Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 2
May 4 >

May 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 3, 2008

Chatsworth Stadium → Kings Park Soccer Stadium[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. As they are not the same stadium, it shouldn't redirect to Kings Park. As there is no content relating to this stadium at Durban, the suggested re-target does not make sense. It's better if it's a red link then to send people somewhere they expect to find information only to find none. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are two different unrelated stadia which, at some stage, an editor thought were the same place. No info on Chatsworth Stadium so unable to write a new article. GetDownAdam (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are plenty of statements about football and cricket matches in Chatsworth Stadium in reliable sources (as uncovered by Googling "Chatsworth Stadium"), but nothing on the stadium itself except for location. Redirect to Durban. B.Wind (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

MOSDAB → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept (no consensus). This currently does not conflict with article content. If it ever does, it can be readdressed at that time. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's fix the fate of this cross-namespace redirect once for all, it has already been deleted twice. I see that we have a lot of MOS: redirects. We have in particular MOS:DAB, so it's not really needed as a shortcut, and it's not in wide usage (Special:WhatLinksHere/MOSDAB). Though it doesn't seem to have other meanings, we can't exclude that in some time, this word will have another meaning outside Wikipedia (for reference, the adware Winad, though it was predestined...). Since it's a shortcut, it's not useful for newcomers or readers. So I favor deletion. Cenarium (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Lenoxus " * " 19:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no point in deleting (until an alternative meaning comes along) since it may well be typed by those wanting to type MOS:DAB which is a well used shortcut. Abtract (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We must not allow cross-namespace. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - CNR and an unlikely search term at that. Most people know that anything in the Wikipedia namespace has a WP:xxxx shortcut. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 11:32, May 4, 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep like Abtract said, this is a well used redirect. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the previous comments. CNRs blur the line between the encyclopaedia and the project to build the encyclopaedia, and should be avoided where possible. There is a corresponding WP: shortcut (outside the main namespace) which should be used instead, and people using this know to use WP:. Keeping the redirect encourages people to use it, which is what we don't want, and will result in issues if this does need to be an article/redirect to an article. mattbr 18:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until an encyclopedia article on a notable topic actually needs that title (at which time the redirect can be simply overwritten). The fact that it keeps being recreated in good faith and that there are inbound links despite repeated bot-attempts to purge them indicates that the community finds it useful. The theoretical downsides of cross-namespace redirects are small compared to the need to support our editors and readers. Rossami (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No strong reason was given for its deletion. Its plausible for someone to look for that page using these initials. I did so myself, that's why I got er... directed here. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I notice that our policy about cross-namespace redirects is changing... Many redirects of this kind are created. Should we make a more general discussion? -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:CNS is an essay, not a policy. It's, with winad, the only project space shortcut in mainspace I ever found. Also, see my soon-comming comment below, where I will try to give stronger reasons to delete (per lack of satisfying alternative). Regards, Cenarium (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are lots of them from before the separate namespaces were established. Rossami (talk)
  • Comment This redirect is deprecated, WLH shows only a dozen of links, compare for example to the hundreds of links to WP:MOSDAB, and the 250+ links to MOS:DAB. As a shortcut, it's also deprecated, because most people ignore its existence. This is, I admit, the easiest shortcut to type, but really, is it so hard to type MOS:DAB or WP:MOSDAB ? Not much, it seems to be used for the convenience of a few people, maybe with a nostalgia of the old times. Your reasoning seems to imply that if there's nothing notable with this name, then we can occupy article space without problem. It may be philosophic, but I strongly disagree on this. Wikipedia mainspace exists for a reason, and the magic [[WP:]] shortcut too. As far as I'm aware, CNDs should have a damn good reason to exist, and I really don't see any strong reason for this one to exist. And I can't find a proper alternative to deletion. Though, I recognize that this is a delicate question. Cenarium (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me, the question of whether it's in use today is almost irrelevant. It used to be heavily used and is scattered in the pagehistories of pages all across the project. Future readers who are attempting to follow up on those discussions and to put them in proper context will have far greater difficulty making the necessary connections if we destroy all traces of these redirects. The alternative to deletion is to ignore it as long as it's not actively harmful or confusing to readers. Since there are no instances where this redirect is used in the article space, readers will only find it in context of User, Talk or Project pages where the context makes clear that it's not an article. Rossami (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The deletion log is now apparent when an article is deleted, a reader will immediately be linked to this discussion. Even if the risks of misguidance are low (which is not the case for Winad), it's still an illegitimate occupation of Mainspace in my opinion and an antiquated duplicate. Cenarium (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Gman124 talk 02:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

1939 Sugar Bowl → Sugar Bowl[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. This link is part of a template of all Sugar Bowl games. It's is better as a red link indicating no article exists. Anyone searching for this will be searching for the specific game and would know to drop the year for the general article. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an unnecessary redirect because of a lack of content. The link provided on Sugar Bowl redirects it right back to Sugar Bowl. The whole 1939 Sugar Bowl page should be deleted unless actual content about the game is added. Bcspro (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as properly redirected to Sugar Bowl. Circular link has been removed. A better option would be to have a stand-alone article for the 1939 Sugar Bowl, but until it's written, the redirect is proper as "1939 Sugar Bowl" is a conceivable search item. B.Wind (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Thomas Sweeney → List of Brookside characters#S[edit]

The result of the debate was Disambig. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an unnecessary redirect to a list of fictional characters. Confuses with US politician with the same name whose article doesn't exist but all the links to the article are referring to this case. Even the fictional character's name is "Sinbad Sweeney" and not "Thomas Sweeney". Article has insignificant history. Magioladitis (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the redirect would seem an obvious way of handling minor characters like this. Any need for disambiguation can be done by changing it to the full name in the show, Thomas Henry Edward (Sinbad) Sweeney. As for the politician, I started an article at Thomas Sweeny (politician) . DGG (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't be better to have Thomas Sweeny for the politician and Thomas Sweeny (fictional character) for the fictional character if we finally decide to keep the redirect? (I am still not convinced that the article for the fictional character should stay, I would like to hear more editors about the subject). -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it certainly would be better, and it will be easy to change, and do the necessary hatnote. We are not, by the way, arguing about the article on the fictional character, just the redirect from the name of the fictional character. At the moment the article has been replace by the redirect. I would need to be convinced about the importance of the show before I would support an article for each of even its major fictional characters. I do not think we should have individual articles for every character in fiction. DGG (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check your spelling in the above option and the article name. Redirects are free, and this is a viable search term. If you want to put Thomas Sweeny (politician) at Thomas Sweeney, a hatnote directing people to List of Brookside characters#S would suffice. Let's not overcomplicate things, and remember, redirects are free. We don't delete useful search terms. It can prove counter productive. Hiding T 19:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per all the above conversation, I think what makes the most sense is this: move Thomas Sweeny (politician) to the currently nonexistent Thomas Sweeny, and replace this redirect with one to Thomas Sweeny, marking it as a misspelling so that the articles linking to it can be fixed. (The redirect would only exist for searching and not linking, unless there were a "[sic]" mention of the misspelling. Thomas Sweeny should have a hatnote along the lines of "Thomas Sweeney" redirects here; Thomas 'Sinbad' Sweeney is a character in Brookside. (The list on its own doesn't really tell much, and ultimately should probably be deleted as well). Lenoxus " * " 19:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, hold my last comment. It turns out there is an article Thomas Sweeny, and it redirects to an American soldier. Meanwhile, based on the links, I'm guessing that the correct spelling for the politician is "Sweeney" with an e (does anyone know for sure)? Based on all that, the scheme should probably look something like:
  • Thomas Sweeny (disambiguation)
    • Disambiguation page mentioning all possible uses
  • Thomas Sweeney (disambiguation)
    • Redirect to above disambig
  • Thomas Sweeny
    • Retain redirect to Thomas William Sweeny, which should have a hatnote for disambiguation
  • Thomas Sweeney
    • Article about the politician, with hatnote for disambiguation
  • Thomas Sweeny (politician)
    • Redirect to Thomas Sweeney
  • Thomas Sweeney (politician)
    • Redirect to Thomas Sweeney

Meanwhile, anything along the lines of Thomas Sweeney (Brookside character) should probably redirect to Brookside (The character list isn't really of much use there). whew! Lenoxus " * " 20:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to a disambiguation page as this is the easiest option and reduces the amount of moving people around pages. It will also be the easiest way to manage links and ensure they point to the right article (they are much harder to find and fix if they point to an article). mattbr 18:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Redirects from specific dates, part 3[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

See discussion below re:dates. Linking to full dates overrides user preferences, sets a bad precedent [for around 3 million redirects to be created!] and they are unlikely search terms regardless. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 08:51, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete all before we have more of them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all after all incoming links from the mainspace have replaced: in-text links should be replaced by [[Month Day]], [[Year]] and "accessdate" values should be reformatted into ISO 8601 format (YYYY-MM-DD). Black Falcon (Talk) 17:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all with same reasoning as in Parts 1 and 2 (the latter below). B.Wind (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unless we want several million of these. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and let's allow sysops to delete them on sight (when they are redirects of this kind) per IAR and the precedent law. (Some of them it already by the way, using R3.) Have all the dates of the year be checked ? The new WLH system is really useful. Maybe, we could add those: 2008-3-28, 4-11-2006. Cenarium (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - No, I haven't checked every day, but I'll get there! As for finding them, I find this toolserv far more useful but, meh, that's just me. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 12:38, May 10, 2008 (UTC)
  • Note ongoing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 23, 2004, discussion of which mentions redirects of specific dates. B.Wind (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Redirects from specific dates, part 2[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(See here for part 1 of this series of nominations)

The following redirects are from specific historical dates to more general articles on individual dates. All of them have been orphaned (except 2-3 incoming links that should remain, such as from User talk:AngryWhiteBoy) and none have any page history worth preserving.

While some redirects from specific dates are quite useful (e.g. January 19, 2038 → Year 2038 problem), redirects from every random date are not needed. First, they are individually extremely unlikely search terms, and their retention sets a precedent for creating ca. 1,5 million redirects for the past 2000 years (750 thousand in "Month Day, Year" format and an equal number in "Day Month Year" form).

Second, their existence encourages violation of WP:MOSDATE, which specifies that the Month-Day and Year should be linked separately so that full dates are displayed according to user preferences. Typing [[February 16, 2008]] essentially overrides user preferences. Deleting these redirects would mean that anyone who types this type of combination would encounter a redlink and be prompted to fix the link; keeping the redirects would mean that anyone who types this type of combination would encounter a bluelink and would mistakenly think that there is no problem.

  • Delete all as nominator. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all by the same rationale as the previous RfD. Most highly unlikely search terms. B.Wind (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except one. Just kidding; nuke the whole lot of them out of existence. The problem with the date format ignoring the preferences is that, in order to override it, another one-and-a-half million redirects would be needed. Three million is a nice, round number, but it also means clutter beyond belief. Waltham, The Duke of 07:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unless we want several million of these. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above, see also my comment in part 3 Cenarium (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Apple Audio Codec → Advanced Audio Coding[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept and tagged {{R unprintworthy}}. This is a common enough error to be kept as a search term. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Apple Audio Codec" does not appear on the Advanced Audio Coding page, so if it is in fact a commonly mistaken acronym, there isn't yet enough evidence to say so. (Nothing links to it right now). If it can be shown to be a commonly mistaken acronym, it should probably redirect to something having to do with false acronyms. Lenoxus " * " 02:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lack of linking is not an argument for deletion per top of the WP:RfD page; as stated in the nomination, "Apple Audio Codec" is occasionally referred to as the meaning of AAC instead of "Advanced Audio Coding" (as evidenced in both Yahoo! and Google listing); therefore it's a plausible search item. While it might be advisable that this is a misconception be put into the target article, the fact that people have been consistently misstating the meaning of AAC as "Apple Audio Codec" means that it would be best to keep the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I didn't mean that alone as an argument. I just meant that nothing on Wikipedia explicitly states that this is a commonly misstated acronym. Perhaps someone can dig up a reasonable source mentioning this and put it on either Advanced Audio Coding page or the AAC disambiguation. Lenoxus " * " 19:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've seen people mistaken the name for AAC like this. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, perhaps it should be retargeted to AAC. As it stands, I can't shake the feeling that it's suggesting that Apple Audio Codec somehow "stands for" Advanced Audio Coding, or is otherwise an accurate substitute. But it's admittedly a trivial matter anyway. Lenoxus " * " 19:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

First image on the Web → Les Horribles Cernettes[edit]

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to History of the World Wide Web#1980-91: Development of the World Wide Web. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time, this was an article of its own. Since then, the basis for its claim — that the first image on the World Wide Web was of the band Les Horribles Cernettes — has become shakier and shakier. The only substanial evidence I've seen put forth is from This Wired article, which says that "One of the band photos was among the first five pictures published on the Web." (So we don't even know for sure that it was the one currently displayed on the target article). Unless it can be shown that the image on the target article has either a strong claim to being the first image, or a popular perception that it is, this misleading redirect should probably go.) Lenoxus " * " 02:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its being a popular conception (or misconception) makes it a useful (and likely) search item and therefore makes it a worthwhile redirect. Keep B.Wind (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do any sources (not just Google hits) demonstrate that this is a popular conception? The only ones I've found link to the Wikipedia redirect and nothing else — in other words, the extent to which it may be a popular conception seems to have come from the old, now-removed Wikipedia article. Lenoxus " * " 19:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems that aside from the transcription from a BBC5 podcast with the person who posted the image in the target article, it seems to be a a favorite of various blogs... but (per top of WP:RfD), if it is possible that one person can remember that erroneous connection, it would still be a redirect to keep. Of course, if there is documented evidence of something else that was the first image on the Web, then the redirects could be retargeted to reflect that information. Either way, the redirect would be a useful one. B.Wind (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just had another look at "Reasons for not deleting" and you know what? I think I've changed my mind to keep as well. A better solution would simply be to fix up the Cernettes page to clarify that the image is thought to be one of the first five, and source that. Lenoxus " * " 14:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to History of the World Wide Web and put the information about this group's picture supposedly being the first image on the Web in that article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ooh, that idea is probably the best. The thing about redirecting to the band page is that it still gives this general "aura" of "This was the first image", even if a caveat is given on the Cernettes page. Anyway, the redirect has probably confused people who aren't looking for a band. This way, it's almost like a redirect to a plural -- from "the first image on the web" to "the first images". My final answer is retarget to History of the World Wide Web. Lenoxus " * " 22:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at one point it was marked as a redirect from a merge [1], so we likely need to keep the page history for GFDL reasons. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is history which needs to be retained for the GFDL, then a history merge would solve that. Hiding T 13:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends on the timestamps. If there's a lot of overlap it will just make the history very confusing. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we retarget the page, we wouldn't need to either get rid of the history or merge the history. Just leave the history in place. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

First image on the web → Les Horribles Cernettes[edit]

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to History of the World Wide Web#1980-91: Development of the World Wide Web. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same as reason for First image on the Web (with a capital W) Don't discuss here unless you have to; the deletion or survival of this redirect should be tied in with that of the one above. Lenoxus " * " 02:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for same reason above. Not posting any reasons for keeping could trigger a likely deletion as the default for WP:RfD. B.Wind (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops! Sorry, I didn't think of that. Lenoxus " * " 19:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also retarget per above. Lenoxus " * " 22:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/retarget documents a page move. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The log and history of the page moved will do that. This isn't needed for that reason. Hiding T 13:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the norm to keep redirects created by page moves. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_3&oldid=1138575955"