Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 13

Classical Music in Star Trek → Category:Star Trek soundtracks
The result of the debate was delete. — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Redirect was created after deletion of article "Classical music in Star Trek" (different capitalisation). Redirect from article to category is not appropriate. There are no incoming links. Fayenatic london (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete unnecessary and inappropriate cross-namespace redirect whose target is currently listed for deletion as well. Inaccurate redirect too, since nothing in the target is classical music.  (For that matter, only one article in the target is a soundtrack; the rest are composers.)  Xtifr tälk 09:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bead Artseinu → List of political parties in Israel
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC) The redirect is misleading. I deleted it from List of political parties in Israel, because Bead Artseinu is not a political party. Amir E. Aharoni 08:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Should be speedy deleted.And page protected never to be restored againShrike 08:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Comunleng → Esperantido
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC) The article about Comunleng was deleted. The target article does not say that Comunleng is a type of Esperantido. Amir E. Aharoni 09:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

WP:VCU → User:Vandalism Combat Unit
The result of the debate wasThe result was Speedy delete r2, cross-space redirect, user blocked for improper username. NawlinWiki 12:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Misleading redirect indicating user is some "official" wikipedia something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambc (talk • contribs) 12:01, 13 August 2007 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Wp:vcu → User:Vandalism Combat Unit
The result of the debate wasThe result was Speedy delete r2, cross-space redirect, user blocked for improper username. NawlinWiki 12:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Misleading redirect indicating user is some sort of official wikipedia something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambc (talk • contribs) 12:00, 13 August 2007
 * There is a template on my userpage for disambiguation, it's midnight here, I'll discuss tomorrow. Cheers, --Vandalism Combat Unit 12:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

NPOV → Point of view
The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. WjBscribe 17:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Redirects in the article namespace need to be encyclopaedic. NPOV isn't used in any context meaning "(neutral) point of view" except in wikijargon. This used to be a cross-namespace redirect, but it was redirected to "point of view" instead. See also this past RfD debate. 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * comment I actually see that the discussion of neutral point of view (even just on Wikipedia) is something that has been the subject of commentary and review in third-party sources like, . And plenty of scholar articles here .  I am not sure if there's a reason for an article here, but it may be appropriate for the term to go somewhere.  We could just retarget to neutral which has the disambig there.  Or considering that Neutral point of view redirects to Objectivity (journalism) it might be appropriate to target it there.    FrozenPurpleCube 16:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's nothing wrong with the redirect "neutral point of view", but NPOV (the abbreviation) is Wikijargon and shouldn't redirect to "point of view". It is uncommon outside of Wikipedia, i.e. not an encyclopaedic redirect. If there are multiple reliable third-party sources discussing Wikipedia's NPOV principle, then create an encyclopaedia article on it :)  Mel sa  ran  16:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Except it's an abbreviation for an existing phrase. Abbreviations are clearly a valid reason to have a redirect, see WP:R, first criteria.  That Wikipedians use it doesn't mean people searching Wikipedia won't, it's not even a term exclusive to Wikipedia in usage.  You may be thinking of it as Wikijargon, but I'm thinking of it as "Does this phrase exist on its own?"  It does, and as the abbreviation is a rather conventional one, it might even predate Wikipedia, maybe somebody with older books on journalism can check.  And as I said, I'm not sure if there's a reason for an article at NPOV, but then, this is a question of the appropriateness of a redirect, not that article(which should be covered in some places).  As I see it, you haven't made a case against the redirect going somewhere, though I do agree the current target is not ideal.  I think my suggestions are a clear improvement.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, Npov is also around. I changed the target, but you may wish to add it to the discussion here.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect to the Wikipedia policy page. As has repeatedly been noted before, this acronym is only used on Wikipedia in context with our policy page.  It is extensively linked both internally and externally.  It is all over the archives and old versions of our pages.  There is no possibility of confusion between this title and an encyclopedia article.  To the minor extent that someone really is trying to find an encyclopedia article on neutrality, there is already a disambiguation link at the top of the policy page.  Leave the redirect alone.  Rossami (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:ASR, sort of. It's good practice, in my opinion, not to have mainspace redirects in to project space. Unless it has a prefix, such as "WP:", or "U", there's no need for a redirect. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 13:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation page why not send NPOV to a disambig page with WP:npov and Objectivity (journalism) and anything else that might link in to it. You've got to remeber how BAD!!!11!! our search engine is. ( Hypnosadist )  16:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not going to have disambiguation pages that disambiguate between Wikipedia project space pages and encyclopedic content in the main (article) namespace. WP:NSR.  Melsaran  (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So you object to pages like AFD, RR, 5p, disambig, RFA noting the WP pages which are applicable? FrozenPurpleCube 04:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Now this page redirects to WP:NPOV, though it was at the start of this discussion set to point of view and I've offered other suggestions which I think are better, but it seems we're going at cross-purposes here. FrozenPurpleCube 20:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If it redirects to WP:NPOV, it is a cross-namespace redirect, and it definitely has to go.  Melsaran  (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So...what? That objection merely means that particular choice of redirect needs to be avoided.  Fortunately, it's easy to change the redirect to point to be another location, and if anything, I think having an existing redirect is a better idea since it prevents somebody from just repeating this, as well as serving the purposes of getting people where they want to go.  This is especially a concern since Npov, neutral point of view and even Neutral Point of View all exist.  FrozenPurpleCube 04:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You did notice that the page you linked to is tagged as a rejected policy proposal, right? Rossami (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ehm, yes, have you read the page? The page contains a proposal for settling the debate on CNRs. That proposal was rejected. One can still view the arguments etc there.  Melsaran  (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)