Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 5

August 5
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 5, 2008

The result of the debate was Speedy under housekeeping.  MBisanz  talk 02:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Fictional series → Template:WikiProject Media franchises
More housekeeping such as the other redirects listed below. Only the move is in the history. - LA (T) 19:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No incoming links, you seem to have made most of these, and preformed the move, so I would just tag them all for speedy deletion G6, housekeeping. -- Ned Scott 22:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.' The result of the debate was Speedy under housekeeping.  MBisanz  talk 02:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Fictional series/Assessment → WikiProject Media franchises/Assessment


WikiProject Fictional series was moved to Media franchises a long time ago, and all subpages moved. The only thing in this page's history is the move, and nothing is linked to this. The redirect from WikiProject Fictional series is being kept, since it is more widely used. There is further housekeeping here.- LA (T) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.' The result of the debate was Speedy under housekeeping.  MBisanz  talk 02:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Fictional series/List → WikiProject Media franchises/List


Same as Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional series/Assessment with one talk page discussion linked to this. - LA (T) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.' The result of the debate was Speedy under housekeeping.  MBisanz  talk 02:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Fictional series/Task forces → WikiProject Media franchises/Task forces


Same as Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional series/Assessment with one talk page discussion linked to this. - LA (T) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.' The result of the debate was Speedy under housekeeping.  MBisanz  talk 02:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Fictional series/Task forces/Proposals → WikiProject Media franchises/Task forces/Proposals


Same as Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional series/Assessment with one talk page discussion linked to this. - LA (T) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.' The result of the debate was Speedy under housekeeping.  MBisanz  talk 02:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Fictional series/merge → Template:WikiProject Media franchises merge


Same as Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional series/Assessment with one talk page discussion linked to this. - LA (T) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

The result of the debate was Keep as a redirect to Hug, per Cross-namespace redirects. Cross-namespace redirects are questionable even when there is no real world meaning. When there is one, the fact that we are making an encyclopedia trumps any internal issues. Prodego talk  17:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Huggle → Hug
Confusing as users are looking for WP:Huggle  Gtstricky Talk or C 15:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * This page has been discussed at least twice that I know about. The original version was AfD'd in Jan 07 (here) and was deleted.  It was recreated as a redirect and RfD'd in Apr 07 (here) but no consensus was reached.  It has since been variously repointed to Hug, Physical intimacy and Huggle (and briefly vandalized).  The inbound links are all user Talk pages and fall into two clear categories - the references on the anon pages are vandalism warnings about abuses to the "huggle" page itself (before the AfD deletion) and the logged-in user page uses are all references to the "WP:Huggle" tool (both before and after the AfD.  I see no reason to overturn the AfD decision and defer to that judgment that the term is a non-notable neologism.  You could argue for a soft-redirect to huggle as a way to discourage the recreation of the dictionary definition but looking at the inbound links, it appears that our readers/editors most use this link as a typo of "WP:Huggle" (forgetting the WP: prefix).  I'd suggest repointing there as a plausible typo.  Rossami (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)  Soft-redirect with hat-note per UsaSatsui's suggestion below.  Rossami (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Retarget to WP:Huggle. While this does have a real-life meaning, and cross-namespace redirects are normally to be avoided, in this case I think it's justified: if someone types this in, the page they're arguably most likely looking for is WP:Huggle. If necessary, a hatnote can always be added to that page saying  'Huggle' redirects here; for other uses, see Hug.  Terraxos (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as is, common term in the ~Real world~ to refer to hugs and a vandalism tool on Wikipedia should not take precedence over that.  naerii  17:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick google search on the word does not seem to support the claim that this is a particularly common term. Excluding Wikipedia, Wiktionary and their clones and derivatives (like Urban Dictionary and Everything2), none of the hits on the first few pages refer to hugs.  What evidence do you have that this is a common usage that should take precedence over the evidence that we do have about how Wikipedia editors already use the term?  Rossami (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When it comes to redirects, we typically don't need a lot of evidence for such things. -- Ned Scott 22:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Excluding everything2 and Urban Dictionary? Where does the reasoning for that come from?  naerii  00:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right that we don't need a lot of evidence but I'd like to see some. I couldn't find any that didn't trace back to Wikipedia.  Rossami (talk)
 * Solution: how about a soft redirect to huggle and a hatnote with the "WP:HUGGLE" link? Seems like that solves all the problems. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; common Internet (mostly IRC?) meme. WP:HUGGLE is nowhere near as likely to be something our readers are looking for. —Giggy 12:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's a "common Internet meme", why isn't it coming up when we search through electronic sources? IRC sessions are frequently logged and often show up even through simple tools like google searches.  What evidence did you find that this really is common?  Rossami (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree with the nom entirely and Wikipedia should avoid self-referencing. JuJube (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect to hug with no hatnote. If you are looking for or using Huggle, you should know how namespaces work. --- RockMFR 14:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but with hatnote (we have cross-namespace hatnotes for lots of things on Wiki, for example at Conflict of interest). 'Huggle' is a somewhat common colloquial term for 'hug'. &mdash; Mizu onna sango15 Hello!  03:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Retarget to WP:Huggle. I was looking for that and I got here, so... --PeterCantropus (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep real world trumps self reference. LA @ 02:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Retarget. First, since when is IRC "the real world".  Second, although Everything2 and the Urban dictionary are not necessarily Wikipedia clones, they also aren't necessarily correct.  If the echos of Wikipedia are the most common use on the internet, then Wikipedia usage (HUGGLE) is probably the correct target.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't it a little bit vain to say that Wikipedia has co-opted the word "huggle"? Honestly, the only reason I know that Huggle is even a Wikipedia tool is because of the comment tag on some user talk pages.  IRC or not, more people know huggle as slang for hug.  This redirect should stay to hug. JuJube (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The result of the debate was History merged and redirects deleted per nom, without prejudiced for discussion resulting in recreation. Prodego talk  17:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

List of television stations in the United States by call sign (initial letter X) → List of television stations in Mexico by call sign


U.S. broadcast stations do not begin with initial letter X 66.102.80.212 (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also nominated with the same reasoning and target page were:
 * List of television stations in the U.S. by call sign (initial letter X)
 * List of television stations in the US by call sign (initial letter X)
 * List of television stations in the USA by call sign (initial letter X)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep to preserve history. The first one in this set was originally an article talking about stations on Mexican soil but broadcasting in English to a US audience.  Whether you call that a US station or a Mexican station is, in some regard, a matter of judgment.  The page was moved in Aug 2005 by an anon editor to the Mexican title.  The anon appears to have executed the move via cut-and-paste rather than through the move button.  The redirect now preserves the only record to the attribution history of the original content which went on to become the Mexican list.  At least one of the other redirects was the result of a prior pagemove of the content by user:Evice.  (I'm guessing that Evice created the last two as variants of US.)  History-merge is not worth the effort or risk of error.  One of the core reasons for a redirect is to solve problems like this for us.  Rossami (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, a history merge is worth it: in fact ✅ Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  17:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)