Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 25

A mere spelling error, no one would need this Marlith 23:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no one will use this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlith (talk • contribs) 23:29, 25 July 2007
• Keep and tag as {{R from misspelling}}. We don't delete redirects because they're misspelt; we welcome them. At least, we do if the misspelling is plausible, which it certainly is in this case. See Category:Redirects from misspellings. Xtifr _tälk 11:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well, if the misspelling were in the name of the namespace that would be a different matter (because it would appear on searches of the main space). But it's a common misspelling and there exists no harm in having it as written. BigNate37_(T) 14:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not an implausible misspelling. Carlossuarez46 19:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross space Marlith 23:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this goes against policy. Marlith 23:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, XNR and no editing history to redeem it. Gracenotes^T § 19:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per Wikipedia:Cross-namespace_redirects -- ChrisDHDR ;^{ • contrib's} 19:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross space Marlith 23:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, goes against policy. Marlith 23:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, XNR and no editing history to redeem it. Gracenotes^T § 19:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per Wikipedia:Cross-namespace_redirects -- ChrisDHDR ;^{ • contrib's} 19:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace is seperate from WP space Marlith 23:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Goes against policy. Marlith 23:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, XNR and no editing history to redeem it. Gracenotes^T § 19:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per Wikipedia:Cross-namespace_redirects -- ChrisDHDR ;^{ • contrib's} 19:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a nonsense word intended to refer to Dean's famous 'scream', but I can't imagine that anyone looking for an article about Dean would use this word in a search or link. Russ (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Mentioned at target, and apparently the most common usage of this 'term'[1]. We should probably also have some of the other permutations as well. BigNate37_(T) 19:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be precise, the Howard Dean article uses the term "Byaaah!!!" The only other use of the spelling "byah" in Wikipedia appears to be in a couple of articles about the Bulgarian language. --Russ (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think this is like calling a horse's tail its fifth leg: it's still not a leg. The word "Byah" (or "Yeargh!" or whatever) is not relevant to Howard Dean in general. Shalom ^Hello 22:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then remove it from the article. This isn't the place to decide what should be in the article; it's there and it is a possible search term (see external link in my keep recommendation). If the horse article has a section about the tail and mentions the term fifth leg, then horse's fifth leg should redirect there. BigNate37_(T) 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If horse and dog and cat all mentioned "fifth leg", then it would not be appropriate to have fifth leg redirect to horse. And this is more analogous to "fifth leg" than it is to "horse's fifth leg". (If it were "Howard Dean's byah, then it would be like "horse's fifth leg".) My opinion is that this should be kept only if Dean's "byah" is the only notable "byah" in Wikipedia. Which it might be—I'm too lazy to check right now. :) Another possibility is to redirect to the section that mentions the scream and its fallout, and tag as {{R to section}}. Xtifr _tälk 12:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the slight redirection might be best. Have you checked the link I gave? Here it is again, to urbandictionary.com, which basically attributes it to Dave Chappelle's impression of Dean's speech. This is what leads me to believe the term is most closely linked with Howard Dean. BigNate37_(T) 14:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete of course -- redirects are not intended as critical comments, or as jokes.DGG (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they're not intended that way. However, I think this qualifies as a keep per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Precedents#Should insulting nickname redirects be kept? BigNate37_(T) 19:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "Byah" could be anything (and I think its likely a foreign word), and its not likely that anyone would search "byah" when they're looking for Howard Dean -- ChrisDHDR ;^{ • contrib's} 19:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Bignate's argument is interesting, but the target article doesn't even use this spelling, and frankly, in any case, I don't think it's widespread or notable enough to qualify under the precedent that Bignate referred to (although it's not as clear-cut as any of the examples listed there, either kept or deleted). Xtifr _tälk 12:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect capitalization of the name Leroy Meyers (Leroy Meyers → Leroy F. Meyers). panda 18:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Misspellings and similar typos are one of the main reasons we have redirects! --Russ (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and tag with {{R from lowercase}}. BigNate37_(T) 19:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any reason to keep the redirect. The small article was successfully merged and there is no reason to keep this redirect in main space. It is not used in the text of articles. Therefore, it is unnecessary to be kept. It serves no purpose.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment has GFDL-required history. The redirect at this title can still be deleted, but only by using one of two methods listed at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Redirects for Discussion page. I recommend this one: "Another option, useful for pages which were merged (for example), is for redirect pages with significant history to be archived into a talk namespace, and a link to them put into an article's talk page." BigNate37_(T) 22:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure how to do that and what the outcome would be. Are you saying if the procedure you mentioned was done then the redirect would be deleted. Or there is no procedure to delete the redirect when content was merged.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm saying that if we decide to delete the redirect, we must do it in a way that preserves the GFDL history. The text I quoted outlines one such way to preserve the history. BigNate37_(T) 23:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, mentioned at target. BigNate37_(T) 22:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redirect and preserve the GFDL history. Simple enough. I request a GFDL merge be conducted and then the redirect be deleted. I do not know how to preserve the GFDL. Therefore, I am making a request for an established editor to finish the full merge by preserving the GFDL. Sorry I do understand how to do that. After the GFDL procedure is completed the redirect can then be deleted for the reasons stated above. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  23:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, don't worry about getting too specific. I was saying it is possible to delete this redirect and preserve the history so people don't argue that deletion isn't an option—we don't need to decide how it is preserved right now, and I doubt anyone wants to merge it. Let's worry about what to do with the redirect first. BigNate37_(T) 00:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are saying deletion is an option if the GDFL was merged. So I am requesting again for the merge to be completed in order for the redirect to be deleted in accordance with policy. Wikipedia has policies. We do not decide what to do with the redirect first. First we can finish the GDFL merge in order for the deletion process to be valid or a deletion review will take place next. After a merge is properly done to satisfy policy (preserve GDFL) then we can have a valid discussion for the redirect to be deleted.  Mr.Guru  talk  00:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not at all what I am saying. I am saying deletion is an option because we can preserve the required history if we need to. I am saying we should leave the history where it is if we decide to keep this redirect. If we decide not to keep it, then archive the page by moving it somewhere appropriate before deleting the simple redirect left behind. Please read the links I provided before replying again; after that you'll see that a history merge is probably the worst thing to do. Then, re-read my comments to learn that I am not proposing a merge. You starting mentioning history merges. Let me repeat: no merge is required to satisfy the GFDL. Here's what should happen: we'll finish the debate. Then, if we decided to delete, the history will be kept somehow, after which Wikipedia community will be a redlink. You're making this way more complicated than it really is. BigNate37_(T) 17:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. People might still be searching for it, as the community is an important subject about wikipedia. I don't know why it was merged, as it survived previous afd's, but the wikipedia article lacks significant community-related info. ~AH1^(TCU) 14:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Why the hell would we delete a likely search term with tons of incoming links which was merged? Ugh. And a history merge would totally fuck up any chance of anyone ever making sense of the history at the target article. --- RockMFR 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, revert the merge. The article survived vote for deletion recently (and btw thanks to efforts of the nominator here). Nomination is false. the term is used in wikipedia main space. I am also goiing to revert the change. ""Wikipedia community" cannot redirect to "English wikipedia". Wikipedia community is cross-language. Majority of active wikipedianss work in several languages, syncing/translating/interwiking. Why do I have an impression that the nominator takes too much of artice ownership on themselves? `'Míkka 18:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Consensus is to keep the redirect as is which is to be respected. The nomination is true. I could not find text in any articles linking to the English Wikipedia community. Mikka should respect consensus of keep redirect as is. I recommend a deletion review if Mikka disagrees with the results of keeping the redirect as is.  Mr.Guru  talk  18:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a discussion regarding the merging of Wikipedia community into English Wikipedia. This nomination borders on an end-run around the AfD process. The article-turned-redirect that is Wikipedia community has had a rather strange history, starting with QuackGuru defending the page he just created against an AfD nomination. That was only four months ago... Munta was right, this is bizarre. BigNate37_(T) 20:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying an AFD would have been a better option instead of merging. The merge was a complete success. Consensus here is to keep as a redirect. Any thoughts.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Consensus' here is to keep the redirect (insofar as you believe this is a consensus), as opposed to deleting it or pointing it elsewhere—your comment misconstrues that for consensus to keep as a redirect, as opposed to having an article. Please be careful, this isn't the first of your comments here which has made significant changes in meaning by subtly changing wording. RfD discussions do not consider the option of undoing merges, so you cannot say there is consensus to keep the page as a redirect. Anyways, my intention was to bring the history to the attention of others who are not familiar with it. BigNate37_(T) 20:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I prefer to delete the redirect. Nontheless, it looks like consensus to keep as a redirect rather than to delete. I will comply with the consensus here as a keep for redirect. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]