Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 22

February 22
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 22, 2013

How to archive a talk page



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * → Help:Archiving a talk page (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Are redirects into wikispace like this allowed or recommended? If so, nevermind, I guess. It seems likely to confuse to someone looking to a book title or whatever. Even if allowed, why should this particular somewhat obscure advice be what comes up if one types "how to" in the search box? Herostratus (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and WP:XNR: "CNRs are bad because they result in a person (reader) walking around a building (encyclopedia) and falling into the pipework (project space) because the builders (editors) thought cracks in the walls and floors would be useful for them to get around." Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete XNR. Talk pages are not exclusive to Wikipedia, and archival methods would differ depending on software; also WP:NOTHOWTO -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Simply being a cross-namespace redirect is not a reason in and of itself to delete a redirect, as consensus has shown time and again that some are useful and some are not. Rather we have to balance the usefulness against the possible harm - in this case the usefulness to new editors and those unfamiliar with namespaces is very low as if they are searching for this they are already familiar with talk pages. The edit summary on creation indicates that the impetus was for the benefit of incomming internal links that hadn't been updated. Most likely some (but not necessarily all) of these will have been updated since 2008, but I see this is an exception to the usual rule of avoiding breaking links because, as 65.92.180.137 notes above, archival methods vary between sites and so we cannot guarantee that our content is correct for other sites and those wanting to archive Wikipedia talk pages shouldn't need to follow an external link to get here. The help namespace is sort of reader-focused so it's not as far into the cracks as project space would be, but it is still not encyclopaedic content meaning that in the absence of strong specific benefits in an individual case they should probably be deleted or retargetted. Looking to see whether there is an appropriate place to point this in the article space I've not found anything. My guess is that the concept of talk page archiving could support a section in the archiving article, but ones does not exist currently so I'm left at delete. Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2013 (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.

MOS:PASSIVE



 * 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 all. JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I cannot find any section on Manual of Style that would related to these redirects. Also, each of these redirects were created on 25 December 2012 and have not been edited since (until my RFD note); I just checked the article history for Wikipedia:Manual of Style from today to 24 December 2012 to today, and the section "Common grammatical disputes" does not exist now, and did not even exist when these redirects were created. Steel1943 (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * → Manual of Style (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Delete I find no evidence that our Manual of Style addresses any of these. Also, Passive voice redirects to WikiProject Grammar and should be deleted for the same reason. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I sort of wish that was a real section, but if the redirects never referred to a real one, they ought to be deleted. Perhaps the creator wanted to encourage creation of such a section, but that's not really the way the MOS works. --BDD (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2013 (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.