Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 September 11

J/k → Internet slang

It's not "internet slang", although it may improperly be listed in that article. Its TXT slang. see below — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - looks like it's been in use on Usenet since at least 1999 - see [1]. Looks well entrenched on Internet. Nfitz 22:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw; speedy keep (although it does mangle searches, as it appears to be a subpage of J.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace, unlikely name to be searched Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-encyclopedic content shouldn't be in encyclopedic space. Someone searching "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" will find the Wikipedia page anyway without needing a munging of the article space. --Cyde Weys 18:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, due to presence of external links. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per:

  bullet 1 of the reasons to avoid deletion (potentially useful history). This is where the essay started that eventually became the policy-statement, WP:NOT.

  bullet 2 (aid to accidental linking). Looking at "what links here", there are dozens of recently created inbound links which are still depending on this redirect. It's obvious that someone's running a bot in an attempt to orphan this redirect and people are still using it. Deleting the redirect will break all those links for no reason.

  bullet 3 (aid to searching). No one searching for "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" will ever be searching for an encyclopedia article. On the other hand, that phrase is frequently used on project and Talk pages where it is usually a reference to WP:NOT. The search engine returns WP:NOT but also returns 1,900 other uses if the phrase.

  bullet 4 (breaks old links). Again, this is where WP:NOT started long before the creation of the separate userspaces. Researchers who are studying the growth and evolution of wikis look to this and similar pages as they try to explain why Wikipedia is succeeding where so many other wikis fail. This page has been linked externally as evidence in the research.

  Rossami (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cross namespace redirect. Not needed. You could simply type in WP:NOT. -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 02:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No, actually you can't. This redirect takes you to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary which is a drill-down policy page. It is part of the WP:NOT family but has such extensive discussion and history that it has it's own page. Rossami (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine, then type in WP:WINAD. Kill it. --Rory096 04:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alternatively, redirect to Wikipedia like a lot of other ones like this go. If you do kill it, then merge the edit history with WP:WINAD. --Rory096 04:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needless cross-namespace redirect. --Rory096 06:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I created this redirect and have used it several times. Spelled all upper-case this is a variable usable within mediawiki. But it's probably too quick and dirty as redirects go. So farewell [[PAGENAME]]. Cheers, Netizen 15:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, "PAGENAME" isn't nearly a Wikipedia-specific variable name, and in fact you will see it in lots of big PHP scripts used to run various websites. Also, it's a cross-namespace redirect, which is unacceptable. --Cyde Weys 18:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous attack redirect. RN 05:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV and idiotic. -- AdrianTM 05:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 15:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not used. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above; though at least moderately amusing Nfitz 22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Not sure how common this is. Abstain for now. Nfitz 20:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Inappropriate POV commentary. -/- Warren 23:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree that redirect is strongly POV. --70.48.172.72 01:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV reasons (although from my POV, its true). Not Needed. -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 02:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Alternative political spelling. --Masamage 20:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I don't think that alternative political spelling covers this case; this is more of a rhyming pun or portmanteau than an alternative spelling. — TKD::Talk 03:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous attack redirect. RN 05:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - POV and idiotic. -- AdrianTM 05:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 15:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not used. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Inappropriate POV commentary. -/- Warren 23:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV redirect (again). -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 02:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Common nickname for linux. It's removal violates the precedents set in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Precedents#Should insulting nickname redirects be kept Nfitz 20:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Alternative political spelling. --Masamage 20:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous attack redirect. RN 05:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no one uses this term to search for Linux info -- AdrianTM 05:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Should all these redirects should be listed in a single section. Pavel Vozenilek 15:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not used. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Inappropriate POV commentary. -/- Warren 23:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A Mac guy must have been on a rampage. -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 02:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Maybe it can redirect to Alternative political spelling? Just a thought. —this is messedrocker (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not common. Nfitz 20:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Alternative political spelling. --Masamage 20:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • These do not seem to be Alternative political spellings, so that wouldn't seem to make sense... RN 20:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm guess I'm using a loose definition of 'political'. (And 'spelling'. :P) They were obviously created with the intention of advancing somebody's opinion, so redirecting to an article about opinion-advancement through wordplay feels appropriate. --Masamage 20:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is from a disambiguated meaning of 'choon' to the other disambiguated meaning, sort of like redirecting soccer to American football, and is just wrong and confusing. --ais523 11:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Choon used to be about the programming language. Per the precendent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages, delete rather than restore that article. TimBentley (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace, could be retargeted to Wikimedia Meta-Wiki (in article space) instead, but I want discussion first due to multiple retargetings in the history. --ais523 15:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Retarget to Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. --Cyde Weys 18:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Cyde. —this is messedrocker (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to have been a nonsensical hoax article. Should not redirect to Sailor Moon or anything else. -- Masamage 21:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Since no one seems inclined to vote on this, I'll revert to its original text, which is clearly nonsense worthy of a speedy delete. --Masamage 20:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]