Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 June 11

WP:YESPRO → Main Page featured article protection
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 02:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Inappropriate redirect - appears to have been created in an attempt to push a change in policy on how routinely the main page FA should be semi-protected. Neither logically connected to the target (therefore unlikely to be used a shortcut anyway) nor reflects current approach by administrators in this area (therefore misleading). WjBscribe 23:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ^ demon [omg plz] 23:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WJB. – Steel 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Totally unnecessary, confusing for all - A l is o n  ☺ 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood me completely. My aim is not to push one side of the argument, it is to agree a consensus. Using both "NOPRO" and "YESPRO" is non-neutral. We should either only use "MPFAP", or we should have both redirects. If you delete one, you should delete the other. If you keep one, you should keep the other. DrKiernan 06:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, confusing. Actual practice is not to protect the main page FA; if the guideline says something else, it needs to be fixed. Kusma (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actual practice is to semi-protect in extreme circumstances, although Atheism was semi-protected when it experienced the normal level of vandalism for an MPFA. So, practice is also determined by whether the article is perceived to be controversial. DrKiernan 10:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Raul654 15:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. What's next? NOUSERBOXES? YESRFA? MAYBEATTRIBUTION? --- RockMFR 21:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are good ideas. We should implement them. YESRFA would be particularly useful for me at the present time. DrKiernan 11:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with nom. The redirect might be misleading given the policy's current stance. - Mtmelendez (Talk 23:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Riana ⁂  16:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment WP:YESPRO and WP:NOPRO need to rise or fall together. They are opposite sides of the same coin, and keeping one without the other isn't a neutral stance. --Ssbohio 20:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is simply not correct. One, WP:NOPRO is an accurate description of the contents of the target page. The other, WP:YESPRO, is not. Furthermore, the one that is not (WP:YESPRO) is being used inappropriately. It is perfectly reasonable to delete troublesome redirects without being forced to delete redirects that are not troublesome. -- Gavia immer (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that isn't quite correct either is it? There is even a section headed "Arguments for and against protection" - so, clearly the arguments for would be Yes Pro, and the arguments against would be No Pro. The page does cover both sides. DrKiernan 06:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the NOPRO deletion debate closed as Keep, I've changed my vote here to match. Also, Gavia's edit summary "comment that is really a deletion vote" appears to mischaracterize my sentiments significantly.  I have trouble seeing that summary as a good faith act.  I'd appreciate an apology, since if I had intended to vote delete, I'd've typed delete instead of comment.  --Ssbohio 20:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think an AGF interpretation would be that Gavia's edit summary applied to the comment he was making and not yours. -- JLaTondre 02:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

WP:CAPITALISEDGIBBERISH → WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!
The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre 02:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC) OMG! WTF? TMD RDR 2 DIS PG. ARG! The redirect "shortcut" is longer than the target. Yechiel Man 03:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Whether this is kept or deleted (a matter on which I have no opinion), the similar redirect WP:CAPITALIZEDGIBBERISH → WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! (with American "Z" spelling) ought to be included in the result. -- Gavia immer (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose it may very well be, but it's much easier to remember and does no harm. It makes sense, too.  Sala Skan  14:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep.  Sala Skan  is right. The shortcut is actually easier to memorize than the policy's title, making it suitable for reference in discussions. - Mtmelendez (Talk 23:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note that WP:WTF already redirects to that page so the nom one isn't totally warranted - A l is o n  ☺ 00:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Response: Yes, but I also said that this shortcut aids in referencing during discussions. In other words, users who are not aware of this policy can quickly identify it and understand it with the current redirect under discussion. - Mtmelendez (Talk 01:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Weak keep: not very useful, but redirects are cheap, so it doesn't have to be. I'd say it's useful enough to meet our very low bar.  Xtifr tälk 09:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It might just be easier to discard the qualifier and have WP:GIBBERISH in this case. --Aarktica 14:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete When we start discussing others contributions as gibberish, it's easy for them to feel personally attacked. Whatever redirect there is should be a bit less judgmental so it can improve communication rather than create an impediment.  --Ssbohio 23:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)