Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 December 8

December 8
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on December 8, 2007

Malformed MOS-related redirs
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS/CAPS (now MOS/CAPS) → Manual of Style (capital letters)
 * WP:MOS/TRADEMARK (now MOS/TRADEMARK) → Manual of Style (trademarks)
 * WP:MOS/CHINA‎ (now MOS/CHINA) → Manual of Style (use of Chinese language)
 * WP:MOS/BIRTH (now MOS/BIRTH) → Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
 * WP:MOS/ALLCAPS (now MOS/ALLCAPS) → Manual of Style (capital letters)

Nominated for deletion. Shorcuts of the form "NS:PAGE/SUB" are used for /subpages of other pages, e.g. WP:WSS/NG = WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming guidelines. None of these qualify. In the case of the first three, they already all have shortcuts that work just fine: WP:MOSCAPS, WP:MOSTM, and WP:MOSZH, respectively (with MOS:FOO variants). In the latter two cases, the convention is "NS:PAGE#SECT" (see WP:NOT for probably more examples that anyone actually needs...); they should be WP:MOSNUM#BIRTH and WP:MOSCAPS#ALLCAPS respectively, if there was a need for them, but the MOS generally does not have "microshortcuts" of this level of granularity. There are a few sectional MOS shortcuts, e.g. in WP:MOS and WP:MOSNUM, to major sections, but especially (and perhaps only) ones that were formerly separate pages that had shortcuts before they were merged (and thus aren't in "NS:PAGE#SECT" format, and are preserved only so that old talk page discussions don't have redlinks; we could probably safely stop "advertising" them on the MOS pages themselves). But there is no consensus to randomly create a bunch more of these things, and last time someone tried that, they were opposed on it. I note also that neither of those last two are actually mentioned in their target documents, so they don't serve any purpose for anyone but their creator. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 19:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, no need for these.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  22:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, these five were created in the last 24 hours and I don't see the advantage. A / generally indicates a redirect to a subpage. Gimmetrow 03:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree they are not needed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note. I have noted the new names of the redirects following the abolition of the WP: pseudo-namespace by the developers (any link to WP: now automatically expands to Wikpedia: ). WjBscribe 23:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

HPPMOS & MOS:HPP → WikiProject Harry Potter/Style guidelines
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Nominated for deletion. Target page is not part of the WP:MOS, so the redirects are misleading/misrepresentational. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 18:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, no need for these.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  22:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete MOS:HPP, not part of MOS and not general enough to become one. No strong opinion on WP:HPPMOS, though WP:HPP/SG using a subpage of the redirect is much nicer. Gimmetrow 03:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnecessary pollution of the article namespace. --Tony Sidaway 15:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

MoS:MoS → Special:Prefixindex/MoS:
The result of the debate was WP:CSD speedy deletion by User:Philippe. Gimmetrow 03:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Related to the discussion below. This is a redirect to a Special: page, but redirects to special pages don't work. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Tagged for speedy deletion, per WP:CSD. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 19:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no need for these.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  22:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If cupid had a heart! → List of Hannah Montana episodes
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC) I redirected the article, rather than leave it standing, as it was about a Hannah Montana episode. However, the proper name of the episode is "I Want You to Want Me ... To Go to Florida." That would make this title an unlikely search term, so I see no need to keep the redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. As it's not the actual name of the episode, and isn't listed on the target page, this is not a useful redirect. Terraxos (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

MOS: and related non-standard shortcuts
The result of the debate was keep. --- RockMFR 17:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Complete list. Several dozens of shortcuts of the form "MOS:something" exist, that redirect to pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Most of these are only barely in use, and most of those mages also have the more common "WP:" shortcut. I suggest that all of these non-standard shortcuts be deleted.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments: 1. You probably want these and these as well. Note that someone will surely insist that you tag and list them properly. 2. As of now, all of these pages now have a standard WP: shortcut. I delisted the MOS: ones from shortcut boxes as well. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply: It is highly inappropriate to pre-emptive depopulate anything up for XfD. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 18:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Radiant notes that "most of these are only barely in use," but that would change if they were properly documented. To clarify, I'm referring strictly to the all-uppercase "MOS" shortcuts cited in the nomination. The "MoS" and "Mos" redirects are unintuitive and should be deleted. —David Levy 17:36/19:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all "MOS" redirects. I noticed Gavia immer's delisting, and that's what brought me here.  I personally favor expanding the shortcut system, and I see no harm (and substantial benefit) in using the convenient "MOS" prefix.  This often enables the creation of significantly shorter redirects (which is the entire point of having shortcuts).  We should standardize on the "MOS" prefix across the board, not eliminate it because it doesn't comply with the "WP" format.


 * All of these already have better shortcuts, and standardizing on something that isn't a standard gives people the idea that these pages are somehow different than the rest of Wikispace, which sounds like a patently bad idea.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  22:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

2. "Standardizing on something that isn't a standard"? Huh? What kind of logic is that? Something can't be a standard before it's standardized. If we standardize on it, it will be a standard. This will convey nothing other than the simple fact that a limited number of short letter combinations necessitates the adoption of an extended organizational scheme. Having "Wikipedia:Manual of Style" at the beginning of a title doesn't make a page appear "different than the rest of Wikispace," and neither does using "MOS" as a shortcut prefix. Both merely reflect the fact that a page is part of our Manual of Style. —David Levy 00:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. What "better" shortcut than MOS:TM exists for Manual of Style (trademarks)? That's merely a random example.


 * Strong keep all MOS and  delete redirect all MoS/Mos. Keep per David Levy, basically, on every point.  Delete "MoS:" and "Mos:" ones because they do not fit the standardized ALLCAPS shortcut pattern (there aren't many of them, not visible ones anyway, and I was about to RfD the ones I found when I noticed this). The "MOS:FOO" convention is very well established; all it needs is consistent application.  I, too, noticed that  has been deleting "MOS:" shortcuts from MOS pages while this RfD is still open. I have been reverting this, on the same basis that one does not depopulate a category while it is under discussion, or blank pages that are up for AfD.)  I also note that WT:MOS was not informed of this RfD, which seems rather odd. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 18:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)  Update: Per some stuff below, I now suggest redirecting the MoS and Mos versions to their MOS equivalents. And yes, this would create double redirects, and that would be intentional.  The redirs could have a visible note on them than the MoS/Mos spellings were deprecated, while still having a clickable redir link that lets people following links in old edit summaries still get to where they were trying to get. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 07:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I forgot to mention that the "MOS:" shortcuts exist not just to be cute or some other whim, but because too many of the useful shortcut keywords are already taken, mostly by WikiProjects. The MOS is at least as important as project pages (I dare say) and other guidelines, and editors need a consistent and intuitive set of shortcuts for them. That they are not 100% consistently applied yet is not a reason to delete them; a baby–bathwater issue. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 19:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and standardize, as per David Levy. -- Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment There was a recent and extensive discussion of the WP: pseudo-namespace at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 4, wherein I mentioned (near the end) that MOS: WT: CAT: P: etc, would need to be included in any decisions. I don't know what the outcome is/was. See also 6313. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply: Well, just read it. :-) There was pretty much a consensus that making WP and WT actually be real namespaces (for reasons unrelated to this discussion) would be a Good Thing.  Two of the developers, at the bugzilla page, are calling it a WONTFIX, and one says maybe it should be a LATER, while another has experimented on his home copy of MediaWiki; none appear to be gung-ho about it, and the fallout could be pretty serious.  Regardless, it has no bearing on this RfD, and is a technical matter about whether these pseudo-namespaces should be converted into real ones, and what the costs vs. benefits of that conversion would be; "MOS:" would go along with the others, either way. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 22:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was early in my day, I still needed coffee and consciousness, I only stumbled in to give links that I recalled as being relevant. :P -- Quiddity (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The MOS: redirects are useful and intuitive. Gimmetrow 03:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Strong keep. These redirects are used in zillions of edit summaries that aren't easily fixed.  Why make them redlinks?  I don't even see a need to deprecate them; there aren't any articles starting with "MOS:" currently anyway.  It's a convenient psuedo-namespace, and I fail to see any compelling reason to delete them; "let's standardize!" isn't good enough.  I also support keeping the intuitive MoS: redirects as well, since that makes it much clearer at a glance what it refers to, and also is used in many edit summaries.   This issue came up to a degree earlier at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 71, where there are some more comments in favor of the MOS psuedo-namespaces. SnowFire (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all, useful. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all established, useful, often used redirects--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 13:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Trey Burba → 4chan
The result of the debate was speedy delete under WP:BLP. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

His name was not made public in any of the news articles (which you can see in the article) about the hoax post he made on 4chan saying that he was going to set off a bomb at his school, after which he was arrested, because he was a minor and they wanted to protect his privacy (4chan is not even directly mentioned in any of the articles, let alone his name). Per WP:BLP we should really consider the appropriateness of this redirect - I only found out his name by searching the 4chanarchive thread. For example Daniel Brandt is now salted and does not redirect to Public Information Research.h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 00:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Per WP:BLP, this is clearly invalid. I couldn't find the name through a reliable source, so I have deleted the redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mcnasty's → McDonald's
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Philippe. delldot  talk  12:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC) This seems like an offensive redirect. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I am also bundling MacDoh with this application. meshach (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Tagging first one for WP:CSD, although it's been around since 2005. Is MacDoh an attack, or perhaps the name of some promotion or contest? It's been around since 2004. Gimmetrow 04:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)