Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 March 30#Porn law

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(The first of these was created as an article, which I redirected; the second was created as a redirect to the first by the article's author.) These are highly implausible search terms. As Pontifex Maximus explains, one theory of the etymology of the term pontifex is that it is based on the roots of the words pons and facere; but as an expression, pons facere is meaningless in Latin. Deor (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. While the reasoning for the deletion seems valid, the phrase does appear in the article (with a "+" in between). While it is an unlikely search term, it is not an unreasonable possibility for someone to remember the phrase out of context, and, thus, should be kept as a redirect. B.Wind (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I'm looking at this phrase: "...the term pontifex literally means "bridge-builder" (pons + facere)" This appears to be the origin of the word; it doesn't seem like a useful redirect. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, unuseful redirect. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Kept. We give a lot of latitude of what users can have in userspace. This doesn't violate any of our policies ot guidelines. If the user wants to delete it, they can request deletion. Double redirect fixed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Reason for deletion: Cross namespace double(!) redirect (caused by moving a userfied page into mainspace following a deletion review) - page now serves no purpose. Guest9999 (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. In addition, The Game (game), the redirect's target article, is not only a redirect: it's a redundant redirect that should be deleted as well. B.Wind (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, but disagree with the cross-namespace reasoning. IIRC, the only cross-namespace no-nos are ones out of article space, is that right? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 06:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Danisman (sort of). I don't think cross-namespace redirects are a problem from User to Article either. I can picture a user making redirects like this to keep track of things; I don't see the problem with letting the user have a redirect in their userspace. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was change target. With all due respect to B.Wind, I see no reason to hesitate to be bold here. This was never a deletion request, and the resulting discussion was unanimous. -- Kéiryn ^talk 00:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be better redirected to Pornography#Legal status as I have just done with pornography law. The current target does not cover all porn law, and is thus an invalid redirect, and is US-centric. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed - Redirect should be to Pornography#Legal status. --Pmedema (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested by nominator - I can't argue with the logic presented above. Of course, it could have been boldly redirected, but I hesitate to do so while it is under RfD. B.Wind (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect, per rationale already stated above. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 06:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Fix redirect per nom. I don't think the existing one is necessarily invalid, but the new target is much broader. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Yup, go and change it. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete as a cross-namespace redirect. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 19:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Procedural nom. Listing this for {{user|New World Man}} who, through a malformed AfD (see this redirect's talk page) said "This just redirects to a category page and clutters the category." Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as a useful redirect. This is not a cross-namespace redirect; searcher might not know that there is a category that has a list of television channels and stations established in 1978. There has been plenty of precedent for keeping a useful redirect to a category page. B.Wind (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think a redirect from article space to category would be useful; if every category had a similar redirect it would cause a massive mess. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per JeremyMcCracken. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, cross-namespace redirect. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not really something people would input looking for this, I would believe? Guroadrunner (talk) 08:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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