Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 May 4

%s → Main Page
The result of the debate was Transclude. This seems to satisfy both camps. While it's unlikely "%s" will ever deserve its own article, it is a possible search term in its own right. This alleviates the confusion caused by searching on this term and ending up at the main page. -- JLaTondre 11:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Should be replaced with a hatnote followed by transclusion of the main page. Proposed wording at Talk:%s Random832 00:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC) note to closing admin - many of the early keep votes below are clearly unaware that I am not suggesting deleting this or pointing it anywhere other than the main page. Also, any !vote-counting should take into account that this is going to be overwhelmingly visible to firefox users because of the RFD note. --Random832 20:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * alter as described above Note. I am NOT proposing deleting this, or targeting it at printf, or anything so drastic. "X redirects here" notes are fairly common if there's another notable usages, and I would not be so daft as to suggest putting a permanent hatnote on the main page for a redirect that exists solely for technical reasons, so this is my idea of how to solve this. the wording of the hatnote is open to discussion, some have suggested making a "%s (disambiguation)" page. --Random832 03:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds OK to me – Gurch 04:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I like this idea too -- Fuzzygenius 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hatnote + main page transclusion sounds good. --Piet Delport 11:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto 161.53.170.16 13:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Leave Untouched This redirect has existed for quite some time and is now the expected result by many users and is required to return a sane request when someone uses Firefox's wp command without an argument. I do not believe that many people look up arguments to functions on Wikipedia, nor that an argument should be a redirect, it seems like you could have dozens of them (does -r redirect to rm (Unix), or cp (Unix), etc.). As such I see no need to add a note about printf, and the rest is really just adding unneeded information. --Falcorian (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * %s is more notable than, say, -r for PRECISELY the reason this controversy exists - because it's used again and again in many places (including firefox keyword bookmarks) for string substitution - an article probably should be written about this. --Random832 20:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And -r or -R is used in pretty much ever single command line program capable of recursion. --Falcorian (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Replace with a disambiguation page. Not even all installations of Firefox support this quick search "feature"; I checked it in Firefox 1.5 and 2.0 in Ubuntu, and it doesn't work there. Firefox leaving %s in the search string is technically a bug. Catering to a software bug instead of catering to people genuinly searching for %s is not only unencyclopedic, it's a temporary solution at best. This "feature" is adequately covered by bookmarks and, with the coming of Firefox 2.0, Wikipedia's OpenSearch plugin. - Sikon 05:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good Lord, keep I discovered this RfD ten seconds ago when using my bookmark on FireFox. There are probably thousands of other people with the same bookmark? Kla'quot 07:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely keep. I use the shortcut all the time and just encountered the message. This is way too convenient to lose, especially considering "%s" doesn't really merit its own article. --Samvscat 07:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I found this cause I type in "wp" for the mainpage too, but I have wondered where the article on "%s" is and it is impossible to search for. Now I know! --66.41.102.194 11:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. A lot of people, including me, use this. Technically, it is a bug in Firefox, but it seems to me that the sensible option, as with all other web design, is to work around browser bugs rather than letting them break the user experience. It can be removed when browsers that use it have become uncommon enough for the effect of removing it to be negligible. Jibjibjib 12:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per Falcorian. -- Emc² &bull;  contact me  13:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, please not again. Yes, it's a hack but a lot of people rely on it. – Gustavb 14:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. According to the talk page, the same discussion was held some two years ago with overwhelming consensus to keep. What has changed in that time? Nothing. As a C programmer who visits Wikipedia, I most certainly do not want that page to redirect to printf or formatting strings or God knows what, nor do I want to be bothered with a disambiguation page, I want it to go to the Main Page, so I can continue to exploit the Firefox "bug". You have to weigh things here: how many people would be helped with a page on "percent s" versus the amount that would be helped by keeping it a redirect to the MP? It seems to me that the latter group far outweigh the former. 82.95.254.249 14:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Falcorian, Samvscat, and others. &mdash; SheeEttin {T/C} 14:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per other Firefox users above. %s is not important enough to rate its own article, and redirecting it to printf opens the way to a lot of silliness. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 15:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

'''Insert long, drawn-out sigh here. Comment to everyone who voted "keep" above: this is NOT''' a discussion on whether or not this redirect should be deleted or retargeted. Nobody is suggesting that. They are suggesting it point to the Main Page just as it does now, except with a little, one-line message at the top so that anyone who does actually search for %s can be pointed to a different page. That's all. So your "keep of course, stupid to retarget it" arguments really don't make any sense – Gurch 15:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean now. Do you need a discussion here to do that? It's pretty bad to have five days of a "This redirect page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy." notice appearing when people use their bookmarks. If you want to change the content of the page, without moving or deleting it, why not use Talk:%s? Kla'quot 15:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have to have an RFD, because an admin required it it when he refused to do my editprotected. --Random832 20:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoever put up the RfD notice probably didn't realize that it would be worse than going along with the original request. The notice has been removed now. I don't think the proponents of this change realize how many people have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%25s bookmarked as their main entry point to Wikipedia. My vote is still to leave it alone and don't even add a hat notice. Kla'quot 23:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Does this mean it would still go to the Main Page, but with a note appearing On the main page saying that you've been redirected. If so, then this is fine. If the note would appear on the %s page and you'd have to click through to the main page then I would thoroughly reject this idea and say that it would needlessly annoy users. Tompagenet 15:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I adressed this in my argument Gurch, and several users seem to agree with that point of view. --Falcorian (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You won't have to click; that's what the transclusion is for.  --Piet Delport 16:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Leave untouched It seems awfully goofy to change something like this; the current system works just fine. By the way, the reason people keep voting "keep" is that the current %s page clearly says "This redirect page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy." --MZMcBride 18:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Put it back: Please not this row again. I'm tired of that bookmark not working everytime that somebody at Wikipedia gets in a huff because its unencyclopedic or something. It's useful, and it makes Wikipedia more accessible. Firefox has 300 million downloads - is that not good justification for keeping this incredibliy useful redirect? I've got to Wikipedia by clicking that default bookmark thousands of times. Now make it work as it should. 87.232.1.50 19:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Leave as redirect. If someone was looking for information about printf or another function that commonly uses %s, they would probably search for the function itself. There is no evidence that anyone is searching for %s and looking for printf. If they have, they certainly haven't complained about it. --- RockMFR 19:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * COMMENT See User:Random832/%s for what I'm suggesting. I am NOT saying to make it point at printf, or even to do anything that makes the main page inaccessible.
 * Change to transclusion per suggestion. Too bad Firefox doesn't implement smart bookmarks like Galeon does... Mike Dillon 22:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Change to transclusion because anyone who legitimately goes to %s will probably (even if they ARE using a buggy version of Firefox) have NO idea how they ended up on the main page. — The Storm Surfer 22:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do what you want with it but don't leave it with an RfD notice that breaks the very useful redirect while you discuss it. Phil Sandifer 04:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Change to  plus other stuffs, perhaps with a self-reference (if needed)  Grace notes T § 04:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia;BLP → Biographies of living persons
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 11:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Cross-namespace, unused, somewhat implausible – but more to the point, no more or less implausible a mistyping than for other shortcut, yet we don't seem to have any other redirects of this form – Gurch 23:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nominator. - Sikon 05:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unlikely typo. --- RockMFR 19:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy → Resolving disputes
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 11:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Cross-namespace, unused, actually longer than the title it points to – Gurch 23:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Unused XNRs left over from accidental wrong-namespace creation
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 11:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Unused cross-namespace redirect left over from page move after accidental creation in wrong namespace – Gurch 23:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * User HK Crown Colony → Template:User HK Crown Colony
 * User trinity → Template:User trinity
 * User wpcolumbia → Template:User wpcolumbia
 * speedy delete. (note: these were separate nominations, I felt they should be merged) --Random832 03:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:DONTGIVEASHIT → No one really cares
The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre 11:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Don't think it should, actually, but this is a process nomination. Was speedy deleted but does not fit the criteria, so I recreated and am listing it here for debate. Consensus may well be to delete it, but I'd like to see that play out, as I think it encapsulates the essay well. M ask?  19:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:DONTGIVEASHIT and WP:NOONECARES. I thought that WP: redirects were reserved for important, well-established articles in the Wikipedia namespace. No one really cares about this particular Wikipedia: essay - it does not say anything! It does not propose a policy. -- RHaworth 20:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Plenty (almost all) essays have WP: space redirects. Look up the article list there. - M  ask?  20:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What article list where? -- 91.104.83.10 00:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CUTS for a short version, Special:Allpages and search by prefix for the long list. WP: through WP:CATT, WP:CAU through WP:FFP, WP:FFPO through WP:LOST, WP:LOT through WP:P!ATD, WP:P&G through WP:SEWAGE, WP:SEX through WP:Vandalize, WP:Vandalproof through WP:♠. - M  ask?  00:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - will this redirect ever be used? If it exists just to have another shortcut in the shortcut box, then it probably is not necessary. --- RockMFR 20:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I imagine it will. The things only been there for a day at the point it got smacked. - M  ask?  20:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap. Grace notes T § 20:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep, we have many WP: redirects to minor essays, and even a few to essays in userspace. Some other curious examples include WP:BIKE, WP:PANDA, WP:META, WP:POVPUSH, WP:BULL, WP:EAD, WP:OMGWTFBBQ.  This one is unlikely to have a better target, and redirects are cheap, and at least a few people seem to have found it useful, so I see no reason to delete.  And, anyway, anyone who actually cares whether this is deleted obviously cares too much.  See also: Zen.  :)  --Xtifr tälk 20:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - No reason to delete. --Stephanie talk 21:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The target Don't-give-a-fuckism seems more accurate, but whatever. –Pomte 05:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

CategoryTree extension → mw:Extension:CategoryTree
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 11:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Unnecessary cross-project redirect. All incoming have been changed. --- RockMFR 15:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, not just cross-namespace but cross-project, and from the main namespace, tchah! Make it go away please. :)  --Xtifr tälk 22:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jacksonville mayoral election, 2006 → Jacksonville mayoral election, 2007
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Picaroon (Talk) 22:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Originally was an accident...meant to put 2007. Unnecessary. --Revolución  hablar    ver  12:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete, author request. Grace notes T § 13:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture, buildings, construction, city planning and public space → WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture
The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre 11:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC) This redirect was created in August 2006 as a result of a pagemove. It contains no useful edit history and has no significant incoming links. Given its length, the redirect is an implausible search term. However, it technically doesn't qualify under WP:CSD (implausible typo) as the redirect title contains no typographical errors. It's just really, really long. Black Falcon (Talk) 06:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Might break old links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Storm Surfer (talk • contribs) 09:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment I don't see the need for deletion here. As above, might break old links, especially in archived talk and other places that don't show up in whatlinkshere, etc. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure whatlinkshere doesn't ignore archived talk pages. See, for instance, the whatlinkshere of WP:BIO, which shows a link from the March-April 2006 archives of the talk page of WP:NPOV. As far as I can tell from Help:Links, whatlinkshere only ignores subpages in the sense that subpages of WP:BIO, for example, do not show up in the whatlinkshere of WP:BIO. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about pages that have been archived by history, not by copying. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)