Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 10, 2010

Next (2006 film)[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 Re-targeted to Next (2007 film). -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 2006 film; it's in 2007. Unlinked. JaGatalk 22:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - This is a hard one. Obviously there is no film in 2006 called Next. But the film in 2007 was originally set to be release in 2006. So, it could be useful to some people.—Chris!c/t 22:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing. WP:RFD#DELETE, criterion 2. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Given Chris's explanation, I assume anyone setting on this redirect is looking for the 2007 film, and therefore I don't think it's confusing to keep it. --Bsherr (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and the change target to Next (2007 film), which is the article sought. —David Levy 04:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Breakfast cereal for people with syphilis[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 keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. Seems obscene. Maybe I just don't get it Purplebackpack89 05:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's the latter. ☺ This is a part of an oft-quoted line from the start of the show. Better a redirect leading readers to the right article than perpetual temptation for someone to start a bad article. Uncle G (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G. bd2412 T 04:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ungle G. —David Levy 04:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I respect Uncle G's arguments but I can't agree on this occasion. I don't find it likely that someone will create a separate page. More importantly, this phrase is not mentioned in the target hence someone following the redirect will be confused as to why they were taken there. If a sourced reference is added to the target then I would change my view to keep. Bridgeplayer (talk)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User:Katetravers/Sandbox[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 speedy delete per G6. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect Green Giant (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Userspace redirect for user that has been inactive for over a year makes it ripe for deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G6 and tagged as such. Left-over redirect following move of page to article space. Should have been deleted at that time. Housekeeping. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Main2[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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused in mainspace. It was deleted via TfD in 2006 and recreated to be shorty redirect to {{Main}}. Of course, the number 2 next to the name serves no propose, nobody will ever use this one and it's by no means a plausible search item. Having it around just increases the number of unused redirects to maintenance templates making more difficult to spot and handle the original templates. Magioladitis (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, for the reasons discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 5#Template:Otheruses3. The template was extremely widely used until the advent of the ParserFunctions extension enabled us to merge its functionality into {{main}} (after which it apparently was needlessly orphaned by a bot). Therefore, this redirect's deletion would break countless transclusions in past revisions of an enormous number of articles, while providing no apparent benefit.
    Your assertion that an unused, unadvertised template redirect's existence makes it "more difficult to spot and handle the original templates" is new to me. Can you please elaborate? —David Levy 02:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely? It was deleted via TfD and recreated. In fact it could have been speedy deleted with G4. Do you have any numbers becasue I don't think the number was enormous. About the difficulty: I imagine of someones searches for {{Main}} on a page in order to do some pages. With more redirects they should look not only for the template but for every possible redirect too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The template's deletion at TfD doesn't somehow negate its previous 20 months of use, which remains in every affected article's revision history.
CSD G4 requires that the page be "substantially identical to the deleted version," which a redirect obviously is not. (I hope that you haven't inappropriately deleted pages due to your misunderstanding of the criterion.)
No, I don't have any numbers. Do you? As I noted below, I know of no reliable means of detecting past transclusions, many of which have been removed en masse by bots deployed to needlessly orphan superseded templates.
Irrespective of the number of past transclusions, the onus is on you to establish that the redirect is harmful and/or that its deletion would be beneficial. I don't understand your hypothetical scenario. What do you mean by "do some pages"? Why must someone search for redirects? Many templates have numerous redirects, which the community regards as helpful. —David Levy 16:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David Levy: deletion will break old page revisions. Ucucha 18:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - redirects are cheap. –xenotalk 17:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - existing redirects should be kept unless there is a good reason for deletion that overrides any potential harm. No convincing case for deletion, here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete199.126.224.245 (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? (This isn't a majority vote.) —David Levy 01:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Main1[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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused since 2005! It was created, without consensus, as a redirect of {{Main}}. I speedy deleted it a week ago but I was asked to revive it. So... here we are. Nobody will ever use this one, unnecessary number that follows the much easier name. It's not even a plausable search item. Main will appear before that in the Search box. No reason to have this around. Magioladitis (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Firstly, since when is it improper to create a redirect "without consensus"? Secondly, this was a plausible transclusion target at the time, given the wide use of {{main2}} for instances requiring two parameters (and while I'm not 100% certain, my recollection is that the {{main1}} redirect was used in a fair number of articles). You seem to suggest above that it's never been used, but how can you be certain of that? To my knowledge, there's no reliable means of detecting past transclusions, many of which have been removed en masse by bots deployed to needlessly orphan superseded templates.
    As noted above and at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 5#Template:Otheruses3, such a redirect is harmless at worst, even if it hasn't been used. And if it has, its deletion breaks the afected page revisions. —David Levy 02:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine if someone goes and creates a redirect for every maintenance trmplates by just attaching "1"... Do you see any usability of this 1 at the end? For me it justs makes wikicode to look more cryptic by mixing words and numbers, reminding me some old crap source code written in some old programming language. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the above explanation? The redirect's creation made sense at the time. No one has advocated appending a "1" to every maintenance template's name. —David Levy 16:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David Levy: deletion may break old page revisions. Ucucha 18:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have proof that this template was actually used somewhere? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have proof that it was not used anywhere? Note the may. Ucucha 20:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The weird name is a strong evidence that was never really used. I remind you that this was created as aredirect of Main in firdt place. It's not even the result of merge. Moreover, take note that old revisions dont work properly anyway. Redirects are deleted every day. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that's a bad idea, and I see no reason why we should break old revisions any more than we already do. Ucucha 20:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. I explained above why the name wasn't "weird." The {{main2}} template was used when two parameters were needed, so the use of {{main1}} when one parameter was needed was intuitive.
2. What do you mean by "old revisions dont work properly anyway"?
3. Yes, redirects are deleted when there is a valid reason to do so (i.e. when their existence is harmful and/or their elimination is helpful). This redirect is harmless at worst and helpful at best, so there is no valid reason to delete it. —David Levy 20:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Old revisions contain a lot of deleted pages anyway. Removing redirects of main doesn't really affect the text. As I said we need a strategy to reduce redirects if we want to make things easier for reviewers and bots. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. The deletion of some content is unavoidable. But in this case, we're dealing with a legitimate redirect to an active, widely used template. To quote Ucucha, "I see no reason why we should break old revisions any more than we already do."
2. You've provided no evidence that such a problem exists. The community, which routinely creates redirects (including in the template namespace) for the purpose of improving usability, evidently disagrees. —David Levy 09:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some redirects are useful but a redirect that has one extra byte is not. Of course, it's the question with the past (old revisions) but it's also the question with the future (do we end up with tenths redirects for every possible template and become unable to deal with them?) -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Your continual refusal to acknowledge the logic behind this redirect's creation (referring above to "a redirect that has one extra byte," as though it was appended randomly and for no particular reason) is unhelpful.
2. Again, you've cited no evidence that the sheer quantity of redirects poses a problem. —David Levy 10:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For 2: WP:AWB fixes the position, adds dates, etc. to tenths of templates. Every time a new redirect appears the list becomes larger and larger. Moreover, every time I (and I presume others too) encounter a new template name I check its page to see how it works. I would save much more time if many of these redirects didn't exist. Please don't keep repeating yourself. I am aware of your concerns. We both have a point of view and I think it depends on the priorities one poses. Let's see what other editors think too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Any properly coded bot or semi-automated script can handle redirects without difficulty. I've never heard of the problem that you describe, but feel free to cite evidence that it exists.
2. If you "encounter a new template name" in an article, that means that someone found it useful. Its application typically should be fairly obvious, but if it isn't, the amount of time that it takes you to check its page (and immediately discover that it's a redirect) is far less than the amount of time that another editor saved by using the name that was intuitive to him/her instead of searching for the template's actual name.
But you're conflating separate issues, as we are not discussing a redirect that you (or anyone else) will "encounter" in the current revision of an article. By your own account, "nobody will ever use this one." But for some reason, you've gone out of your way to worry about it. That is what's wasting your time.
I've repeated myself because you have continually repeated misleading claims that ignore my previous statements. —David Levy 12:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some people just create templates because they don't know that some things can be done by already existing templates. So, I suggest that instead of converting to redirects, we should delete them. None uses them in large scale but they are far too many used in small scale. For problems with redirects you can search the archives of User talk:Rich Farmbrough and WP:AWB/B. I hope in the future API code will bypass immediately all redirects the very moment someone saves a page. This will save bots and editors from a lot of work. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please direct my attention to specific threads in which problems of this nature are discussed. I lack free time to search for them, particularly given the fact that I don't know exactly what you want me to find (and the words "template" and "redirect" are frequently used in unrelated contexts). —David Levy 13:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I await the pointers. —David Levy 18:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - redirects are cheap. –xenotalk 17:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Handling them isn't. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain? –xenotalk 17:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erm... I wrote above. If we have many redirects with 1 or 2 transclusions we could not be able to program bots and scripts efficiently. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bots exist to service editors, not the other way around. Deleting redirects that people might call from memory is user-hostile. –xenotalk 17:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Main1 was created after Main! -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and apparently because someone found it useful. –xenotalk 18:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I've repeatedly explained why it was useful (contrary to Magioladitis's assertion that the "1" was randomly appended for no particular reason). —David Levy 18:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your point being? —David Levy 18:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects must be useful for the community and not for a single person. I find it easier to have all templates in Greek but I don't create the redirect {{Κεντρικό}}. This redirect could be useful for tenths of the Greek editors of the English wikipedia. I got used using the pre-existing templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your message read "Main1 was created after Main!". How is that relevant to its degree of usefulness (or lack thereof)?
I've repeatedly explained this particular redirect's usefulness. —David Levy 18:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - existing redirects should be kept unless there is a good reason for deletion that overrides any potential harm. No convincing case for deletion, here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete199.126.224.245 (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? (This isn't a majority vote.) —David Levy 01:04, 18 October 2010 (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/2010_October_10&oldid=1140244673"