Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 17

March 17
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 17, 2011

Administrators' Noticeboard



 * 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 Keep both. Ruslik_ Zero 16:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * → Administrators' noticeboard -
 * → Administrators' noticeboard -

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Cross-namespace redirect. Virtually unused. Shortcut available. —Ruud 22:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The page on CNRs says:
 * Otherwise the newbie users for whom these redirects are useful would be left up the creek. In most cases, users who type such names in the search box expect to be taken to its other-namespace target.
 * CNRs aid in accidental linking.
 * I made the redirect for this very purpose. Shortcuts are not known to newbies.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jasper Deng. There are no discernible disadvantages to these cheap and plainly helpful redirects, which plainly cannot be confused for article titles. As an aside, It is not clear to me why the nominator, an administrator, has not notified the creators of these redirects, as advised by WP:RFD. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Links to the traffic statistics added above.  Scanning back through the past year, I don't think either can fairly be classified as "virtually unused".  There is no obvious target that a reader would expect to see other than the Wikipedia page.  Whatlinkshere shows both pages as essentially orphaned but a scan of history suggests that this was a recent cleanup and that the prior usage was primarily (exclusively?) on Talk pages where the context clearly pointed to the Wikipedia page.  Keep because none of the usual arguments against cross-namespace redirects apply and the usage statistics suggest that it's at least somewhat helpful.  Rossami (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What about: Namespaces were created for a reason, so that the encyclopedic content would be separate. CNRs work against this. In my opinion creating cross-namespace redirects from the main namespace to save a few editors a little bit of work is about as morally justifiable as throwing your banana peels on the sidewalk, while there's a trashcan a few feet away, "because it save a bit of effort". —Ruud 12:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not buy that argument in large part because I don't think that's the appropriate analogy. Redirects such as this are not the psychological equivalent of littering.  They are more like the deliberate creation of a red-bordered access panel which allows direct access to the valves and wiring when you need to make repairs.  Yes, we could force our maintenance techs to go the long way around the building and crawl through the ventilation shafts but why should we?  This is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - we need a constant influx of new editors who will volunteer to help with the maintenance.  We need to make those access ports especially visible and easy to find.  We can't afford to paint them in camoflage colors and hide them behind the bookshelves. Of course, if the redirect is in the way of an article (we really need the bookshelf right there), then encyclopedic content takes precedence.  But no one is going to follow links with these titles and expect to find anything except that access panel.  Rossami (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

BITSE



 * 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 Delete. Ruslik_ Zero 16:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * Delete Cross-namespace redirect. Unused. Likely article title. —Ruud 22:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, "Bitse" appears to be a name (or maybe username) and BiTSE is a grammar used in machine translations between Swedish and English. If either of these got an article (I have no opinion on whether they are notable enough for this or not) then this title would be a good redirect to one. It is also not unlikely that this acronym will be used by an encyclopaedically notable organisation, etc. The current target page is not something that new users are going to be looking for and so it's value is very low. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wp;



 * 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 keep all. 10:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)



'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Not linked to. One user being too lazy to use the shift-key on his keyboard do not outweigh the disadvantages of Cross-namespace redirects. —Ruud 22:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Previously discussed on 20 Dec 2010
 * Keep. Speaking of laziness, it would be helpful for the nominator to point out exactly what "disadvantages of cross-namespace redirects" apply in this case. There is no risk that these redirects will cause a reader will stumble into the project space when looking for an article: they bear no relationship to any possible article titles. These redirects have two significant advantages. First, they are common typos for highly-edited project pages: an editor looking for this project page should be sent to the project page if the editor enters a common typo. Secondly, pressing the shift key is difficult for editors who, for reasons of disability or otherwise, find it hard to press shift+colon when typing fast. The redirects makes life easier and wikipedia more accessible. They are good, cheap, redirects, with no demonstrable disadvantages. The nominator would be well advised not to waste people's time with such trivial nominations, and perhaps follow the example of the last editor who nominated one of these redirects, by withdrawing it quickly before more efforts are wasted. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, to refute the claim that these redirects are for one user: I was away from the project between 25 and 31 December 2010. . In that time, Wp;ani was hit 21 times. 21 isn't many, but it's 21 occasions on which a user's life was made just a little easier. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also refute that using the ; and not the : is always out of laziness. I usually type with two fingers using a pecking method. When I try to create a : I usually have my two fingers near the shift and the ; button and type both at nearly the same time. Usually I get the : I need but sometimes I get a ; by mistake not because I am being lazy but because my right finger moved faster than the left finger meaning that the ; button was hit faster than the shift button. It has happened more than once for me. This is useful for me and I would not be surprised if others had the same problem.--76.66.189.59 (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Mkativerata and 76.66.189.59, unless for some reason it is causing  problems with  the site software. This redirect has helped me many times, and I'm  not  a lazy  editor but  I  use a special  multilingual  keyboard unknown in  the US or Europe. I would think  plenty of non US or Europe based editors and/or multi-linguists have the same problem when constantly  switching  keyboard layouts on the fly in  their computers. Kudpung (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No adverse impact of these redirects has yet been identified. I see no chance that a reader would follow a link beginning with "wp"-anything and expect to get anywhere except to the Wikipedia-space.  Since they are helpful to at least a few people and do no observable harm, that leaves us at keep.  Rossami (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case "Wp;" should be made into a proper alias of "Wikipedia:", like "WP:" is. I would have no problems with that, but somehow I would expect this to be opposed if proposed at the village pump. —Ruud 08:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Stigma (film)



 * 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 nomination withdrawn.  (While a "delete" opinion would normally invalidate the nominator's right to withdraw, in this case the comment supports the achieved outcome.)  Rossami (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * → Philip Michael Thomas (links to redirect • [ history] • )

This subject could be expanded into an article and should be a redlink instead of a redirect. This would facilitate listing it correctly on Stigma (disambiguation) and Philip Michael Thomas. The redirect does not have any significant history or incoming links. Nick Number (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - confusing redirect. Better as a red-link, I agree. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have extended the redirect into a stub. Neelix (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you. I withdraw the deletion request. Nick Number (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)