Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 27, 2010

Abbeville, LA μSA[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 The policy rationales are on the side of keeping these, even though the numerical count is even. The delete side is largely based on the implausibility of typing these, while the keep side points out that the ability of typing them is not the only reason to have a redirect, The keep side is correct, so I'm closing this as a full keep.. Courcelles 01:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating ALL of the following:

Extended content

All of these are redirects for micropolitan statistical areas in the United States that point to a US locality article. I contend that all of these are implausible searches because of the Greek letter mu in the redirect's title, which makes it incredibly unlikely that someone would actually search for such things. When we previously nominated Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ µSA (here) and Connersville, IN µSA (here) for deletion individually, the result in both cases was to delete as implausible. Now requesting to do away with the rest of them. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Not only unlikely, it doesn't make any sense. If the mu were being used for something having to do with micropolitan area, then maybe it would make sense, but using the mu for USA is meaningless. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, the mu is being used for "micropolitan", as in "Micropolitan Statistical Area" rather than "United States of America". They're still implausible though. Sideways713 (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. There is no reason for the mu, and I'm quite certain that readers will never substitute a "µ" for a "u" when entering the above search terms. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ridiculous. Should we find any more of these pages with the same Greek letter, I think that they ought to be deleted on sight with reference to this rfd. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as highly implausible typos, and if we find any more I propose speedy deleting per WP:CSD#R3. –Grondemar 03:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy deletion is actually what brought me into this discussion. Most of these redirects were created back in 2007 - way too long ago to be considered "recently created" as R3 requires. Any that we have missed would need to go through discussion to be deleted unless a new speedy deletion criterion is created. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and remove any similar fancy names from articles using them (like the lead of United States Micropolitan Statistical Area). I was just trying to find out why these were used, and noticed that they are not used on the official pages for the Micropolitan SAs, and seem to be a Wikipedia invention[1]. Thankfully, someone else made the nomination before I had to do the work, so all I have to do is support the deletion! Fram (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as highly unlikely search term, my keyboard does not even has the mu sign. Armbrust Talk Contribs 09:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as implausible. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/query (1) I think that these were all created by the same editor, who presumably had a reason. I've dropped them a note in the hope that they might want to comment here. (2) I wonder if this entry could perhaps do with a more comprehensive title? Abbeville, LA did not exactly leap off the page at me when I followed the RfD link from Middlesborough,_KY_µSA (long story, don't ask!) and of course because the list is by default collapsed it can't find the correct entry when you arrive here so it just dumps you at the page top going "Mummy, help!" (ymmv). It's initially baffling, to those who initially baffle easily (viz:me), and I wondered if something like "Mass deletion of mu-using MSA entries" (but better-worded) might not be more helpful? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep: The abbeviation "μSA" is the standard abbreviation for each of the 576 United States Office of Management and Budget Micropolitan Statistical Areas. Please see United States Micropolitan Statistical Area and the Table of United States Micropolitan Statistical Areas.
Each of these μSAs is an official United States Core Based Statistical Area. Please see the Table of United States Core Based Statistical Areas. Each United States Core Based Statistical Area is either a United States primary census statistical area or a component of a United States Combined Statistical Area. Please see the Table of United States primary census statistical areas and the Table of United States Combined Statistical Areas.
The abbreviation μSA is used to distinguish these areas from the 366 United States Office of Management and Budget Metropolitan Statistical Areas which are abbreviated MSA.
If an article about the μSA exists, the μSA abbreviation redirects to that μSA article. If no article exists but the μSA comprises only one U.S. county, the μSA abbreviation redirects to that county article. Otherwise, the μSA abbreviation redirects to the article about the principle community of the μSA.
These abbreviations have been used for years and have thousands of links. If you wish to change all of these μSAs to United States Office of Management and Budget Micropolitan Statistical Areas, be my guest, but you will render all these tables unreadable. Virtually all searches for μSAs will be on the community name, so the Greek letter mu has really not been an issue (unless you wish to make it one.) Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Buaidh's explanation above. So what we're talking about here is not the plausibility of Middlesborough,_KY_µSA as a search term, but its usefulness as an abbreviated form with particular regard to tables and other space-saving usages. In the light of this new information I vote Keep, and I respectfully suggest that other editors might, please, want to reconsider the situation and the consequences of deleting these redirects. I feel that what works best for the encyclopaedia is, without doubt, to keep them. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-This was a tough one. On the one hand, a Google search for "µSA" shows almost no hits other than Wikipedia and mirrors. However, there are a few. http://www.soulofthecommunity.org/, for example, utilizes the term multiple times. Furthermore, these are, indeed, very long standing redirects, which counts for quite a bit. The number of incoming links that would be broken (or require editorial time to retarget) is also a concern. The argument can be made that the use of the term "µSA" is inappropriate, and I think a case could be made for that. However, long standing consensus on the relevant pages clearly supports use of the term. While consensus can change, RfD is not the proper venue to discuss such a change. If the use of this term on the relevant articles is discontinued, it may be worth revisiting this discussion, but as of now, they should be kept.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really do not think that this RfD can reasonably be closed any time soon. No-one commenting on it before Buaidh's explanation was in possession of the crucial facts regarding the function of this redirect. Is there some sort of procedural motion which says it can't be done now, and should be relisted at least? If there were, I would support this as I feel it would be entirely wrong for a decision to be made based on our not being in possession of the facts. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just because this is not a valid search term, μSA is still the official abbreviation for micropolitan areas and should be included as a redirect. In addition, all these redirects are linked from Table of United States Micropolitan Statistical Areas, which is the main list of micropolitan areas. Dough4872 21:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A last(ish) comment Oh yes, sorry to keep on and on but
1. WP:RFD#HOWTO says "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the redirect that you are nominating the redirect." and unfortunately we failed on this; and
2. WP:RFD#DELETE does not appear to list as reasons any of the "Delete" arguments given above; if I am wrong please put me right; and
3. WP:RFD#KEEP items 4 and 5 would be broken by deleting these. They are clearly needed for internal links, and they are clearly useful.
I am rather hoping than an administrator looking at closing this is required to be bound by policy - in which case the RfD fails - than by a simple majority vote which in this case would be entirely wrong, having been based on insufficient information. But I think I'd better shut up for a bit now. Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Struck 23:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC), see below. Rambo's Revenge (talk) ) Reading above said Buaidh said "μSA" is the standard abbreviation and Dough4872 said μSA is still the official abbreviation for micropolitan areas. Trawling through Google scholar and normal search, I feel pretty certain it is not an official abbr. Normal web hits are sparse and filled with Wikipedia mirrors – I feel this is an abbr. we (the 'pedia) may have proliferated. A combination of implausibility and unofficialness makes me think delete (R8) as a "very obscure synonym for an article name ... unlikely to be useful". Re: all these redirects are linked: The fact they are used is not reason to keep them, we have the ability to pipe after all. soulofthecommunity and a mention here lends some credibilty but I would like to see some use of this abbr. in more reliable sources before I'd keep them. Obviously, if someone could provide evidence that this is indeed common (releases from government about micropoliton areas etc.) I would reverse my opinion. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per official government documents provided by DBaK this usage seems, whilst probably not official, established at least. As I said above that is sufficient evidence for be to reconsider. Space is not a consideration and I now !vote keep (cr.3) as, although I don't, it is possible that "Someone finds them useful". Additionally, I think (if this is closed as keep, not no consensus) that we should restore the aforementioned redirects already deleted. (here and here). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we do delete these redirects, then Table of United States Micropolitan Statistical Areas is going to become a redlink farm. Dough4872 16:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not impossible to fix. A little editing will turn those links blue. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree Google doesn't make it look wildly mainstream but, with some fiddling around, you can get a search on something like "μSA" site:gov -site:jpl.nasa.gov -site:ocf.dc.gov/scan_image which loses some of the nonsense and finds you a few seemingly real uses on .gov sites. Even ignoring the one which is a straight wp steal (!) there do seem to be some legit uses there ... unless of course they were all wp-influenced, or Buaidh is actually their author too. :) I still tend to think it's useful and meets Keep-4 and -5 but I have really said enough now. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all really, μSA is the official abbreviation for micropolitan areas? I am not convinced unless I see this abbr being used in official documents—Chris!c/t 19:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What, like these?
at Kansas Department of Health and Environment see (as numbered) pages 3, 4, 5 etc
at Missouri Department of Natural Resources pp 7, 8, 12 etc
at Federal Housing Finance Agency pp. 7, 9, 10 etc
Those look a bit like official documents to me. DBaK (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am changing to keep per the above official documents.—Chris!c/t 04:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Table of United States Micropolitan Statistical Areas, expand the 'Combined Statistical Area' column as required to explain the location and remove the circular links from the retarget. A redirect should take the reader to a page that explains or amplifies the subject of the redirect. The present targets mostly do not explain why the reader has been taken there and only serve to confuse. However, targeting back to the main article would be helpful to anyone searching on one of these terms. If not retarget, then delete rather than keep (WP:RFD#DELETE, criterion 2). Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most micropolitan area redirects are targeted to the page of the county that is is coextensive with. The county article should make mention that the county is the specified micropolitan area. Dough4872 00:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

SherrieAustin[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. — ξxplicit 01:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Losing the é I can understand, but bunching it into one CamelCased word? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Being an "Unlikely search term" is not grounds for deletion. WP:RFD#KEEP makes it clear that we leave old CamelCase redirects well alone. The only reason for deletion would be if it was harmful; for example if 'SherrieAustin' was ambiguous and might take the reader to a diferent person from that who they expect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Point four of WP:RFD#KEEP specifically calls for these kinds of redirects to be kept.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note-I've added {{R from CamelCase}} to the page.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Citeweb[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 Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no reason to have a cross-namespace redirect like this one. Magioladitis (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are about 10 incoming links from people that have presumably accidentally used it, but meh, go for it. Vicarious (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cross-namespace redirect blurring the line between the template space and the project namespace. Bad practice. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Cite web[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; possible retarget, which can be handled without an RfD process. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was sent for deletion in the past as cross-namespace redirect. My argument is that Cite web is already used in some articles making for difficult to detect it and update the template. Some people claimed that it's easier to access it from the Search bar but this was back in 2008. I think the template can be easy found and that maintenance templates must be shown as templates in wikicode. Magioladitis (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as totally useless. "Cite web" should be used in double-braces (i.e. {{cite web}}), and only double braces, and that takes care of the "Template:" prefix. This was probably a well-intentioned redirect, but ultimately pointless. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to WebCite with a further hattnote. This deals with the X-namespace aspect, avoids redlinks, it's plausible someone looking for WebCite might reverse the words - i.e. covers all bases. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. I agree with Bridgeplayer suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devourer09 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Schuminweb is right in saying this redirect is not how things should be. However it is very useful, especially for the type of editor who is still learning. For new editors, what shows up when they hit edit can be daunting. It helps newbie editors understand when they find cite templates in a source they edit, it increases the chance they contribute quality edits with well formed references, and it helps them learn about documentation. I have typed cite web into the search box myself and that is how I learned to type the template prefix in the search box. Superp (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep totally useful for navigation purposes. I often type "cite web" in the search box to go to the template page quickly without having to type "Template:". I don't see why editors think this should be deleted. The point of redirect is to aid navigation.—Chris!c/t 22:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above User:Chrishomingtang Nirvana2013 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a CNR, otherwise retarget per Bridgeplayer. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you want a shortcut, propose a short name for the Template namespace up at VP proposals. God knows I've'd tried to do that, but they (other people commenting on the proposal) seem to think no one ever wants to actually access a template. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

HMU[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 Disambiguate. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a little farfetched, searches show that HMU can stand for about a bazillion other things. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:27, 27 September 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_September_27&oldid=1140228035"