Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 15

October 15

Lignux → Linux

Minority term for the operating system in question used before "GNU/Linux" was coined to replace it. Of purely historical value, seeing as nobody uses it now. Nothing links to it, and its existence just encourages edit wars over whether it should point to Linux or to GNU/Linux naming controversy. Chris Cunningham 12:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a term that was in actual historical use, at least by Richard Stallman. It ought to point somewhere, though in fact I have no opinion about which target is most correct. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the term really existed and perhaps does no longer makes it more likely that our readers will be looking for it here, not less likely. I don't have a strong opinion about which target is better but deleting the redirect is the worst of the available choices. By the way, the page history only shows one revert cycle and no significant discussion yet on the redirect's Talk page. That's a pretty long way from evidence of an edit war. Rossami (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Term used by Free Software Foundation and GNU founder Richard M. Stallman (rms) in his book 'Free Software, Free Society, Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman' . The term has great historical importance according to my view, and should either be a separate article or a redirect to GNU/Linux naming controversy. Many users (including me) browse Wikipedia by typing directly in the URL or a browser search/go bar a word they read somewhere, so the even if no other page links to Lignux doesn't mean that we shouldn't have it, and searching Google for Lignux returns 25 200 hits. NerdyNSK 22:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lincalinca → User:Lincalinca

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, WP:CSD#R2. Redirect to the Talk:, User: or User talk: namespaces from the article space are speedily deletable. WP: is clearly reserved for redirects to Wikipedia: namespace. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 02:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, cross-space redirect that could be used to link a policy instead. GlassCobra 04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as cross-space redirect per nom. Was created with the text comment "I'm rad". For a technical reason wp is not a promotional vehicle. meshach 05:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – nonsensical redirect, totally unrelated to the user. Melsaran (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Colorado State Highway Route 72 → State highways in Colorado

procedural nomination This was nominated for deletion via WP:PROD. Reason provided by nominator for deletion: This is a bad redirect. It should redirect to Colorado State Highway 72, but that article doesn't exist. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not convinced that Wikipedia ought to have an article on every possible state road but until such an article exists, this redirect is as good as we're going to get. If the article is ever written (in an encyclopedic manner), the redirect can always be updated then. Rossami (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado State Highway Route 93 → State highways in Colorado

procedural nomination This was nominated for deletion via WP:PROD. Reason provided by nominator for deletion: This is a bad redirect. It should redirect to Colorado State Highway 93, but that article doesn't exist. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments in the Route 72 discussion immediately above. Rossami (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maccy555 → User:Maccy555

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, WP:CSD#R2. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 02:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect to a userpage. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

3RR → RR

Nonsensical/misleading redirect; the acronyms on the page RR all have nothing to do with "3RR". Probably one of those redirects created and targeted to an unrelated article (on which they put a {{selfref}}-tag to direct people to the policy) after they were initially deleted as a cross-namespace redirect[1] (compare no original research). Melsaran (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that it be deleted or pointed to some other target? —freak(talk) 21:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, since the current target makes no sense at all (RR has nothing to do with 3RR) and it should either be pointed to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule (which is not likely to be accepted since that redirect was deleted before) or deleted. Melsaran (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that this will be a very unpopular opinion, but overturn the deletion decision of 25 Aug 2006 and restore the redirect to a version which pointed to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. This exact acronym is only used in Wikipedia in the context of the Wikipedia policy. I can find no use anywhere in history where the link was intended to refer to anything other than this policy. I can find no use of this link at all in any article - it was used exclusively in the Talk, User and Wikipedia spaces. In those contexts, I see no possiblity of confusion for any reader. It has been orphaned before (and, in fact, that was a key factor in the prior deletion decision) but it is again in fairly common use. The constant creation and continued use (even by accident) of this shortcut is evidence of the continuing need for it. To me, that demonstrated need outweighs the theoretical costs of being a cross-namespace redirect. Rossami (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rossami's argument makes sense, however I've found other uses for the term 3RR. It is an apparent fantasy football term, and can also refer to a record label, a steam engine, a style of eye wear, a part of many addresses, and an ID number of various products. Now, I'm not suggesting that articles be created for these terms (some, if not all may fail notability), however the term 3RR occupies an article space for possible future articles, which must take priority over self-referencing in Wikipedia. Therefore, redirecting to Wiki-space, to me, shouldn't be done. That said, I don't see why it is directed to RR if it doesn't mention it. I suggest deletion to favor future creation of an article or a disambig page of 3RR, per my findings of other subjects with the name or acronym 3RR. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 02:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I typed in 3RR I didn't expect to see this. 3RR should lead me to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule which is apparently the subject of this discussion. Having 3RR point to a list of articles is confusing.--Sandahl 02:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about a soft redirect / disambiguation mentioning the above (even if there red linked) with the self ref tag @ the top of that? --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]