Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 3, 2009

2008-06-9[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect should probably be deleted, as it doesn't refer to anything in the target page and no similar redirects exist —Snigbrook 16:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not really helpful to anyone; especially since there aren't any similar redirects. Tavix |  Talk  21:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep Whoever crated this redirect may have had a good reason for doing so, thus if it does no harm it should be kept. If it does harm, I am undecided--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This could be a date for either June 9 or or Sept. 6; not April 9th. Therefore, it may do some harm to someone... Tavix |  Talk  02:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since 6-9 could be April 9 or September 6 depending on which format you use. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a mistargeted redirect from a non-standard date format (it should have been "2008-06-09"). More importantly, the existence of the redirect permits direct linking to "2008-06-9" from within articles, which is hardly a desirable date format. The page has no significant edit history of incoming links. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – With the "2008-" in it, it removes all possibility of being accurate. It also could be formatted with different date systems, so it becomes unplausible. American Eagle (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: misleadingly inaccurate. It must have been a goof, and is not currently used. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just really a vote, but: delete per the above reasons. (Why hasn't so been done yet?)
7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( t / c) 05:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:db-notability[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect should be deleted per the following reasoning: 1.) It's confusing. Since speedy criterion A7 is not about notability, it's not correct to have a redirect with the word "notability" in it targeting A7's speedy deletion tag. 2.) It's also misleading because the name implies that content without notability can be speedy deleted, although this is not the case. Also, it might make people think that any content can be tagged with A7, a common mistake that I very often see with this template. Regards SoWhy 11:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just tried to invoke this template using Twinkle, and the CSD notice failed, drawing me to this discussion. Can the recent change(s) to this template be reverted until this issue is resolved? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a template, it's a redirect. As such, owning to the software, the only way to display the notice to this discussion is to disable the redirect. I'm sorry if it breaks something in Twinkle but that's more of a bug with Twinkle then. It should really not place redirected templates instead of the correct template. Regards SoWhy 20:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that the addition of the RfD template has broken the redirection itself, which is not the fault of Twinkle. Perhaps RfD templates should be placed on talk pages, rather than the redirections themselves? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't that keep the redirect intact meaning to find the notice someone would need to click the redirect to get to that page and then decided to check the talkpage to find the notice. It would mean that finding the RFD would be harder since someone would need to do that or regularly check the RFD page to find the debate. It is also inconsistant with every other deletion protocal so I am not sure if it is a good idea. Once again, if I have this wrong please feel free to ignore.--76.65.142.152 (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are essentially correct; nevertheless, in the case of RfDs concerning CSDs the process works poorly because it inhibits the usual CSD process. In fact, one could envisage a malicious user exploiting this issue to disrupt the use of helper tools such as Huggle and Twinkle. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the notice. Obviously this redirect is in use, it makes sense to me, it should likely be kept for historical reasons. The RfD can go on without the notice. Prodego talk 04:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This redirect is confusing and misleading (especially for newer users) and its existence perpetuates misconceptions about what CSD A7 does and does not cover. To quote from WP:CSD#A7: "This [criterion] is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." If a redirect is desired, use Template:db-significance or Template:db-importance. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A7 is probably one of the most misunderstood speedy deletion criteria, and anything we can do to make it more understandable would be better for the project. NW (Talk) 01:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, now that Twinkle has been fixed.--Aervanath (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Keep, at least until Twinkle can be fixed to use {{db-a7}} instead. I have filed a bug report there, so hopefully that will get done quickly. However, I'm still inclined to keep the redirect; while A7 is certainly a lower standard than WP:Notability, it's a lower standard on the same scale, and is a reasonable redirect. If it is deleted, though, it should be create-protected.--Aervanath (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Twinkle is changed to use db-a7, but it can take a while for all browsers to refresh their caches. Amalthea 20:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shouldn't the redirect be {{db-lowerthannotability}} then? After all, for example, we do not redirect {{unreferenced}} to {{refimprove}}, do we? Both are on the same scale but they are not the same and an redirect from one to the other would be confusing. Regards SoWhy 21:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Inexperienced users wanting info on CSD templates regarding notability would likely find this redirect useful. A7 doesn't mean much to the average reader, but notability does, and not redirecting would probably more likely lead to the confusion you talk about, SoWhy, than keeping it as such (redirecting to a page that explains why WP:N is in of itself not criterion for a CSD explains the proper usage of A7). ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt that. Being a regular to CSD, I notice that this template is often used in cases where 1.) notability was not established (but importance/significance was clearly indicated) or 2.) for subjects that are failing this test but are not real people, companies, clubs, organisations or web content. I'm open to change the template to something that displays an error message explaining the proper use and not use of A7 rather than redirecting it there but to do that there first needs to be consensus to delete the redirect. Regards SoWhy 08:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would suggest to me a rewrite/update of the db-a7 doc, as that page currently mentions nothing about notability, which is an important non-criteria of A7. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 09:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jimmy h woo[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncommon capitalisation and punctuation during page creation. Page has been moved. ospalh (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – The only differences appear to be the period removal and lowercase spellings, so it is somewhat a plausible redirect. American Eagle (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with Jimmy H Woo. According to Wikipedia:Redirect: "Articles, including redirects, whose titles are either all initial caps or only first word capitalised are found via "Go" using a case-insensitive match." So, if we are going to have an alternative-capitalization redirect to the article, we may as well have one that is properly-capitalized and can legitimately be linked from within articles. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can actually move Jimmy h woo to Jimmy H Woo, if that's what you want... (seriously though, I'd prefer articles to just use Jimmy H. Woo :/ ;it's more proper) --7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( t / c) 02:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Yes, but that would then create a double redirect from "Jimmy h woo" to "Jimmy H Woo" to "Jimmy H. Woo." Regardless, there will be a redirect to delete. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I can certainly see someone typing this into the search box.--Aervanath (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Delete per BLACKFALCON. The capitalization errors will be accounted for in the url and search bars; the main issue is the missing period which is a very likely omission. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Dofar libiration front[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Libiration' seems to be just a typo, so the redirect should be deleted --A444 (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There are actually two typos in the redirect title: the first one ("Dofar" instead of "Dhofar") is a plausible one (see Dofar Liberation Front), the second ("libiration" instead of "Liberation") is less so, and the combination of the two makes this an implausible search term. We cannot and should not attempt to account for all instances of poor spelling or typing. The pagemove history is preserved in the page history of the target article. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Duplicate spelling errors (especially on words like "liberation") is extremely unlikely and cataloging then redirecting all of them is excessive and not our place. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:12, 11 June 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_June_3&oldid=1144724005"