Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 October 29

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect, potentially confusing.

• Delete. This is exactly the sort of redirect that we shouldn't have. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 18:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Unless someone advocates updating usage to approved
  WP:LIVING shortcut or direct? Ricksy 05:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I have little to add to the nominator's comment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. --Rbraunwa 01:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are substantial numbers of inbound links, indicating that the ommission of the Wikipedia: prefix is a common mistake. This prevents the accidental creation of redlinks. In particular, it does so on a bunch of new-user Talk pages. New users are unlikely to know how to find the correct page and will be confused if we leave it as a redlink even accidentally. Looking at the context in which this is used, it is exclusively used on Talk and User pages. Despite the assertions above, I see no possibility of confusion for readers. Rossami (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as CNR, new users will just have to learn that once in a while, red links appear.
  Review Me!) 01:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I think you are missing my point. These mistakes are not being made by the new users. They are being made by experienced users who are in a hurry but who are trying to teach the new user. Unfortunately, when the new user comes back to read his/her Talk page, the new user can't actually find or follow the advice that the experienced user was trying to point to. Maybe all the experienced users should learn better but the clear evidence is that they aren't and won't. And while you are beating them up to be more diligent about not accidentally creating the redlinks, we are all leaving the new users out in the cold. That doesn't seem like a very welcoming thing to do, especially when there is no apparent cost to this redirect. Rossami (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I cannot understand the theological objection to this type of link. It is useful, and if it violates any rule then
  WP:IAR.--Holdenhurst 12:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment IAR doesn't apply to everything! We can't just say for everything that who cares about the rules! Quote: If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. Does the deleting for this link prevent you from improving or maintaining the
    Review Me!) 22:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Legacy redirct remaining following the repair of page-move vandalism of

Speedy delete G3 page move vandalism redirect. It has been tagged.

Khatru2 20:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]