Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 November 6

November 6[edit]

History of standard time in the Untied States → History of time in the United States[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 01:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An unlikely misspelling that I ran across only because I was doing a link search. No incoming links. Eubulides 21:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the redirect documents a pagemove made early in the history of the target article. Note that this page is a good example of a page where the history of the move is not visible in the target page's edit history. This particular move was made before the WikiMedia software began to automatically document pagemoves.
By the way, I'll also note that in this case the pagemove was the second edit in the page's history and was carried out within minutes of the page's creation. I think we should keep it anyway because deleting an "unnecessary" redirect does not save any system resources - in fact, it costs slightly more. Unless the redirect is in some way actively harmful or confusing, it's better to let sleeping dogs lie. Rossami (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Rossami, but I'm more inclined to argue that it may be a useful redirect. First, the current article's intro actually says history of standard time in the United States, and second, many users may want to research on standard time (given it is somewhat controversial in certain places), which makes the redirect both plausible and useful. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rossami, despite the typo in the source ("Untied" instead of "United"). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Autism and Aspergers Syndrome → Autism spectrum[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 01:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a combination of topics, not a single topic. Was originally created because it was on a list of encyclopedia topics. Now, no incoming links. Fayenatic (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has been around since 2004. The topic of autism has been heavily linked and much discussed throughout Wikipedia. While this redirect is currently orphaned, that was not always the case and, given the history of this topic, I suspect that it may also have been externally linked. The redirect to Autism spectrum seems reasonably appropriate and not harmful or deliberately confusing. I'm inclined to say keep because we don't know what other links are out there that may depend on the redirect. Rossami (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Redirects are cheap, and the target is an appropriate redirect for the source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, makes sense to me. Has been around for a while and may have been externally linked. - ∅ (∅), 02:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Heggbach Abbey → Maselheim[edit]

The result of the debate was converted to article. WjBscribe 21:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect leads to a stub of a municipality. I've written something on the abbey and would like to put it into the main space. Ekki01 20:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you have sufficient independent sources to write a good article that clearly demonstrates the notability of the subject, just be bold and do it. The redirect does not need to be removed from pagehistory before overwriting it with new content. Rossami (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I shall be bold. Ekki01 16:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pazaak → Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic[edit]

The result of the debate was retargeted to List of fictional games#Card games. -- John Reaves 07:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link it points to holds no information on Pazaak, the only problem I have with deleting the redirect is that the history page of Pazaak actually holds information on Pazaak and that information would be lost if it is deleted. However as previously discussed Pazaak doesn't seem to warrant it's own section. Silent Elf 23:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate consensus--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The answer here is not to delete the redirect, but to add a mention of pazaak to Knights of the Old Republic - just one line would do! I am satisfied that this is both a plausible search term and a useful redirect, and one that furthermore (as the nominator notes) contains useful edit history. Terraxos 03:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of fictional games#Card games, where Pazaak is listed. WjBscribe 06:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable Toronto local election candidates[edit]

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. -- John Reaves 07:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are all redirects relating to people who were unsuccessful candidates in council election in Toronto, Ontario; nearly all of them received less than 10% of the votes. They were all used in the templates in Category:Toronto election results templates, from which I have been removing links to people who stand no reasonable prospect of having articles which pass WP:BIO, and which thereby only clutter up the namespace and the dismabiguation pages. (Local councillors are notable only if there is substantive coverage of them, but these folks were not even elected).

The only incoming links to these redirects came from the templates themselves, which are part of a rather complex way of structuring the pages on Toronto election results as a shell page with a series of subpages as templates for the results for each ward. The result has been that each page of election results includes links to these redirects which then redirect back to the page itself, and I have been unlinking the non-notable ones. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Good job. Let's not stop at Toronto. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to creation of a proper and substantive article for anyone who merits it. I suspect most or all of these do not merit it, if their only argument for notability is participating in a municipal election unsuccessfully. Likewise, if you know of any similar caches of redirects, I encourage you to bring them here as well. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least hold on a moment until an effective case can be mounted in defense of these links. I'm preoccupied with other matters now, but the situation is not precisely as BrownHairedGirl has outlined it. Give me some time, please -- there more to this than meets the eye. CJCurrie 17:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the issues which I didn't explain in full in the nomination is that the templates which linked to these redirects are also being used to transclude election results into biographical articles. When I get time, I will nominate the templates for upmerger because although I'm sure this very accurately-implemented structure was done with good intentions, it strikes me as being a very bad practice:

It involves transcluding into biographical articles tables of marginally significant data, each of which should be made accessible by a link to the election article rather than cluttering each biography with the minutiae
transcluding the results for individual wards cuts the data off from its sources, undermining verifiability
This collection-of-templates structure breaks up the election articles, making them much harder to maintain

The election articles themselves (such as Toronto municipal election, 1974) are of unusually high quality, with a lot of detail and copious references; my objection is only to the sub-templated structure and the proliferation of redirects to obscure non-notable people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By way of a quick response -- I appreciate the remarks that you've made, and I think it may be possible to come to a mutually acceptable conclusion. I believe I may have initially misinterpreted the intent of this RfD vote. Please bear with me a bit longer; I'm still preoccupied with other matters, and cannot devote my full attention to this at present. CJCurrie 21:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. More time is fine by me; when you are ready, let's discuss things further to see if we can reach consensus.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have a bit more time at my disposal, I'll try to explain my position in this matter. With any luck, we'll be able to arrive at a decision which most contributors will find acceptable.

First, some background information: some time ago (late 2004, I believe), there were extensive discussions as to the manner in which Wikipedia should include information about unsuccessful election candidates. This debate involved two sharply-defined groups: hyper-inclusionists who favoured individual pages for every candidate, and hyper-deletionists who believed no such information should be included on Wikipedia at all. A consensus eventually emerged that neither of these positions was satisfactory, and that a viable compromise would have to be determined.

I was involved in this debate, and helped create the compromise option of "list pages", which feature short biographical entries and more detailed electoral data entries for several candidates. Not everyone supported this compromise, but it successfully resolved the debate and is still supported by most interested parties. (I could add that, every once in a while, someone with no prior knowledge of the original discussions will attempt to have the "list pages" deleted. These attempts have been unsuccessful. For my part, I would be quite annoyed to see approval for these pages retroactively withdrawn after myself and others have put a fair bit of our time into constructing them.)

When I first saw this RfD, my reaction was to suspect that BrownHairGirl was targeting the list and results pages themselves. I now realize that this isn't the case, and I apologize if my initial response appeared hostile.

I'll try to address the concerns that BrownHairedGirl has raised:

The election articles themselves (such as Toronto municipal election, 1974) are of unusually high quality, with a lot of detail and copious references; my objection is only to the sub-templated structure and the proliferation of redirects to obscure non-notable people.

There are two issues here; I'll address the matter of the templates first. BrownHairedGirl has identified three objections to the templates, which I'll address in sequential order:

It involves transcluding into biographical articles tables of marginally significant data, each of which should be made accessible by a link to the election article rather than cluttering each biography with the minutiae.

In the first instance, the tables are not only transcluded in biographical articles, but are also transcluded in articles that address the history of electoral divisions. The former practice may be controversial; I imagine the latter is far less so. Assuming these results will continue to be included on more than one page, as such, I believe it makes sense to maintain the template format (which takes up less space, and allows for simultaneous correction on all transcluded pages in the event of an error).

Whether the data in question is "marginally significant" is a matter of perception. I don't regard the transclusion of these templates onto biographical entries as problematic -- I believe the information is significant, and I believe it benefits researchers to have all electoral data for notable figures included in one convenient forum.

Transcluding the results for individual wards cuts the data off from its sources, undermining verifiability.

I don't believe this is necessarily true; the source information can be included in biographical pages fairly easily.

This collection-of-templates structure breaks up the election articles, making them much harder to maintain.

This has not been the case in practice. I'm not aware of any problems that have resulted from this structure.

The system of templates was introduced in 2006, to allow for a more convenient system of data storage. I do not believe they should be abandoned at this stage. Now, to the redirects ...

Like the templates, the redirects were developed for reasons of convenience. More than a few unsuccessful candidates have competed in multiple elections, and the standard practice for "list pages" is to make the data for these candidates available at a single page corresponding to the most recent election. For these situations, the redirects are simply more user-friendly than other methods. I would not object to a different system being introduced, however, if others find them particularly offensive. Perhaps something along the lines of name of candidate would be acceptable: maintaining active links while removing the need for redirects. I'm open to suggestions, in any event.

I'd also recommend that we keep some perspective on the fact that this is, after all, a rather minor matter. We should be able to arrive at a viable solution without extending too much more effort or time. CJCurrie

Comment - I have to admit that the discussion above os over my head. I am not entriely clear on what "transclude" means, so I feel ill-equipped to comment on that port of the discussion. I am concerned, however, that worthwhile cited content could be lost in an attempt to "clean up" Wikipedia. I support the 2004 compromise that CJCurrie cites, and his efforts to include biographical material on candidates in election articles. Wikipedia would only be disembiggened by excluding it. I see no harm in re-directing from the candidate's name to an article that contains onformation about her or him because it helps the reader find the information he or she is looking for, which should always be our aim. Of course, if there is another person with the same name, the normal dismbiguation rules should be followed. Ground Zero | t 17:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bellecourt → Belcourt Castle[edit]

The result of the debate was Converted to disambig. There are articles on two people by that name. I did not include the castle. -- JLaTondre 17:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created, maintain and have somewhat "adopted" the Belcourt Castle article and created these redirects some time ago. I don't know why I created them as the spelling is so unusual and I don't think it has ever been used. For the purposes of monitoring links pages, etc, I feel these redirects are superfluous and serve no real use. The only real misspellings of Belcourt's name are "Bellcourt" and any number of names after (mansion, manor, etc, instead of castle). On that note, I think it should simply be deleted as it serves no real use. Charles 03:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bellecourt Castle → Belcourt Castle[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted (db-author). -- JLaTondre 17:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created, maintain and have somewhat "adopted" the Belcourt Castle article and created these redirects some time ago. I don't know why I created them as the spelling is so unusual and I don't think it has ever been used. For the purposes of monitoring links pages, etc, I feel these redirects are superfluous and serve no real use. The only real misspellings of Belcourt's name are "Bellcourt" and any number of names after (mansion, manor, etc, instead of castle). On that note, I think it should simply be deleted as it serves no real use. Charles 03:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Slamslut → Chickenhead[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 21:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless slang redirect, created as part of a series of apparent neologisms and only vaguely related to the target, which is a disambig page. Acroterion _(talk) 12:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Terraxos 03:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hoodrat → Chickenhead[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 21:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless slang redirect, created as part of a series of apparent neologisms and only vaguely related to the target, which is a disambig page. Acroterion _(talk) 12:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator.Terraxos 03:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hurting for a squirting → Chickenhead[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 21:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless slang redirect, created as part of a series of apparent neologisms and only vaguely related to the target, which is a disambig page. Acroterion _(talk) 12:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator.Terraxos 03:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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