Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 26

August 26
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 26, 2008

FAWCP → Featured articles with citation problems
The result of the debate was keep. WJBscribe (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC) This redirect page is not displayed as a shortcut at the top of Featured articles with citation problems. It is also pretty much orphaned, only linked to from one person's userspace subpage and (recently because I started a new section on the talk page) at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles with citation problems. If this redirect is not going to be acknowledged in a shortcut at the top of Featured articles with citation problems, and is also not going to be linked to from anywhere else, it serves no purpose and should be deleted - for no one is going to be randomly searching for the term: WP:FAWCP in that case. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirects are cheap. FAWCP is basically a janitorial page watched by Sandy and I. If the redirect aids her in getting to the page quickly then I say keep it, and link it from the top of the page. But this issue is as close to irrelevant as I can imagine. I don't know why you're wasting time on it. Marskell (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I suppose argument two is just delete the thing. I'm not bothered either way. Marskell (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No need for it, don't care either way. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is basically if there is a link to WP:FAWCP as a shortcut at the top of Featured articles with citation problems, then keep it. If not, then it is silly to keep the shortcut and it should be deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Redirects are cheep. No legitimate reason to delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  22:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I find abbreviations like this to be quite useful to get to a specific article, For example, i typed WP:RFD in the search box to get here. It probably should be listed on the target page, however. -Brougham96 (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep I BOLDly added the shortcut to the top of the page. Redirects are cheap, and it's a non-confusing redirect. Midorihana   みどり  はな  21:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Soldiers/food → Soldiers (food)
The result of the debate was Withdrawn. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Now an unlinked to double redirection that seems unlikely to be searched for in any instances. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 17:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep because it documents a fairly recent pagemove. While the content was subsequently merged (and redirected) to another page, this page had significant history prior to the move.  These redirects are automatically created for several good reasons.  Other editors and readers who worked on the article at the old title need to know where it has been moved to so they can continue to make their contributions at the new destination.  When you delete all traces of the redirect, you give too many of those new users the false impression that the database hiccupped and accidentally deleted their hard work.  They end up either feeling bitten or they repost the content to the old title and we end up with a fork in the content.  Neither are good for the project.  Also, you've updated all the internal links to the page but redirects also catch all those external links that we don't and can't know about.  Redirects are cheap.  Unless the old pagetitle was actively harmful, there's no reason to delete them after a pagemove. Note: This redirect does need to be retargetted to fix the double-redirect.  I'll go fix that now.  Rossami (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. Based on the excellent and understandable input by, I concur and agree that this redirection should be kept at this time.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 14:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Usc3 → Template:UnitedStatesCode
The result of the debate was Deleted by author (db-author). -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Reasonably old. The number distinguished it when a different was scheme was employed, but now that's no longer used. —Markles 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I just now converted it from a Redirect to an embedded template (I think that's the term). That's because I couldn't use the RFD notice in the template without breaking the redirect.  That's just until this RFD is completed.  So right now it's not technically a Redirect, but that's what it is in principle.  OK?—Markles 15:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears to still have a number of inbound links and historical references. I'm having trouble sorting out which were for the template itself and which are an artifact of the embedding you just did but it would appear to me that this should be kept as a redirect as an aid to editors who became used to the old scheme and need to find the new, preferred template.  I'm not seeing any evidence that the redirect is confusing, harmful or in the way of some other use yet.  Rossami (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since Markles is creator and only editor to contribute to the redirect/template in question. Could he/she simply request a speedy deletion under CSD:G7? 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I support a request for speedy deletion. I can do it myself, as an administrator, but I wanted consensus first.  OK?—Markles 12:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing no dissent, I deleted it.—Markles 12:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Bismark
The result of the discussion was move to disambiguation page --Brougham96 (talk) Bismark should bring you to Bismarck (disambiguation). Not sure if I am requesting this on the right page but I think when you type Bismark on Wikipedia it sould bring you to Bismarck (disambiguation) and not an article with one sentence. --Npnunda (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * see WP:BOLD...I went ahead and moved the article to Bismark, Germany and made Bismark redirect to the disambiguation page. If somebody is strictly opposed to this, they can revert it and I will not redo it. -Brougham96 (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Best game ever → Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
The result of the debate was speedy-deleted again as vandalism. Rossami (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Best game ever redirects to Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, which strikes me as rather the opposite of neutral. --rocknrollanoah 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Double boiler → bain marie
The result of the debate was Converted to article. Lenticel ( talk ) 23:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Double boiler redirects to bain marie. These are similar, but different pots. (See the bain marie discussion page.) Double boiler should have its own article. 75.57.87.104 (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * So be bold and revert the redirect to a version of the page that talked about the pot itself. Deletion of the redirect and the pagehistory is unnecessary (and, in this case, also clearly inappropriate since there is potentially useful history behind the redirect).  I would, however, suggest that the page needs a cleanup and expansion, perhaps using some of the insights from the Talk page you cite.  Rossami (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep now that it has been turned into its own article. As this 'redirect' is no longer a redirect at all, perhaps this discussion should be closed as irrelevant? Terraxos (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)