Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 22

Sore Loserman → List of pejorative political puns
The nominated redirect was speedily deleted per CSD R1 by Centrx. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 21:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Redirects to a list that was deleted, but originally pointed to Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000. I can't think of any reason why anyone would use this redirect to look up the Al Gore campaign. Bobblehead 21:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Heck, seems to be a decent number of links to List of pejorative political puns that are in need of deletion. Do I need to list all of them?--Bobblehead 21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the page Sore Loserman would be a good re-direct to the page about 2000 voting irregularities, which for some odd reason I can't find. Most of the others can probably just be deleted Mr_Beale

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.' Note that this is now redirecting to Al Gore's 2000 campaign again. Needs another delete. Dekimasu 01:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment redirects to non-existant pages can be tagged for speedy deletion under CSD R1 with db-r1.  Big Nate 37 (T) 03:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Point to the campaign. Famous political insult. Hundreds of mentions in the media. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been fixed quickly. Dekimasu 01:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:IAAF-medal-table → Template:Prettyinfobox
The nominated redirect was Deleted by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh. -- JLaTondre 13:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC) I created this for use on Athletes bio pages, no longer required as other templates in the series have superceded it - Bob 21:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Template:EAA-medal-table → Template:Prettyinfobox
The nominated redirect was Deleted by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh. -- JLaTondre 13:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC) I created this for use on Athletes bio pages, no longer required as other templates in the series have superceded it - Bob 21:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

They Are the K-Mart Transformers → Challenge of the GoBots
The nominated redirect was speedily deleted as vandalism by Stifle. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 00:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC) This redirect was created when I undid a vandal page move. Noone would ever use this redirect. Also the redirect K-Mart Transformers should be removed at the same time. exolon 19:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete as CSD G3, pure vandalism (including redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism). I'm sticking db-g3 on it.  Big Nate 37 (T) 19:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete I agree that this is pure vanadalism. Update the first redirect is gone but the second still links to the first so I suggest speedy deleting K-Mart Transformers as well because it links to a deleted redirect. --Edgelord 21:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:FURSECUTION → Harassment
The nominated redirect was already nominated and still under discussion since 16 August 2006. This is a duplicate, concurrent discussion that also failed to place the rfd tag on the redirect in question (thankyou Cyde for doing so). Please continue the earlier discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 16.  Big Nate 37 (T) 19:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC) I should probably just be proud we furries have our very own redirect to the wikiharassment page but I don't really see how Wikipedia needs it :P - ∅  ( ∅ ), 18:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment something is wrong because when I click of the rirect you want deleted it goes to the page that it redirects to and not a page stating that it is up for deletion as is the case of all the other redirects up for deletion. This RFD has not been done properly so I think it should be closed until the proper proceducres have been done. --Edgelord 19:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  .  -- Cyde Weys  19:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Fuzzy lumpkins
The nominated redirect was Kept, "Fuzzy Lumpkins" is a character in the Powerpuff Girls series and it is mentioned in the article. There can be no possible reason for deletion. -- Cyde Weys 19:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC) This also serves no clear purpose. This a step too far. This is nothing but fancruft. Delete. Marcus 14:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete this one; no incoming links, doesn't seem like a helpful redirect. --kingboyk 14:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not mentioned in opening paragraph, better off yielding search results than being a redirect.  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, looks like an unfunny joke. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Powerpuff girls and The Powerpuff girls
The nominated redirect was Kept -- Cyde Weys 19:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Why were these redirects created?? They serve no clear purpose. This is a step too far. Delete. Marcus 14:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. The first actually has incoming links. Redirects are cheap and help prevent creation of duplicate articles; these seem like reasonably likely typos to me. --kingboyk 14:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is why we have redirects; please review WP:R.  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep until we have a fuzzy grammar search engine handling that. Different capitalisation redirects are essential now, despite being an ersatz. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:VPRF → User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof
The nominated redirect was Kept per overwhelming support and Grenavitar's nice summation of why this isn't the standard cross-namespace argument. I recommend those opposed try to convince AmiDaniel to move his tool pages to Wikipedia space as was suggested during the debate. -- JLaTondre 13:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC) WP:WKV → User:Eagle 101/WikiVoter and WP:VandalProof → User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof as well. Cross-namespace into user space. This isn't "official" so let's not make it so. I understand that the people who use these scripts love them, and I fully expect a wave of "keeps" but we should maintain some hygiene with respect to these things. Something like "Be Bold!" makes a semi-useful redirect because it actually means something in context. This does not, and only serves to save a few letters of typing at the cost of greater obfuscation: Not only is it not clear what they are referring to, it's even hiding where they are. brenneman  {L} 00:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * keep because the WP: space is supposed to be unencyclopedic. I've seen WP stuff redirecto to many namespaces (user, help, and the default one). It doesn't matter where anything in the WP: space redirects to. Now, U: is a different story. YEs, I think a redirect with U:bob should be deleted, but WP: should not. GeorgeMoney (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep both. Not entirely sure what this hurts, and which policy or guideline its offending (let alone essay or humorous joke article of the week). Will change decision based on valid reason to delete. Less it be a waste of time. SynergeticMaggot 01:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. On the one hand, they are cross-namespace and could technically be speedied; I invite the discussion, at least. On the other hand, I'm looking at WP:IAR. I don't think this is going to conflict with Very pretty Reichstag fires any time soon. (Though, to be fair, could WP:WKV be used for anything Wikiversity-related?) A huge number of editors use these, I'd say that they're relevant to Wikipedia, and with VandalProof in particular, deleting the redirect will break every currently functional version of VP, and every single edit summary using VP to date. All policy aside, intentionally and knowingly breaking RC patrol tools and history pages strikes me as something of a Bad Idea. Luna Santin 02:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There seems to be no speedy criteria for it at WP:CSD, unless we really consider WP: the namespace. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP: stands for Wikipedia:. It doesn't stand for User:.  It's as simple as that.  We've deleted these in the past (see WP:1FA).  -- Cyde Weys  14:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think Aaron makes a good point, although the presence of WP: links to pieces of software doesn't really bother me (unlike 1FA which was a link to a personal essay). The obvious solution, though, is to move these pages into project space (see WP:AWB). --kingboyk 14:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all - that's why we have WP: quasinamespace, and it's quite common for tools to be described in creators' pages. There is no, and should be no rule against CNRs from WP or Wikipedia space, since it serves for technical reasons. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, these are definitely useful. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  16:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - a huge number of users use these redirects as a shorthand, as well as the VP edit summaries (per Luna-Santin). There's no real reason to delete them, as software tools are diretly related to wikipedia, so should be allowed a redirect in WP space.   M  a  rtinp23  16:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep both - I think both programs serve very useful roles in Wikipedia and the shortcuts will assist users, (especially new users) in finding the programs and productively using them, rather than typing a whole string of convoluted userspace links. If any WP: links are used for unproductive links, then they should be deleted, but this doesn't seem to be the case here. –-  kungming·  2 | (Talk ·Contact) 17:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all. We really, really, ought to have a policy against WP: redirects to anything other than the Wikipedia: or Help: namespaces. However, we don't. As such, there's no precedent to delete these. If policy changes, so will my vote. --Gavia immer 17:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to think the process works the opposite direction of how it actually does. Policy is bottom-up, not top-down.  If we start getting rid of WP: redirects that don't point to Wikipedia: then the policy will be adjusted accordingly.  Don't go the opposite way of what you truly think.  This is a deletion discussion .. the point is to hash out new decisions, not rigidly abide by some non-existent policy.  -- Cyde Weys  19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep to avoid breaking links from countless edit summaries (if such is the case).  Big Nate 37 (T) 19:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep via WP:SNOWBALL. -Zapptastic (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete shouldn't encourage cross namespace redirects into userspace -- Samir  धर्म 03:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment Well, this all seems rather policy wonkish to me. Yes the redirect technically resides within the mainspace, and yes, the redirect does point to userspace--but clearly no user would search for WP:VPRF and expect an article, and the VP pages are, in essence, project pages even if they do not reside within project namespace. If you would like to move the VP pages to projectspace then feel free to do so; 'tis not my decision to make. Just as one note, though, if you delete the WP:VPRF redirect, be aware that it was used in every edit summary left by the app since v1.1, so we'll be talking quite literally thousands of redlinks in edit summaries--that or thousands of links in edit summarries pointing to deletedpage, which will be rather confusing to many. Just a few thoughts, but do what you want. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP: is the best place for useful shortcuts, even if into userspace. It is not so clear to me whether the targets shouldn't just be moved to project space anyway, but both spaces are fine for me. Kusma (討論) 08:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The only time I have an issue with cross namespace redirects is when it involves the mainspace, we want users that are unfamilar with the maintance aspect of the site not have to see the complex workings and be overwealmed by it. If you are on the Wikipedia namespace to begin with and are looking for this tool, it's quite obvious you know what you are doing. Yank  sox  17:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This redirect has presumably been used for tens of thousands of edit summaries created by VandalProof, so an immense number of links would be broken by the proposed deletion. John254 19:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Links are in mass use, good enough for me. User:MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 11:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an integral utility to protecting content in the project, making it very much a Wikipedia-related link. I'd only be in favor of deleting it if VandalProof were unheard of or if the redirect were something ridiculously ambiguous like WP:VP. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. very useful. —dima • talk • sb • 02:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - they are useful redirects --WinHunter (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. It's useful and as John254 stated, deletion would cause a massive amount of links to be broken. G . H  e  19:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I only see cross-namespace as a problem when it's creating problems confusing overhead with encyclopedia. Both User: and Wikipedia: are overhead and it's more useful than confusing. gren グレン 22:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Very useful. It's a lot easier to type than the full link. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 12:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipede → Mascot
The nominated redirect was speedily deleted by Ral315. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 16:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Cross-namespace redirect with only two incoming links, other than RfD. Schzmo 11:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * (Speedy) Delete, as cross-namespace from mainspace, useless redirect. Comment: I think we could form some speedy criteria for orphaned redirects from mainspace without potential usefullness (~1570 results for Wikipede, of the first 50 most from Wikipedia, or meaning "Wikipedia). For now, though, I think it's OK to tag them with - they don't stand a chance anyway. This isn't the most useless one, but it's not very good idea to mix up articles and WP-space. If we consider it notable - well, let's create its own page, then. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 15:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)