Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 28

October 28
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 28, 2008

Category:WikiProject Black Metal Members → Category:WikiProject Black Metal members
The result of the debate was keep. Redirects are cheap. It should also be noted that some people navigate Wikipedia by typing full URLs - such redirects are helpful for these users. WJBscribe (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Also nominating: Unnecessary capitialization redirects. The way the search function works, typing in the capitalized version would already automatically bring you to the correctly capitalized version (or vice versa), making these completely useless. VegaDark (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Category:WikiProject Cellular Devices members → Category:WikiProject Cellular devices members
 * Category:WikiProject Music genres Members → Category:WikiProject Music genres members
 * Category:Notable wikipedians → Category:Notable Wikipedians
 * Keep - they're not confusing and they're likely typos. B.Wind (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you not read what I said? Yes they are typos, but that is irrelevant. A capitalization typo will automatically bring a user to the correct page, regardless as to if the redirect page exists or not. In other words, these redirects will never actually function by way of a person searching for them and accidentally typing in the wrong name. Go ahead and try it- Find a category and type the name in the search bar with an improper capitalization. You will automatically be redirected to the correctly capitalized title, even though an actual redirect page doesn't exist. For instance, typing in "Category:WikiProjEct BlacK MeTal meMbers" will still redirect you to Category:WikiProject Black Metal members. Please explain how keeping these will benefit the encyclopedia at all? VegaDark (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I read what you said. I also read WP:RfD. The latter convinced me that what you are asserting in the paragraph above is not a valid argument for the deletion of a redirect. B.Wind (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant prose → Featured articles
The result of the debate was no consensus. There is no apparent agreement between commentators on whether the history of this redirect justifies its cross-namespace nature and the proposal to move the redirect to Brilliant prose does not address the issue of the many incoming links. In light of the lack of comments over the last week, it doesn't seem that this discussion is likely to result a consensus, and so the default result is that the redirect is kept for now. WJBscribe (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Inappropriate CNR to a Wikipedia process, does not link to content, but to the backroom of the project.  MBisanz  talk 01:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. No real good target for this redirect.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, "Brilliant Prose" was the original name of the FA process. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep again. As Lankveil notes, this is where the concept first existed, before the creation of the independent namespaces and long before our software was changed to automatically record pagemoves in the edit history.  There are literally thousands of internal links still buried in various pagehistories throughout the project and likely to be some external links.  No good alternate target has ever been found for this redirect but it is highly unlikely that a reader would expect to find anything other than the Wikipedia project page. As a side note, this pointless crusade against cross-namespace redirects is getting tiresome.  The argument that our new readers are smart enough to navigate our archane namespaces but too stupid to recognize where a redirect has taken them strikes me as inconsistent.  Unless the redirect is actively harmful or confusing, please leave them alone.  Rossami (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If all of these nominations were coming back "Keep", I'd agree this was a pointless debate, but as a good number are coming back delete and very few are coming back as unanimous keep, I'm not seeing the issue with nominating a reasonable number of them. Also, of the 45 CNR RFDs I've started that have closed as of today, 27 were delete, 12 were retargeted, and 6 were kept, I do believe that is a fairly acceptable ratio of Deletes/Keeps.  MBisanz  talk 17:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the discussion should be had, at least. Cross-namespace redirects, in general, are a Bad Thing, and it's not unreasonable that they be looked at to determine if they should be kept, deleted, or pointed someplace in the mainspace.  For the record, I'm aware "Brilliant prose" is the old name for "Featured articles", but I don't buy the argument that someone searching for the term on Wikipedia is probably looking for a 3-year old name for a current process...and if they are, maybe it's time they updated their links.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you really believe that cross-namespace redirects are in and of themselves a "bad thing", then we should be seeking some centralized answer confirming that principle. This ad-hoc approach to evaluating them one-by-one is leading to inconsistent and unhelpful answers.  The decision to keep or delete seems more based on the random effects of who happens to drop in on the RfD page than on any core principle or clear community consensus. Personally, I believe that link rot is a worse thing.  More importantly however, there is no documented consensus that CNRs are inherently bad.  The last time someone tried to make that as a global proposal, it failed rather miserably.  However, consensus can change.  So let's please stop these one-off nominations where we're all repeating the same arguments endlessly and hold a single comprehensive discussion on the general principle.  Rossami (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rossami, I'm sure for you and me it seems like we're always repeating each other, but I imagine that the ever rotating cast of other voters sees each of our comments and thinks "The two of them are the most brilliant commentors I've ever read". On the other point though, I'm not sure what forum would be appropriate to discuss CNRs centrally, since the results show there is no uniform answer to all 2900 CNRs, but that statistically, most should be re-targeted or deleted.  And that's pretty much what RFD was invented for, to discuss and decide how to handle redirects.  MBisanz  talk 02:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CENT is my recommendation for the correct forum. The discussion should be properly advertised here (and probably several other places as well).  Or you could reopen a central policy recommendation similar to WP:CNR.  Either would be better than continuing these inconsistent and repetitive debates.  By the way, I'd like to see your list of the 45 CNR RFDs closed so far.  I'd like to do my own analysis of the underlying issues of those examples.  Rossami (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * keep piece of history to preserve. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Move if it was WP history, move the redirect to WP:Brilliant prose.   . DGG (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rossami. This was the old name of the Featured Articles page for some time; it still has plenty of incoming links, and always will. Moreover, it's unlikely to ever be used as a title in article space, so the cross-namespace redirect isn't doing any harm; anyone searching for this will be looking for the Wikipedia-space page, not an article. As such, it should be kept for clear historical value, and a WP:TROUT applied to the nominator. :) Terraxos (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lankveil and Rossami. &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  21:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Move per DGG. It's confusing to have this in article space. VG &#x260E; 17:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

800 years → Category:Irish rebellions
The result of the debate was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC) In appropriate CNR to a category, too vague of a topic to be linked only to this topic.  MBisanz  talk 00:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Target doesn't even make sense.  No real good target for the redirect either.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. not sensible it could be an alias for Octocentennial, but that itself is a redirect to Anniversary. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - cross-namespace redirect to a category that doesn't make much sense. Terraxos (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Album project → WikiProject Albums
The result of the debate was retarget to Record album. WJBscribe (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC) In appropriate CNR to a wikiproject group, does not link to content.  MBisanz  talk 00:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Retarget to Record album as many musical acts (and producers) refer to their record (and CD) albums as "projects". 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Retarget per IP. I've heard a few interviews of musicians referring to their upcoming albums as "projects." B.Wind (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Assyro-Chaldeans/miniproject → WikiProject Christianity/Syriac Christianity work group
 The result of the debate was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Inappropriate CNR to a wikiproject working group, does not link to content.  MBisanz  talk 00:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'