Talk:WP:STYLE

Deletion debate

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

WP:ADMIN

WP:MOS

WP:STYLE

WP:NPOV

WP:WP

WP:RFCU

WP:BLOCK

Tagged for speedy deletion by User:TeleComNasSprVen, detagged by Stephen G. Brown. Probably not a good idea to redirect from the mainspace to project space, IMO. Delete. --Yair rand (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What’s wrong with them? They are what I use to reach these pages. I can never remember the full name. If you don’t use them, you can ignore them and they won’t cause you any problem. —Stephen ^(Talk) 03:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You use WP prefixed redirects instead of WT redirects? Why? --Yair rand (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don’t know about any WT redirects. Some time ago a lot of pages got moved to new spaces, like Wiktionary, Appendix, and so on. Except for a couple that I use all the time, I never know which space the page I want is located in. Is that what the WT is supposed to mean? —Stephen ^(Talk) 03:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If you use them, I think a cleaner solution would be to store them on your user page. All of these listed are duplicates of existing, correctly-namespaced redirects (though WT:STYLE's target is different, and WT:WT is obviously a bit different). As it is, they appear as entries that happen to have colons in their titles. Delete. --Bequw → τ 05:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

These are tools, not entries, and they take up no room and do not interfere with anything. Different people use different tools. IIRC, when we made these redirects, the purpose was to make it easier for those who visit from Wikipedia. After a lot of pages got moved back and forth between the Wiktionary space and Appendix space, I used these because I couldn’t find anything anymore. I rarely use my userpage as a tool, but I use these. If we leave them, all you have to do is ignore them. If we delete them, I won’t be able to access the pages except when I happen to see one in the Watchlist. —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If they are kept, and I'm obviously in favor of otherwise, there should probably be an amendment to Wiktionary:Redirections. It usually prohibits this sort of thing: "Main namespace entries must not redirect to non-main namespace pages, and vice versa." TeleComNasSprVen 05:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(Seems like a silly rule. What was the reasoning behind it?) Nevermind. If the redirects keep you awake at night, delete them by all means. They’re tools that some people use for doing work on Wiktionary and they don’t affect anyone personally one way or the other. If I don’t have easy access to those pages, it just means I’ll have more time to do something else. —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete all per Bequw. They are in a wrong pseudo-namespace. For most of them, there is an equivalent shortcut starting with "WT:": WT:MOS, WT:STYLE, WT:NPOV, WT:RFCU and WT:BLOCK; WP:STYLE has WT:ELE as a substitute; WP:ADMIN has WT:Admin as a substitute; WP:WP has WT:WT and WT:SC as substitutes. --Dan Polansky 09:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It has been more than 5 years since we moved to the WT psuedo-namespace, folks who are still using the wrong one have had sufficient time to learn the new one. On the other hand it isn't intensely difficult to make WP an alias of WT and let people using WP continue to, I just don't see what the advantage of that is. Delete. - [The]DaveRoss 11:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphan and strong delete. Plus Stephen, I can't believe you use WP: to redirect to Wiktionary:, as it simply doesn't work. Try WP:RFDO. Are you just typing WT: without realizing it? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised Stephen has to rely on this, too. Modern browsers offer all kinds of bookmarks and shortcuts that should make it easy to get somewhere without going through a page that breaks the rules. Equinox ◑ 15:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:AWB

I'm going to go ahead and group this as part of the WP: nominations. Originally I had skipped marking this as speedy-able because of the possibility that it might be not as orphaned as the others and could be used in the automatic edit summaries associated with AutoWikiBrowser when it was first imported here from Wikipedia. TeleComNasSprVen 19:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
All fail, will have to make sure these are orphaned as much as they can be before deleting them. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)