Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 11

April 11
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 11, 2008

1 km → 1 E+3 m
The result of the debate was retarget to Kilometre.  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There was one coming link which I've just removed. 1 km is not something you'd be likely to look up. 1 E+3 m is not something you'd be expecting when you click on 1 km. 1 km doesn't even save that many key strokes. J Ѧ ρ 20:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reredirect to kilometre or kilometer (I don't feel like looking it up :-); it would be a reasonable target for such a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Nyttend.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 23:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Retarget. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like the obvious course now. boldly retargeting. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Retarget", that's the word I wanted. I don't come to RFD very often :-)  Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Obvious Redirect per above. --Liempt (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Geographic references → Geographic references
The result of the debate was delete. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Cross-namespace redirect. This was nominated on 30 January 2008 for the same reason, but I opposed on WP:IAR grounds, because it was being used as a source for a vast number of articles. No articles link to this redirect now, and it's not likely that they will (even if they do, can easily be used to replace it, as it's better and more useful), so there's no real reason to keep this cross-namespace redirect Nyttend (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as cross-namespace redirect -- Lenticel ( talk ) 14:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No strong opinion either way, but When should we delete a redirect? suggests deletion of a redirect is harmful because a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history and if a redirect is reasonably old, then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles — such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect Is this redirect actually harmful? Apart from making old revisions less intelligible, there are still quite a lot of non-article space links to this. older ≠ wiser 14:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but I really think we need to get rid of this redirect sometime, since it's an obsolete crossnamespace redirect. As a template that's only been edited 13 times, the edit history isn't important.  I don't know if it's harmful, but I don't think that it's plausible that people would type it, and the page specifically lists crossnamespace redirects as a potential reason for deletion.  Is it permissible to go around and change talk pages to remove this link?  Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to get rid of this redirect sometime? A complete reading of Cross-namespace redirects and When should we delete a redirect? doesn't indicate a mandate for deletion. Although the edit history of the redirect itself is not particularly significant, considering that the link appears in the historical versions of so many articles, and that there is no obvious harm from such a redirect, I'm not sure I see the need to delete it. older ≠ wiser 15:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To what extent would noting the target of the redirect in the deletion summary address the concern of broken links in historical versions (so that anyone interested can click the link and see to where it used to point)? Black Falcon (Talk) 16:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Is that deletion summary visible to users who are not logged in? older ≠ wiser 12:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, unfortunately (I just tried with the deleted redirect in the section below), unless the user clicks the "deletion log" link. That said, I don't think that someone who is not an editor would be looking for Geographic references, so perhaps the failure of the deletion log to appear immediately is not too much of a concern in this case (there are no incoming links from articles and relatively few links (e.g. from the portal namespace) that would need to be updated if the redirect is deleted). Black Falcon (Talk) 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - unnecessary cross-namespace redirect, with no particularly significant edit history. Terraxos (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevada State Highway 805 → USA Parkway
The result of the debate was delete.  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Three other related redirects were deleted at Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 26 and this one was missed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There really is no reason not to in light of the earlier RfD discussion. B.Wind (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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