Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 15

Lignux → Linux
The result of the debate was Re-targeted back to GNU/Linux naming controversy. LiGNUx also redirects to GNU/Linux naming controversy. The primary purpose of redirects is to navigate people to where information is actually discussed. This term is used on the GNU/Linux naming controversy page and not on the Linux page. If someone knows this term, then they would know to find our Linux article at Linux. If someone doesn't know what this term is, then they should be directed to where it will actually be explained to them. -- JLaTondre 01:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Minority term for the operating system in question used before "GNU/Linux" was coined to replace it. Of purely historical value, seeing as nobody uses it now. Nothing links to it, and its existence just encourages edit wars over whether it should point to Linux or to GNU/Linux naming controversy. Chris Cunningham 12:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. This is a term that was in actual historical use, at least by Richard Stallman. It ought to point somewhere, though in fact I have no opinion about which target is most correct. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact that the term really existed and perhaps does no longer makes it more likely that our readers will be looking for it here, not less likely.  I don't have a strong opinion about which target is better but deleting the redirect is the worst of the available choices.  By the way, the page history only shows one revert cycle and no significant discussion yet on the redirect's Talk page.  That's a pretty long way from evidence of an edit war.  Rossami (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Term used by Free Software Foundation and GNU founder Richard M. Stallman (rms) in his book  'Free Software, Free Society, Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman' .  The term has great historical importance according to my view, and should either be a separate article or a redirect to GNU/Linux naming controversy.   Many users (including me) browse Wikipedia by typing directly in the URL or a browser search/go bar a word they read somewhere, so the even if no other page links to Lignux doesn't mean that we shouldn't have it, and searching Google for Lignux returns 25 200 hits. NerdyNSK 22:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm uncomfortable having a neologism as the name of a redirect. If you Google for Lignux you will be very puzzled as to whether this term has a fixed meaning of any kind out on the web. Googling with and without Stallman gives little difference in the number of results. At this point 'Lignux' is what WP:NEO calls a protologism, and we would summon it into being by making it a real redirect. EdJohnston 04:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:RAD → User:Lincalinca
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, WP:CSD. Redirect to the Talk:, User: or User talk: namespaces from the article space are speedily deletable. WP: is clearly reserved for redirects to Wikipedia: namespace. - Mtmelendez (Talk 02:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary, cross-space redirect that could be used to link a policy instead. GlassCobra 04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete as cross-space redirect per nom. Was created with the text comment "I'm rad".  For a technical reason wp is not a promotional vehicle. meshach 05:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete – nonsensical redirect, totally unrelated to the user.  Melsaran  (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Colorado State Highway Route 72 → State highways in Colorado
The result of the debate was Keep. - Mtmelendez (Talk 11:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

procedural nomination This was nominated for deletion via WP:PROD. Reason provided by nominator for deletion: This is a bad redirect. It should redirect to Colorado State Highway 72, but that article doesn't exist. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. I am not convinced that Wikipedia ought to have an article on every possible state road but until such an article exists, this redirect is as good as we're going to get.  If the article is ever written (in an encyclopedic manner), the redirect can always be updated then.  Rossami (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Colorado State Highway Route 93 → State highways in Colorado
The result of the debate was Keep. - Mtmelendez (Talk 11:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

procedural nomination This was nominated for deletion via WP:PROD. Reason provided by nominator for deletion: This is a bad redirect. It should redirect to Colorado State Highway 93, but that article doesn't exist. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep per the arguments in the Route 72 discussion immediately above. Rossami (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Maccy555 → User:Maccy555
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, WP:CSD. - Mtmelendez (Talk 02:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect to a userpage. --Rrburke(talk) 19:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

3RR → RR
The result of the debate was retarget to Three-revert rule, while also noting that this can be turned into a dab page by anyone who wants to hunt down other usages of "3RR". --- RockMFR 22:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Nonsensical/misleading redirect; the acronyms on the page RR all have nothing to do with "3RR". Probably one of those redirects created and targeted to an unrelated article (on which they put a selfref-tag to direct people to the policy) after they were initially deleted as a cross-namespace redirect (compare no original research).  Melsaran  (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Are you suggesting that it be deleted or pointed to some other target? —freak(talk) 21:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted, since the current target makes no sense at all (RR has nothing to do with 3RR) and it should either be pointed to Three-revert rule (which is not likely to be accepted since that redirect was deleted before) or deleted.  Melsaran  (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that this will be a very unpopular opinion, but overturn the deletion decision of 25 Aug 2006 and restore the redirect to a version which pointed to Three-revert rule. This exact acronym is only used in Wikipedia in the context of the Wikipedia policy.  I can find no use anywhere in history where the link was intended to refer to anything other than this policy.  I can find no use of this link at all in any article - it was used exclusively in the Talk, User and Wikipedia spaces.  In those contexts, I see no possiblity of confusion for any reader.  It has been orphaned before (and, in fact, that was a key factor in the prior deletion decision) but it is again in fairly common use.  The constant creation and continued use (even by accident) of this shortcut is evidence of the continuing need for it.  To me, that demonstrated need outweighs the theoretical costs of being a cross-namespace redirect.  Rossami (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rossami's argument makes sense, however I've found other uses for the term 3RR. It is an apparent fantasy football term, and can also refer to a record label, a steam engine, a style of eye wear, a part of many addresses, and an ID number of various products. Now, I'm not suggesting that articles be created for these terms (some, if not all may fail notability), however the term 3RR occupies an article space for possible future articles, which must take priority over self-referencing in Wikipedia. Therefore, redirecting to Wiki-space, to me, shouldn't be done. That said, I don't see why it is directed to RR if it doesn't mention it. I suggest deletion to favor future creation of an article or a disambig page of 3RR, per my findings of other subjects with the name or acronym 3RR. - Mtmelendez (Talk 02:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When I typed in 3RR I didn't expect to see this. 3RR should lead me to Three-revert rule which is apparently the subject of this discussion. Having 3RR point to a list of articles is confusing.-- Sandahl 02:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What about a soft redirect / disambiguation mentioning the above (even if there red linked) with the self ref tag @ the top of that? --Nate1481(t/c) 09:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't expecting to come to this conclusion, but after reading through the arguments here, Keep. The fact that 3RR has been so repeatedly created and deleted as a redirect (see the logs for the page) shows that it is, in some sense, necessary: it is a very common search term among users of Wikipedia. I'm not arguing for a cross-namespace redirect, which are discouraged for good reason; but someone typing this in should get to a page that can then get them to WP:3RR in one link. The options are either to keep the current (slightly odd) redirect or to create a new disambiguation page at 3RR and provide the link there. But none of the possible 'real-world' meanings of 3RR seem sufficiently notable to justify a dab page listing them, so that leads me to conclude that this redirect really is the least worst option for this term. Terraxos 02:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Three-revert rule, or make it a disamb as per Mtmelendez.-- Matthead discuß!    O       07:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Three-revert rule as per Matthead. David Pro 13:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)