June 11

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 11, 2012

Millosheviq

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 no consensus to delete. It's been listed for over two weeks and no one has come forward to recommend deletion. I am withdrawing the courtesy nomination. Rossami (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page was speedy-deleted by Joy under criterion R3, however the redirect was created in Dec 2007 and is far too old for that criterion to apply. The redirect appears to me to be a modestly-plausible transliteration of Milošević. Nevertheless, bringing it here as a courtesy nomination. Rossami (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2012 (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.

12345

Template:Badimage

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 as is for now. While the discussion shows diversity of opinion, the tide of the conversation clearly changed once the connection to the MediaWiki list and the bugzilla entry were noted. It may be appropriate to revisit these redirects after those issues are corrected. Rossami (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "bad image" means that file is corrupt and not viewable, rather than its use must be restricted. I suggest pointing this instead to Template:Db-f2, speedy deleting corrupt image files. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. "Bad" implies a corrupt image. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. However, we need to look out for usages of it, so they don't suddenly show up for deletion. --The Evil IP address (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also {{Bad format}}, {{Bad GIF}}, {{Bad JPEG}}, and {{Bad SVG}}. I don't know if any of those would be better targets, though. - Eureka Lott 01:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirect, rename target - Remove the redirect, and simply rename the target of it to {{restricted}} which implies that rather than being utterly broken, the picture shouldn't be used outside of the accepted pages. {{restricted use}} is ok, but i'd ask it be shortened a bit.  BarkingFish  00:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. As long as MediaWiki:Bad image list exists at this title, this is a logical alternative title and thus necessary redirect. I take the points above, but that would best be solved by getting a bot to bypas the redirect if one doesn't do so already. There has been a slow, low-level campaign to rename the MediaWiki page, but AIUI that requires developer access and, last I was aware, no developer was interested in dealing with the issue. 82.132.218.233 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with IP editor above. As editor Thryduulf notes above, bug 14281 was opened long ago to change the name of the associated list. When I just checked that bug, I found it marked "resolved", but it hadn't really been resolved, just closed. So I reopened it until we can at least get some idea why the listname change is such a grandiose deal, or, failing that, actually get the listname changed. Whether or not the list is renamed, this redirect should be kept as is to provide access by internal links. There are a lot of these links, by one count over 1000. Evidently, those links were delivering errors due to the discussion template, so an editor has temporarily changed this redirect back to the actual template. It would be good if we could resolve this RfD as quickly as possible. – Paine (Climax!)  20:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • note. I have added Template:Bad image (Cheers to Paine Ellsworth for the heads-up on their talk page) to this nomination as, regardless of the outcome, the two should be treated the same. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2012 (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.

Wikipedia:HDH

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 no consensus to delete. Rossami (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Useless shortcut to WP:Help desk's header template. Not likely to be used much if at all, as it's not a page anyone navigates to except to edit the interface at Help desk, which shouldn't happen often. Equazcion (talk) 09:10, 11 Jun 2012 (UTC)

  • keep, no reason to delete this. It's linked in several places and while I can't view the stats on my phone it seems likely that if it was created then at least one person finds it useful. 'Unnecessary' is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect and I'm truly struggling to think of what benefit removing it could possibly bring? Even if the target doesn't need to be edited often the shortcut will aid when it does. 82.132.212.144 (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC) (user:Thryduulf not logged in)[reply]
  • keep, agreeing with Thryduulf here, in the absence of a more appropriate target for this acronym. I would only delete shortcuts if they're misleading or disruptive and this is neither. The header in question has been edited quite a large number of times considering it's just a header, so it's not inconceivable that several editors might have memorised this one. - filelakeshoe 13:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's actually been edited less than most headers (for noticeboards etc), and about a third of those edits are from me. It was actually full-protected for 4 years, until about a month ago when I requested unprotection, so I doubt anyone relies on this or has it memorized. I think shortcuts should be reserved for pages that constitute tools for frequent use, not veritable interface elements. The only reason to go directly to it is to edit it, and it really shouldn't be seeing a lot of editing activity. It could be argued that we don't keep edit links in most venues' header templates for that reason. Equazcion (talk) 17:36, 11 Jun 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't know what the second H would stand for and as WP:HD already redirects to the Help Desk and there are shorter cuts like WP:Y I don't see reason to keep. AndieM (Am I behaving?) 08:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, I didn't realise it redirected to the header, but my original decision still stands as the header has barely been edited. AndieM (Am I behaving?) 09:06, 19 June 2012 (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.
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_11
No tags for this post.