Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 7

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 7, 2014.

The Fractured Ear

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 00:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Implausible need. Prhartcom (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
En français, the title L'Oreille cassée translates to The Broken Ear, the actual title; no French or English speaker is likely to search for the "Fractured" title. (Please note: in the Tintin universe, no other redirect exists that is a "similar word".) Please delete. Prhartcom (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quand je parle français, je utilise le mot "cassé" pour les mots anglais "Broken", "Shattered", "Fractured", et peut-être des autre mots. Words in different languages do not have a precise, one to one mapping. WilyD
  • Agree with WilyD. Fractured means broken. In English, damage to body parts, bones, cartilage, are more usually described technically as fractures, non-technically as brakes, and I can easily imagine that someone could translate the French cassée as fractured. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wish there was a way to see if anyone has been using this redirect since it was created in 2005. Do what you must, I was just doing my part to clean up Wikipedia. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I can't locate Wikipedia's article on Jean-Paul Sartre's classic No Egress, nor his The Age of Acumen; maybe we need redirects. Prhartcom (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is inconceivable and besides, no one got my joke at the P.S. above. Prhartcom (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But go ahead and close this; we can keep this if we must. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikitendo

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard WP:CNR portal name. After having scanned all mainspace redirects to portals, it is nice to see they are nearly always named P:x or x_portal or portal_x. The oddballs are Wikitendo, ANE topics & ANE Topics, Current event (which is logical), and a large set of redirects to various parts of Portal:Contents (which is a special case). IMO only Wikitendo, ANE topics and ANE Topics are significant naming inconsistencies. The latter two already have a P: equivalent (P:ANE topics & P:ANE Topics) Wikitendo was previously kept at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 3#Wikitendo. 25 hits in last 90 days. I'd prefer we deleted the WP:NEO Wikitendo, but I'd be happy enough it was moved to P:Wikitendo. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also argue that a name like Wikitendo could imply information about a Wiki that covers Nintendo and not a portal about Nintendo on Wikipedia. It could be misleading.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is such a wiki, http://es.nintendo.wikia.com/wiki/Wikitendo . —rybec 18:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That does not really help because unless someone plans to make an article about that Wiki there does not appear to be a good target to redirect to to.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wt;rfa

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual WP:CNR that doesnt follow naming conventions. I think it is the only one remaining on Wikipedia:Database reports/Cross-namespace redirects that uses a ';' (I didnt see it when I looked for them at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_27#C.3Bsd. See also the 'delete all' outcome of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 3#Wp;drv, which was then also used as precedent when deleting others such as WP;NAMB & WP;PAIC, Wp;ani and WP;BLP in the last few weeks by user:RHaworth, User:Lankiveil and user:Alexf respectively. It receives a low number of pageviews: 15 on a good month, or 4 times in June 2013. John Vandenberg (chat) 19:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete G6 based on a far from unanimous RfD with not very large participation!? On what planet is that "uncontroversial housekeeping"!? What on earth does it take for people to understand that speedy deletion out of process is a Very Bad Thing for the project!? Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What G6 claim are you referring to? And why would and RfD outcome (which one do you mean?) be related to Speedy? If an RfD outcome is delete, then deletion it is. In process. -DePiep (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the use of the outcome of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 3#Wp;drv to delete WP;NAMB, WP;PAIC, and others under criterion G6. Of course deleting redirects following a discussion that results in consensus to delete them is correct. Using that discussion to speedy delete redirects not discussed there is the exact opposite of correct. Sorry for not being clearer. Thryduulf (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. None of that is argued in *this* discussion I understand. DePiep (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bossing

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget. A hatnote to Embossing there seems like the best way to cover all bases. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this an ambiguous term, as bossing can also be the action of acting as a bossing (or, at least, displaying social dominance), as well as a practice in architecture. I would retarget this redirect to the disambiguation page, Boss, and add a line there for this medical sense. bd2412 T 19:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

WP JEW

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard WP:CNR to WikiProject. WP:JEW already exists. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The target page lists only WP:JEW and WP:JUDAISM in the shortcuts box. —rybec 13:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant. Most shortcuts listed on the target page are useful, and most shortcuts that are useless or whose usefulness is outweighed by other issues are not listed on the target page. However it is not true that most shortcuts that are not listed should be deleted - there are far too many reasons why this might be the case for it to be a reliable indicator of anything. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant because it says there are alternative(s). From the status of being listed on the target page almost nothing can be concluded. -DePiep (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shortcuts are displayed on a page so that people may discover them more readily. If many people use a shortcut, some are likely to know how to advertise it on the page, and may do so. If it's not shown there, that's an indication that few people use it. I didn't claim "that most shortcuts that are not listed should be deleted", nor did I specifically say that this one should be deleted. I was just pointing out a fact, and if you find it's not pertinent, then fine. Please feel free to point out any facts that you do consider relevant. —rybec 21:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only reliable way to measure use is by looking at the number of people who use it (and that isn't always 100% accurate). Shortcuts that are not displayed on the page may still be logical alternatives (e.g. with or without a slash for subpages) that people expect to work (for whatever reason). There was also one recently (probably December) deleted at RfD (for being illogical iirc) that had been added to the shortcut box on the page at the time of initial creation. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

WikiText Transfer Protocol

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-project redirect to a draft of a non-existent protocol proposed in 2005‎, and never seriously considered for implementation. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Osmosis demonstration

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Osmosis. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 00:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The content was transwiki'd to Wikibooks after an AFD. It was then recreated a few times with garbage, so in 2005 user:RHaworth left the page to direct those viewers, and user:Mpntod redirected it to Osmosis in 2005. Then in 2013, user:Paine Ellsworth converted it back to a redirect to the wikibooks page and added it to Osmosis (disambiguation). I think it should redirect to Osmosis, or be deleted and salted (a capability we didnt have in 2005). John Vandenberg (chat) 12:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep or retarget as deletion will benefit nobody. I have no preference whether this points at Osmosis or gets a sister project link but this is getting significant traffic so deleting this would be harmful when we can direct users to what they are looking for. Salting should not be used just because it can be. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete XNR (crossprojectredirect) WP:NOT a text book -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Osmosis. The article does have some images and text that demonstrates the concept so I think it would be better off pointing there. There's also a crossproject link to the Science project that it is currently pointing at at the bottom of the article there's no problem regarding broken links --Lenticel (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Don't be a dick

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Dick (slang). --BDD (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to meta. Previously deleted. Recreated in 2013. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. I agree the redirect to meta should go, but this is a commonly used phrase so I have a gut feeling it should be pointed somewhere else. It was recreated as a redirect to Wil Wheaton and google shows that "Wil Weaton's Law" is (exactly or approximately, I'm not sure) "Don't be a dick" and is used in gamer culture apparently. It doesn't seem to be used in his article though and I'm not sure where else to look. It's also the title of an album by Emily's Army, but that article was speedied four times in 2009-10 (A7, A1/A3, A7 and A7) and then salted. I haven't investigated whether they are suitable for an article now, but if they are then I'd have no hesitation in recommending this title redirect to their discography. We probably ought to have something here, but I don't think its an article (otherwise I'd encourage deletion per WP:REDLINK) and I'm struggling to find anything else appropriate. I'll keep thinking though Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When redirects like this are deleted, is there a bot which fixes the on-wiki links to them? —rybec 07:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rybec: No. Nor would it be wise to have one as some redirects are deleted with the express intention of leaving a redlink to encourage article creation (see WP:REDLINK). Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Like this" was intentional. My question was, if we decide that "Don't be a dick" should be deleted, or should point elsewhere, is there a bot available to clean up by changing the existing links to the redirect? Someone who has linked to it probably had the meta essay in mind, not necessarily Wil Wheaton. In the discussion above about "Don't bite the newbies" someone has suggested that "we update the incoming links". Updating 55 pages is a task for which a bot would be desirable. —rybec 21:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rybec:, I agree with Thryduulf that using a bot would not be wise. It needs to be done manually. If it is done before or during a XfD, the person doing it should note what they have done at the XfD because it destroys Whatlinkshere data that other commenters could have used to investigate the matter. I have just now updated 11 incoming redirects. The ones that remain are, I feel, contextual and/or temporally relevant the way they were. (The Philosophy ones span multiple archives, including Jimbo's talk archives). John Vandenberg (chat) 01:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to add a mention to the Wil Wheaton article.

The Routledge Dictionary of Modern American Slang and Unconventional English says that the meaning of "dick" as "a despicable person" dates from 1966, and it provides a quote from the 1988 film Heathers: "Don't be a dick. That stuff'll kill her." [1]

There was a 1993 court ruling involving a T-shirt which read "See Dick Drink. See Dick Drive. See Dick Die. Don't Be a Dick." [2] —rybec 10:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of this sounds to me like fodder for an article on Dick (slang), to which this (and comparable phrases) would redirect; compare Guido (slang), for inspiration. bd2412 T 21:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Michael Meaney (darts player)

[edit]

(discussion moved to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_9 —rybec 07:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

SP:AF

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard prefix on WP:PNR. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to a wiki gadget. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, now this is circular reasoning. First you use the "simply because" argument, then when someone points to argumentsd used (which proves it is not a "simply"), you come back to say that the argument is not about this RfD.
Quite simple: if the contributor uses an arguemnt here, you can take for granted the argument is about this one. DePiep (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The essay linked to says, essentially, "some crossnamespace redirects are bad, but not all of them are". In order for a redirect to be deleted a discussion, which is not a vote, must come to a consensus that it should be deleted. Simply saying "delete this CNR because its a CNR and some CNRs are bad should be deleted" is exactly the same as saying "delete this redirect because some redirects are bad and should be deleted" or "delete this article because some articles are bad and should be deleted" or (with only very slight exageration) "I think your house should be knocked down because some houses are bad and should be knocked down". It does not offer any explanation about why this (or the other redirects with the same comment) are bad. Simply being a member of a class of things, some of which are bad, does not mean that this member if the class is bad. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that IP should have added a reason in first edit. Then, when IP pointed to the nom's statement (after your remark), that is enough: the nom not just mentioned WP:CNR, but also added "wiki gadget", which in this context is the disqualifying argument. -DePiep (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the nomination gives a reason (ideally it wouldn't be quite as terse, but that's not an impediment to my understanding of the rationale, given the context of their other recent nominations and the linked essay). However the anon doesn't associate themselves with that reason, they only say "The nom has already linked to the essay saying why [the listed CNRs] are bad", but the essay doesn't do that. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:XNR links to that essay. Per WP:OVERLINK do we really need to link every single instance? I notice that many shortcut-linked deletion rationales on the various XfD process pages are not linked after the first instance, with further commentators just writing it in all caps to signify the same reasoning. So, is this nitpicking me in particular, or are you going to do this to everyone at every XfD process? -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Linking isn't the issue at all - as long as you make it clear which page you are referring to id doesn't matter whether it's linked or not. The problem with your rationales is that the essay you cite does not support your recommendation. "Delete - this is a harmful XNR because blah", or "Delete - X part of XNR essay applies here because blah" and similar comments are good rationales because they justify why you believe it should be deleted. Your rationale on the other hand just says "delete this redirect because I think some redirects should be deleted" - can you seriously not see how unhelpful that is? Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are you nitpicking solely me? The nomination exists with nary much of a difference. I didn't nominate this for deletion, I only agreed with the suggestion and the rationale the nominator used. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, the nominator does explain why they think the redirect should be deleted - "This is a CNR redirect to a wiki gadget", and notes the essay as explaining why they believe a CNR redirect to a page like a wiki gadget is a bad thing, and the other nominations do similarly. Nowhere in your comments do you explain why you think the individual redirects are bad CNRs, only that you think they are CNRs (which is neither disputed nor relevant). Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it is not encyclopedic content reachable from mainspace which does not use a proper pseudonamespace indicator to indicate it is not encyclopedic content, and is not on the topic of popculture navigation; it's the very top reason CNRs are bad because they result in a person (reader) walking around a building (encyclopedia) and falling into the pipework (project space) because the builders (editors) thought cracks in the walls and floors would be useful for them to get around. indicated at WP:XNR, therefore indicated by the link under Arguments for deleting CNRs, therefore should be clear as the points for deleting XNRs have an entire section on why you would want to delete them. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "[the target] is not encyclopedic content, and is not on the topic of popculture navigation [and it is not otherwise a useful page for readers or new editors]" is an explanation of why you think "navpop" should be deleted, thank you. However you still have not provided any explanation why you think the other redirects you commented identically on should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CNRs are bad because they result in a person (reader) walking around a building (encyclopedia) and falling into the pipework (project space) because the builders (editors) thought cracks in the walls and floors would be useful for them to get around. indicated at WP:XNR, therefore indicated by the link under Arguments for deleting CNRs ; There being an entire section at XNR listing why things should be deleted, it should be clear that those are that which are meant. All of which are not encyclopedic content. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now that you guys have cleared all that up... delete. Not encyclopedic content. Shouldn't appear in a mainspace search. 70.50, you could maybe be a little more verbose in future to avoid such misunderstandings, although I suspect most of the people likely to see your comments have now read the above. — Scott • talk 11:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

India Loves Wikipedia

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to WikiProject subpage. Non-standard naming. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For precedence for this and other items listed on this page without a prefix, please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 13#Wikipedia-mode. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Guild of copy editors

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to WikiProject using a non-standard naming convention. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

G&S project

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to WikiProject with non-standard naming. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I do not understand what this is about. Please do not delete the redirect, if that is what you are proposing. Why would you delete the redirect? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because I believe the project is improved by having clear conventions regarding naming, and separation of the encyclopedia from the sausage factory. Your redirect is a page in mainspace with a unique naming convention, while this WikiProject has a great shortcut that follows our naming conventions: WP:G&S. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Intelligent Design Wikiproject

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to WikiProject with non-standard naming. Normal naming convention is 'WikiProject x' (with variations in capitalisation). John Vandenberg (chat) 11:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of inactive Wiki projects

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to WikiProject subpage. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of requested articles about Colorado

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to WikiProject subpage. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

WikiProject Colorado/New articles

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to WikiProject subpage. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of WikiProject Colorado members

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to WikiProject subpage. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of requested articles about California

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to WikiProject subpage. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

WPBURMA

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to WikiProject. WP:BURMA already exists. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

AARTalk

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to a WikiProject, with 15 hits in the last 90 days. WP:AAR is the WikiProject shortcut (with 66 hits in the last 90 days). John Vandenberg (chat) 11:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Don't bite the newbies

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 22#Don't bite the newbies

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_7&oldid=1136448266"