Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 22

How to create page(s) for topics with several different definitions → Disambiguation
The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC) This is a cross-namespace redirect that, given its length, is an unlikely search term. It has no significant incoming links (just 3 from lists of cross-namespace redirects), so deletion won't create any broken links. The page also lacks a useful edit history. It was initially created as a how-to article for disambiguation in November 2002. After a few days, it was redirected to Disambiguation, which had been created in April and was already more informative (see ). Neither the editor who redirected the page nor its creator subsequently edited the target page (see edit history), suggesting that no merge took place (not that one would have been necessary or useful). To sum up, this is a cross-namespace redirect for an unlikely search term that has no useful edit history and lacks incoming links. Black Falcon 20:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom. Good work on checking out everything. --- RockMFR 20:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. VegaDark 00:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Animal/Cattle Mutilation → Cattle mutilation
The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre 11:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC) This is a redirect from an article subpage that lacks any useful edit history. Article subpages are generally discouraged and should be corrected or deleted. It does not seem to be the result of a merge, having been created 9 months after the target page was started (a check of the edit history of cattle mutilation also reveals no merge in April 2004, when this redirect was created). Finally, nothing links to this redirect, so there's no need to worry about broken links. Black Falcon 19:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Weak keep - While technically a subpage, it looks like it was intended as a search term to me. Maybe a somewhat improbable one, but not so unlikely as to warrant deletion.  Redirects are cheap.  &mdash;dgies tc 16:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as redirect to user space. John Reaves (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Andman8 → User:Andman8/contrib
Cross-namespace redirects resulting from userfying various templates. All transclusions fixed. --- RockMFR 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Trainer Toolkit → Action Replay
The result of the debate was keep. John Reaves (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Previous version of article was mostly an advertisement. When I marked it as another user redirected it. I reverted and he reverted back. This is a non notable product, and not a likely search. The redirect will just encourage people to re-create the article. Nardman1 00:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap. They also aren't articles so this non-notable thing doesn't fly. They also don't encourage people to recreate articles, but even if they did, protection would solve that. – Steel 00:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that redirects are cheap, and don't see any pressing need to delete this. If anything a redirect discourages recreating content, redlinks default to an "Edit this page" box. Arkyan 19:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's mentioned in the target article, so it's a likely search term. I don't see how it is causing any harm. --- RockMFR 19:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Might I argue for deletion of the previous history at least? Nardman1 20:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 11:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Latin verbs (L to Z) → Latin conjugation

 * These pages are the result of a split of Latin verbs and a subsequent transwiki to Wiktionary.
 * None of these are titles you would normally search for. Latin verbs (2) is not a title you would noramlly search for.
 * Latin verbs (2) has no in coming links. Latin verbs (A to K) & Latin verbs (L to Z) have links only from the Wikipedia: and User: namespaces.
 * Since they have already been transwikied the page history is still accessible via Wiktionary.

It seems that the history of Latin verbs (A to K) & Latin verbs (L to Z) has not yet been moved. However, Latin verbs (2), being the result of a page move, has no significant history. I propose the deletion of Latin verbs (2) now and the deletion of the other two when the history has been moved. all three redirects.

Note: Articles for deletion/Latin nouns resulted in redirecting Latin nouns to Latin declension and redirecting the verb articles to Latin conjugation "since the history hasn't been recorded on the transwikied articles yet." It seem that the history has (now) been recorded. Perhaps the history was moved after the decision, perhaps it was the copy-&-paste jobs, wikt:Appendix:Latin verbs (A to K) and wikt:Appendix:Latin verbs (L to Z), which caused confusion, perhaps Coredesat refers to the history since transwikiing.

Jimp 04:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'