Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 2

It has apostrophes. A correct redirect without apostrophes exists. Magioladitis (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for tidiness, the redirect appears to be badly-formed and unnecessary with the non-quoted redirect in place. —Sladen (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not sure that I see the point of this mania for tidiness. This redirect was created back in mid-2006 as a result of the link being created with quotes, and the possibility remains that someone could create a similar link in the future. Wikipedia is not paper, and I don't see any particularly good reason to go around deleting potentially useful redirects. It does no harm where it is. -- Arwel (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One reason for example is that I've seen many cases that the redirect with quotes redirects to a different article than the one without. This is because some user corrects one redirect and forgets the other. My conclusion is that to have less useless redirects means to have less troubles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody calls pac-man fuckman. daveh4h 19:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Although I wonder what the background for the creation is; the Wikipedia edit in question mainly seems to work on comics (perhaps there was trademark-avoiding comic book reference) and the creation seems out of character after reviewing the editor's other edits around that time. —Sladen (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Commentary Supposedly, the game was originally called Puck Man, but was renamed Pac Man to avoid obvious vandalism of the cabinet artwork. I guess that's the reference, but it doesn't warrant a redirect.
  talk) 21:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I created the redirect and that's why I created it, but I have no problem with the speedy delete if people find it offensive. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy nuke from orbit. Seriously. Who calls Pac-Man that? Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. I don't think it's
  WP:CSD#G10, but it comes sufficiently close and is sufficiently useless to warrant a speedy deletion. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy deletion. No discussion needed. s-- Magioladitis (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-standard shortcut to the Wikipedia namespace, with the target page having a number of standard WP: shortcuts which are outside the main namespace following a MediaWiki configuration change. This should be deleted as a self-referential cross-namespace redirect from the article namespace which could be confused with encyclopaedic content. The page doesn't document any page moves, it doesn't have any significant edit history and it had one incoming link which has been fixed. Similar redirects have previously been deleted following discussions on 20 December 2007. mattbr 14:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a cross-namespace redirect that is unneeded and potentially confusing (in that
  WP:SI goes somewhere completely different). — Gavia immer (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - handy redirect which is useful for easy navigation, rather than a long unwieldy one. --MacRusgail (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, but unfortunately it could be confused with encyclopaedic content. There are several companies and organisations which go by that acronym, including the Wildlife Protection Society of India, which this redirect could be confused with. There are numerous reasons why cross namespace redirects should be avoided (detailed in numerous places including the slightly outdated Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 4#WP: pseudo-namespace), which is why all the WP: shortcuts were moved out of the main namespace. The project has a number of standard shortcuts which can be used in place of this. mattbr 23:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have to agree with Matt. The project already has 6 shortcuts, what net value does this CNR occupying article space have? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 19:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One vote for, and one against and it's deleted? Verdict - no conclusion. --MacRusgail (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this redirect is as useful as it would be if it pointed to

Note, this is a nomination for discussion, not deletion --GW_Simulations

Talk 09:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Retarget to
  Wikipedia:WikiProject Moon. The present target is obviously an important point that warrants a convenient shortcut, but in practice I agree that it's better for this particular shortcut to point to the wikiproject. Moreover, it's a recently created shortcut with very few links (apart from those generated by this nomination), so there's not a problem with old usages becoming incorrect. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Retarget. Doesn't seem anyone even used it before. -- Ned Scott 09:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget obviously. Content trumps silliness every time. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 12:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I went ahead and retargetted the redirect. meshach (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. Content is more important than silliness. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 17:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typo. No incoming links and no need to keep. Bendono (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This looks like a reasonable mistake to me, for a number of reasons, but in particular because the "O" and "I" keys are next to each other on a QWERTY keyboard. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, before the link spreads. Currently no non-Wikipedia hits on Google. —Sladen (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  Oe Masafusa is ok and exists. This one can be occurred only by mistyping! -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I took this template to TFD yesterday, where it ended up being first marked for speedy delete by another editor, and then turned into a redirect by a second editor. However, the reasons I had for wanting a clean deletion still stand. It was an unused variant of {{unicode}} that altered the fontsize to xx-large in addition to doing what {{unicode}} does. Also {{unicode}} is semi-deprecated as there are a variety of more specialized templates that generally do a better job of selecting an appropriate font for specific non-English languages. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If your statement of the facts is correct, then there's no need for this template even as a redirect. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 12:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]