April 11
Wp:sandbox city → Wikipedia:Sandbox In-sand-ity
The result of the debate was
speedy delete. Also note that
WP:NPA doesn't apply to redirects.
John Reaves (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
It's a redirect to a dead article. What the hell is up with this fucking redirect? TheBlazikenMaster 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The result of the debate was
delete.
WjBscribe 18:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
Self-explanatory. Only thing that linked to it was a needless reference in the article Parliament, which I have now removed. --AdamM 18:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Implausible search term and poorly worded as a link. –Pomte 18:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The result of the debate was
retarget to
Internet bot.
WjBscribe 18:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
Cross-namespace redirect. Yonatan talk 13:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Bot. The Bot article already has a link to the Wikipedia policy. Deleting the article will probably result in new or inexperienced users creating it again. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 21:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to bot per Mtmelendez. A more appropriate target would be internet bot, but unfortunately that article doesn't talk about wiki bots at all. –Pomte 18:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The result of the debate was
no consensus.
WjBscribe 18:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
Original article has already been Afd'd with 0% advocating redirect. Term is not present in target article. JianLi 01:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I have heard the term used as an overly cutesy euphamism for a hug, so it's use as a search term is not unreasonable. Arkyan • (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I initiated the deletion request for the main article. If the term is not included in the redirected article, it should not redirect to the article. Naconkantari 17:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Write an article – I for one am convinced of the importance and/or significance of huggling. Except that's not really one of the options, so retarget to hug instead. Actually, looking at that article, you might want to speedy close, AfD hug and then re-nominate as it may well be deleted itself. Ah, what the hell, perhaps keep is the easiest way out of the mess, as usual. I need a huggle, now – Gurch 17:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to hug. And if someone can't find something encyclopedic to write about hug, I will be incredibly disappointed. --- RockMFR 04:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure it's possible, but the current article is not very good. Relevant stuff seems to be at physical intimacy instead – Gurch 15:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
No. x Line → Route x (Baltimore)
The result of the debate was
delete. Too generic titles to redirect to routes in a specific city. The format of the titles makes them unsuitable for disambiguation.
WjBscribe 18:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
These are a set of overly generic redirects to a specific city bus line. Nothing links to these redirects, and they should not exist otherwise. 70.51.8.244 06:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. M-17 Line -> Route M-17 (Baltimore)
- No. M-15 Line -> List of surface transit routes in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area#M-15
- No. M-12 Line -> List of surface transit routes in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area#M-12
- No. M-10 Line -> Route M-10 (Baltimore)
- No. M-9 Line -> Route M-9 (Baltimore) NOTE: This was previously deleted at AfD
- No. M-8 Line -> Route M-8 (Baltimore)
- No. M-6 Line -> Route M-6 (Baltimore)
- No. M-3 Line -> Route 5 (Baltimore)
- No. M-2 Line -> Route 7 (Baltimore)
- No. M-1 Line -> Route M-1 (Baltimore)
- No. P-1 Line -> Route 5 (Baltimore)
- No. 99 Line -> List of surface transit routes in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area#99
- No. 98 Line -> Route 98 (Baltimore)
- No. 97 Line -> Route 97 (Baltimore)
- No. 91 Line -> Route 91 (Baltimore)
- No. 77 Line -> Route 77 (Baltimore)
- No. 68 Line -> Route 68 (Baltimore)
- No. 66 Line -> Route 15 (Baltimore)
- No. 64 Line -> Route 64 (Baltimore)
- No. 61 Line -> Route 61 (Baltimore)
- No. 55 Line -> Route 55 (Baltimore)
- No. 51 Line -> List of surface transit routes in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area#51 NOTE: this page was deleted at AfD previously
- No. 50 Line -> Route 50 (Baltimore)
- No. 44 Line -> Route 44 (Baltimore)
- No. 43 Line -> Route 15 (Baltimore)
- No. 40 Line -> Route 40 (Baltimore)
- No. 36 Line -> Route 36 (Baltimore)
- No. 35 Line -> Route 35 (Baltimore)
- No. 33 Line -> Route 33 (Baltimore)
- No. 30 Line -> Route 30 (Baltimore)
- No. 29 Line -> Route 29 (Baltimore)
- No. 28 Line -> List of surface transit routes in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area#28
- No. 27 Line -> Route 27 (Baltimore)
- No. 26 Line -> Route 26 (Baltimore)
- No. 24 Line -> Route 24 (Baltimore)
- No. 23 Line -> Route 23 (Baltimore)
- No. 22 Line -> Route 22 (Baltimore)
- No. 21 Line -> Route 21 (Baltimore)
- No. 20 Line -> Route 20 (Baltimore)
- No. 19 Line -> Route 19 (Baltimore)
- No. 18 Line -> Route 18 (Baltimore)
- No. 17 Line -> Route 17 (Baltimore)
- No. 16 Line -> Route 16 (Baltimore)
- No. 15A Line -> Route 15 (Baltimore)
- No. 15 Line -> Route 15 (Baltimore)
- No. 14 Line -> Route 14 (Baltimore)
- No. 13 Line -> Route 13 (Baltimore)
- No. 12 Line -> Route 12 (Baltimore)
- No. 11 Line -> Route 11 (Baltimore)
- No. 10 Line -> Route 10 (Baltimore)
- Keep. These were linked to until very recently. If you have something else that could use the title, you should make a disambiguation page, like No. 1 Line. --NE2 06:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When the pages were moved, the links should have been fixed, I fixed most of them to direct to the proper page. 70.51.8.244 06:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't mean the old redirects should be deleted. And no, you don't have to "fix" a link when a page is moved; see Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. --NE2 06:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The old names are overly generic, and if they are turned into dab pages, all those existing redirects will dump to a dab page instead of the proper destination. If they're deleted, then they become redlinks and will not point to the right place. 70.51.8.244 06:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And if they're kept, nothing has to be done. They should be disambiguated in this case, so this argument is somewhat moot, but in general you don't need to "fix" redirects. --NE2 06:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'll definitely agree that they should not redirect to the Baltimore related articles, but converting them to disambiguation pages (or redirecting them to disambiguation pages with better titles, Line 1 is better than No. 1 Line) is the best option. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The Redirects from a generic bus number to that route in the city of Baltimore are not sensible, since there are routes in other cities with the same numbers. For instance Googling "No. 10 line" Beijing -Wikipedia produces 230 Google hits, most of which appear to be about that transit route. Googling "No. 10 line" Baltimore -Wikipediaproduces two Google hits about that transit line. If anything, the redirect should be to an article about the Beijing transit line, not the Baltimore one. Most large cities probably have a number 10 line, and it seems like a "miscellaneous information" to include all of them in a disambiguation page. Ditto for the other increasing numbers, unless they are somehow unique to Baltimore or better known in Baltimore. Edison 18:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Edison was pointed here by canvassing from the original poster. --NE2 02:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is a central index for Baltimore public transport lines, from which any reader can access specific lines. It is highly unlikely that anyone typing in No. 10 Line (or any variation of it) into search is looking for the specific line in Baltimore, given the fact that such numbered lines exist in virtually every major city in the world. These redirects are overly generic. Meelosh 18:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Meelosh was pointed here by canvassing from the original poster. --NE2 02:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am an editor of over a years standing with over 8,000 edits, and I do not see why you would seek to disparage my contribution to this issue by repeatedly stating that someone notifying me of it was canvassing, as if my statements have less worth on that account. Please address the content of my post and do not comment on the poster, in line with basic Wikipedia civility. Edison 05:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Essentially your showing up here shows that canvassing works, unless you would have found this on your own. I have addressed the content; these are names that are used for the routes and should be disambiguated. --NE2 05:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It should also be noted that the old URLs currently show up in Google: [1] If we delete them, someone doing that search would not find the article. --NE2 06:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google will update its directory. If we follow that arguement nothing would ever be deleted, because it appeared on Google. 70.55.85.75 04:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google has already updated... delete them if you want. --NE2 06:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GFDL. It seems to me that all of these redirects exist as a result of pagemoves. A pagemove is considered useful edit history and thus cannot be deleted until "the page history [is copied] to the Talk page of the article it redirects to" (quote from Wikipedia:Redirect). I believe the correct way to do it is as done here, for instance. If that issue is corrected for all cases, I will review my recommendation. -- Black Falcon 19:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have not checked all the pages, but for at least the ones I did, the page moves are documented in the page history. The text you quote dates from before Wikipedia recorded moves in history. For moves before that software change, it is still a valid issue, but for moves after it, the page history provides the documentation of the move and there is no need to duplicate it on the talk page. -- JLaTondre 20:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of that, I withdraw my recommendation and will not, for the time being, suggest a new one. I will however, bring up the issue at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Thank you for your response, Black Falcon 21:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Edison. Doubtless there are numerous cities that have lines with these indicators. There's nothing specific to Baltimore about them and no reason redirects should prefer that city. Form 1040 has a notable association with the United States Internal Revenue Service, but there's no evidence of a similar association with Baltimore here. --Shirahadasha 23:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if you look at my old talk page user talk:70.51.8.244, you should note that user NE2 is a willing target of canvassing (per User:Edison's comment there), so his objection to canvassing is not pure. 70.51.11.121 04:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what you're talking about, but I "voted" before receiving that newsletter, and had no hand in its creation. --NE2 11:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Too generic; if someone actually searches No. X Line it'd be a mystery to them why they've ended up at Baltimore rather than any other city. This is less likely for the M- and P- lines, but why would anyone ever search for these terms in exactly that spelling? Redirect name still fails to be descriptive to give any indication of the target. There is no edit history lost. I grouped all these articles together in the AfD, and I didn't get canvassed :( –Pomte 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The result of the debate was
delete. Not sure that a disambiguation page is a good idea here. I will leave the creation of one to editorial discretion.
WjBscribe 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
- Disambiguate. The redirect is disingenuous and has been tagged for removal. Metapsychology is any psychological system, but especially psychoanalysis (Freudian and post-Freudian), which is based in deductive, rather than inductive reasoning. At most, there should be a disambiguation page that points to both psychoanalysis and TIR. At least, merely a footnote on Psychoanalysis. --Qinshihuangdi 23:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
- Delete. No necessary relationship between the two terms. Possible POV/OR redirect. --Shirahadasha 23:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.