March 15
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on 15 March 2011
Podlachien - Pidlakhya - Pidlachia
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was Delete all. Ruslik_Zero 10:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirects as non-notable foreign language spellings - Podlachien is German for Podlaskie, Pidlakhya is a corrupted Ukrainian as is Pidlachia. Requesting deletion per the consensus found at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_30#13 Април and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_16#接触平面 that foreign-language redirects should generally be discouraged. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Contemporary North American Indigenous artists
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 10:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cross namespace redirect. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The redirect was created as the result of a pagemove. The pagemove was a good-faith user-test (actually, the reversal of the test but that's irrelevant). It's not confusing or deceptive, however. None of the usual arguments against cross-namespace redirects apply in this case. Keep unless there's an actual reason to delete it. Rossami (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The template namespace is reader-focused and so redirects to it from the article namespace are not inherently problematic. With no other reason given, there is no reason to delete it. This is of course dependent on the outcome of the ongoing TfD discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The TfD linked above has been closed as "keep". Thryduulf (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
lolololol
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was Keep (non-admin closure). Acather96 (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - R3... it would have been speedy deleted, but ClueBot reverted it. --Shovan Luessi (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this is not an implausible search term, and LOL is the best target for it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep also because it is preempting the re-creation of forked content. Rossami (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't see why it would be confusing, I don't see why it would be considered abusive, and I could see some people typing that string into the search box. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason I brought this up is because lololol and lololololol were deleted for the same reason. Veni Vidi Fugi 05:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Both those pages have been deleted multiple times, mostly because the contents were patent vandalism, not deleted as redirects. The vandalism-based speedies were entirely justified. The deletions as R3, however, were inappropriate uses of that clause. The only actual RfD on either redirect occurred back in [[[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 29|April 2008]] and was part of a mass nomination. The one now here did not get the individual attention it needed. Rossami (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just deleted Lololololol and only after that I found this discussion, sorry for that. I'll undelete/recreate the page if needed. The redirect is not "abusive", but where should we stop?: lolo, lolol, lololo, lololol, lolololo, lolololol, lololololo, lololololol, lolololololo, lolololololol, lololololololo, lolololololololol etc etc. What is plausible and what is not? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Request
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was Keep all. Ruslik_Zero 10:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of unlikely-to-be-used cross-namespace redirects created as a result of the numerous pagemoves from the Wikipedia namespace to initialize the new Book: namespace. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If I understand you correctly, you're not concerned with the exact links above (they're special pages that we can't affect anyway) but with the several hundred redirects such as Wikipedia:Books/Astronomy → Book:Astronomy. If so, I will argue to Keep all because they help to document the pagemoves and to prevent the accidental breaking of the many, many external links that may exist to these various pages. Spot-checking a few examples from the Special list, I found a number that even have internal links still. While these are technically cross-namespace redirects, they are not in any way confusing ore depective to readers. This isn't like a user trying to hide a fork in userspace and hoping that readers won't notice. Wikipedia:Books:Xyz → Book:Xyz makes sense. Rossami (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Template:PermissionAndFairUse
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was the redirect was successfully converted into a hard redirect in this edit by MSGJ upon my request (non-admin closure). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a currently protected soft-redirect page in template space. However, since it's breaking transclusions like on Wikipedia:Template messages/File namespace, I suggest it be converted back into a normal redirect instead. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The page was converted from a hard-redirect to a soft-redirect by an experienced user but without explanation either on the Talk page or the edit summary. If that bold decision is now breaking things, I would suggest that you revert it (temporarily) and post a note on Talk about the problem. (I'd cross-reference it on the target's Talk page, too.) WP:BRD is almost always preferred over a formal XfD discussion. It's also more likely to get participation by people who understand the templates. Rossami (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Multiple created in violation of a block
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was nuked by HJ Mitchell. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:R Van[edit]
Recently created redirects created by a sock of a blocked user, implausible because of their unusual spacing. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NOT CHAT[edit]
Recently created series of NOT redirects created by a sock of a blocked user, implausible because of their unusual spacing and limited variation on the target's subject. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NNCONTENT[edit]
Recently created series of Wikipedia:Notability related redirects created by a sock of a blocked user, implausible because of their unusual spacing. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:HANDLECOI[edit]
Recently created series of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest related redirects created by a sock of a blocked user, implausible because of their unusual spacing. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I used special:nuke to just remove the whole lot, since they probably qualify for G5 if not R3. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.