Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 April 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 9, 2012

Wikipedia:Wikiproject The Elder Scrolls[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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 13:13, 24 April 2012‎

Unused, likely implausible redirect at this point in the task force's life. Izno (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How to make portable apps[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. While the !votes were evenly split keep/delete the nomination is simply a link to a guideline without further comment as to why it is relevant to this situation, while Rossami's comment gives reasons why that same guideline doesn't apply here and further why the redirect is useful. Jc37's comment was not especially substantial, but can be taken to mean they believe the redirect links to a correct target. Finally Yaksar's comment comes in two parts, the latter is that this is misleading - which the two keep votes say it isn't. The first part of Yaksar's comment basically says that we shouldn't allow our articles to be found from redirects like this, which seems to me to be completely contrary to the goal of increasing accessibility. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No information on this topic in the target article. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOT#FAQ. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#FAQ does not really apply to redirects. WP:NOT#FAQ says that we should not have articles that are "how-to" instructions and/or undifferentiated questions and answers but that the article format should be paragraphic. By extension, titles should focus on the topic and not on the implied question. But a redirect from the implied question to the proper target article is a plausible aid to our readers. No better target presents itself for this title. Rossami (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looks fairly obvious. - jc37 06:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not wiki-answers, users should not expect that they can type questions and be redirected to the answer. Plus we don't have any sort of "how to make apps page" since that would be against policy, so this is misleading.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How to reduce gaseous pollutants in the air of buildings[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 no consensus. Rossami's detailed !vote below counters the argument to WP:NOT#FAQ and the suggested alternative target turns the first part of the nomination into an argument for retargetting rather than deletion. Yaksar's comment seems to miss that encyclopaedias are resources that allow people to answer questions, and that helping readers find the articles that give such answers is a good thing. This leaves the question over whether this is a plausible title, and the weight of the arguments is pretty evenly split on that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No information on this topic in the target article. Also, implausible redirect title. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOT#FAQ. Further this isn't an article on air filtration. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#FAQ does not really apply to redirects. WP:NOT#FAQ says that we should not have articles that are "how-to" instructions and/or undifferentiated questions and answers but that the article format should be paragraphic. By extension, titles should focus on the topic and not on the implied question. But a redirect from the implied question to the proper target article is a plausible aid to our readers.
    That said, this should probably be retargetted to Sick building syndrome#Prevention. The original text was a draft about a particular technique of using ultraviolet to sterilize interior air. Rossami (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a bit long to be plausible. - jc37 06:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We're an encyclopedia, not a question and answer service.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How to make a % solution[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. Rossami's comment explains that this is required for attribution purposes, and Yaksar's comment seems to have misuderstood this - there is no other record of the move (an equal part of the attribution history to article edits) and we do keep records for the record's sake (per the requirements of our licence to keep a record of authors). Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No information on this topic in the target article. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOT#FAQ. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Documents a pagemove from before the convention against FAQ-like titles. Note: The pagemove was executed in 2003, long before the software was changed to record the pagemove in the moved-page's history. This redirect is the only remaining record of the move. Rossami (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Rossami. - jc37 06:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)![reply]
  • Delete - If the attribution history is still preserved we have no need to keep this old redirect. We don't need to keep record if it isn't required or useful just for record's sake. There's no article about how to make a percentage solution, since we aren't a how to guide, so this is just misleading.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Why balls bounce?[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 retarget to elastic collision. Consensus is clear that the redirect is a plausible search term for the new target and that redirects at titles like this are not harmful per se. With no evidence given that this title is harmful, there is no reason not to retarget. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible redirect. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a FAQ, and this is the wrong target anyways. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to elastic collision. WP:NOT#FAQ does not really apply to redirects. Rossami (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But why would it be a useful or plausible redirect for anyone? It's not even grammatically correct. We could also have Who president now? or What fish weigh most?, but why?--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • For redirects, the onus is on the one wishing deletion to have a good reason to delete, not merely a good reason the redirect shouldn't have been created in the first place. The original article dates to February, so there's probably so links to it floating around. There is no good reason to kill those links just because the title is silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondegroovily (talk • contribs)
        • Nope, nothing real does link to it, it's easy to check.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, but that only identifies the inbound links which are internal to Wikipedia. That will not identify links created by readers which they store or record on other websites or in offline records (whether private or published). Link rot is a problem that extends beyond Wikipedia's bounds. Even within Wikipedia, what-links-here is limited to current content. It will not show a link that exists in a pagehistory and which could be restored if, for example, a target page has to be reverted as part of a vandalism clean-up or if an editor is trying to trace the context of a page as it existed at some specific point in a debate.
            In theory, what-links-here could be modified to troll the database for buried links but there are no reliable tools to test for the existence or non-existence of external links. The closest we can come is the proxy that the longer a title has existed, the more likely there are to be external links. Rossami (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I mean, that could apply to every single redirect ever. But even if someone did decide to use this redirect (which hasn't been around for that long) in an old version of an article, I find it next to impossible that they meant to type elastic collision but decided that "Why balls bounce?" would make more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaksar (talk • contribs)
              • Re: the applicability of link rot to every redirect ever - yes, it could. That's why we use the proxy of time instead of trying to identify the non-existence of links.
                Re: the plausibility of the current target, I find it entirely plausible that someone wanting to know why things bounce might type in that question. If they haven't yet taken a beginning physics course (in the US, that means, well, most everyone and definitely everyone under grade 12), then they won't know that the technical name for the concept they are seeking is "elastic collision". The redirect and our encyclopedia article at the target page will teach them. Rossami (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • That someone might type it in a search and in an article are two totally different things. But even still, wouldn't someone type the grammatically correct "Why do balls bounce?" instead, if they were using wikipedia as a search engine? I mean by your arguments, we should have articles not only for "What mammal lays eggs?" but also "Mammal lay eggs?" or "Which mammal make egg?"--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Rossami's suggestion. Perfect solution, target answers the question. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean I guess it answers the question, but when did we become a question-answer service? I can't think of any precedent for having redirects that are simply questions and answers; it seems like it would do nothing but get mightily confusing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, there are many precedents, most of them dating back to before the naming conventions for articles were locked down to the "no FAQ format". Early articles were often drafted in the form of a question and answer, the later rewritten into better, more encyclopedic tone. The redirects were, for the most part, kept as unharmful and possibly in use. Rossami (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah but this wasn't an old article that was later converted. There's nothing being preserved here or anything. I don't get your point. Those old redirects you discuss make sense, but there was never an article at this page that is still in existence.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Rossami's suggestion. And should create another redirect to the same target: Why do balls bounce? : ) - jc37 06:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the use of keeping the incorrect grammar one in question?--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really don't get why this could possibly be linked anywhere else outside the encyclopedia by anything, or why this would even matter. This is not, as one might expect from reading the discussion above, some place where an article used to be located. This was a page that was created, proposed for speedy deletion, instead moved to a different page, and then redirected to the topic that page covered, all within one day. I mean I can understand if this was where some article had been around for forever until it was moved, but the idea that a grammatically incorrect non-standard redirect that was around for one day because some automatic robot may have catalogued it on some unused outside website which no one will ever look at seems absurd.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me turn the question around. What benefit is there to the project to deleting the redirect? It reduces no server load, it does nothing to database size or performance, it reduces no editorial maintenance, it improves no user experience. What is the justification for deletion beyond the subjective opinion that 'it does not seem helpful to me'? Rossami (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have a bunch of concerns, but my biggest is simply that it creates the precedent that we are a question and answer service. When someone starts typing in the search box, we shouldn't have it autofilling to questions, it's just confusing. But in addition, we do have outlines on what redirects are and are not acceptable, and this doesn't seem to meet them.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • We are an encyclopedia - we are supposed to answer people's questions. If that's how they choose to use the search engine, why is that bad? More to the point, though, you are absolutely correct that we have outlines for acceptable and non-acceptable redirects. Which of WP:R#DELETE applies? Rossami (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe I'm being obtuse, but is that not what we've been trying to discuss this whole time? That it's confusing, not plausible, etc.?--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_9&oldid=1091632886"