguin Army video. There are a few more titles that also redirect there. This is all redirect cruft that should be (speedy) deleted --Tbeatty 23:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy Delete as nom (nominator) --Tbeatty 23:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * All these redirects only exist because people kept moving the page to new titles in an effort to obscure the connection between this scandal and DCI Group and their client ExxonMobil... the person who nominated them for deletion can go ahead and delete them but you fix the links in the articles first, to prove this is not just a sneaky way to make all those links point nowhere!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 22:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. These redirects were automatically created as the result of a chain of recent pagemoves.  The redirects serve to direct the original contributors/readers to the correct page title.  While I think the destination article might be deletable, until it is deleted, we need to keep the redirects.  Rossami (talk) 10:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)