Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 June 5

Improperly named copyright tag, not in use, implausible redirect MBisanz ^talk 21:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep an excellent, easy to remember, highly plausible, and not "improperly named" redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful mnemotechnic (why is this word a red link? I can't believe nobody made an article on the most famous technique to easily remember complicated stuff) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect. Masamage ♫ 20:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Unuseful CNR. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 'Drunk' seems more common/approachable than 'Under the Influence'. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because we already have WP:DRUNK, which is not a CNR from article space --Enric Naval (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a redundant CNR redirect.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnesecary CNR, although a redirect from Wikipedia:Editing while drunk might be useful. ~AH1^(TCU) 13:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, this may warrant a speedy delete based on CSD R2. ~AH1^(TCU) 13:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought that, too, but that guideline only mentions the Talk and User namespaces, not Wikipedia or Template or so on. Maybe it should? Or is there a reason it doesn't? --Masamage ♫ 16:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It absolutely does not qualify for CSD R2 and should not. Many of Wikipedia's oldest policy pages existed in the "article space" because there was no separate namespace when they were created. They have inbound links both internal to the project and external. Deletion risks breaking those links. Some of those pages were moved before the MediaWiki software was changed to automatically record the move. In those cases, the pagehistory behind the redirect is the only evidence of the attribution history of the content or of the pagename (and preservation of attribution history is a requirement of GFDL). While some are investigated and deleted, some are not. Redirects to the Wikipedia space require investigation and discussion. They are not speedy-deletion candidates. Rossami (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not really sure if the essay the redirect points to is useful, and I cannot that the redirect itself is useful. I agree with Rossami's points on cross-namespace redirects, but one argument which weighs in disfavor of such redirects is that they might confuse readers if policy pages are not segregated very clearly from article space. I don't think any of the arguments which can defend the presence of a particular CNR applies in this case. (I recognize that Rossami was just making a valid statement on speedy-delete policy, not an argument about this particular redirect.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - history of redirect seems trivial here. While "while drunk" is often euphemistically stated as "under the influence," it comes across as a joke in this context (I know, I know... the target is a joke essay, but that's beside the point). B.Wind (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• {{Oggfile}}
• {{Ogg}}

Unused, invalid template name, violate NFCC naming conventions, no meaningful links in. MBisanz ^talk 20:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not make sense, unless every single Ogg Vorbis audio file on the world happens to be copyrighted --Enric Naval (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not sure where to look, but there may be audio-play templates (e.g. alternatives to the Image: tag) that may make for a good retarget. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title is disparaging and insulting in the same way as an attack page is, and should be deleted. The editor, User:Hashmi, Usman, has recently been identified as a sockpuppet and quite a lot of his previous work, articles, categories and redirects, have been deleted for various reasons, especially non-notability. Imho, a generally disruptive editor to Wikipedia who never has interacted with any editors notification on his talk page. ww2censor (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator's comments - seems disruptive to me. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 03:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This should probably be bundled with the bulk discussion below titled "Redirects created by a blocked user". Rossami (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it is listed there but I did not see that discussion. I have tagged this one though most of those listed below are untagged as yet. I will leave it for now as this definitely need to go while the long list if for now in general discussion about what to do next. ww2censor (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. CSD criterion G10 applies to all namespaces and types, so if this is an attact redirect, it may be deleted accordingly. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - indeed seems insulting. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's not even a notable racial slur, which could be grounds to retarget it to the proper article on racism --Enric Naval (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't even make much sense, not all Asians are "brown". ~AH1^(TCU) 13:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - in some contexts "brown British" could just as easily mean "African Britons". This is not a useful search term in any case. B.Wind (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]