Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 24, 2009

FielD[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Consensus holds that this is a reasonable CamelCase redirect to maintain. ~ mazca talk 19:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search spelling JaGatalk 20:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect looks like "Fie ID", and per the fact that it is unlikely, a reader would search for that particular term. Feinoha Talk, My master 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge History into Field (mathematics) and Delete - while common mistakes are plausible, we don't need a redirect for every PeRmUtAtIon of caps.  7  22:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC) and 05:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is an old CamelCase redirect that is kept to maintain external links (see actual redirect page for further explanation). Thus WP:RFD#KEEP applies. B.Wind (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I don't believe this is an example of CamelCase, but there is some potentially GDFL/CC-SA history which might need to be saved. A single word with random caps is not CamelCase. CamelCase is when caps are used to separate multiple words or word fragments when shoved together without spaces.  7  05:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Please check the actual redirect and you'll see that it actually is as stated above. Also note that only the first and last letters are capitalized in this redirect. B.Wind (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted that an anon IP added the camelcase comment to the redirect page (which is really not the place for a comment) but my comment still stands. This isn't CamelCase. Per the first line of the CamelCase article: "...the practice of writing compound words or phrases in which the elements are joined without spaces". In other words: ThiS is not an example of CamelCase, but ThisIsAnExample of CamelCase. Not trying to argue with you, because the contributor history which pre-dates the Field (mathematics) may be a reason already to keep (or merge history) but I don't think that CamelCase is the correct reason in this case.  7  06:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment · Wikipedia:CamelCase and Wikipedia discusses some of this history. Yes, 7, FielD doesn't match the typical style of CamelCase where the mixed caps occurs at word boundaries (I'd call it BookenD-case instead) but apparently mixed caps of some kind were required to indicate internal links in early Wikipedia, so BookenD-case was used for many single word article titles. There are a lot of links like this out there. An incomplete list is at User:Interiot/Reports/CamelCase where the BookenD-case examples are referred to as "Group 1". Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:R from CamelCase does not differentiate the two types. -- Thinking of England (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood - but nothing internal links to FielD or to FielDs (which is neither CamelCase nor Bookend). Google Search for those terms also reveal no relevant external links. Plus, looking at the original author's first versions of both articles there were other examples of MixeD case as he was typing. I personally know I don't have a lot of experience here - I am just reading the guidelines, so I think an editor with a lot of CamelCase experience or an admin might be able to help out here (if you or B.Wind do that's fine). As I said, I just want to make sure that we're not stretching this possible reason not to delete farther than it was intended to go, and I am not sure if the IP that added the CamelCase comment into the redirects was actually correct. I'll step back now.  7  07:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although this makes it seem like somebody was reading it... at least in the past.  7  07:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The MixeD case you observed in the initial versions were what would have formed the internal wikilinks in early Wikipedia. (Yeah, my "BookenD-case" term was kinda lame, particularly considering that it wasn't a firm convention, as demonstrated by BiJection.) I am not experienced with these cases, but I'd support anyone who wanted to remove this cruft and was willing to go through the trouble of merging the history as required, particularly if it could be determined that there were no incoming external links. (Were you able to do a case sensitive Google search?) -- Thinking of England (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, {{R from CamelCase}}, such redirects should be kept per WP:R. Deleting this redirect breaks old versions of pages or old links from outside Wikipedia, keeping it does no harm. — Kusma talk 06:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --- See my justification for FielDs. No reason the two should be treated differently. In any case, Kusma is correct about WP:R and {tl|R from CamelCase}}. Both should be kept. —mako๛ 18:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

FielDs[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Consensus holds that this is a reasonable CamelCase redirect to maintain. ~ mazca talk 19:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search spelling JaGatalk 20:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same as above.    7   talk | Δ |   22:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - see my rationale above. This is another old redirect using CamelCase. B.Wind (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this makes it seem like somebody was reading it... at least in the past.  7  07:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --- These old CamelCase links are hideous and otherwise unjustifiable. But they were used and they should be kept around. —mako๛ 18:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Perry's[edit]

The result of the discussion was disambiguation page created. This should solve the problem; if not, take the page to AfD. Non-admin closure. Jafeluv (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect takes a rather common term, "Perry's", and redirects it to the page of a corporate product ("Perry's Ice Cream"). Other Perry's items, such as Perry's Chemical Handbook, Perry's Cove, Perry's Victory, Perry's Probe, etc etc, exist. There is no reason the term "Perry's" should redirect to this specific product and not the others. I propose deletion of the redirect so that the Search page is brought up instead. 216.191.79.10 (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't it make more sense to create a dab page instead.--76.69.169.119 (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you wish to create a disambiguation page, go right ahead. Nothing's stopping you. Powers T 12:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dab page created- seemed like a good idea. PamD (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Delete[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. For the record, {{delete}} is a global template, used on all WMF projects (if I remember correctly). Killiondude (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ths redirect is misleading as it redirects to only one possible way of deleting an article. I've had to remove it from several articles where it would appear that the user has not realised that this 'redirect' should only be applied to speedy deletion candidates and assumed it is the general way for deleting soemthing from wikipedia. I'd be surprised if this wasn't controversial but it hasn't been discussed for quite some time so I thought it would be worth discussing. Dpmuk (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this should be replaced by a "template" that says that it's incorrect and they should read WP:DELETE for the proper template. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree with anon.. unless someone can do some fancy namespace detection coding and make the template automagically detect what the user is trying to delete? <shrug> -- œ™ 03:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the admin who works through CAT:CSD can determine whether speedy deletion is appropriate and decide whether to use other processes or to politely ask the tagger to use a more specific tag. For stuff that falls under {{db-user}} or {{db-owner}}, {{delete}} works perfectly fine. — Kusma talk 11:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The most useful thing to do in situations where it might be used is to promptly call it to the attention of an administrator, which is what this redirect accomplishes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Ningauble. I've run across a few dodgy speedy taggings using this template, generally by very new users. If the article isn't speediable, often they're perfectly viable PROD candidates, so I just convert them. The redirect helps bring dodgy content to admins' attention even if it isn't always used exactly in accordance with our rather complex deletion policy, so I believe it's ultimately useful. ~ mazca talk 11:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per all above. Nom's concerns can be addressed either by adding a note in the documentation of the target to mention that {{Deletion}} is a template that summarizes deletion options (note that {{delete}} appears on {{Deletion}}) or by creating a {{Deletion templates}} which lists the various templates used in the various modes for deletion (we have such a list in projectspace, but this might be a worthwhile alternative). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Electronics and Computer Science[edit]

The result of the discussion was Re-targeted to Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the redirect page is a very general topic which points to a very specific institution. Not a valid search term for someone looking for a university course. Quantpole (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I boldly changed the redirect to the more appropriate target Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. I completely agree with the nominator's rationale, and strongly agree that this name shouldn't redirect to a specific institution, but I think with this more general target it can be kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

July variations[edit]

The result of the discussion was retarget July 0 to January 0, and delete all others as implausible redirects and misspellings. ~ mazca talk 18:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Delete. Another batch found and delinked by Smackbot: I've re-linked Jul and Jul. as these may crop up in genuine date entries and seem useful. PamD (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've looked at these again in the light of discussion at Aug 22 on Lundi and Lunedi, but they aren't in the same situation (though got here via the same route, of Smackbot turning them into stubs). These are all implausible typos - and if typos would probably be for Julie or Julia rather than July! PamD (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't read any previous discussions on this, but could these possibly be alternate spellings for July in other languages? Also, if they're typos another option would be to just tag them with {{R from misspelling}}. -- œ™ 03:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In German, Juni and Juli (June and July) can sound confusingly similar, especially over the phone. So people say "Juno" for June and "Julei" for July, but that is never done in written, only in spoken German. There is no official spelling for "Julei/Juley/Julai" that I am aware of. — Kusma talk 11:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All implausible typos for July. As PamD said, Julie or Julia would be the more likely intended targets. --Zach425 talk/contribs 09:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except July 0, which - even though it doesn't "exist" - can be safely redirected to January 0, which explains the existence of some "fictitious days". "July 0" has been used in some governmental entities, such as for budgeting. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except July 0 as per the commeter directly above. —mako๛ 18:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User talk:SAT1932CU[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Redirect removed and user blocked per COI/UAA  7  02:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion recommended. Per WP:CROSS essay    7   talk | Δ |   01:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undo move and delete resulting redirect as the target is a discussion page of an article in articlespace, but the user in question is using it as his/her/its discussion page supposedly as if it's in userspace. This is an inappropriate use of an article's discussion page by a WP:SPA, the bulk of whose contribution just happens to an article about an organisation who appears to be the editors'(!) employer (see histories of both redirects).147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect removed. SAT1932CU has been blocked (intended or used for promotional purposes) and this preserves the block notice. -- Thinking of England (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User:SAT1932CU[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Page blanked removing redirect and user blocked per COI/UAA  7  02:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion recommended. Per WP:CROSS essay.    7   talk | Δ |   01:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Inappropriate cross-namespace redirect from user space to article space as it implies that the editor(s) has (have) something to do with the credit union (from the history of both this redirect and the one nominated above, it appears to have been the case: the conflict of interest is apparent). Had this been from a subpage (like a sandbox, or "User:SAT1932CU/Firstmark Credit Union") keeping it would be a more appropriate action, but I dont think so in this case. Of course, should SAT1932CU desire, they could end it quickly by tagging it for speedy deletion, CSD U1. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The target of this redirect (the destination of the move that created it) has been deleted (along with its talk page) via a speedy G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). What remains is a user page with minimal history, and while I see nothing wrong with a delete, blanking the page would seem to do the job just as well. The user talk page (nominated above) has a pair of speedy deletion notices along with some editing advice including a COI warning. I'd recommend just removing the #REDIRECT macro instead of deleting that page. -- Thinking of England (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page blanked. Nominator agreed with this course of action on nom's talk page. -- Thinking of England (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Waterless Water[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep Waterless Water and delete Waterless Water (disambiguation). Killiondude (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion recommended. Phrase appears nowhere in the target, nor is there even a hint as to why this chemical is sometimes called "Waterless Water". I also nominate Waterless Water (disambiguation), a redirect to the same target after encountering a one-bluelink dab page with this title. Since there is no article with "waterless water" anywhere in its title, the latter redirect is clearly useless regardless of the validity of the first redirect. B.Wind (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning toward Keep for Waterless Water. If you look here you can see it was originally in the article as an AKA. Not sure why it was removed. This appears (based on capitalization) to be a trade name for the product. Google search results for "Novec 1230" waterless yield a fair amount of results including this video and this article which include this nickname for the product. However DAB page should be removed. No need to disambiguate a single page - plus aside from this nickname it seems that "waterless water" (no caps) shows up more often as a search result for a Tankless water heater.
I would suggest:
  • add the aka (with references to the second link) back into the Novec 1230 article to make the redirect make sense
  • either delete the DAB page, or make it a real DAB page with both links to this product as well as to Tankless water heater.
But I could easily be swayed on either of these.  7  02:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 7, but delete the dab page. -- œ™ 03:13, 28 August 2009 (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/2009_August_24&oldid=1140112205"