Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 25

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another redirect with typo, also 3 years old, thus not speedyable. SoWhy 19:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it isn't useful or needed. Tavix (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Terraxos (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with typo, 3 years old thus not speedyable. SoWhy 19:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it isn't needed or useful. Tavix (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Terraxos (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6.--Aervanath (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend deletion. Current redirect is the result of a move to allow a renaming of WMRE (AM) to WMRE. This was the original WMRE page, which bounced between being a redirect and a two-link dab (the other "prong" is now a redirect to Emory University as a result of a merge into the latter). Nothing will be lost for GFDL purposes. B.Wind (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is apparently a temporary page used during a page swap (see page history), and should have been deleted after the page move/swap was completed, but either the moving admin neglected to do so, or he was not an admin and could not delete the page. •••Life of Riley (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - per Life of Riley. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 26, 2009 @ 05:30
• Delete - temporary title to permit a move; was either a redirect or two-line dab the whole time. I don't see anything in the history needing to be saved. The history goes back a year; so it's debatable if CSD G6 would have applied. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it served its purpose, now lets move on with life. Tavix (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was withdrawn - on second thoughts, I'll withdraw this nom to prevent a train wreck from occurring, look through the list and remove any that can be redirected to a more appropriate target per Uncle G's recommendation and relist any others at RfD afterwards as single nominations. If anyone wishes to send a certain fish my way for listing these without really thinking, feel free! Richard⁰⁶¹² 17:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click 'show' to see the relatively long list of redirects

AOLamer ICYDK C&V FLOABT OMGOES Iykwim CUWUL INMP FUDIE Aolbonics Gl hf S2r Usawk Rifk Cyberbug ROLF Be right there AOLbonics AFAICS IBDTSFY Gbtw Snoi IJCMPILSH Whoamfg *g* Jftr Hawt Suack Lmbo Rofllmfao CAOK Jeomk Post Whore Post whore PostWhore Postwhore Emotag Teh Butt Seckz LMPO LOTI Lolwtfbbq Oyfg Webonics Uutf Lwpimp STFU newbie! STFU n00b! M8 = Mate Ontario Mega Finance Group Digispeak Wuu2 WITM8 Idgf IntS B2w (Internet Slang) Ilysm Ily Bm4l Rofltacular Roflmgo Stufu Tmth Ttly TBH

None of the terms in the box above are mentioned in the target article, and although most probably are internet slang terms, I see little use in having them all redirect to the article. If people want definitions of them they should head for Urban Dictionary. I haven't tagged any of the pages with the {{RFD}} template so far, but if I can always run through the list using AWB if people feel they need tagging. Richard⁰⁶¹² 15:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to unbundle. There are some widely different cases there, which cannot be dealt with as a single unit. Ontario Mega Finance Group, for example, is a bizarre accident resulting from a 'bot fixing a double redirect. TBH is an attempt to shut down the create-speedy-delete cycle that had been repeating until that point. (See its deletion log.) post whore and its ilk should direct readers to an appropriate article on the psychology of discussion forum participants (if we have one). And the various Internet laughter slang initialisms such as Lolwtfbbq, Rofltacular, and Roflmgo are better off pointing to LOL, along with all of the other variations on that particular theme that already do.

  Also remember the preventitive nature of redirects (already exemplified by the redirects that point to LOL). If a redirect points to a relevant good article, we are less likely to waste time continually deleting juvenile made-up rubbish. So consider: If OMGOES were a redlink (rather than, say, the obvious redirect to OMG), how long would it be before someone came along and re-created another bad article there? After all, it's happened once already. If one person did it, others will. Uncle G (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right, I'll go through the list and re-redirect some of the obvious LOL variations (if I miss any, which is likely, please fix them for me!), and see if there is a more appropriate target for others. This should help reduce the list to a manageable size. I did think of splitting the list up, but I didn't feel comfortable spamming RfD with 10+ noms (even if they were in smaller groups). Sorry about that (and I had forgotten about redirects preventing peurile articles being created, thanks for reminding me of that). Richard⁰⁶¹² 17:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Target does not discuss rift sawn lumber in a meaningful way. I don't see a valid page to redirect to. Having a redlink will encourage creating a definition. —dgies^t_c 07:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as rift sawing, while related to, is not the same quarter sawing. The quarter sawn article goes as far as saying that the two terms are often confused, and this redirect will cause even more confusion. PaulJones (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete This is just what redlinks are supposed to be there for. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep and protect. The arguments for deletion are based on the historical use of this as a redlink example on Wikipedia project pages. However, the vast majority of readers are not going to care about this part of Wikipedia history. This is something that we as editors care about, because we are personally connected to the project. But we're not optimizing Wikipedia for the convenience of preserving its history; we're optimizing it for the convenience of our readers. The history of the redirect is preserved in its deletion log, on its talk page, and on the soft redirect page itself. Even that notice is a prime example of a self-reference to avoid. The current status quo preserves the history of this redirect while still allowing readers to find what they need.--Aervanath (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<moved from AfD> flaminglawyer 00:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has long been used as a stereotypical redlink. It is linked to by many pages with the intention of having a redlink there. Furthermore, it is an implausible redirect, as we don't have redirects for The weather in San Francisco and other cities. Anybody looking for this subject would check the article on London. Firestorm (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Firestorm (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I listed this at AFD mistakenly, and it has now been moved here. This page has been through AFD, MFD, RFD, and DRV multiple times. Firestorm (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yet again and protect against recreation. This page has been deleted and recreated nearly 100 times. Why is it not protected? •••Life of Riley (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, the page should be salted. If the AFD ends in Delete, i'll list it at WP:RFPP. Firestorm (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've changed the standard AfD wiki link so that it points to the actual AfD nomination to help ease navigation for other users. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 05:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment without recommendation - this is the rare case in which we have two contradictory purposes at work here. First, the redirect is a valid one - it points to the appropriate section of the appropriate article if someone is indeed looking for something on the weather in London. On the other hand, the historical nature of the wikilink must be considered as it was originally used to demonstrate a redlink. Of course, its being a historical redlink has an implication that it has been rendered obsolete. Of course, a redlink can be simulated by simply having an appropriate phrase in red print (this would eliminate the temptation of someone clicking on it and going into edit mode... or at least make it harder to do). B.Wind (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not the redirect, it's more the talk page. We generally delete orphaned talk pages, but for some reason there was an issue with deleting Talk:The weather in London. So... my view is to either delete both or keep both. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So the issue is whether to keep the talk page or not. The answer is simple enough: keep and protect the redirect and keep the talk page, with the latter documenting the history of the phrase regarding Wikipedia's use of the term (which has been superseded in recent years). The nom's reasoning aside from historical purposes is that of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:ALLORNOTHING, which are not valid reasons to delete redirects (or articles in general). Should the consensus ends up being for deletion of the redirect, I'd strongly urge merging the talk page into WT:Red link before deletion of Talk:The weather in London. Frankly, I think the way the soft redirect is couched is the best way to present it, and that deletion would make things worse rather than better here. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I find the following amusing and ironic in light of this discussion (from WP:Red link, an editing guideline): Do not create red links to articles that will never be created, including articles that do not comply with Wikipedia's naming conventions. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt as this has been recreated way too many times. Tavix (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this has not been used as an intentional red link for a long time, certainly not since it was restored more than 8 months ago and consensus to keep it as a soft redirect was established at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 26#The weather in London → London#Climate. I don't think that any of the pages in Special:whatlinkshere/The weather in London are current pages that advise users on what a red link is and as the message on the page says, it has been superseded by new intentional red links like this one. To me the fact that it has been discussed so many times indicates that people are typing it in hoping to get information on the topic. Guest9999 (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:147.70.242.54 above. The key point here is that Talk:The weather in London has content worth keeping for historical reasons; deleting this would mean that talk page would have to be deleted as well. This 'redirect' may not be of much use at the moment, but it does serve a dual purpose of (i) explaining why it exists and (ii) allowing anyone who is actually looking for information on 'the weather in London' to find it. Terraxos (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete soft redirect and salt but keep talk and bring back the old warning at [1]. The solution does not matter much to the encyclopedia, but it is an important part of WP history. --Rumping (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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