Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 November 9

November 9[edit]

WP:RESEARCH → Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia[edit]

The result of the debate was retarget to Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 01:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently linked to Wikipedia:No original research, but very few links (<12) in the 18 months since its creation have ever used it - a handful that did have been relinked, and no significant usage remains. Proposing to relink it to the more natural target Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia instead. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although whatlinkshere is irrelevant to a shortcut's usage, I think it's fairly well established that WP:OR in the popular shortcut and that retargeting this wouldn't hurt anything. -- John Reaves 21:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the change also, i.e. "researching with wikipedia" should be the target. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I just typed WP:RESEARCH into the search box, hoping to find Researching with Wikipedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WP:METRIC → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement[edit]

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn (see below). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~**. There is already a well established shortcut/redirect of WP:UNITS. To add METRIC would only open the door for SI, IMPERIAL, and others that would all be unnecessary considering that there is already an established redirect. —MJCdetroit 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly about defending this redirect but you haven't yet given a reason to delete it, either. Redirects are cheap. This does not seem to be in the way of any other page, doesn't create confusion and seems reasonably appropriate to the topic. The redirect is presumably useful to at least the nominator and gives every appearance of having been created in good faith. If others create WP:SI, et al. so what? Rossami (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy cow, I had no idea a "Redirects for discussion/deletion" existed. I created this redirect after at least two times entering "WP:METRIC" into my search bar. This is ridiculous. Many different WP pages have multiple redirects. --Henry W. Schmitt 02:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: True many "PAGES" have multiple RDs, but when it comes to the Manual of Style, we should avoid a short cut like this because when displayed within the WP:MOSNUM, as it was, it can give the wrong impression that only metric units should be used. In the same manner that WP:BRITISH ENGLISH or WP:AMERICAN ENGLISH should not be created and displayed on the MOS section about which English to use. It is best to leave the shortcut at the well established and well referenced—WP:UNITS—instead of creating new ones. —MJCdetroit 03:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "WP pages" I meant Wikipedia Project pages. E.g. look at all the redirects listed on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This is a silly discussion. How about we remove it from the "Shortcuts" menu but keep it redirecting to where "UNITS" goes? --Henry W. Schmitt 04:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It actually isn't silly based on my experience working with units. I know that it was done in good faith but if it is displayed within the MOS/MOSNUM, please believe me it will cause problems down the road. As you proposed, I don't have a problem leaving it as a redirect, so long as it never shows up within the MOSNUM or the MOS. Is that fair enough? —MJCdetroit 04:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. --Henry W. Schmitt 04:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**Withdrawn request to delete per agreement with Mr. Schmitt. —MJCdetroit 05:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kpop → KPOP[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. I'm closing this discussion early because this type of redirect is very common on Wikipedia. It would require a policy change in order for such redirects to be deleted, unless "kpop" clearly meant something different than KPOP (which is not the case). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kpop redirect article is not needed since it redirects to KPOP which is different only in case, and that redirect would happen automatically even without a Kpop article WinTakeAll 08:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Redirects to manage capitalization variations and/or error are normal. By the way, the redirect does not happen automatically. The only thing that works automatically is the search engine. Redirects do far more than just support the search engine. Rossami (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rossami. Since MediaWiki doesn't differentiate capital/lowercase lettering for the first character of an article title, Kpop and kpop are effectively the same. Someone looking for KPOP has a good chance of typing kpop, especially for users who don't realize that "going" (I wish I could say "searching," but they're different functions) is a case-sensitive procedure for MediaWiki sites. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Charon (planet) → Charon (moon)[edit]

The result of the debate was keep basically because of WP:SNOW. I think consensus is clearly in favor of keeping for a good reason, and that's not likely to change in the next five days. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page was only created because it was assumed, before the IAU vote, that Charon would become a planet. By definition, Charon is a moon, not a planet. I believe this redirect should be deleted to prevent abuse and confusion. Kheider 15:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As a redirect it serves its best purpose: to say "it's not a planet, it's a moon, look here". I say keep it. --Stlemur 16:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stlemur's arguments. Rossami (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pluto has been widely proclaimed as a double-planet (with Charon), even if it isn't officially one. 132.205.99.122 22:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Redirects can be as factually incorrect as they want (just think of the gazillion redirects we have that are misspellings), all that matters is if someone might type "Charon (planet)" in order to get to Charon (moon). Timeineurope 02:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above Bluap 03:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.