Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 June 3

Natives redirects
The result of the debate was delete. Salting can be considered if there is a problem with recreation. WjBscribe 22:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC) These redirects are the last vestiges of the "Natives of" category naming scheme, after deleting many hundreds of such categories, such as these. By deleting these random stragglers, we won't have a suggestion anywhere that we need categories with these names.--Mike Selinker 05:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * category:Natives of Arkansas
 * category:Natives of Beijing
 * category:Natives of Berlin
 * category:Natives of Cape Town
 * category:Natives of Danzig
 * category:Natives of Gdańsk
 * category:Natives of Leicester
 * category:Natives of Moscow
 * category:Natives of Munich
 * category:Natives of Paris
 * category:Natives of Pretoria
 * category:Natives of Reading
 * category:Natives of São Paulo (city)
 * category:Natives of Sao Paulo state
 * category:Natives of Southampton
 * category:Natives of Strasbourg
 * category:Natives of the West Midlands
 * category:Natives of the Western Isles
 * category:Natives of Warsaw
 * Weak keep: They seem faintly plausible (esp. if the categories used to be here) and I don't see what harm they are doing. Delete and salt per User:Bencherlite. &mdash;Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 13:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * These are the only ones that exist. There's no "Natives of New York City" or "Natives of Russia" or anything else. They're just totally random outliers.--Mike Selinker 14:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. "Natives of" is confined to deletion history apart from these redirects.  As articles can still be added to redirect categories without error messages or redlinks showing, if these remain out there, people can accidently put an article into these categories without seeing anything going wrong, and may then go elsewhere and create a new category of Natives to "match". There may well be particular historical reasons why these redirects were created, but I don't suggest we waste time looking for reasons. Salting will prevent "faintly plausible" categories that conflict with established category guidelines from being created again, and now would be a good time to do it as that the area is clear of debris.  (FWIW, I was the one who nominated all the 100+ remaining "Natives of" categories for renaming to "People of" as speedy category renames (after various batches of nominations at WP:CFD and WP:CFDS), and it's not a task I think we'd want to do again!) Bencherlite 16:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, not useful. I don't believe that salting categories actually works (i.e. you can still add them to articles).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You can add them, but they come up red rather than blue, and you can't create them if you click on the redlink (as the friendly salt notice tells you). Bencherlite 19:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bother salting them, since we haven't seen any propensity of users to recreate them. Just my opinion, tho.--Mike Selinker 17:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Only suggested salt on the basis that the existence of the redirects for these outposts suggested that there was a previous problem with incorrect use. But I'll trust the judgment of others who are better judges of how much salt to add. Bencherlite 22:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Weak delete per nom. As they stand (as bluelinks), they could encourage imitation.  No strong opinions on salting, though it seems a bit pointless, since this is only the tiniest fraction of the "Natives" categories that could be created.  I tend to think that salting should be reserved for cases where persistant recreation is actually occurring.  Xtifr tälk 22:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutron star colonization → outer space
The result of the debate was retarget Yellow dwarf colonization to Space colonization, delete the rest. WjBscribe 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Colonization of neutron stars is non-sensical; destination of redirect is poor. The creator of this redirect has added many other similar poor redirects: " colonisation", e.g. Black hole colonization. -- MightyWarrior 13:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Gavia immer (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment:These might as well all be discussed at once, so here's the whole shebang:
 * Black hole colonization
 * Red dwarf colonization
 * Red giant colonization
 * Yellow dwarf colonization
 * White dwarf colonization
 * White giant colonization
 * Black dwarf colonization
 * Brown dwarf colonization
 * Rogue planet colonization
 * Blue giant colonization
 * Neutron star colonization
 * Pulsar colonization
 * Quasar colonization
 * Blazar colonization
 * Speedy delete all. Pavel Vozenilek 22:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all as they do not make sense.Tikiwont 08:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. I wouldn't go so far as to say they make no sense, but that may be because I read wilder science fiction than many.  Nevertheless, I think these make no sense as a redirect to a general article about outer space, and I don't know of any better targets.  Even a redirect to Space colonization would be inappropriate, as these are much more far-out ideas than anything one is likely to find in that article.  Xtifr tälk 09:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per above. I can confirm nothing like any of these is mentioned in Space colonization. &mdash;Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 14:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete most. Yellow dwarf colonization should be redirected to Space colonization, as our own sun is a yellow dwarf, as is the largest star in the nearest star system to us, Alpha Centauri A. The Space colonization specifically addresses Tau Ceti, which is a Yellow Dwarf as well. The rest are either improbable or nonsensical. Horologium t-c 02:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)