Talk:Pincherle

The policy prescribing deletions of redirects to non-existent pages has specific exceptions for obvious reasons and this is one of those. Michael Hardy 16:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll bite. What is the "obvious" reason for the specific exception which applies here? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just answered this question, then got an "edit conflict", and I see the software has now changed so that when you get an "edit conflict" you have to start over from scratch.

We had this discussion at enormous length two years ago. If a redirect prevents creation of duplicate pages or creation of a page whose title is inappropriate (misnomers and misspellings among these, but not the only ones) then it should be kept. Michael Hardy 16:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow that. Which page do you figure is inappropriate? What are you trying to prevent? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OBVIIOUSLY, the one that would be inappropriate is the one titled Pincherle. That is why I redirected it. Michael Hardy 17:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is so "obviously" inappropriate about the title "Pincherle"? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Are you saying we should create redirects to any page which could exist in the future but have not yet been created? What purpose could that possibly serve? You're an administrator - if someone takes your "Pincherle" redirect before you've created your "Salvatore Pincherle", just delete it! This makes no sense and is precisely why

WP:CSD#R1 is so short. There's never a reason to have a redirect to nowhere. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, that is what I am saying. And I already said above what purpose it could serve.

To REPEAT:

It can prevent creation of multiple pages on the same topic whose authors don't know of each other's work.
It can prevent creation of pages whose titles are misspelled, or are misnomers, or are inappropriate plurals, etc.

The present page is obviously such a case. It was created after several other pages had already linked to it. Michael Hardy 17:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say "there's never a reason" AFTER I cited some reasons and BEFORE you've read the lengthy discussion of this that took place two years ago? Michael Hardy 17:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree 100%. When someone finally makes a

WP:RFD

to get it deleted. If there isn't one already, there should be a bot to root out all redirects like this and get rid of them.

As to your second question, I am saying there is never a reason because your cited reasons were quite unconvincing. If you'd like to point me to the two-year-old conversation you mentioned, go ahead. Given your heated and condescending tone from the outset, I assumed asking would be a waste of time. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just trying to be difficult?? You say

When someone finally makes a Salvatore Pincherle page - which may be never - it's just common sense that they would then make a redirect from anywhere that seemed rational.

Translation: I, Wknight, have not read the views I am responding to and don't care to do so before responding.

When ONE PERSON finally makes a Salvatore Pincherle page, and ANOTHER creates a page at Pincherle, then they will have to get merged, IF they ever find out about each other's existence.

Your other objections are ridiculous. You could object to all of Wikipedia on the same grounds. You can say that a lot of garbage WOULD be created. But look at the result we've now got. Michael Hardy 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't follow that logic at all. If the page is created here, it can be moved to a proper name. If you're so adament about this, can't you just place this (and whatever other pages) on your watchlist?-Wafulz 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You too, have refused to read the views you're responding too. You say

If the page is created here, it can be moved to a proper name.

But if TWO pages are created independently of each other, then this pave CANNOT get moved. Instead, if the two projects ever found out about each other, the two pages would need to get merged. Michael Hardy 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be rational. Wikipedia has existed for six years now, and we have exactly zero articles on Pincherle. The chances of two being created in a time frame short enough for nobody to notice are negligible. There are exactly zero pages that link to Pincherle, but four that link to Salvator Pincherle, which means if anyone created an article on him, odds are they would do it at the page with his full name.--Wafulz 20:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsense. Obviously the reason for this to come up is the recent creation of various links to Pincherle, resulting from RECENT progress in certain articles. That RECENT progress has NOT been around for six years. Besides, we're not talking about just this one case. Michael Hardy 20:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using CAPS and BOLD please. Anyway, I'll discuss at the CSD talk page from here on.--Wafulz 20:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wknight and Wafuls

Why do Wknight and Wafulz keep raising objections that have already been answered here on this page, without attempting to answer those answers?

I've only raised one objection, but in reality, your concern doesn't make any sense. You're really stretching to defend people from doing work that is unlikely to ever come up. In addition, Pincherle comes up as a blue link- if it were red, this would let people know that it doesn't exist, and would encourage them to create it.-Wafulz 20:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted - there is no reason why it is exempt from CSD:R1. I am not going to do so myself in order to avoid a

wheel war but would very strongly warn Michael Hardy that carrying on restoring the article after it's deleted by someone else will be seen negatively. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

While I strongly disagree with Hardy's tone, logic, and actions, I've created the main article myself to prevent a wheel war. I figured it would be more productive.-Wafulz 20:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers to Wafulz for bringing a close to this absurdity. I was going to do it myself after work but now I can write a new entry on

WP:LAME instead. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]