October 31
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 31, 2008
The result of the debate was
Blank.
Lenticel (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
"The redirect makes no sense" applies here. The Wikipedia Main Page isn't a user talk page. So, I'm submitting User talk:E0N to the WP:RFD list. --VictorC (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See below.--UsaSatsui (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I didn't see that comment. Revert and blank, or alternately, retarget to the userpage. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Blank. There is some harm in this as it is disruptive to communication. Many new users get confused by redirects. Clicking on the users name in an edit history and ending up at the main page is going to make it difficult for such users to leave a message with the editor. Established users take redirects for granted, but they are not alway easy for newer, less technical users to figure out. While the redirect should be removed, the page doesn't need to be deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the history of these two pages, it looks like a weak POINT violation. Revert of the talk page to a non-redirecting version looks like a better answer to me. I see no need to delete the page history here (and some potential reason to keep it). Rossami (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Revert per Rossami above. A user's main talk page shouldn't redirect to anything except another talk page where the user can read messages. There's no need to delete, however. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Curiouser and curiouser. You have an established editor who hasn't edited in the past month and nothing in his contributions to indicate any plans of "retirement." If the editor has a verified email address, notify him/her of this... and follow Rossami's suggestion to revert to the last non-redirecting version. Blanking isn't the solution, for a blanked user page or user talk page may be misinterpreted... But it's too early to assume that the editor has retired (I, for example, had to take a long Wikibreak earlier this year, for example). B.Wind (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The editor obviously doesn't want the content of the page displayed. As editors have a right to remove content from their talk page without archiving, we shouldn't restore it. The redirect should either be removed (blanked) or disabled (made into a link or <nowiki></nowiki> tags added). -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Blank the page. The user wants this content gone, but the history is worth preserving; blanking (rather than deleting) allows us to meet both requirements. Terraxos (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Blank redirects for a talk page should really only be made for user name changes, etc. -- Ned Scott 02:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The result of the debate was
Blank (I think it's the same as redirecting it to a blank talk page).
Lenticel (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
"The redirect makes no sense" applies here. The Wikipedia Main Page isn't a user page. So, I'm submitting User:E0N to the WP:RFD list. --VictorC (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know why the user in question did this, honestly. I'm not sure there's any harm in it, either. Keep, but I can also support a blanking (not a deletion, they're still user/usertalk pages) --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Blank. I wouldn't assume this is a G7 request, but it's probably better to blank it and put the ((retired)) template on the page. That's probably the intent. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak blank. There is less concern with a user page vs. user talk page (see above) now that histories and log contain direct links to the talk page, but it can still cause confusion. If this was the users way of retiring (they haven't edited since then), there are better ways. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Related to above but user pages are traditionally allowed a bit more latitude than talk pages. In this case, I think the hidden comment on the page that the user has retired would be enough to consider this a ((db-author)) request. Rossami (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or weak delete. There are plenty of user pages that redirect to the main page; it's not great, but not prohibited. If this user is genuinely gone, however, there's no harm in deleting it. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to talk page if the talk page is reverted (see above); blank the user page if the talk page is deleted. It is too early to assume that the editor is retired as his/her last edits were only a month ago and there is nothing in his/her most recent contributions to indicate any intention of leaving Wikipedia. Some editors (like yours truly) take breaks of some length and then return. If the editor's email address is certified within Wikipedia, an email asking for an update (or at least mentioning the RfDs) should be sent to him/her, just to find out what intentions he/she has. B.Wind (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Blank or delete. The user claims to have retired, and wants their userpage gone; one way or another, we should comply with that request. Leaving it as a redirect to the Main Page is not the way to do it. Terraxos (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Editors can pretty much do whatever they want with their user pages (even not having them), so who cares. Failing that, just blank. I feel different about the talk page. -- Ned Scott 02:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The result of the debate was
delete.
WJBscribe (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Inappropriate link to a Wiki-game, does not link to content. MBisanz talk 03:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Terraxos (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The result of the debate was
no consensus.
WJBscribe (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Inappropriate redirect to a MOS translation page, does not link to content. MBisanz talk 03:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The redirect helps to document the chain of titles at which that content once existed. This page has been moved around a number of times. It does not seem to be in the way of actual content and no better redirect target presents itself. The link to the MOS discussion page seems like a reasonable compromise for now. Rossami (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The result of the debate was UsaSatsui retargeted.
MBisanz talk 13:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Unlikely redirect to a template, should point at specific club. MBisanz talk 03:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The result of the debate was
retarget to
Fair use.
WJBscribe (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Unlikely CNR, WP is not the only thing that uses FURs and we should link this to something on copyright law. MBisanz talk 03:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to Fair Use. --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This page used to redirect to Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. I would have considered that a more logical target than Help:Image page since fair use can apply to all content, not just images. I don't have a strong objection to UsaSatsui's proposal, though, since that page has a decent hatnote that resolves any historical issues with the link. Rossami (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to Fair use - whether the target page incorporates hatnotes or a "see also" section, this should take care of all concerns, both inside and outside of Wikipedia usage. B.Wind (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to Fair use (not Fair Use, as that is itself a redirect). While this term is widely used on Wikipedia, it has real-world applications as well, and so keeping the target within article space is most appropriate. Terraxos (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The result of the debate was
keep.
WJBscribe (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Implausible typo. This means nothing sensible in Hebrew. The intended phrase is "shomer negia(h)." --Eliyak T·C 02:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Shomer negia seems to be an acceptable redirect, this one would appear to be a reasonable typo. The transliteration of that ending phoneme to the '-illa' spelling is not uncommon. Rossami (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a common transliteration, albeit malapropism. My websearch for "Shomer negilla" indicates this, refers to same definition. --VictorC (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.