Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 2

message: I wanted to check by here that WP:SFD isn't treading on any toes by considering the deletion of redirects to stub templates.  I'd think clearly not, but we're being roundly abused for it at present.  If anything, the more likely overlap is surely with WP:TFD, since ordinarily they consider the whole namespace, redirects included, stubs templates being an exception in that sense.  Alai 15:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub-redirects for deletion? 

message: We have a massive backlog here. Everything that has no vote and has been here for 2+ weeks will be closed as no consensus. Just letting everyone know. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'd think that if no objections are raised after two weeks, then they should be deleted rather than assume no consensus. older≠wiser 00:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Second that. Many entries here are really trivial cases like "foo" → foo that we obviously don't need to keep (unless valid objections can be found, of course, but for that purpose we have the lag time). jni 15:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I processed eight listings in the period 21–25 Nov, choosing to ignore the line "If a request is already somewhat older than a week, it has almost certainly been left for a reason (usually to try and spur further debate, or to try and reach rough consensus), so be cautious about deleting such entries." I flagged anything I was unsure of. If an admin with experience of taking care of RfD (or anybody, really) could please comment on the four remaining entries, under 21 November, 23 November, and 25 November, I'd soon get the hang of it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you don't mind but my boldness got the better of me and I resolved these discussions as well. Basically I think out-of-process entries should get a "no consensus"--without the rfd tag in the right place, for the proper period of time, a consensus isn't really possible. One thing I have been taking into consideration is the history--if a redirect has content in its history it probably shouldn't be deleted. In the case of "Uranium-lead dating" the nominator didn't really specify a valid reason ("making links red so people create an article" isn't really a reason to delete, at least according to this page) and so I did the same for it. I've been archiving the RFD discussions on the talk page of the redirect. I hope this explanation of what I've been up to helps. Demi T/C 07:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. I nominated uranium-lead dating for deletion because it makes it look like we have an article on it, but we don't. I don't know about other people, but most of the articles I write are found through red links. If people don't realize that it's missing, we will never have an article on it. Every other method of radiometric dating has an article or is a red link. Uranium lead just redirects to the radiometric dating article. The problem is illustrated by the radiometric dating article, which has a link to uranium-lead dating that leads right back to itself. Also, it has no history of other than being a redirect. I don't know if these are valid reasons to delete a redirect according to this page, though. We should follow procedure. I guess I could write a stub in place of the redirect. Thanks, Kjkolb 15:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I found that information really helpful, thanks for pointing to it. As we work on RFD, we should probably incorporate some of it into the page or an admin's subpage for RFD. I've basically followed those guidelines... except I'm not sure we need to purposely orphan links; or at least, I've been doing those on a case-by-case basis. Some redirects we delete because there's nowhere good for them to point, yet that doesn't mean they shouldn't be redlinks elsewhere. Demi T/C 01:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive backlog

message: Okay, I have finally managed to get the RFD page (or a mockup of it, at least) to conform to my subtle whims.
Please take a gander at User:Extreme Unction/Header.  If no one objects, I would like to replace the current text at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Header with the text at User:Extreme Unction/Header.  I would also like to put the text at User:Extreme Unction/Header on the same page as the RFD nominations, rather than having that text transcluded as the current Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Header is now.
Additionally, I have substantially revised and streamlined the proposed archival process based on Jitse Niesen's comments above.  Rather than having multiple archives, I think Jitse is right -- a single archive would be better.  So please also check out the newly revised User:Extreme Unction/Redirect Archives.
Let me know what you think.
→ Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 22:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good. The one thing I would change is to shift the "How to list" instructions much higher--"above the fold" in a typical browser. Or at least have a prominent internal link there. Demi T/C 22:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh.  I'm of the mind that people should see the reasons why they should and shouldn't list a redirect before they see the instructions on how to do so.  May save a headache or two down the road. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 18:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Another thing that would be useful to have above the fold if possible, even if just one sentence, is that a redirect should be harmful to be nominated. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair

message: A new user has created Wikipedia:Text of the gnu Free Documentation License which REDIRECTs to Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License as you might expect.
I can see no reason for this REDIRECT to exist other than as one of this user's more interesting test edits.
Should this be listed for deletion, speedied, or simply left alonoe?
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a reasonable use of .  I know a lot of unix geeks who think in all lowercase when it comes to things unix-y, so I think it's perfectly plausible that someone might type "gnu" instead of "GNU". Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncertain whether to list 

message: These are the goodies for your attention from the :category:redirects for deletion. Keep in mind, that at that time, the whole category was 121 entries... So 25% of all entries were messed up...
# ArrayTag tagged since Sept. 25
# Acrylic Compound tagged on Oct. 22, keep votes pasted on talk page on Nov. 28
# Blogorrhea tagged for RfD since Sept. 26
# Broadcast magazine, which is not a redirect, tagged since Dec. 2
# Cdpedia - Nov. 7
# Charver - Sept. 22 after a bizarre VfD, RfD, etc. sequesnce
# China for Christ Church - Sept. 4, was relisted by myself
# Cyr - Oct. 26, rfd place corrected on Dec. 1
# Dvdpedia tagged - Nov. 7
# Enterprise management - Nov. 15, resolved as no consensus on Dec. 12 on talk page
# Infobox episode list - Oct. 22
# International Gareth Day - Nov. 6
# Korean churches in China - Sept. 3 (winner), was re-listed by myself
# Ladislaus the Bold - Dec. 14, misformatted by an anon
# List of automobile models by size - Aug. 28
# Lyotrophic - Nov. 29
# MiniCode - Sept. 25
# MoD Trains - Dec. 2
# Motorola v600 - Dec. 16
# Nori (LAY) - Oct. 29
# Oak Elementary School - Dec. 4
# RUBBER MATCH, not a redirect, - Oct. 1
# Wikipedia:Reqeusts for whores - Dec. 9
# Template:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat vs. Fadix - Dec. 9
# Russell J. Rowlett, to a deleted article, Dec. 23
# SIDO - Oct. 13
# Sound (computer) - Oct. 20
# Temporally - Dec. 16
# The College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity in the University of Oxford, of the foundation of Thomas Pope - Dec. 29
# The Earth, A Small Man, His Dog and a Chicken - Oct. 13
# University of Notre Dame Head Football Coach - Dec. 21
# University of Notre Dame Head Football Coaches - Dec. 21
# Vazul - Dec. 14
# Template:Wikiportal:Doctor Who/Categories - Nov. 3
Renata 13:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please clean up after yourselves!