Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 3

February 3
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 3, 2010

User:Jordanstrm/SpeedheatFloorHeating



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Deleted by R'n'B CSD G8 (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * → Speedheat Floor Heating (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Cross-name space redirect created when the user moved the page from his/her user space to article name space. Note, too, that I have PRODed the article itself as advert. Cnilep (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete as an apparent "subpage" of the nonexistent User:Jordanstrm userpage (CSD G8). Additional note: should this be around if the target is deleted as a result of an expired PROD, this will be deleted along with it. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:POVabout
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * → Template:POV (links to redirect • [ history] • )

No reason to add about next to POV Magioladitis (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Serves no purpose. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:POV-because
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * → Template:POV (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Unused and makes no sense to make a redirect that is more difficult to type than then original Magioladitis (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Serves no purpose. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:NPOV-religion
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * → Template:POV (links to redirect • [ history] • )

This should have been deleted at first place instead of redirect to POV Magioladitis (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, not really helpful having a specific sounding template redirecting to a non-specific one. --Taelus (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But it's Ed Poor. He's not really a helpful editor. 68.60.227.193 (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can't see any point to this template's existence.  Agree with the above point, not much use in having a specific template redirecting to a non-specific area.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above and serves no purpose. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:NPOV-because
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * → Template:POV (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Unused and awkward. No reason to use minus and because in the POV tag. Magioladitis (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Serves no purpose. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Special:PrefixIndex/WikiProject
The result of the discussion was Keep. Ignoring all the noise about procedure and nomination hoopla, I see a solid agreement that we should hold on to these. This is in keeping (albeit stronger, perhaps) with the previous discussions ending similarly. I do, however, recognize Black Falcon's excellent categorizations, and might suggest that as a possible avenue of further progress should any desire it. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 20:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * → various wikiprojects (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Cross space redirects (around 50 redirects). Not necessary. Mislead users in wikipedia search box autocomplete. Deletion is necessary to keep content and administration separate. Not too many are there, since I followed links from Wiki (disambiguation) to Special:PrefixIndex/Wiki in see also. Moreover, "articles" starting with wiki are most likely to be abused for cross namespace redirects. Cited third page (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Special:PrefixIndex/Wikiproject (14 redirects) is a variation by capitalisation. Cited third page (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all. (a) Procedural objection: many of these get used, and without the rfd tag, users won't even notice that their redirect has been proposed for deletion. Any deletion challenged at DRV would be an instant overturn for this reason alone. (b) These redirects lead people to where they want to go, and no confusion with possible article names seems possible (unless people start writing articles about WikiProjects, but none of them seems notable enough for that). —Кузьма討論 16:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You want to put rfd on 50 pages? I have justified how this is exceptional case, only prefix wiki in whole wikipedia are abused. We can use IAR here for procedural rules. Cited third page (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I tagged all of them with rfd and section linked them to here... It didn't take as long as I initially thought it would, but I hope I don't end up being the closer here and going through them all again! Anyway, hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Taelus. Note that previous RFDs have covered these: One is Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 28. As Cited third said, this is an exceptional case: actually, one of the very few types of cross-namespace redirects that are allowed. —Кузьма討論 21:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Taelus for tagging. But I dont think anybody watchlisted them. Cited third page (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WikiProject should not be deleted per consensus at Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 2. See also the redirect's history. —Кузьма討論 21:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We can keep one redirect, but keeping all floods search autocomplete. This feature was not available in 2008. If somebody types "wikip..." in search bar all irrelevant suggestions are shown for autocomplete. Cited third page (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a good thing I watchlist redirects of interest or I would have missed this discussion. I have absolutely no idea why you want to delete a perfectly good, full functional redirect, but I am adamantly against it. These exist for a reason, and deleting them doesn't help anyone As Far as I am concerned. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Close as wrong venue - simply put, Special:PrefixIndex/WikiProject is not a redirect, thus placing thus outside the purview of WP:RfD. Its contents is a list of redirects, apparently, and they are within RfD purview, but since this is either a list page or a disambiguation page, it would seem to be that WP:MfD or WP:AfD would be the more appropriate place for this (and with this being a Special: page, I'd tend to believe the former). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the wrong venue. It is a list of redirects, which is much nicer on the eye than 50 lines of "Redirect Name" --> "Target" here. We are not discussing deleting a special page, we are discussing redirects. --Taelus (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment this is a horribly malformed nomination, since it doesn't actually list what has been nominated. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It does list what has been nominated, and all the nominations have been tagged as such. Please check out the special page which lists them all, thanks. --Taelus (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is horribly malformed. Did you see how many people are misinterpreting this as a deletion request for the Special Page? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete crossnamespace redirects to projectspace pages. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Week keep. I also like to keep a strong separation between content and maint/admin pages but in this case the separation is present. "WikiProject" or "Wikiproject" is a search string that is only likely to be entered by editors rather than readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is google if they want to search, and we can keep just one redirect wikiProject for that as told above. Keeping this many confuses "readers" who type wikip... in searchbox to see too many wrong suggestions. Cited third page (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Typing in "wikip..." brings up all manner of suggestions that are not part of content. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah! Just discovered that typing in "wikip..." when logged out only brings up article namepace suggestions. Good old MediaWiki!! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Puzzled - is the special page being nominated, or are the redirects listed on the page being nominated (but not Special:PrefixIndex/WikiProject)? The heading indicates the former (in which case I'd recommend keeping for organizational purposes; besides, as a page that lists redirects, it itself is not a redirect); if it's the latter, I'll have to check each one out... and urge a clarification of the nomination(s). We've done mass nominations before, but this presentation is unlike any that I've seen here since 2006. B.Wind (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator. If these are not deleted this kind of redirects will increase. Already the list is 50+, and the number will increase and encourage other such redirects to wikipedia: pages that are not wikiprojects. Cited third page (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you are the nominator, I must reiterate my (yet-to-be-answered) question: is the special page itself nominated for deletion, or only the redirects mentioned on it? While User:Taelus give his/her/its interpretation of your nomination, it would be best to read your intention directly from you. B.Wind (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to clarify, it is those 60 redirects that are nominated for deletion. The special page can not be deleted of course, but it can be emptied. Cited third page (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The special page is not nominated for deletion, then. The heading for this section should be changed to reflect that fact as it is very misleading. We've done mass RfDs before (see Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 June 4, and pulldowns can be used to collapse the list. I'd urge to close this discussion and reopen with the list, including targets. Thus the discussion can focus on the actual redirects and not the special page. Technically, the IP is correct: this nomination is flawed, and it needs to be done correctly. B.Wind (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On first look people may feel it is wrong, but when they get into business they will know the intention. You should be more considerate before asking others to do extra work. Cited third page (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The following are listed for deletion, The cross-namespace (from mainspace to projectspace) redirects starting from WikiProject and Wikiproject:


 * We can keep just one redirect WikiProject and Wiki project, delete others. Cited third page (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I am willing to un-tag and re-tag redirects related to this nomination using AWB as necessary, and if requested. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Procedural close and do not document any result on talk pages through oldrfd; instead, link to the discussion in the edit summary while removing the rfd tags. I personally did not find the scope of the nomination to be confusing, but still I think that there are too many different types of cross-namespace redirects bundled into this group nomination, including: (1) redirects to the general WikiProject page (e.g. WikiProject); (2) redirects to particular WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Chess); (3) redirects from a non-standard, pseudo-namespace (e.g. WikiProject:Architecture); (4) redirects to WikiProject subpages (e.g. WikiProject Baseball/Australian baseball task force/Newsletter/July 2009); and (5) redirects from non-standard, alternative capitalizations, spacings, and punctuation (e.g., Wikiproject Law, Wikiproject: Eurovision, Wikiproject dubai). I think that these should be nominated separately in smaller group nominations, since redirects of the first type ought probably to be kept, redirects of the fourth and fifth types ought probably to be deleted, and redirects of the second and third types need more focused discussion.
 * To reduce our work, we can first delete pseudo-namespaces, incorrect capitalizations, and subpages as uncontroversial delete in this discussion, and then relist for others so that we will not have fragmented discussion. This is because redirect deletions are easy to undo, since there is no content/sentences written with great effort like in articles, and no copyrighted content, and that new redirect creations are hardly opposed. Cited third page (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Jihadi lawyers
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * → Guantanamo Bay attorneys (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Proposing deletion as a novel/obscure synonym. Also, the redirect is to Guantanamo Bay attorneys, though the term can and has been applied to many other lawyers, such as Lynne Stewart. Gobonobo T C 01:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - arbitrarily pointing to Guantanamo Bay attorneys; could be any lawyer supporting a Jihadist (a label not necessarily referring to all people at Guantanamo Bay anyway). Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Wrong in both directions. Lawyers defend the people at Gitmo are not normally promoting a jihad, and lawyers who may actually be promoting a jihad will probably be doing other things in other places.   DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the two terms "Jihadi lawyers" and "Guantanamo Bay attorneys" refer to groups with little, if any, overlap. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, surely people wanting information about mujahideen who are lawyers don't want information about those defending individuals in Guantanamo Bay. Nyttend (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Fabrik (open source)
The result of the discussion was keep. Even if we accept the disputed argument that this redirect falls under Copying within Wikipedia or take steps to preserve attribution in other ways (see Merge and delete), the result would at most be "no consensus, default to keep". -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * → Joomla (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Small plugin for an application that cannot be used without main app. Was AFD to merge to Joomla! which it is inappropriate to give undue weight to a single plugin out of thousands. Redirect serves no purpose. 16x9 (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is too large in scope for redirect to be relevant.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep article history exists, and the redirect is getting 100 hits a month (possibly due to being listed on Fabrik) Josh Parris 00:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * comment - article history of an other wise NN deleted article. 16x9 (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep If people are still searching for it, it should remain. And the consensus was to merge and redirect, not to delete.   D r e a m Focus  05:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is to say people are still searching for it? The content of the merge is not being use anymore as it was already covered in the article.  No need to advert this product.  16x9 (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep to maintain history, which has to be maintained (for GDFL) when articles are merged. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * which is not being used and should be deleted. hints why we are here. 16x9 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The merge was by community consensus via a deletion discussion. The GDFL requires that we keep any and all previous editions of the merged article... that is, until and unless Joomla itself is deleted from Wikipedia. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or delete the merge and delete he redirect. 16x9 (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That needs to be discussed on the target's talk page. Only consensus can override community consensus. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or we talk about it on the redirects for discussions page as it is a redirect? 16x9 (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep per WP:MAD. Deletion policy does not allow for deletion of this page. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The full subsection at Joomla was WP:UNDUE, but this is an extension covered in a full page in a Joomla book, so a redirect to an anchor seems okay. By the way, this redirect is also good because there's another software with this name, Fabrik (software), (see Fabrik), so a link from the disambiguation page helps too. It could be renamed to something more descriptive like Fabrik (Joomla extension) or some such. Pcap ping  04:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * so any plugin/extension ever mentioned, to any extent, in any publication should be redirected to the 'main' software?  Not needed!  16x9 (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Disambiguated title is unlikely search term. The merged target has been destroyed through the editing process so this isn't even a valid redirect anymore. What is in the new article now does not need to be kept for licensing history as it has no relation to the former text. Miami33139 (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Josh, Tothwolf and IP. While WP:MAD is described as an "essay", it explains the requirement of the GDFL regarding merged articles (in essence, the history must be kept until the target itself is deleted, not merged or otherwise redirected). B.Wind (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)