Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 6, 2012

Bradenton Christian School[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. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should a school really be redirected to the town it's in? Gold Standard 23:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I redirected Bradenton Christian School to Bradenton, Florida, because I saw Bradenton christian school (lowercased) was already redirected to Bradenton, Florida. NBA Fan44 (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until and unless the school is shown to meet our inclusion criteria, a redirect to the town is reasonable. A link to the parent school district would be better but I have not yet found such an article. Rossami (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh- From the top: geographically located in Manatee County School District, not listed there or its website[1]. Delete the uppercase, move lower to uppercase without leaving a redirect, then redirect to Bradenton, Florida; or tag lowercase as unprintworthy. School is a 50 year K-12; the 12 gives it presumed notability and deserves an attempted article, but the lowercase version is childish nonsense. Confirmed-existence high school articles are normally kept, but the article hasn't had a good faith attempt yet that I can see. Redirect to school district is preferred, but in this case seems unavailable; redirect to community is a fallback routinely used for elementary, middle, and junior high schools, but seems the best available interim solution until article creation. Dru of Id (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Capitalization variants are an encouraged use of redirects. Remember that while the search engine is now case-insensitive, many of the other means by which our readers navigate the wiki are still case-sensitive. Rossami (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • All of which I'm aware of, so I'm not seeing where that conflicts with my suggestion. Dru of Id (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was not the impression I got from the phrases "the lowercase version is childish nonsense" and "move lower to uppercase without leaving a redirect". If it was not your intent to argue for deletion of the capitalization variant, then I apologize for my misunderstanding. Rossami (talk) 13:17, 11 July 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.

Crucifix Kiss[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. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to redirect song names to album pages. Gold Standard 23:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I couldn't find any guidance on whether such redirects (I've made quite a few, including the one directly below) were a good idea, so followed WP:R#KEEP point 5 and the WP:CHEAP philosophy If the decision is made to delete, I'd like to see the reasoning made more clear, perhaps on the WP:R, WP:MOSMUSIC or WP:SONGS pages. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 00:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my argument in the "Yes (Manic Street Preachers song)" discussion immediately below. Rossami (talk) 00:36, 7 July 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.

Yes (Manic Street Preachers song)[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. Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to redirect song names to album pages. Gold Standard 23:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Redirects from a non- or semi-notable topic to the more notable parent topic are routine. They politely preempt the creation of content which does not meet our inclusion criteria and steer new editors to the pages where their contributions will be more appreciated. This redirect does not appear to be harmful or confusing and is not in the way of other content. There is no policy-based reason to delete this. Rossami (talk) 00:35, 7 July 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.

Be afraid be very afraid the book of scary urban legends[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. As a normal editorial action I've marked the redirect as unprintworthy due to the capitalisation issue noted by Senator2029. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this redirect is unnecessary. We do not need to redirect the title of every book by every author to their page. Gold Standard 23:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Until and unless the book itself meets our generally accepted inclusion criteria for an independent article, keep. The redirect is not harmful, is not in the way of other content and serves to preempt the re-creation of content which does not meet our inclusion criteria. Redirects are cheap. Once created, there is no value to deleting this. Rossami (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm the one who changed it from a useless article to a (possibly useful) redirect. If we can keep another kid from trying to turn his book report into an article, we come out ahead. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This redirect is unnecessary: even the author's article it links to doesn't mention the book. Also, it is unprintworthy due to incorrect capitalization and punctuation. So let's delete it, and if someone really wants to, then create a new redirect as Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid: The Book of Scary Urban Legends. Senator2029talk 03:17, 14 July 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.

HengLiang district[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. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading. In the terminology of PRC admnistrative divisions, a district is many times larger than a subdistrict. Also, link rot is not a concern, as nothing links to this and nothing ever will. GotR Talk 23:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not only was this the original location of the content, this is an entirely plausible error. The redirect serves to point a reader who does not necessarily know the distinction to the correct article where they can find the content they need. Tag with {{unprintworthy}} perhaps. To the link rot comment, content existed there for 8 months before the pagemoves. While we can say that nothing currently links there from within Wikipedia, we can not say the same about older links in pagehistory (any of which could be restored) nor can we say anything at all about links from outside Wikipedia. Link rot is still a concern. Rossami (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the time, it was a town, so I don't see how this is a plausible error. Also, the page was created on 20 Sept 2011, and first moved the following Halloween, which makes for 41 days, not the 8 months you claim. GotR Talk 00:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I stand corrected on the timing - misread the logs. Nevertheless, the redirect has existed for some time and may still be linked. And "district" for "subdistrict" is entirely plausible regardless of whether you interpret that first, poorly worded draft as referring to a town or the surrounding area. Rossami (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • To me, confusing the two is like confusing "subarctic" with "Arctic" or even "subzero" with "zero". GotR Talk 03:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • No because arctic and subarctic are distinct topics that both exist. A better example might be British-Irish Parliamentary Body, an entity which is properly called the "Parliamentary Assembly" but an outsider is unlikely to know which is correct until they find and read the article. It's only an obvious mistake if you already have prior knowledge of which is right. Rossami (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I tagged it with {{R from incorrect name}}. Note that this is one of the reasons to have redirects—to assist readers in arriving at the correct title. None of the redirects listed in Category:Redirects from misspellings are appropriate to link to from other articles, and this one is no exception, but it does serve a purpose and it's a plausible error. BigNate37(T) 19:02, 11 July 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.

Kangaroo penis[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 Marsupial#Reproductive system. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion per reason 10: the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target section contains no information on the subject. – Wdchk (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC) – I am comfortable with retarget to a more relevant article#section. – Wdchk (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am skeptical that this could plausibly be expanded into an article. The only unusual quality I can find is that (except for the two largest species), the kangaroo penis is bifurcated. That, however, is a common characteristic to almost all marsupials and is already well-discussed both in the main penis article and at Marsupial#Reproductive system. I could see an argument to retarget to either of those locations but I do not see enough potential to support a redlink. Rossami (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have re-targeted the red links to Marsupial#Reproductive system, which is more relevant than the original link. Also, can you clarify what you mean by "supporting a redlink?" Jarble (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wdchk's original proposal was to "redlink" the title - that is, to delete the redirect in the hope that the resulting red link would encourage some future reader to create the article. Red links are a visual cue that Wikipedia does not yet have content at that title. That proposal is only viable if there is a reasonable belief that Wikipedia should have an article at that title (which implies a belief that the resulting article will someday be able to grow beyond perma-stub status). If you believe a title has that potential, then the title can "support a redlink". Rossami (talk) 03:33, 7 July 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.

Maryland Military & Naval Academy[edit]

 Relisted. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 31#Maryland Military & Naval Academy. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_6&oldid=1138578295"