Talk:Wikipedia utilities/Page titles to be deleted
|
|
Previous talk at Wikipedia_utilities/Old_Page_titles_to_be_deleted_talk and Wikipedia_utilities/Page_titles_to_be_deleted_Talk.
JamieTheFoool - a user page in Wikipedia namespace. I have asked the user to move the content to user:JamieTheFoool. If they don't within a few days I'll do it for them. This page shouldn't be deleted just because the person won't redirect it. I just redirected it anyway. Dreamyshade
[[Little guru]] - another user page in Wikipedia namespace. This one also copied AxelBoltd's list of contributions and made it his own, which is pretty darn insulting considering the enormous contributions Axel has made. I think this page should be deleted immediately, and probably his IP address should be banned. This page shouldn't be deleted simply because its owner isn't well-liked by certain individuals. It is easily redirected to the User namespace. Dreamyshade
- No, we don't want redirects because that just leaves rubbish in the Wikipedia namespace. And don't lecture about "simply because its owner isn't well-liked by certain individuals". You obviously didn't look at the history of the page in question. Graham Chapman
- Ok, you're right, a LOT of certain individuals don't like Little guru, and I might agree with them, but he's still a Wikipedian who contributed some content and can have a user page if he wants to. Redirects don't take up much space at all, and are very useful if there are any old links to the main namespace page. Dreamyshade
- I don't see a problem with having a redirect on [[Little guru]] to point to user:Little guru. Redirect pages don't show up as articles in the statistics and if they still do in the "All pages" dump, then that could probably be easily fixed by the wikiware gods. Just add a wikipedia:Feature requests. BTW anybody is welcome to delete [[maveric149]] so long as they fix all the resulting broken links that that redirect page now covers. Redirect pages do have their uses. --maveric149, Wednesday, April 3, 2002
- Enough discussion - you guys stick to redirects, since that is what you like. I think they should be deleted, but I can't be bothered with long discussions about nothing, so I will stop worrying about rubbish pages and let others do the housekeeping. Graham Chapman
Tantrayana - removed from list because it can become an article someday
Alt.pasta - redirected to user:Alt.pasta, deletion unnecessary
Ummmm... I thought the whole point of having a separate user namespace was so that user names could be easily differentiated from wikipedia articles?? The cases mentioned above might not be ambiguous, but that doesn't mean that the natural solution is a redirect. In fact, redirects might only confuse. What if we have wikipedia:john Brown (created as a user page accidentally). It gets redirected to user:john Brown. What happens when someone wants to write about the abolitionist? I say: delete page where there is no ambiguity (after moving all content to a user: page); delete all content when the name should be used for a real article, and don't redirect!! HK, Monday, April 8, 2002
- I agree. Personally, I don't think there should be links from the main namespace to any user article at all, only from the talk: and wikipedia: namespaces. That way when browsing the encyclopedia as an encyclopedia I would never wind up stumbling into the guts of the editorial process by accident; I would have to explicitly follow a link leading into the "employees only" area, as it were. It would be possible to cleanly and easily separate the two. --Bryan Derksen
- I'm leaning towards that line of thought too. I tracked down all my old [[KQ]], [[Koyaanis Qatsi]] and [[Koyaanisqatsi2350]] links, deleted them all, and deleted the pages too. Koyaanis Qatsi, Monday, April 8, 2002
- Ok, you've convinced me, I agree now :) But before we delete any old main-namespace user pages, the deletor should look for any old links and modify them to reduce confusion. Dreamyshade
=
At the risk of seeming to defend 24, which I'm not, I will defend the word "terrist" as a perfectly good word in the English language. I haven't read 24's offering on the subject, so I do not know how he used the word.
- more or less exactly as the Polish translation usage now visible there. the diff makes clear how the term is controversial in the ecology movement - the culture jammers welcome it, the "legit" NGOs fear it as mislabelling for "terrorist" --24
(There is a very short limit on how much of 24's writings one's mind can absorb.) Be that as it may, if "terrism" is used synonymously with "terrorism" it is being misused.
- correct, and that misuse is worth nothing, as is the debate on the desirability within the eco-movement. Normally I'd say this is too new to comment on, but some things, like Engrish, spread quickly. Read the entry on no problem - that is basically about another abused phrase which is remarkable for the range of its abuses. --24
Properly used, (and without venturing into the soundness of the concepts) it refers to a belief in earth wisdom and the Gaia concept. Amidst all the misuses, I did find one citation in the table of contents of a magazine which does use it correctly at http://www.dialogue.uw.edu.pl/99-1-2.htm. In their respective latin origins "terrism" is from terra meaning earth, "terrorism" is from terrere meaning to tremble. Eclecticology
- yes, all worth citing in that article.. Nice work. Also read Gaians and see how it relates. --24
NOTE on including older pages on "Page titles to be deleted" and the use of REDIRECTS
I disagree about the addition of the Chess subpages on the deletion queue -- most of these have been around for awhile now and are currently indexed by Google and other search engines. In addition, some of them may very well be bookmarked by various chess enthusiasts that have visited the site before. If these pages are deleted, then we have broken links from various search engines and previous visitors. Redirects are harmless, don't take up much hard drive space at all, keep links alive, don't mess up our "number of articles" stats, and are fully supported by Jimbo (i.e. the guy that pays the bills) for these reasons. Yes, they currently do make searches a bit ugly and are annoying when poking around a complete list of articles --- but these issues are being worked on and should be easy to hide from searches and complete listings. --maveric149, Sunday, April 14, 2002