Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 September 22

Ass Pie → Creampie (sexual act)


The result was Speedy Delete.--JForget 19:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

recreation of Asspie; see Articles for deletion/Asspie Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh... delete. That deletion discussion took place over 2 years ago (10/2005), and the redirect was created in January 2006. However, my search attempts have found nothing on the relation between the redirect and its target. The article itself doesn't even mention it. Actually, most uses of the redirect tend to be as an insult to a person, not as a sexual term. The closest thing I got to a definition was from Urban Dictionary. Even coming from that site it's used totally differently, so well... enough said. Although the page is relatively old, I think deletion is more appropriate than WP:RFD, since the there's a greater risk of misleading search results because of this redirect, than the risk of breaking old links of other websites (which I couldn't find BTW). - Mtmelendez (Talk 20:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as G4 (recreation; see above and Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 January 23) or G10 (attack page). Given the history of recreation, this might be a good candidate for cascading protection as well. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Infobox album → template:Infobox album
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 16:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC) RFD 5: Cross-space redirect out of article space. Geopgeop 04:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete unnecessary cross-namespace redirect.  Melsaran  (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. CNR was created in April 2007 as a redirect (i.e. not a page move), way after CNRs were determined to be unuseful. Only 3 incoming links, all from user pages. WP:RFD applies. - Mtmelendez (Talk 19:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Spinal surgeon → Spine surgeon
The result of the debate was speedy delete as CSD R1. Redirect deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven.  Cheers, Lights  ( ♣  •  ♦ )  01:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The main article Spine surgeon meets CSD and if/when deleted, this page will become void and serve no purpose. - User:Rjd0060 - Talk 01:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

apologies for previous comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblefoot1992 (talk • contribs)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete - When Spine surgeon gets deleted, this redirect will meat CSD R1.  Cheers, Lights  ( ♣  •  ♦ )  01:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Lights beat me to it. Blair - Speak to me 01:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(disambig) → (disambiguation) - 8 page nominations
The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 22:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC) These are non-standard DAB pages! Nominated for deletion because most (if not all) people will go to the correct DAB page name. JohnI 09:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Cayuse (disambig) → Cayuse (disambiguation)
 * Coyote (disambig) → Coyote (disambiguation)
 * Elba (disambig) → Elba (disambiguation)
 * Empanda (disambig) → Empanda (disambiguation)
 * Flight (disambig) → Flight (disambiguation)
 * Gandalf (disambig) → Gandalf (disambiguation)
 * Kerosene (disambig) → Kerosene (disambiguation)
 * Risley (disambig) → Risley (disambiguation)
 * Keep all. In each of these cases, the pagehistory shows that they document the pagemove from the old naming standard to the new naming standard.  In all but one case, the move was made back before the pagemove function automatically recorded the move in the destination page's history so this is the only current record of the move.  Per k1 above, pagemoves are usually considered useful history.  They are also all old enough that we need to be seriously worried about breaking external links (k4).  Neither these nor the hundreds of others in this format that have not yet been nominated meet any of the "delete if" criteria.  Rossami (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. These links are from the old naming conventions which were subsequently moved when the conventions changed, which might have useful internal historical links or external links. Therefore, WP:RFD and WP:RFD apply. - Mtmelendez (Talk 19:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: My main reason for requesting these deletions is that I regard these (disambig)s as confusing. Newcomers may think these are still an acceptable standard. The following are precedence for these deletions: Binomial (disambig), Alex Jones (disambig), ANC (disambig), Matte (disambig), Krka (disambig), Brewster (disambig), Satsuma (disambig), Watt (disambig), Twentysomething (disambig), Michael Card (disambig), Precious Moments (disambig). Regards, JohnI 05:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But so what if they do? If someone creates a new disambig page using the old naming convention, it's a single, very simple pagemove by any editor to fix it and move the page to the new naming convention.  We make those repairs all the time.  That seems like a very easy problem to fix - far lower costs to the project than the risk of breaking external links or the loss of page history.  Rossami (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely understand your position, John, as it's one I previously shared. But currently, there are less and less pages like this, and newcomers aren't likely to notice unused old redirects, so most won't confuse the old disambig term with the current disambiguation. If a newcomer creates a DAB page with the former term, it could be moved and delinked as Rossami stated. If they create it as a redirect to a current disambiguation, then that one could be deleted, since it would be rather new with no significant history. However, older redirects that have been around for years might have links from outside websites since, back then, it was the norm. - Mtmelendez (Talk 13:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep redirects are cheap. Rich Farmbrough, 15:31 25 September 2007 (GMT).
 * Keep. I haven't found the arguments for deletion to be particularly compelling. "It is confusing for newcomers because they make it look like they are acceptable standards" is nonsense, because we can always move such a page, and the encyclopaedia is written for the readers. There may be a "precedent" for deleting such redirects, but consensus can change, and we can review those precedents as well. These redirects are clearly useful (take less time to type, "disambig" is a fairly common informal word for "disambiguation", and most importantly of all, they are leftovers from old pagemoves), and there's no compelling reason for deletion. Remember, redirects are cheap.  Melsaran  (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)