Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 May 8

May 8
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 8, 2011

Wikipedia Hatlink



 * 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, unused cross namespace redirect. &mdash; Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


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

Delete. Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. I can't see how this would help newbies (which is why most of this kind of CNR are created), because most people refer to hatnotes as hatnotes. I think I've seen it called a hatlink once in a long-since archived discussion but that's it. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, unnecessary cross-namespace redirect for an almost-never-used expression. Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 05:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wt;rfa



 * 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. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * → Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete; a typo of a pseudo-namespace redirect from the main article space to the talk page of a Wikipedia policy page. TB (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for exactly the same reasons why these redirects were kept only a matter of weeks ago. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. A quite plausible typo (or shortcut, depending on how you look at it) for a heavily trafficked project talk page. 28bytes (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it really appropriate to risk redirecting readers of the encyclopedia to such a behind-the-scenes page as WT:Rfa ? I know the risk is very small, but so is the potential benefit of redirecting from a typo of a pseudo-namespce shortcut.  Readers outnumber us editors many thousands to one;  I believe we should  err in their favour here. - TB (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What mainspace article could they be looking for that would generate such a typo? It's clearly a plausible typo for wt:rfa, but if it's also a plausible typo for a mainspace article I'll certainly reconsider my !vote. 28bytes (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did a quick search now and the closest match (excluding the Wp; set of redirects) is W;t with an edit distance of 4, not a likely typo. However I'd still argue that the potential benefit of such a redirect should outweigh its potential drawbacks by a large amount.  Here we have a small potential benefit to a few hundred editors weighed against a mere wrinkle, but a wrinkle that may trip up a few of our millions of readers. - TB (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm not seeing the drawbacks. It's a project talk page, not a shock site. If sometime gets there by mistake, they'll presumably see it's not what they were looking for, and click the "back" button. WT:(anything) will, by design, also send them to a project talk page even if the colon is accidentally entered, and as far as I know no one considers that a problem. 28bytes (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * People ending up at the talk page by mistake is certainly a drawback; also the redirect will show up in main-namespace searches and mirrors missing Wikipedia talk will see it as a broken redirect.  Google (and I believe Yahoo) index main-namespace titles prominently;  this redirect promotes our internal talk page to similar importance.  The same problem does not apply to the WP: and WT: namespace aliases as they are given special treatment during searching, mirroring and indexing. - TB (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But a redirect has essentially no content... what would Google index? What Google search would possibly bring this redirect up as a top search result? 28bytes (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A redirect is an index - a unique small value that identifies an object. google yahoo.  The same redirect in non-mainspace would not push Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship to the top of these searches. - TB (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You sure about that? A similar search for "wt;afd" brings up "Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion" as the first hit, even though wt;afd doesn't exist. 28bytes (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting - Google seems to equate the semi-colon with a space unless escaped by quoting the search term (wt;afd vs "wt;afd" / wt;rfd vs ) - however, we risk delving into the realms of irrelevancy here. The question is this; does the benefit of saving a few seconds of editors time per year outweigh the drawback of a few readers ending up on the wrong page each year?  I suspect that attempt to estimate values tempts much non-productive debate.  Do we err in favour of the readers and keep the main namespace as 'clean' as possible, or the editors and wring an iota of potential more work from them ? - TB (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one. If I thought this redirect was getting in the readers' way of finding something they were looking for, I think we'd be in agreement. (After all, I'm a reader too.) 28bytes (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Template:Nondescript



 * 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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


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

Seemingly unused template redirect, ifr and Rename media are more descriptive as to intended action. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Template:Renamemedia



 * 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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


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

Seemingly unused redirect - ifr or Rename media can be auto inserted by tools now. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. Not everybody uses automated tools, and this isn't doing any harm. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep this is the normal name for templates (no spaces) until someone became grammatically pissed off on them all. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Max Millslagle



 * 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 speedy delete as vandalism (CSD criterion G3). Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * → Borg (Star Trek) (links to redirect • [ history] • )

I can find no connection between the redirect and the target. Based on the only other edit by this editor being another redirect which I speedy deleted as an attack page, I find this questionable. As it's not clear cut vandalism, I'm bringing it here. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * The user actually created three other redirects, all speedily deleted as vandalism or attack pages. Max Millslagle is apparently a track and field athlete from Oregon who was probably in high school in 2008 (when this redirect was created), as is a person with the same name as another of the redirects. One of the others is also from Oregon and the fourth name has no internet presence that I can tell. I'm guessing that these were names of classmates. Given all this and the fact there is no apparent connection between the subject and the borg, I'm certain that this is long-overlooked vandalism (it might also have been an attack, but I'm certain of that, and it's academic anyway). Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)