Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 10

September 10

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 10, 2008

LastMeasure → Shock site

The result of the debate was Delete all. Cenarium ^Talk

Yet another in the parade of redirects that don't have their name in the target article. In the same vein, and with the same justification, I'm also nominating

Lastmeasure → Shock site
Meatspin.com → Shock site
Meat Spin → Shock site
Hai2u → Shock site
HAI2U → Shock site (as an IP, I cannot add the tag to this one as the redirect seems semiprotected - if deleted, it might need some salting)

147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unless sourced information on each shock site is added. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPH and nom. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have asked for {{editprotected}} for HAI2U. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unless there's information about the sites in the target article. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

More Wikipedia sockpuppet category redirects

The result of the debate was delete. Seems like any keeper's issues have been addressed. Wizardman 18:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per precedent established here, Having sockpuppet category redirects is a bad idea. To quote my reasoning in that nom, Having redirects from sockpupptet categories is overkill, and would be unlikely to ever be used. Having these types of redirects would set precedent for literally thousands of other redirects, as some users by themselves have over 100 sockpuppets, and keeping these would allow for a category for each one. The proper thing to do it to tag the user as a sockpuppet of the primary account on the sockpuppet account's user page, directing the user to the proper sockpuppet category. Since that is the proper method to be used, the only way these would actually be used is if someone specifically typed the improper category name in the the search bar, which I find unlikely. In short, these categories are useless, set bad precedent, and should be deleted. Nothing has changed since then. Delete. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as creator of the redirects: Ordinarily, I would agree with VegaDark. This is an unusual situation, however, and the redirects were in part an exercise of WP:IAR. The fact is that these accounts have been blocked as sockpuppets of not one, but two, well-known sockmaster accounts. The first is the account name with which they are most commonly associated with across several WMF sites, User:Poetlister; however, they are also socks of the former en.WP administrator account User:Runcorn. The socks have been blocked as a result of three separate, high-profile sockpuppet investigations over the course of three years. I am open to considering another way of linking these socks to both sockmaster accounts in a single category if someone is creative enough to come up with one, but I think given the circumstances that it is essential to have the socks directly linked to both masters. Risker (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I've gone back and reviewed the edits related to the creation of these redirects; it appears that they are automatically generated by the combination of using the {{CheckedPuppeteer|blocked}} template, and adding Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Poetlister/Runcorn to the page. I suspect this is something that can be fixed by someone with template design skills (i.e., just about anyone but me) so that the redirects are eliminated and clicking on the relevant links will take the editor to the category that combines all of the socks. I would have no objection to deletion of the redirects as long as the links lead to the right place. Risker (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, provided that all the tagged users have first been grouped into a single category. I agree with Risker above, that there is a need to link all these sockpuppet users together and to their 'master accounts'; but I also agree with the nominator that the redirects from each username aren't needed. Once the sockpuppet pages have been fixed as Risker describes above, these redirects can be safely deleted. Terraxos (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whilst these redirects continue to have incoming links. I have no objection to their deletion should they become orphaned. WJBscribe (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:WCBI (page does not exist) → Talk:WCBI

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by Malcolmxl5 per G8. VegaDark (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed redirect is a product of a move. Probably CSD G6 territory, but I'd play it cautious and bring it here, instead. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Church of Saint Isidore → Basilica of San Isidoro

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted per author request. Keeper ǀ 76 16:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author request billinghurst (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Next time, simply place {{db-author}} on pages you have created thay you wish to be deleted, so long as others have not contributed to it. I've done this for you in this case. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

George W. Bush/Compromise → George W. Bush

The result of the debate was histmerge to more plausible redirect to keep history intact and delete. I chose G. W. Bush rather than the others suggested because it has only one edit in its history, so less confusing for a histmerge. delldot ∇. 01:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The page was created nearly 4 years ago (tomorrow actually!), and then a redirect was put in place just shy of 4 years ago. That was the last edit to the page ('til now). I don't see any need to keep this redirect, no-one is going to search for GWB by typing in "George W. Bush/Compromise" now are they? Deamon138 (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May be required per terms of the GFDL if any of this was used in the main article. Hiding T 10:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it was clearly a temporary page (and states so in most earlier versions) that was used to haggle for a compromise to end an edit war on the main article. This should be kept for GDFL reasons only if the temporary page were indeed merged into the main article, as opposed to just "pieces" moving into George W. Bush. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If pieces were moved in you have to keep it per GFDL, because that constitutes a cut and paste move. Hiding T 10:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd normally recommend merging the histories, but George W. Bush can't be deleted except by devs. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless this is definitely required to be kept under the GFDL. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about a precautionary histmerge to a redirect, such as George W Bush or George Walker Bush, which has less than 5000 revisions and can be deleted without asking the devs? That would allow the history to be preserved in a location where it is unlikely to ever be deleted (i.e. valid redirects), and yet would permit deletion of the undesirable mainspace subpage. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as we document it on Talk:George W. Bush and the redirect talk page, I think that's the best move from a GFDL point of view. Sometimes you want to curse the GFDL. I don't even want to begin to think about how many times we've breached it. Hiding T 13:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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