Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 9

Penguin Cabal → User:Ryulong/Penguin Cabal
The result of the debate was speedy-deleted per case R2. Rossami (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Cross-space redirect out of article space -- Scientizzle 02:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete cross namespace redirects are a bad idea, they can confuse readers about whether they are reading an article or something else. Gwernol 02:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While cross-namespace redirects in other spaces are not inherently bad, redirects from the Mainspace to the Userspace are explicitly forbidden. Rossami (talk)

Racoons eating human body parts → Raccoon
The result of the debate was deleted. John Reaves (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Nothing links to it, and there is no reason anyone would type it. (It was originally made as a good-faith original-research-filled stub on the subject. Lenoxus 15:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC) The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
 * Delete. Won't be searched for. Also, keeping it seems to promote the OR it originated from. WjBscribe 15:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete An unlikely search term concerning a topic that is not covered in the target article. -- Scientizzle 16:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - completely unnecessary, and also perpetuates false/unverified information. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  18:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original content was unsourced and nobody will search for this, so it is useless as an article and a redirect. Also recommend deleting Human-eating Raccoon &mdash; I'll nom this later if not deleted here. --- RockMFR 00:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Human-eating Raccoon also. Same reasoning applies. WjBscribe 01:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete What's the point....? Alex43223Talk 01:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy-delete both. I believe these redirects were created in an attempt to clean up a vandalism page - but the right answer back in Aug 2005 should have been to delete the page, not to paper it over with the redirect.  Rossami (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete r3, both tagged. Patstuarttalk·edits 21:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Atlantica independence movement → Free State Project
The result of the debate was deleted by Jeffrey O. Gustafson – Qxz 19:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Represents extreme WP:NOR; the Free State Project is not a movement for the secession of the Atlantic Northeast, and in fact no such movement exists, or ever has existed. Pharos 05:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom; redirect seems to have nothing to do with the article. The Free State Project is a libertarian campaign to move to New Hampshire in the hope of influencing local politics in one area; it has nothing to do with the independence of anywhere. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  18:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yûgiô: Gekijô-ban → Yu-Gi-Oh! the Movie: Pyramid of Light
The result of the debate was keep. John Reaves (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC) It doesn't make any sense. Why would someone enter a search term such as that?  TV -  VCR   watch  06:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'm assuming it's the Japanese title for the movie. John Reaves (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is, apparently. See the IMDB entry.--Pharos 07:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe it is the real Japanese title, but apparently IMDB thinks so - therefore I kept that anyway as a redirect in case someone tried to make an article with that name. WhisperToMe 14:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - whether it's the real Japanese name or not, someone might see it on IMDB and subsequently try to search for it on Wikipedia. Valid redirect. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  18:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Funny as it sounds, is legitimate. Alex43223Talk 01:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep.  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT → Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
The result of the debate was speedy keep, clear...well, WP:POINT nomination. --Core desat  22:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Encourages the (itself disruptive and counterproductive) misconception that the title of the guideline is "Do not make any point" without reference to disruption or lack thereof. Random832 14:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidence of misuse
 * User_talk:Ryulong Clearly thinks that "making a point" is an offense independent of disruptiveness.
 * #Abuse of this "guideline" from the talk page - note specifically '...misunderstanding of "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" as "Don't attempt to make a point that might potentially change something about Wikipedia."'
 * Another complaint on the talk page, this one got no response.
 * Another thread - same problem.
 * I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that much of this misuse is from the emphasis of "point" rather than "disrupt" in the most commonly used shortcut, and that the existence of that shortcut is therefore part of the problem
 * --Random832 22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * delete as nom, note there are other shortcuts already for this guideline that fit its content better, namely WP:GAME and WP:DISRUPT. --Random832 14:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Encourages whom? And where does it even matter? Anybody using the redirect has read the guideline. Anybody following the redirect is going to see the guideline soon (well, modulo the rfd template). Those who misunderstand it won’t be helped by a differently named redirect. (Also, I like it.) —xyzzyn 14:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's useful and, in my experience at least, used appropriately.  I have never seen it used or interpreted in the manner described by the nominator.  Rossami (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the assumption that anyone using the redirect has read the guideline is a bit much, since it gets misused (used for situations that don't even vaguely resemble what's covered in the text, and aren't even vaguely disruptive) almost every day. As for being useful? WP:GAME is shorter. --Random832 15:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful shortcut, generally used appropriately. If the nom really feels there is a problem, perhaps some difs could be provided to illustrate its extent? WjBscribe 15:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep highly useful, bizzare nomination rational that refers to a probably non-existant misconception. I assume this is a joke, right? WilyD 16:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Commonly used and useful. "Do not make any point"? I've never run into any editor in my year-and-change here that used this redirect in such a manner...I just don't get the reasoning. I could just as easily argue that WP:GAME encourages the misconception that the title of the guideline has something to do with gaming. Do I dare ask if you've got a point to prove? (take that as a joke.) -- Scientizzle 17:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thousands of backlinks show that this is a heavily used redirect. CMummert · talk 17:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. People need to stop using it. --Random832 22:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thousands of backlinks illustrate that many editors feel that this is a reasonable redirect to use. If this isn't a sign of consensus in favor of the redirect, I don't know what would be.  CMummert · talk 22:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've never seen it used more inappropriately than it would be using other redirects.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - there's no real problem with this redirect, and I don't really think this is the right forum for discussing a policy-related issue in any case. I would vote Speedy Keep, but won't, as that would be (in this case) tantamount to accusing the nominator of bad faith. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  18:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not a policy-related issue. It's about whether the redirect WP:POINT is an appropriate shortcut, given that it puts too much emphasis on the "making a point" part and not enough on the "disrupting part", contrary to what is in the guideline, thus encouraging people to link to it (and make other decisions based on it) without reading it. --Random832 22:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)