Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 12

November 12
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 12, 2011

Wikipedia:WPOMOS



 * 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 Rename. DrKiernan (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * → WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete. When used in edit summaries, misleadingly creates the impression that the MoS is being cited. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename/Move – To avoid that impression, rename/move to WP:WPOSG, similar to . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or rename all similar – I was inclined agree with Michael Bednarek, and Heaven help anyone who looks into the MoS; they will never escape. I presume the "misleading impression" is that by being only one character different from WP:MOS it is too easily mistaken? But going from A to Z I have found there is WP:AMOS, WP:CMOS, WP:IMOS and WP:PMOS (I only checked in all-caps), would they not come under the same argument? (And I am tempted to create WP:EMOS for which the style guide just says "I don't care, you all hate me, do what you like, I am going to my room."). As a counter-example, there is WP:MILHISTMOS, WP:CHEMMOS, and I imagine many others, which if my surmise is correct Andy Mabbett should not objects to, but only that the one-character difference may lead to unnecessary confusion and then needless haranguing, revert wars, etc. I don't want to put words in his mouth, or fingers, though: Just giving some examples for others to comment on. Si Trew (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Corollary. The other WP:xMOS pages I have quoted are subpages of the MoS, whereas WP:WPOMOS is not. On that ground, there is probably good reason to rename it solely and not invoke the examples of the others. It begs the question, should it be renamed to WP:OMOS? I don't know what the "rules" are for creating subpages of the MoS (as if it wasn't a flock of albatri around our necks already.) Si Trew (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as it doesn't violate anything. Furthermore, the name is fairly appropriate as it is a WikiProject Opera's Manual of Style. I notified the WPO on their talk page. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename/Move – WP:WPOSG per Michael Bednarek. It's a more accurate description of what the page actually is, and it's not a big deal. No talk pages link to the current redirect and I suspect very few edit summaries do as well. Voceditenore (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename -- clearcut case of "creep" from essay to purported guideline. Needs some content edits for the same reason.  84.203.34.252 (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest choosing a different shortcut / weak keep. I don't think it's violating anything ('manual of style' isn't that holy... is it?!) it's and unlikely to cause any serious problem; but for the sake of a peaceful life, I suggest using something less controversial - WP:OPSYTLE seems easier to remember, to me. Or WP:OPERASTYLE or WP:OPGUIDE or whatever. It's not being linked to, from anywhere, so just changing it should be easy.  Chzz  ► 08:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

224 (number)



 * 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. DrKiernan (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * → 220 (number) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete Apparently redirected to avoid someone's tomfoolery with the interesting number paradox, but this makes no sense as a destination. 84.203.34.252 (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as nonsense. Probably should be unlinked from the interesting number paradox when this discussion will be closed, as it is a call for vandals. Probably the statement about this number should also be removed as it is a call for vandals on its own. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete or create the article in the vein of 221 (number) etc. &mdash; Joseph Fox 02:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and refine to 220 (number). This sort of redirect is standard practice, there is not enough for an article about the number 224, but there is information about it at the target. It's a perfectly logical search term, and not misleading, so there is no reason to delete. We have the standard arsenal of tools like page protection and user blocks available if it is vandalised. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and refine to 220 (number). Sorry, this is neither nonsense nor tomfoolery. When numbers have enough material to support their own page one is written; when not they are redirected to the range. This is the approach we have adopted with previous, similar, notifications. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't know it. Is there any policy or guide on this question? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bridgeplayer, lest you be in any doubt about said tomfoolery, observe this revision. I must confess that I noticed neither the 221-229 section, nor the earlier RFD.  According to the latter, there have been "many discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers".  I have no objection to keeping the direct on the basis of the refined target, which would make it much less perplexing.  84.203.34.252 (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

AGPgart



 * 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. DrKiernan (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * → Graphics address remapping table (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Graphics address remapping table (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Graphics address remapping table (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]


 * Retarget to AGPgart, as it seems to be the more relevant target. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as the contents of AGPgart was merged into current target. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have notified the creator since (s)he is still around from time to time. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget all to AGPgart as plainly better. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. The AGPgart article is a vanity article about the Linux driver for GART, to which some Solaris and FreeBSD guys added "me too" paragraphs; it listed some factoids, but didn't really explain anything. AGP has been obsolete for several years now, but GART lives on in PCIe. The "Graphics address remapping table" article is about the technology, not just the drivers.
 * I took the liberty to merge AGPgart to Graphics address remapping table. I don't think there's much value in the information I copied (every modern OS supports GART), but it would be dishonest to call it a "merge" otherwise. -- intgr [talk] 22:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Though it was done out of the due process, it seems that the issue is now resolved as per WP:SNOW. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it was done per WP:BOLD. If someone disagrees, it can be reverted. :) -- intgr [talk] 23:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.