Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 26, 2012

Citation style[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 Citation#Citation Styles.--Salix (talk): 08:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This redirection doesn't seem to fulfill any purpose whatsoever. 212.201.73.229 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: redirect to Citation or Citation#Citation Style. That's what I was looking for (and I had found it sooner if this stupid redirect hadn't block me. --212.201.73.229 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 26 February 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.

Template:Common cats[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 and orphan --Salix (talk): 08:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup in redirects for different commons related templates. Per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_10#Template:Wikicommons. More will follow. MGA73 (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joined similar nominations. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you. I joined the new ones also --MGA73 (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: these redirects make problems for bots, but still are unhelpful for readers and misleading for editors. Basically, all they do is making extra code in bots (thus extra bugs), extra work for bots' masters and extra load on Wikimedia servers. The benefit is also questionable, since they are quirkier but not substantially shorter then the targets' names. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no issue with a rationalisation of the templates, especially culling of the more obtuse names, though I do have some commentary. We need to observe that some of the base templates exist crosswiki, so looking to align functionality and naming is useful when aligned, and I note that CommonsCat is one such name that is used xwiki. There is a need for both a box and an inline version. Some template names can be problematic due to punctuation or case, so getting rid of that may just cause problems, especially if the alternate means are used elsewhere. Can I encourage some redirects to exists, and if there are ongoing issues, then look to have underlying subst: commands that convert the format at the time, alternatively run a bot through to do a clean up. Think about how they have sprung up and remember usability for people first, and bots second. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that some of the names may excist on other wikis. The only reason for that is that an article or a category was once copied from en-wiki and translated. As mentioned in the original nomination the problem is that the names we use here tend to spread to other wikis. So if we have 50 redirects many of them will end up on other projects making it all more complex. If we were to have the same names they use on other wikis we sould end up with redirects like "위키공용과 분류". I do not think that it would be helpfull.
This DR will not remove any of the formats used (box or inline etc.) it will just remove some of the redirects. --MGA73 (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should say obscure rather than obtuse. Rich Farmbrough, 19:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I don't see any usability improvements for humans with these redirects, only usability problems. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am reluctant to see these redirects deleted. Some are obvious typos that will recur, others have been in extensive use on the past, and we are breaking historical versions by deleting them (remember, good referencing practice is to perma-link to historical versions)> Of course there is a cost to some bots, but not necessarily a significant one, depending on the algorithm and purpose of the bots. It is good practice to deal with necessary template redirects. However I do think they confuse matters by being left in active use so I would support:
  • Orphan but keep Rich Farmbrough, 19:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, but support actively orphaning. There is no harm in keeping them as reminders. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but orphan. The reality is that people do make these typos. Bots should be coded to automatically detect template redirects using the Backlinks API. This only needs to be coded once, and once tested there should not be any bugs no matter how many new redirects are needed. I have no problem with a bot automatically orphaning these on an ongoing basis. Superm401 - Talk 20:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can implement it it would be super cool :-) Feel free to comment on http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=603138&aid=3494734&group_id=93107 or take ownership of it. --MGA73 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented with a slightly more detailed version of what I posted here. The API is not complex. There's an example on the API page. I'll look into implementing it, but I'm not familiar with the Python Wikipedia Robot Framework, so someone else may be faster. Superm401 - Talk 02:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Superm401. We should try to have many redirects so that editors can easily find the templates they're looking for, even if they don't remember the exact name. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the reasons already mentioned, and I support having a bot actively orphan them. Redirects are cheap, and properly coded bots shouldn't have any problems no matter how many redirects are created. As for these potentially causing problems for other wikis, that's not really a valid reason as we have no control over those wikis. If they decide to copy a bunch of templates and redirects, I don't see a problem. That's something for them to work it out. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and orphan per Nihonjoe. We need to have redirects for obvious typos, and the frequent appearance of these links shows that they're likely typos. While WP:NOTBROKEN says not to fix redirects, this should be an exception, since broken redirects can confuse bots far more easily than they can humans. Nyttend (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and orphan per above. They might be good reminders, and redirects are cheap. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:50, 10 March 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.

Gumby's pizza[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is vaguely spammy, as there are a few pizzerias so named, and there's no meaningful reason to redirect to pizza. (No disrespect to the Great Green Being.) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This redirect was added in 2006 to preempt the re-creation of blatantly spammy (and mildly derogatory) content that had previously been at the page. That would be a legitimate use of redirects, though usually only after multiple deletions. I abstain for now. Rossami (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: this redirect is a tricky one: its stats show that it is employed somehow, still it is clearly misleading. I believe that it should be deleted to avoid making false impression that Wikipedia has something about "Gumby's pizza" and salted to address the concerns that its creation was based on (as reported by Rossami). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep maybe change target to "Pizzaria" - if someone could write that - not new or harmful. Rich Farmbrough, 19:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete and salt as I don't think salting was around back then. Keeping the redirect to prevent recreation is not a good thing. Salting it is the way to go. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per Nihonjoe. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Per User:Nihonjoe. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 11:30, 1 March 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_February_26&oldid=1142587576"