Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 November 5

Category talk:Advocates of traditional British counties → Category talk:Wikipedians who advocate traditional British counties
The result of the debate was speedy delete as redirect to deleted page (CSD R1). WjBscribe 23:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Talk page only. Redirects to deleted page. --RFBailey 23:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Edit summary → Help:Edit summary
The result of the debate was retargeted to wiki. -- John Reaves 07:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Cross-namespace redirect. What makes this one particularly bad is that it is actually linked to from mainspace (in relation to Wikipedia, but still, that leads to a situation which is pretty nonsensical in mirrors or a previous version; see WP:ASR), which demonstrates that there is a non-negligable chance of a reader coming across this when only trying to read the encyclopedia. --ais523 09:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This was previously discussed on 23 July 2006. Very shortly after, it was recreated, apparently in good faith.  I think the recreation and rather extensive edit history of the page demonstrate that we got it wrong back in 2006 - that there is a demonstrated need for this redirect.  I disagree with the part of the nomination that alleges that this is potentially confusing.  In every context, this link is being used to refer to the Help page.  No reasonable reader would expect to find anything but that page at the other end of the link.   I consider the downsides described in WP:ASR to be substantially less than the downsides of making it harder for our reader/editors to find the page they need - especially on such an important topic.  I know that this will be unpopular but I believe we should overturn the prior RfD discussion and keep the redirect.  Rossami (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Edit summary" is not a unique term to Wikipedia and avoiding self-reference is important. Outcome of last RfD was clear and the points were well argued. Every time someone edits a page there is a "(what is this)" link next to the edit summary check box so users should have no difficulty finding the information at the target. Seems to me this could be speedy deleted as a recreation of previously deleted content per CSD G4. WjBscribe 23:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Mtmelendez. WjBscribe 16:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Revert to this version and remove the merge template. The page (Edit summary) was re-created as an article on 22 August 2006 by User:A3 nm. Check the page's edit history first before bringing this nomination here. 198.189.198.2 00:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did. That article was merged into Wiki, and then the redirect's target was changed as being more informative than the link to the article. Retargeting back to wiki seems possibly a sensible thing to do, though. Come to think of it, as the information was merged, deleting might be a GFDL violation unless the redirect was histmerged into the article first, though. --ais523 16:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Revert per 198.189.198.2. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't Keep, Don't Delete, Don't Revert... just retarget to Wiki. First (keep), we should avoid self-referencing in Wikipedia if the term is used outside of it, as stated by Will above. Second (delete), the term is used outside Wikipedia, so deleting it won't save us trouble since it's likely to be recreated again and again by new users (salting seems to harsh too, IMO). Third (revert), that version of the article contains self-references, which should be avoided whenever possible, and it was merged into the Wiki article under the #Editing wiki pages section (third paragraph after the MediaWiki syntax table). Therefore, the less contentious choice would be to redirect to an existing article which discusses the redirect's subject, ergo, redirect to Wiki. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Mtmelendez above. Terraxos 03:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Bush crime family → Bush family
The result of the debate was speedily deleted, attack page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC) This is perhaps the most POV redirect I have ever seen. - Crockspot 13:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * This page was originally created as a redirect to Bush family conspiracy theory. It was speedy-deleted when the target article failed its own AFD.  Since its recreation, the redirect has been pointed to several different pages, none of which appear to address the concerns raised in that AFD.  Unless a much better target can be identified which can substantiate such a redirect title, delete as an attack page.  Rossami (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)