Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 18

Yellow people → East Asia
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 05:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC) "Yellow people" aren't really equated to "East Asia" (other than origin). It's a controversial redirect name, in that no one is sure where to redirect it to (e.g. Asian (people), Mongoloid race, even Asian American). Until we get an "East Asian" page or something similar, there may be no proper equated page to redirect it to (plus, aren't the Inuit racistly considered "yellow people" as well?). Tim Thomason 03:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * DeleteDark Tea &#169;  04:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - wouldn't The Simpsons - be more appropriate? Onnaghar tl 15:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as probably some racist joke someone created for fun.  J- stan  Talk Contribs 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I disagree with J-Stan (this was almost certainly created in good faith), it's simply problematic to have it pointing at any one existing target. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't say that I agree with J-Stan, but this is an unencyclopedic redirect. Per nom.  Cool Blue  talk to me 20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The only place where this redirect is used is in articles about the race in Brazil. It looks like they really use "yellow people" to mean "people from East Asia" so there is some point in having this redirect. If this is deleted, please don't forget to delink it. Kusma (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. According to our article on Race in Brazil, this is an official classification and, if that article is correct, the redirect is targetted correctly.  All the inbound links use this in the context of Brazil, leading me to believe that this is probably not a "racist joke".  I would like confirmation from someone who speaks the language that this is an appropriate translation, though.  Rossami (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Onnaghar, but seriously, if we had an redirect of "Black People" into "Africa" people whould complain - Flubeca Talk 21:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying we should have an article on yellow people as we do for black people? I know I'm putting words in your mouth but remember: we're not running for office so we don't have to concede on every matter that could offend. If it's a common, documented term we should keep the redirect to help people get to the relevant information (and to educate them if the term is defamatory).  Big Nate 37 (T) 22:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Lefkáda → Template:Lefkada
The result of the debate was delete. mattbr 12:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Template redirect without any conceivable use. Couldn't find any references to this particular spelling either. --MZMcBride 01:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep as redirects are cheap. --Aarktica 00:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think redirects in the template namespace need to be subject to a slightly higher standard as they show up on Special:Unusedtemplates. Template cleanup is affected if redirects needlessly clutter that list so I would argue that a useless template redirect is de facto harmful. WjBscribe 00:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Listcruft → Listcruft
The result of the debate was delete. Links to be retargeted. mattbr 11:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary cross-namespace redirect; we have WP:LISTCRUFT etc for this. See BJAODN, Hatnotes and RC Patrol for precedents.  Mel sa  ran  02:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. - Tangotango (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Onnaghar tl 15:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am relatively unfamiliar with RfD, coming over from AfD. Just to clarify, Listcruft is under discussion to delete. If the decision is to delete, listcruft will be deleted, right?  J- stan  Talk Contribs 17:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Only the redirect itself is up for discussion. Resolute 21:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Resolute 21:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Tim! 08:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I'll put it for speedy. Never mind. Per here, a user has expressed their concern for the redirect not to be speedied.  Cool Blue  talk to me 20:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are 153 inbound links to the redirect, clearly indicating that WP:LISTCRUFT is not sufficient.  None of the inbound links that I reviewed used the term in any context except with the clear intent to link to the Wikipedia policy page.  Rossami (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Since "listcruft" is not a recognized word outside of certain limited circles, it makes no sense to the casual Wikipedia user. The present redirect takes the casual user to a page where its use may be understood. It's helpful and constructive; removing it would be unhelpful and unconstructive. 71.185.74.177 02:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. People being lazy typing links isn't a good reason for cross-namespace redirects. If the redirect were not present, the page in the correct namespace would have been linked to. There is a clear (and in my opinion good) precedent for deleting these. Someone should get a Bot to retarget those links to the correct page however (or use AWB). WjBscribe 05:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don't mind the occasional cross-namespace redirect for really important stuff like our major content policies, but this is just some essay. Many people have questioned whether the essay itself is helpful, so I think that any argument that this redirect is helpful is way over the top.  There is ample precedent for deleting all but the most significant and useful cross-namespace redirects, and this is neither.  People who don't know enough to add "WP:" probably aren't qualified to judge what is and isn't listcruft in any case.  Xtifr tälk 07:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:MO → Template:MAC
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Confusing template redirect without any conceivable use. --MZMcBride 02:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Not able to find connection between MO and Macau.  J- stan  Talk Contribs 18:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Lasíthi → Template:Lasithi
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Template redirect without any conceivable use. Couldn't find any references to this particular spelling either. --MZMcBride 02:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - per nom. Onnaghar tl 15:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ricky Martin Single María → María (song)
The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 20:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC) The title of this song is "María", not "Ricky Martin Single María". David Pro 16:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a harmful redirect. David Pro 23:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag as R from alternative name. This will aid in searches and there is no possible way to confuse this title with anything other than referring to María (song). I see no harm in keeping nor is there a reason to delete given in the nomination.  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is where the article started.  The redirect was automatically created as a result of the pagemove to the correct title.  The redirect preserves contribution history and directs the original contributors to the new location for the page.  Rossami (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Untilted Second Album → Untitled second Cascada album
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Splash. WjBscribe 23:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Evidently created by accident by an editor who failed to include the band name in the article title. They moved the article to the proper title, and blanked this page. I tagged it for speedy per db-author, but the redirect was subsequently restored. I'm treating that as a contested speedy, so here I am. The redirect is far to vague to serve a useful purpose. Delete Resolute 21:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Actually, I redirected it to the target of the move. However, I only just noticed that it's actually a useless misspelling, so I deleted it. Splash - tk 22:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Fair use → Template:Restricted use
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 02:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Unused redirect to depreciated template. Deleting this redirect will prevent new users from slapping  on an image and believing that this satisfies the non-free content policy. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. I agree completely with Remember the dot; removing newbie traps from our image upload process is a Good Thing. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: can you link a page that supports the assertion that restricted use is depreciated?  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at the bottom of Template:Restricted use: "This tag should not be used. Instead, use..." —Remember the dot (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, missed that. I see that non-free fair use in is the replacing template for general or uncommon fair-use situations. Good enough.  Big Nate 37 (T) 20:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)