Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 7

[edit]

El Dorado Middle School → Mount Diablo Unified School District

[edit]
The result of the debate was delete. Whether a new redirect should be created at El Dorado Middle School (Mount Diablo) left to editorial discretion. WjBscribe 03:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Far from the only school of this name. I've thought of turning this into a disambig page, but I'm unsure if it's wise to create what will essentially be a directory listing. There are disambiguation pages for schools under the high school level (look through Category:Educational institution disambiguation), but I'd like to bring it here first. --- RockMFR 00:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to El Dorado Middle School (Mount Diablo) → ... which meets the need and isnt ambiguous., —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs).
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jewish supremacy → David Duke

[edit]
The result of the debate was speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator). Melsaran 22:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems libelous 70.91.178.185 16:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw; his book is titled "Jewish Supremacism", and was dissimilar enough to not catch my attention. 70.91.178.185 17:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Main:Dressuur -> nl:Dressuur

[edit]
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 02:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External redirect; should be replaced by a redirect to Dressage, except for the presence of "Main:". No need to keep, and potentially confusing (looks like it may be in another namespace) Schutz 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

E471 → E number

[edit]
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 02:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

most other E numbers do not redirect but are a blank article or a description of the food additive — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wp:an/i → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

[edit]
The result of the debate was keep. Sufficient participants argue that these redirects are valuable - in particular, they seem to be felt useful because they are used as a shortcut when typing URLs by those wishing to go directly to the target pages. Ultimately, redirects are cheap. WjBscribe 03:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Wp:afd.

Wp: isn't the correct pseudo-namespace for these shortcuts. Only WP: is valid. Keeping these would set a bad precedent to create many more CNRs. We have WP:AN/I and WP:an/i, which is enough. Melsaran 22:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Typing "Wp:ani" in the search bar yields the same result as typing "WP:ANI", because the go button is case-insensitive. And these redirects hurt because they are unnecessary and redundant cross-namespace redirects that show up in the search results when doing an article-only (mainspace) search. Melsaran 17:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know a similar attmept to delete a Wp: redirect failed less than a month ago. It can been seen at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 8. --67.68.153.49 00:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never participated at a redirect for discussion before, but I found this when I punched in wp:afd, just like I always do, to look at the logs. If there's a policy that suggests this is an invalid redirect can I suggest that this is an incredibly bad policy. Please, it's not as if WP:afd and Wp:afd are conceivably going to redirect to different pages. Can we please speedy keep these redirects? --JayHenry 00:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise I haven't done RFDs before, but regardless of pseudo-namespace semantics, I type "wp:afd" into the left search bar of the screen. Mediawiki search still does not have the function to convert wp:afd → WP:AFD, right? If it cannot title case searches then I'd say keep. --Breno talk 01:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are hundreds of these at Special:Prefixindex/Wp: and we shouldn't pick two out and delete them. Like others here, I typed wp:afd in search to avoid caps. Deleting this redirect would be annoying, and confusing to many who may think they have chosen the wrong letters instead of the wrong capitalization. Edit summaries that cannot be edited use links with wp: PrimeHunter 02:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, I did not know that there were so many of these. I'd propose deleting them all, but don't see the need to nominate them all right now in a mass nomination. Melsaran 20:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not clear to me the rationale for deleting these clearly useful redirects. I too, ended up here after typing wp:afd into the search bar. -Chunky Rice 02:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to neutral. Seems pointless, given the direction things are heading, but I've been somewhat swayed by the deletion arguments. -Chunky Rice 20:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • a) They are not "clearly useful" (as long as we have WP:AFD, capitalisation does not matter when using the search function, only when linking to it), b) the reason for deleting them is that they show up in a mainspace search and are unnecessary CNRs. Melsaran 20:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Oh, please, there are enough programming errors that don't make certain unstandard capitalizations automatic redirects. If you want to dump this, get someone to fix the programming that doesn't make "Wp" an automatic redirect. I get tired of having to type everything in in all caps, it's absurd. KP Botany 03:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both - I use wp:afd regularly and there is no reason not to! TerriersFan 03:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have no idea why my talk page was spammed over this, but the reason given for deleting seems to miss the point of redirects entirely. It doesn't matter whether a redirect is "correct" nearly so much as whether it is useful. Jonathunder 04:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This redirect hurts no one (Is the Wp: domain ever going to be used for anything else?), and it allows users (like me) who are lazy about capitalization find the articles they are looking for. Calliopejen1 07:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak, somewhat reluctant keep: what nobody seems to have noticed is that this isn't actually necessary for the search bar! I just typed "wp:musicians" into the search bar, and it announced that I had been redirected from WP:MUSICIANS. There is no Wp:musicians redirect, but it worked anyway. So the only place these sort of redirects are useful for is in linking. I suspect that this particular one is used for linking often enough to justify its existence, but in general I think we should be more open to deleting more of these Wp: redirects. Xtifr tälk 11:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like others I got here after typing in wp:afd. No pressing reason to delete. Recurring dreams 12:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I realize I am in the minority here, but let me refute some of the reasons to keep and explain why I think these warrant deletion. Note that seven of the nine or ten keep recommendations fail to realize that typing wp:afd will work in the search bar without Wp:afd. As far as TerriersFan's KP Botany's comment about programming errors, I'd like to see examples or an issue tracker number showing exactly what the problem is (for all we know it's not relevant here). Beyond that, there is harm in having Wp: redirects—they are in the main namespace and the more types of shortcuts we use, the less consistently we use them, and the more trouble we create for mirrors which reproduce encyclopedic content without mirroring projectspace. Look at a search for afd in the main namespace and count the redirects to AfD—15% of the first 20 results are shortcuts to AfD using the incorrect Wp: prefix. We already have nine well-formed AfD-related redirects in those first 20; do we need to allow the incorrect ones too that do not aid searching and only marginally help with linking? I also fail to see how typing wp:afd is easier than typing WP:AFD since on a standard keyboard one must use the shift key to type a colon anyways, though that point isn't very relevant to this RfD discussion. BigNate37(T) 14:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Edited to correct username of comment I referred to. 15:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**Comment I'm the one who commented about the programming error--the error being that it should take this one common default typing style: first letter capitalized, the rest lower case. This is also, let me point out the obvious: the default capitalization style for Wikipedia articles and page titles in main space! First letter of first word capitalized, and, voila, instead of abbreviating Wikipedia like one word, with a simple "W" it's abbreviated with two letters! So, everyone who uses Wikipedia should automatically know all these details, that it's upper case only for the first letter, lower case for the rest, except when you abbreviate Wikipedia? I hate these deletion requests that appear to be built about keeping Wikipedia elite and un-navigatable for people who aren't full time users. And I hate having to justify myself every time there's some situation where something helps those who use Wikipedia mostly just to edit have a useful tool, and others decide, well, dang, time to dump that and confuse the hell out of them again.

  • Strong speeedy delete Who wants people who aren't perfect at navigating Wikipedia doing any editing or, God help us, participating in community anyhow? Delete 'em all. Every shortcut that isn't used by people who live, breathe and eat Wikipedia should immediately be deleted--that would be the really bad precedent to set, acknowledging that some users don't keyboard perfectly in cyber-space. KP Botany 15:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I'm not following the discussion properly, but I'm not sure where this outburst is coming from... or what triggered it. Leebo T/C 15:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, wp:afd is the same as Wp:afd—the software always treats the first letter as uppercase, regardless of what it truely is. So they're the same article, and links always point at the initial-caps version. I'm sorry if I caused confusion by referring to the Wp: prefix and wp:afd shortcut (hovering over wp:afd shows http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:afd). My intent was to show the shortcut as it is used, but to refer to the prefix in a technically correct way. I hadn't realized this was the software deficiency you were referring to; I am reasonably sure this specific MediaWiki behaviour will not prevent searches for wp:afd from finding WP:AFD without the existence of Wp:afd and if it does then I'm all for re-creation. BigNate37(T) 15:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with KP Botany, but wish a different tone had been used. BigNate, deleting the 15 percent of the links (and as observed many of these are in unchangeable edit summaries) that are wp:afd and wp:an/i would create at least thousands and possibly tens or hundreds of thousands of redlinks. Your argument for this massive disruption is unclear to me. It's not as if Wp:afd is ever going to refer to something different than WP:AFD. In a fork that does not use project space, there will be an equal number of redlinks -- all of them. Every time either capitalization is used. --JayHenry 16:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, there is a low number of incoming links to wp:afd (Special:Whatlinkshere/Wp:afd shows less than 200) and even less for wp:an/i (Special:Whatlinkshere/Wp:an/i shows less than 50). For how much use wp:afd gets as a search term, I'd say that a vast majority never link to it in this form. Consider WP:AFD, which has over 10,000 links [2]. The "mass disruption" of modifying less than 200 links to point at the correct shortcut is really insignificant for such a commonly linked-to page as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. BigNate37(T) 17:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Apologies, I meant to make clear that I was talking about all Wp: redirects, extrapolating the 15 percent of links across all Wp:xxx. Since none of the arguments address these two specifically, I was working with the assumption that a decision here would reflect across the entire Wp: pseudospace. Again, since there is no possible ambiguity it seems that we're creating a problem where none exists. The hypothetical problems with Wp will likely be nullified by future modifications to the software. --JayHenry 18:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - We're supposed to make things easier for folks to use the encyclopedia, right? Fumble-fingers like me (who found this RfD by typing Wp:afd) need such helps. Let's think about it: if we delete, we've done nothing to improve the project. How is making the encyclopedia easier to use a "bad precedent"? Seems to be just the opposite to me. If we keep, the project is better off. No brainer. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - it's a useful redirect. It may be technically unecessary but it certainly isn't hurting anything. I don't see what's so odious about this that it's worth bringing up on RfD :/ ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think describing it as "useful" borders on exaggeration. It doesn't help at all in the search bar. I might go so far as to say "not necessarily completely useless", but please note that if it were deleted, it wouldn't be possible for it to interrupt people's searches the way its doing now. If it were deleted, typing "wp:an/i" would work the way people expect, which it currently isn't only because this redirect exists and has been tagged for discussion. Xtifr tälk 19:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutral oh, please, what, no. How can we possibly have got so sidetracked from editing an encylopedia that we're discussing this guff? AndyJoneswho got here trying to find AfD, of course18:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems consensus is leaning towards continuing to use lowercase variations of the pseudonamespaces. --- RockMFR 20:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: see WP:SHORT#List of prefixes (which explicitly says that these redirects should be avoided) and WP:SHORT#How to use Wikipedia shortcuts (which says "Shortcuts are presented in all capital letters ("All-Caps"), but the search box is case-insensitive. For example, in the search box, you can type "wp:r" instead of "WP:R"."). Melsaran 20:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I usually type lower case into the search box to get to these pages. Now I keep running into the deletion notice. No way, not a good reason. GlassFET 21:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about delete, and then when the shortcut has been deleted, you end up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion every time you type Wp:afd because the search software is smart enough to do this for you? Melsaran 21:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • not needed - I originally noted "keep" above, but am changing it to "not needed" because of the results of an experiment. Frankly, I wasn't all that clear on whether the system would allow the searchbox to work with lowercase entries, so I took a lesser used one (Wp:spam) and deleted it (don't worry, folks, it wasn't long-term admin priviledge abuse, as I restored it seconds later), then tried the search string "Wp:spam", and the system worked as advertised. Frankly I still don't see a compelling need to spend all the time noming these for deletion, then causing the way-backlogged admin corps to have to spend time deleting them, because I can't see the harm in having these in the system. Like an appendix, it's not needed, but it really doesn't do any harm (sorry, I'm not buying the above arguments), so unless there's a problem, why spend the time and effort on the surgery? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you'd read my earlier comment above, where I did basically the same experiment with "wp:musicians" (which has never had a lowercase version), you could have saved yourself some trouble, but oh well. At least I think we're on the same page now: these are not-very-useful, but redirects are cheap.... :) Xtifr tälk 02:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because they are unnecessary. They would only be necessary if wp:an/i didn't already find WP:ANI. Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful. Fg2 10:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read the debate before commenting. They are not useful, because when you type "wp:afd" in the search bar the software is smart enough to recognise it as "WP:AFD". Please provide a solid argument. Melsaran 10:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless. The only place where users will ever come across this "self-reference" is when they browse Special:Allpages. Please demonstrate how having a redirect is bad (instead of "useless" or "doesn't matter either way") before nominating it for deletion. Kusma (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you had read my and BigNate37's comments, you would have noticed that these show up in a mainspace search, and that we should avoid unnecessary CNRs. Melsaran 12:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • CNRs are necessary abbreviations, though, and I have not heard of users complain that CNRs harmed their browsing experience. I think we have been deleting CNRs too aggressively. Sometimes valid and useful CNRs directing people to the page they want have been re-redirected to mainspace pages that now carry ugly self-referential messages (some of these were undone, though, and WikiEN-l now redirects to the proper place instead of a non-helpful mainspace page). Kusma (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • CNRs can be useful, yes, but this one clearly isn't. The search function is not caps-sensitive. There is absolutely no need to keep these redirects, and they harm because they show up in mainspace searches. Melsaran 13:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The same argument (mainspace searches) applies to WP: redirects. By the way, do you have an explicit example of a mainspace search where this shows up but should not? Kusma (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, it applies to all CNRs, which is why we should limit it. WP: redirects are sufficient and work for any capitalisation, there's no need for Wp: redirects, this just clutters up mainspace searches even more. And an example would be [3] (see the unnecessary "Wp:AFD" in addition to "WP:AFD"). Melsaran 15:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep both - they very much are necessary. I use WP:AFD almost exclusively and have used it as a wikilink on talk pages, responses to editor concerns, etc on many many occasions. I use the other one less frequently but have done so. I see no logical reason for deleting these; doing so just makes Wikipedia increasingly non-user friendly, imo. 23skidoo 15:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have struckthrough my previous comment but am leaving it up there to show how this RFD is potentially confusing as I didn't realize this was only referring to the lowercase version of the abbreviation. However I am once again saying Strong keep both because I also use "wp:afd" regularly. I reiterate that I see no logical reason for deleting this redirect simply because it is lower-case; that is how we type it into the search engine. If people really want to ban lower-case redirects, then they need to lobby Wikipedia to improve its parser so that it reads lower-case and upper-case as the same. 23skidoo 15:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sigh. Read the debate before commenting, please. The MediaWiki search does read lower-case and upper-case as the same. See WP:SHORT#How to use Wikipedia shortcuts and Help:Go button. Melsaran 15:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually I have to disagree. There have been many many occasions where I have done a search using lower case only and have been taken to a "create this page". My vote stands unless someone can provide compelling evidence that keeping this redirect will somehow cripple Wikipedia or be an undue burden. I don't accept "reducing clutter" as an argument because these redirects aren't exactly in your face. And for the record I generally base my "votes" only upon the initial nomination -- a policy I use on AFD as well -- because it's a waste of my unpaid time to keep track of the ever-changing debates. If someone PMs me (as has occurred here) suggesting further comment or that I reconsider, then I will often do that, but in this case it hasn't changed my mind on the issue. 23skidoo 00:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Useful redirects, and they save time. Potential drawbacks of keeping this are negligible. Nick Graves 16:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read the debate before commenting. They are not useful, because when you type "wp:afd" in the search bar the software is smart enough to recognise it as "WP:AFD". The drawbacks of keeping these are not negligible, because they show up in mainspace searches and are unnecessary WP:CNRs. Melsaran 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Change vote to Delete both. I missed the fact that, as Xtifr points out, you can be automatically sent to the page you're looking for typing all lowercase, even if there is no redirect page. This fact should be made more prominent in the deletion justification. Nick Graves 17:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am under the impression that many users directly type the shortcuts into the address bar. This does not automatically convert to the proper case. --- RockMFR 21:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did point out that searches work anyway, but I also pointed out that the case correction doesn't work for links. In addition to the point made by RockMFR above. While I don't object to getting rid of some "Wp:" redirects, I think we might be better off starting with more rarely used ones. Xtifr tälk 02:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe I'm missing something here, but I use "wp:afd" like every day and don't see a reason to get rid of it. --Maxamegalon2000 17:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you are missing something here. They are not useful, because when you type "wp:afd" in the search bar the software is smart enough to recognise it as "WP:AFD". The reason to get rid of it is that they show up in mainspace searches and are unnecessary WP:CNRs. Melsaran 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination seems to be missing the point that many users type the shortcuts directly in the URL, and the further point that edit summary links, which are particularly common for wp:afd, will break if that is deleted. Jonathunder 03:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the edit summary, well, how do you know that they're "common"? Are there any automated tools that spell it in lowercase in edit summaries? Melsaran 13:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the URL, well, when you are not too lazy to type in an entire URL instead of using the search bar, it's not so hard either to capitalise the shortcut, right... Melsaran 13:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The computer already adjusts for capitalization, making these redirects unnecessary. I won't miss them at all, and neither will anyone else. This is all just a big misunderstanding. Wrad 22:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not voting, but just pointing out arguments either for or against based on computers magically adjusting for case are incorrect. User:OrderInChaos for example does not work, nor does Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard without this redirect. wp:el and Wp:el do not change to WP:EL without this one, and wp:nsw doesn't work at all for WP:NSW. That being said, the argument is otherwise - I'm just addressing something which appears to be a misconception. Orderinchaos 07:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This is screwing up everyone who is trying to type in wp:afd and wp:an/i, and if the software is smart enough to recognize these as their all-caps brothers without the lower-case versions actually existing, then nuke 'em now, and lets get back to more important things. --Phirazo 04:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - A few minutes ago, I typed in Wp:afd to get to the AfD pages. I then noticed Wp:afd was up for deletion so I came here to share my recent experience with Wp:afd. Wp:afd is useful and needed. -- Jreferee (Talk) 05:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are not useful and needed, because when you type "wp:afd" in the search bar the software is smart enough to recognise it as "WP:AFD". Please thoroughly review the debate before commenting. Melsaran 12:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Eh, keeping it isn't hurting anything, and I use it, but if we need to delete it, I'll just start using the search box instead of manually typing the URL. spazure (contribs) 08:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I only got here by typing wp:afd as I always do when I need afd. I have not been able to find in any policy that "Shortcuts are generally reserved for Wikipedia project pages, their discussion pages and categories." not a word about it on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. All the technical problems are raised by people who have no idea how the software works. I'll change my mind if brion says otherwise. Jon513 11:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Typing "wp:afd" in the search bar does the same as typing "WP:AFD", regardless of whether a redirect exists. And why would I have "no idea how the software works"? Could you explain this? Melsaran 12:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Melsaran, I think you made your point. You don't need to rebut every user that claims the redirects are useful. --Phirazo 03:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to agree with Phirazo's comments. Mel, you have responded to nearly everyone who you think has misunderstood the issues (and indeed, some of them have, but many simply disagree with you) and you're simultaneously ignoring many of the keep arguments yourself -- including: existing links, possible links in edit summaries, the fact that many editors type these redirects into the URL, the fact that Wp:afd could not possibly redirect or be a search result for something different than WP:AFD, or the belief that this nomination has been a significant disruption for a trivial problem. -- JayHenry 16:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ehm, could you point me to a specific person whose argument I have ignored? Then I will respond to it as soon as possible. :-) Melsaran 16:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You seem dismissive of all the arguments I mentioned above. I, for one, have argued that Wp:afd could not possibly redirect somewhere other than WP:AFD. If there is any possibility that it shows up in a Mainspace search (and I find this highly unlikely) then WP:AFD will be causing exactly the same problem. I am arguing that therefore we have created a problem where none exists. You've made your point abundantly, I've made mine, let's just let this discussion finish up? --JayHenry 16:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the people who are coming here voting to Keep are worried that if this redirect is deleted, that they won't be able to use lower case letters to get to AFD. This is an incorrect assumption. The only reason why wp:afd doesn't work right now is because of this current RFD. Once this RFD is closed, wp:afd will continue to work REGARDLESS of whether this redirect is kept or deleted. Deleting it will not impact your operations. It will only impact links such as wp:afd/WP:AFD as compared to wp:misic/WP:MUSIC---notice how wp:music is in red but if you type it in the search box, it will still work? The conventions are to have these redirects in capitals for consistency and not to be redundant. They aren't necessary. Having wp:afd as a redirect page, does not impact your ability to type that command into the search box and get to the AFD discussions. It only impact reporting/cleanliness/internal links (which should be capitalized). Once deleted, wp:afd will still redirect to the AFD discussion.Balloonman 15:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do anything. Delete it. Keep it. Do something, anything. It's annoying seeing this notice when typing in the redirect. I don't see what the push is to get it deleted anyways. It's not hurting anything even if it isn't needed. --Android Mouse 21:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The guiding principles of RfD are listed at the top of this page. The first principle is "The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect. This is true in this case. The issue has been extensively canvassed in this debate and multiple editors have indicated they find the redirect useful. It is also a logical capitalization for those who are not experts in Wikipedia formatting and cannot reasonably be misinterpreted as meaning something else (ie. there will never be a Wp:an/i page other than WP:ANI). Euryalus 23:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Therein is where you are wrong. If a user types in wp:afd with or without this redirect, they will be sent directly to the AFD page. This is another example of a vote based upon a false assumption. The existence of this redirect will not impact the effectiveness of wp:afd getting you to AFD. Another example, there is no redirect for wp:ga/r, but if you type that into the search box it will take you through the WP:GA/R redirect page to Good Article Review. The same is the case here.Balloonman 23:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Thanks for providing such a quick and informative response. I don't believe this process is about "voting", but that is semantics. Of course, you're right re wp:ga/r and similar. However I would be interested in your view on the comments made by User:JayHenry about circumstances where the capitalization adjustment may not work, and the comments by User:23skidoo who cannot see what benefits this proposed deletion might offer. If there are circumstances where deletion of the redirect might affect the usability of Wikipedia - and there are no particular benefits from deletion - then I remain unconvinced that it should go forward. Euryalus 00:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both: Obfuscatory machine code discussions and Aspberger's inspired desires for perfect rules are useless. These redirects are used dozens or hundreds of times a day. The "proper" name is the used name. This reminds me of a grammarian of two generations ago yelling at everyone not to use the words they use because they weren't "proper" as defined by Latin grammar. We're all past that now, and it's time for the manias here to subside as well. Geogre 02:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_7&oldid=1142588270"