Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 11, 2009

Incorrect Bayer designations (III)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete these as well. Tikiwont (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are from a Bayer designation of a star with a Roman letter to the corresponding Bayer designation with a Greek letter (a → α, b → β, etc.) Unfortunately, Greek and Roman letters are not interchangeable inside Bayer designations. In the list above, although the Greek-lettered designations specify stars, the Roman-lettered designations do not—they are meaningless. These redirects should therefore be deleted. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 16, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 4, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 10 for previous discussion on similar redirects. Spacepotato (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mike Leach (User contributions)[edit]

The result of the discussion was : Speedily deleted as non-controversial maintenance; the redirect was created in an accidental move of the page to the wrong title. (See the user's move log.) I have also fixed a copy-and-paste move of Mike Leach (American football) to Mike Leach (long snapper); whether Mike Leach (American football) should redirect to Mike Leach (long snapper) or to Mike Leach (there are two people of that name involved in American football) is an issue for a separate discussion, if need be. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was tagged for speedy deletion as a recently created, implausible typo, but was created well over two years ago. Brought to RfD as this is an obscure and impossible search term. — ξxplicit 19:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ramzi Maroun[edit]

The result of the discussion was : Speedily deleted, editing experiment. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary redirect. User who started the page is User:Ramzimaroun and decided to redirect article of his name to God.  Ilyushka88  talk  19:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete obvious vandalism noq (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

T:WPBIO[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 15:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reason to create a redirect to a template like that? I don't find any use for this. Magioladitis (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. I'll tell you the reason I created it. I do a lot of manual placing of that template and found myself having to refer back to this list of parameters when adding those specific workgroups to individual bios because I can never remember the names of these darn parameters, so I created a quick lil shortcut to take me directly there to that section. So you may not find any use for it but I certainly do. But if others also think it's useless then it's not a big deal to me if it gets deleted. -- Ϫ 13:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there a shortname for the template namespace? (such as... WP and WT for the two Wikipedia namespaces) 76.66.197.2 (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    T: is a pseudo-namespace meaning it's not really defined as a namespace shortcut by the MediaWiki software the way WP and WT are. -- Ϫ 13:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it's time for a request to the developers to add another namespace alias. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and add to my own toolbelt... I didn't know there was a shortcut to that template!--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 13:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This template it's one of the tenths of project banners... -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Nobel Peas Prize[edit]

The result of the discussion was : Speedily deleted - leftover redirect, somebody was playing around with the "move" button. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Really now, "Nobel Peas Prize?" This is either a joke, or a very unlikely misspelling. Besides, in the rare event that someone does search that, the mistake is easily recognized and corrected. Jedibob5 (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like a leftover as the result of prior pagemove vandalism. Unlikely misspelling. -- œ™ 13:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

V TV Series[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. After retargeting to the dab page, the current redirect is considered harmless or even useful. Note: According to the page histories, this has originally been a content addition (by a fan) converted to a redirect. The previous target V (1984 TV series) had then been fixed as double redirect (by one of our bots) after a page move due to the arrival of the new series and before the original target had been converted into the helpful dab page. Which may alleviate somewhat the (in general valid) concerns about incoming links on one hand and about misleading future changes to the redirect on the other hand. In any case, we cannot fully prevent misleading creations or updates of redirects, but hat notes help somewhat detecting them. --Tikiwont (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as an unhelpful redirect. This is an unneeded redirect from an unlikely "alternate" misspelling. The danger in it is that it can very easily be misdirected, which is an issue which I have just corrected.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easily misdirected? What exactly do you mean? And if it's an issue that was already corrected, why is it a problem? According to the stats it's had about 2700 hits in October, which, compared to most of the other RfD nominations, is a significant amount more. I think it's quite possible that people could search for this, such as those who aren't familiar with parenthesis format we use when speaking of different subjects of the same name. Jedibob5 (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to keep in mind here is that there are now 2 primary series, and there were 2 follow up series to the original. There's a disambiguation page because just saying "The television series 'V'" could now refer to 4 different series, and 2 of them have the exact same title. As long as the redirect remains pointed at the dab page I guess that it's OK, but having this show up along side each of the 4 series articles and the dab page when you search in using the Go bar is certainly not the more clear situation.
All that being said it is just a redirect, so my level of actual caring about this is barely enough for me to have actually created this entry.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—harmless, possible search term. Spacepotato (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep common way to describe this TV series(es) 76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible, harmless. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys really don't find all of this:
    V (TV series)
    V TV Series
    V (1983 miniseries)
    V (The Final Battle)
    V (1984 TV series)
    V (2009 TV series)
    Showing up in the Go bar to be slightly confusing? Like I said above my actual level of caring about this is almost non-existent, but I am somewhat surprised at the keep !votes. Everyone wanting to keep a malformed redirect (which was pointed at the wrong target before I fixed it) seems rather strange.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one of those is a duplicate, the others are different things. If you don't like them, send them to AfD since they are full articles and one dab page. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...That only one of them is a duplicate is exactly why I've brought this here. Why in the world would anyone want to delete a legitimate article? (let alone any article, but that's a whole different subject...).
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you mentioned that your issue with it is excessive search box suggestions. Removing one would still leave a large number of search box suggestions, the only way to reduce that is to delete the "real" articles. Hence, to me, it appears that you wish to reduce confusion by reduction of choice which would mean, to my mind, at most three selections, meaning that a bunch of articles would need to be deleted. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The legitimate articles (including the DAB page) aren't excessive. I don't see where I suggested that any of the real articles is in any way excessive.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't see how one entry in the search box suggestions could all on its own could make it "excessive", if you don't think all the other choices are not excessive already. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plausible search term, and as it is not harmful we should not delete it, as that may risk breaking inbound links from external websites. --Taelus (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, if I had left it pointing to V (1984 TV series) before bringing it up here would that have made a difference in the "it's not harmful" thinking? I'm trying to understand what a harmful redirect would look like, I guess.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, all the pages are disambiguated at the top. (With exception of one, which I will work on after this). I would support a retarget to a disambiguation page, but that doesn't need an RfD result to perform. It is not harmful as long as it may benefit the end user without causing too much confusion, thus as we disambiguate those set of articles against each other the redirect should be kept. Feel free to retarget to a more suitable page if you so wish. --Taelus (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The retargeting is what I did do prior to coming here. I'm just wondering about the overall effect of the apparent keep thinking here, is all. I mean, there are thousands of (TV series) articles, and there are probably 100's of thousands of articles with a parenthesized disambiguator in their title. Are we saying that it's OK to create redirects for all of them without the parenthesis? (of course, I don't know that a "witch hunt" out looking for un-parenthesized redirects is useful to the encyclopedia, but that's not at all my intent here.)
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I wouldn't think that the redirects _need_ to exist. The search tool will aid users. However, once such a redirect exists, there is the risk that external sites use it as a link. They do not go through the search bar at the side, and thus deleting this redirect will simply send the followers of such external links to the "This page does not exist" page. I would agree with you, these articles shouldn't exist from a search tool point of view, however we must remember that Wikipedia is heavily used by other websites for inbound links. Since this redirect already exists, and policy says we shouldn't worry about database memory or anything like that, there is no reason to delete this redirect. --Taelus (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      humm... I think that I should say that I don't really know how I could/should reply to that. This is going to sound way more confrontational then I feel but, my initial reaction is something along the lines of: what do I care? I'm not really being flip about it, but it seems to me that sort of rationalization could be used to prevent all sorts of things that go on here. Article moves and deletions would all be "verboten". (which, incidentally, I actually wouldn't mind one bit; which makes my listing of this somewhat personally tortuous).
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, let me be more clear in my reasoning on this: I think that this redirect is harmful in this particular case due to the nature of this particular television series. There is a widespread "cult" following of the original series, and the series itself is subject to an ongoing "reimagined" remake right now. I believe that this somewhat unusual mixture of historic and pop/current interest in the topic creates a potentially harmful situation in regards to this redirect. If the problem were purely theoretical I likely wouldn't worry about it at all, but the fact that I already had to change it from targeting the "incorrect" article (one of the specific series) to targeting the dab page demonstrates that my concern in this particular case is at least somewhat justified, and indeed actually prompted me to list this here. I'm perfectly OK with a "keep" in response to this, but I would be unsatisfied in that case if no one addressed my actual concerns.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moves create redirects, thus they don't break inbound links. Article deletion is different, because articles have alot of rules to follow. Redirects, as long as they have a valid target, make sense, and do not have any major confusion issues are not really problematic in my opinion. I appreciate your concern, however with the retarget you performed users can now easily find which article they wanted using the disambiguation page. We cannot really assume what the majority of readers will intend to view with the search term, thus in my opinion disambiguation is the best solution. You could attempt to clarify the differences between each thing on the disambig page if your concerned there will still be confusion, however I do not see how deleting this redirect will be beneficial, as the users using the search term will end up at the disambig page anyway, and we would break inbound links by doing this. I apologise for not fully understanding your previous points, however at the end of the day I believe the "least harmful" thing to do is to redirect to disambiguation. --Taelus (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To summarise my point: If you are worried users of the search term will be confused, redirecting them to a disambiguation page is the best thing to do. Deletion will not help, as the search tool will present them with the same list of results as the disambiguation page, but with less explanation of the difference. --Taelus (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Really, my main concern is that someone (most likely a "fanboy") will come along at a later date and change the redirect to point to anything other then the redirect page. I'm not currently watching either of the pages (the redirect or the dab page), and I don't really want to do so, but I personally think that it's important that anyone interested but unaware of either the old or new series should be directed to the dab page. I'm fairly confident that if someone converts the dab page to a redirect straight to a specific instance of the series that would be detected and corrected fairly quickly, but really how many people will add or keep the "misspelled" dab page on their watchlist?currently less then 30, compared to: [1] That's the main reason that I think deletion is called for in this case, is the special circumstances which in my estimation cause "vandalism" to be a real concern here.
      I can understand your argument about incoming links, and I'll readily admit that is an issue which I hadn't considered previously. However, I don't think that the article viewership statistics bear out that as a legitemate concern (considering the fact that all of the real articles, including the dab page, have 100%+ the viewership of the missspelled page). More "damning", in my view, is the belief that any broken outside links can be easily repaired by the host webmaster. After all, this is a top 10 website worldwide so we should be able to demand some adherence to our internal policies. More importantly though... I don't think that we should really worry about anything beyond our "walls", so to speak. we can't control what other websites do, but we can at least control our own content.
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very well, I understand your arguments and see your point. However I stand by my opinion, as I think personally that Wikipedia's scope extends far outside its own walls. I also believe that we should not delete an article to prevent it being converted into an article, when we can simply revert to the redirect. We can agree to disagree here however and let the closing admin determine concensus. Glad to discuss this with you, happy editing. --Taelus (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        replied at User talk:Taelus#About the "V" RfD
        — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 14:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of Falun Gong practitioners[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete Skier Dude (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, link has lost its raison d'etre - the content redirected to no longer exists. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, redirect dependant on deleted content. This is misleading for the end user, as the redirect may lead them to believe such a list exists when infact it doesn't. --Taelus (talk) 09:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_11&oldid=1199388866"