Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 April 6

Bunch of XNRs
The result of the debate was keep. John Reaves (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * AlwaysLeaveSomethingUndoneDebate (hist) ⇒ Always Leave Something Undone debate
 * Feature requests (hist) ⇒ Bug report
 * HowDoesOneEditaPage (hist) ⇒ How to edit a page
 * HowCanIExploreWikiPedia (hist) ⇒ Contents
 * How does one edit a page/Name new pages (hist) ⇒ How to edit a page
 * How to edit a page (hist) ⇒ How to edit a page
 * International Wikipedia/Coordination (hist) ⇒ Multilingual coordination
 * International Wikipedia/Homepages (hist) ⇒ Multilingual coordination
 * International Wikipedia/TextToTranslate (hist) ⇒ Translation
 * Most Controversial Subjects (hist) ⇒ List of controversial issues
 * Most controversial subjects in wikipedia (hist) ⇒ List of controversial issues
 * NamingConventions (hist) ⇒ Naming conventions
 * Public Domain Resources (hist) ⇒ Public domain resources
 * RefactoringPolicy (hist) ⇒ Editing policy
 * RulesToConsider (hist) ⇒ Policies and guidelines
 * RulesToConsider/Integrate changes debate (hist) ⇒ Guide to writing better articles
 * RulesToConsider/Define and Describe (hist) ⇒ Guide to writing better articles
 * Refactoring as the essential Wikipedia process (hist) ⇒ Editing policy
 * Rules to consider (hist) ⇒ Policies and guidelines
 * Size of Wikipedia (hist) ⇒ Size of Wikipedia
 * Tips on contributing to Wikipedia (hist) ⇒ Contributing to Wikipedia
 * To delete or not to delete (hist) ⇒ Deletion policy
 * The perfect article (hist) ⇒ The perfect article
 * WhatIsaWiki (hist) ⇒ Questions
 * WhatsaWikiFor (hist) ⇒ What is a wiki for
 * WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki (hist) ⇒ Why on Earth would I want to contribute to a wiki
 * WhichWikiShouldWeUse (hist) ⇒ Historical Wikipedia pages/WhichWikiShouldWeUse
 * WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited (hist) ⇒ How to copy-edit
 * Who is responsible for these pages (hist) ⇒ Questions
 * Wikipedia FAQ (hist) ⇒ FAQ
 * Why Arent These Pages Copyedited (hist) ⇒ How to copy-edit
 * Wiki special characters/Turkish (hist) ⇒ Turkish characters
 * Why Wikipedia is not so great (hist) ⇒ Why Wikipedia is not so great
 * Wikipedia help desk (hist) ⇒ Help desk
 * Wikipedia bugs (hist) ⇒ Bug report
 * Wikipedia Copyright (hist) ⇒ Copyrights
 * Wikification (hist) ⇒ Glossary
 * Wikipedia banners and logos (hist) ⇒ Banners and buttons
 * Wikiproject Sports Franchise Listing (hist) ⇒ WikiProject Sports team listing
 * Wikipedia History standards (hist) ⇒ WikiProject History
 * Wikipedia utilities (hist) ⇒ Tools
 * Wikipedia utilities/Controversial subjects (hist) ⇒ List of controversial issues

Retargeted to article namespace

 * NPOV (hist) ⇒ Point of view (retargeted 2007-03-09)

All XNRs that aren't necessary.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Most of these are questions. The search feature is not "Ask Jeeves", "How-to remove pages" shouldn't revert to anything at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, questions shouldn't redirect to anything unless it's a movie/song title. I find this pointless. "How to edit a page", common, "How to edit a page" isn't something particulary on Wikipedia, it can also revert to edit, but that would also be silly. Oh and by the way, can someone quote a text from the policy that says why something like "redirects for discussion" can't be redirected to "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion"? TheBlazikenMaster 18:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found it out myself. TheBlazikenMaster 20:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all and renominate separately if needed. A number of these redirects, like How to edit a page, may be useful for new users. Many others date back to 2001 and contain useful edit histories of merges and pagemoves. Please do not direct me to sofixit; there is just too much here to fix in one place without creating a mess. I think it's better to close this RFD and renominate them in smaller groups or individually following more detailed research into the page histories.  -- Black Falcon 05:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is in fact a partial nomination, of about 5% of the actual list. Please consider if we have a more practical way of discussing this issue than open a seperate RFD for each individual one.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I really don't know of one. I've done two bundled nominations of XNRs that lacked useful edit histories and that were not useful as search terms where the common denominator was the target page. The drawback to this method is that it's quite time-consuming and usually cannot involve more than a dozen or so redirects (for the two bundled RFD nominations I made, it was 3 redirects in one case and 7 in the other). If a redirect has a useful edit history, I don't know if there is any quick way to deal with it, except if it is the result of a pagemove, in which case WP:RFD suggests that simply copying the pagemove history into the new page's talk page is enough. In the end, I suppose I'm not entirely convinced that all XNRs should be deleted as many are useful search terms. -- Black Falcon 18:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all and renominate separately if needed. Agree with Black Falcon. --Melanochromis 02:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Have you seen some of the history behind some of them (e.g. ); this is needed for GFDL reasons (and is an interesting insight into Wikipedia's history, with revisions going back to 2001, and edits before Conversion Script's). Each of the histories has to be checked seperately. At least move to Archive subpages rather than deleting on the ones with sensible history. (Note: the CamelCase names are the ones used before the link syntax became available, so they're quite likely to hold old history.) --ais523 14:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the camelcase ones, move them somewhere, or history merge them - the ones I looked at all have meaningful history. A few of the others like Why Wikipedia is not so great should be history merged.  I agree that these all need to be considered separately. --BigDT 21:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * deleteDCboy 23:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * delete some of them don't make sence and are joined togetherGman124 02:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm... that was the only way to make wikilinks a long, long time ago. &mdash;Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-11 17:22Z 
 * Why not move those redirects with old history (before Conversion script) to subpages of the page they redirect to? This will allow keeping of history and make the pages non-XNR. As for newer, convenience-only redirects, I support renominating them separately. &mdash;Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-11 17:22Z 
 * Keep all. Many are very old and contain important history (and not just the CamelCase ones).  Several are externally linked.  None present any possibility of confusion.  You may not think they are useful but clearly others do.  Rossami (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all - I understand the principle of generally not creating cross space redirects, however if some of these are occasionally useful, then probably better to keep all of them. Don't have any enthusiasm for hundreds of separate discussions and gather they don't take up that much space.Addhoc 19:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Bianca Burke → Godzilla
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as attack/nonsense. Newyorkbrad 01:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Created by this fellow, who responded to my complaints about his recent acts of apparent vandalism with "I'm sorry. You are a total retard." No Google hits, so it's presumably an attack on someone the user knows. Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 05:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (maybe even speedy as attack page?). This note supports intentional creation as attack or joke. Creator Misteroonova is indef-blocked vandal account. DMacks 16:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete NRV. Dfrg.msc 00:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Note: Given that the only comment on the talkpage was "Happy 11th Birthday Bianca" I have gone ahead and speedied the page as attack/nonsense. Newyorkbrad 01:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Angry mob → Ochlocracy
The result of the debate was no consensus. John Reaves (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Rather contentious. I ran across this because it was used in article to link the expression "angry mob" to Ochlocracy without piping. While I think the redirect from mob rule is appropriate, this is no more appropriate than "angry" anything else. Jmabel | Talk 17:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that there are substantive pre-merge edits that may need preserving for GFDL reasons. I'm open to pretty much any way of complying with GFDL on this (e.g. move it out of article space); I still am very uncomfortable with "angry mob" being used as a link term. - Jmabel | Talk 18:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment My own confusion on the issue is outlined in detail on Talk:Angry mob, where I was having trouble with circular redirects. My own personal opinion would probably be a disambiguation page between Riot, Ochlocracy and Crowd, but in re-instating the redirect I was trying to avoid the circular redirects already in place and also I wanted to uphold the concensus reached previously by Articles for deletion/Angry mob. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * delete DCboy 01:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * delete Angry mob is just a phrase, not an encyclopedic term. Ngchen 02:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep Given that over 100 articles currently link to this page, it is clearly something that people want to link to. If it is deleted, linking to it will almost certainly continue, which will then lead someone to creating an article about angry mobs, leading to far more trouble (merging, AFD, redirecting again).  While I realize this redirect is awkward and not quite correct, keeping seems like a better, stable, more long-term solution.  (deleting and salting could also be employed, but this way is more educational as well.)Dar-Ape 01:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Disambig between Riot & Ochlocracy. I agree with Dar-Ape that deleting is not the answer. However, looking at some of the articles that link to this term, riot is as equally a valid destination. -- JLaTondre 19:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Riot. Agree with nom that Ochlocracy doesn't imply anger. Addhoc 19:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. &rArr; No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 03:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

unusable redirect. Stifle (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The srongest keep of all keeps The day we lose WP:WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself is the day we lose our liberty.  Who is with me?   Culv  e  rin  ?   Talk  06:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep AGAIN, some people just can't take a joke. -- Ned Scott 23:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep For the love of.... read the page, read the discussion page. It's a joke. Leave it. Dfrg.msc 00:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. For the same reasons as listed above. --Releeshan 00:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Entirely too funny to delete. John Reaves (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep After an especially hard day in the trenches, it's pages and redirects like this that keep some of us sane. The project will suffer if editors go insane. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 00:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong snowed in keep, it is an integral part of the page it redirects to. 00:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What does it accomplish as a WP: link that it wouldn't as a Wikipedia: link? As it is, it is in the namespace and potentially could show up as a search result. --BigDT 18:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - There should be things to lighten the mood here on Wikipedia-- $U IT  01:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per $UIT, Netscott, Kathryn NicDhàna, John Reaves, Releeshan, Klassykittychick, and Ned Scott (no known relation to Netscott). In other words, "keep per all above," but I was once told such !votes are discounted, so hopefully I have avoided such a fate as that. What is more, I don't want to insinuate that I would do anything inappropriate if this redirect were deleted, but by a chance coincidence I have an appointment at a German costume shop next week.... Newyorkbrad 01:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself., this wouldn't have to be a cross-namespace redirect to get the humor across. — xaosflux  Talk  01:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, nevermind we actually already have a redirect there, it should be useable enough for someone that must type this whole thing out shoudn't it?, Delete. — xaosflux  Talk  01:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Not only is it a great joke, but the nominator's rationale is demonstrably false, since lots of folks have actually used this redirect in discussions.  It's part of the joke. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - pointless cross-namespace redirect and really should be speedied --BigDT 18:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. As this is prefixed by "WP:", this isn't a cross-namespace redirect. -- Black Falcon 18:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP: redirects are actually a part of article space. See .  This is list of articles that start with WP.  We have over 1000 of them and some are so obscure that nobody will ever use them. --BigDT 20:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically that's true, but per Redirects: "WP: shortcut redirects ... in practice form their own 'pseudo-namespace'". So, technically it's cross-namespace, but in practice pages starting with "WP:" are considered a subset of the "Wikipedia:" namespace. I should have been clearer in my comment. Cheers, Black Falcon 02:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Josiah Rowe's reasoning. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I use this redirect all the time! Dar-Ape 01:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I would never countenance the removal of Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself., but the WP: pseudo-namespace is usually used for shortcuts, and this isn't exactly a shortcut....  :)  Xtifr tälk 09:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. That's part of the joke: the "WP" pseudo-namespace is usually followed by something shorter than the page's name, but in this case it's longer than the page's name.  It's like having a nickname which is longer than your actual name.  If people think that the "WP" pseudo-namespace is so sacrosanct that we can't use it humorously, that's fine — but personally, I think that would be a shame. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I would consider that to be more of a second(ary) joke (or, at least, attempt at humor).  Anyway, as a joke (or jokes), I find the concept only mildly funny at best, but as a key part of Wikipedia's cultural history, I find it fascinating.  But I think we only need one of these redirects to perpetuate the joke/history.  I don't really care which one is kept, but I think two is too many.  Xtifr tälk 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - amusing per culverin. Addhoc 16:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.