Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 22, 2008

Britsol_and_West → Bristol_&_West[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep, redirects are cheap. GlassCobra 11:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to provide redirects for every possible random typo - Britsol is not a likely typo for Bristol; conversely it has sat there for 3 years as a redirect MarkyMarkD (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. "Keep" because this redirect is the result of a pagemove. The page was originally created at this title and the pagemove process automatically creates redirects for several very good reasons. "Weak" because it was moved very early in the article's history. On balance, keep because the costs of deleting it are very small but non-zero while the benefits of deleting are exactly zero. Rossami (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was "page moved" 3 minutes after creation. There are no links to its original name. The redirect serves no good purpose and is just clutter.MarkyMarkD (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So? What benefit does the project gain by deleting it? The "clutter" will still be in the database. The project gets no server space back when a page is deleted. On the contrary, the act of deletion actually adds a few records to the database. You may think the redirect is useless and I may even agree. So what? Unless it's actively confusing or harmful, redirects really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The same argument would apply to keeping every possible typo for every possible subject on Wikipedia. Just because someone made a mistake once - but it happened to be when they were creating a Wikipedia page - is no basis for keeping a redirect, surely. MarkyMarkD (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your first sentence is exactly right - and we do keep them. We don't encourage the preemptive creation of redirects for typos but once they have been created, Wikipedia policy and precedent say leave them alone - deleting is more trouble than it's worth. Rossami (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While some people might think this is an implausible typo, it took me several different looks at this RFD to realize it was for "Britsol" and not "Bristol. I'd certainly call that a plausible typo. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - will show up in a google search for Britsol & West (google is "and sign" intelligent). Possible typo. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Google knows that someone typing "Britsol" probably means "Bristol" and in fact shows the correct "Bristol & West" wikipedia page. The redirect doesn't help. MarkyMarkD (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it does. So why shouldn't Wikipedia know too? --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the same reason as I've detailed above. Google might think it worthwhile to build a database of all possible typos. I don't think that Wikipedia redirects should exist for them all - and of course they don't. They only exist in those rare cases where someone who created a page created it with a typo in the subject. I don't understand why that makes such redirects worth keeping - they exist only due to random error and aren't inherently valuable. MarkyMarkD (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are incorrect. Redirects exist to assist navigation, and that certainly includes typos...and there are several of them on Wikipedia. You haven't shown how this redirect is harmful or misleading - read the reasons to delete a redirect at the top of the page. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Marginally useful, but harmless. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. OK - I appreciate all of your comments and it has been an instructive discussion. I still don't quite buy the argument that a redirect should continue to exist, just because it was serendipitiously created by an editor's original typo, but I understand the arguments that leaving it to exist costs little and it might help those rare people who exactly repeat the original editor's typo. MarkyMarkD (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plausible search item. Redirect necessary. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ignorant → Steve Ignorant[edit]

The result of the debate was Retarget to Ignorance. Relevant hatnotes and dab pages updated. GlassCobra 11:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a recent change, is this allowed? Ryan4314 (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course it's allowed. The question is, though, whether it's a good target. Since there's a hatnote linking to Ignorance at the top of the page, I'm gonna say Keep. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Ignorant is Steve Ignorant's last name. The hatnote is entirely appropriate as clarification. The alternative would be to create a dab page at Ignorant, but I see no real point of doing that at this time. B.Wind (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ignorance and add any surnames to that page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ignorance and add a link to Steve Ignorant as a hatnote. I think the general term is the most useful target here. Terraxos (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to ignorance with a note saying they may be looking for Steve Ignorant, or a disambig page if there's more than just that. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Unreferenced → Template:Unreferenced[edit]

The result of the debate was Retarget to Reference. GlassCobra 11:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lessons Learned (album) → Still Standing (Monica album)[edit]

The result of the debate was Retarget to Lessons Learned. GlassCobra 11:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that this album was ever titled Lessons Learned. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep to preserve history. Target was moved to current title after a histmerge under original (redirect) name. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, it seems that dabification would be in order, although some explanation would be needed to ensure that the connection from title to current target is readily apparent. B.Wind (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Userboxtop → Template:Userboxtop[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. GlassCobra 11:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template function eliminates the need for CNRs from article to templates, does not link to encyclopedic content. MBisanz talk 13:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete two month old CNR with very little history. The template (of the same name) should be sufficient. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - mainspace is for mainspace content. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

TTU quality → Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Texas Tech University articles by quality statistics[edit]

The result of the discussion was G7 by TexasAndroid , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Localized tracking CNR, does not link to encyclopedic content. MBisanz talk 13:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Top 1000 Most Active Wikipedians → Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. GlassCobra 11:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity CNR, does not link to encyclopedic content MBisanz talk 13:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - cross-namespace redirect of no use to the actual encyclopedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - mainspace is for mainspace content. If they really want to put top 1000 most active Wikipedians, let them put a Wikipedia: in front of it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template messages → Wikipedia:Template messages[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. Cenarium Talk 14:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-template, points at the project space, does not contribute encyclopedic content MBisanz talk 13:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete two-month-old CNR with trivial history. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore history. This is substantially older than 2 months and has significant history, though that history is currently clouded. This redirect has been created and inappropriately deleted multiple times. The only deletion that I can find which followed due process was the one in response to this old RfD discussion. However, I think the repeated good-faith recreation of the redirect is evidence that we got the decision wrong back in 2006. Rossami (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for all the usual cross-namespace redirect reasons. Readers searching the article namespace shouldn't end up at a list of maintenance templates, anyone who knows that there is such a thing as a maintenance template knows that there's a WP: namespace. There are a tiny number of links to this page, and I can't see how the history or previous creation and deletion are relevant. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - mainspace is for mainspace content. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while I usually agree with Rossami's reasoning, I am struck by this redirect's being deleted multiple times (three times over a span of two years by three different admins after the initial deletion of a duplicate of a major Wikipedia: namespace page). This is the second RfD for redirects of this name, and I cannot deny the implication of the repeated deletions that this should be gone and salted against further recreation. B.Wind (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Andrew Blake (pornographer) → Andrew Blake (director)[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep. Redirects are not covered by WP:NPOV, see Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion at The BLP Noticeboard, this page was moved to Andrew Blake (director). I've declined the R3 on the basis that it didn't strictly meet the criteria. Listing here for consensus to delete. Protonk (talk) 05:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was the editor who renamed the article. Director is a neutral term, pornographer is not. I was unable to find any other instance of "(pornographer)" used as a disambiguation term. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the new name is more neutral and the redirect unnecessary since no one is likely to search for "Andrew Blake (pornographer)" and "Andrew Blake" is a dab, which means anyone searching for the guy will find him.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On 22 Oct, this redirect was speedy-deleted as alleged vandalism and this discussion prematurely closed. Subsequent investigation showed the speedy-deletion to have been in error since the redirect was created as the result of a pagemove and the article had been edited for a significant period of time by multiple editors at the old name. The discussion has been reopened.
  • Keep. While this was pretty clearly a pejorative article title and the pagemove was appropriate, deletion of the redirect is not. This page existed at the prior title and was moderately-heavily edited for three years in apparent good-faith. Redirects are automatically created by the pagemove process for several very good reasons, among them the need to point the prior editors and readers to the new, corrected title. Redirects are not held to the same standards of NPOV as article titles. Rossami (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It either is or isn't appropriate to describe him as a pornographer in the article title. If it is, we shouldn't have moved the page. If it isn't, the redirect has to go, and the links will need fixing. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - pornographer is a term that people will search for, even if it's not neutral. It need not be neutral, and it is not so urgently imperative it be deleted. It is my opinion (and only my opinion) that BLP, a policy created to address libel, means that creating a non-neutral redirect calling "adult film director" a "pornographer" is an illegal move. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BLP isn't what you say it is, and, yes, a redirect does have to be neutral, per policy WP:NPOV. I don't mean this in a condescending way, but I suggest you re-read both policies. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - documents a pagemove, and was the title of the article for some time, so might have incoming links. I don't accept the BLP argument for deletion here - 'pornographer' is an accurate description of this man's career, and while it may not be the most appropriate title, it's acceptable as a redirect. Terraxos (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Blackhawk country music trio → BlackHawk[edit]

The result of the debate was keep.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it is actually a foreseeable search term, for BlackHawk is officially a trio (as the target article states, the backing musicians are not officially part of BlackHawk) and they do play country music. The long name may not be regularly used, but I can see someone thinking that it is the official name (or something close to it). B.Wind (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a likely search term as it lacks parentheses. JuJube (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many users aren't likely to use parentheses, particularly those who are new to Wikipedia, and may use the search box more as a search engine rather than looking for a specific article title. As the user above pointed out, BlackHawk are indeed a trio who play country music. PaulGS (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Peacock words → Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. Cenarium Talk 14:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect. I see no reason why this particular guideline should have a cross-namespace redirect when such redirects are generally frowned upon. "Peacock words" should instead contain or point to an article about the linguistic phenomenon of peacock words. Is he back? (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Improper CNR. MBisanz talk 16:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete recreated CNR. In addition, I offer the similar (but slightly older) Peacock words → Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms for consideration (if MBisanz and Is he back? do not object). 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this deletion will create a bunch of red links. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I'd agree with Tohd8, but the only redlink in article space that would be created with a deletion would be on Weasel words. All others are either Talk pages, User pages, or Wikipedia: pages. "Weasel words" and the appropriate Wikipedia: pages can be relinked; the user and talk pages can survive having a redlink... at least until someone decides to do a little repointing of the Wikilink(s?). Delete both. B.Wind (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was created in good faith and the volume of links on Talk and User pages indicates that we need it. Until and unless someone has encyclopedic content to put here instead, this redirect is useful to the project. That demonstrated utility outweighs the theoretical downsides of being a CNR. Incidentally, even if you orphan every current usage of the redirect, it will still sit in the history of many pages. There's no good reason to make it harder than it already is for people who are trying to dig through page history to figure out what was really intended. Rossami (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - mainspace is for mainspace content. Otherwise it could be confusing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Takes readers into the project space. I undertake to fix all the redlinks. Why are redlinks in historical versions a problem? The encyclopedia is always changing, redirects are being re-targetted, articles split, merged, etc - I'm sure most old versions of articles are riddled with redlinks and links to the wrong places. That's why we update them. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:47, 24 October 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_October_22&oldid=1138576247"