Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 24, 2012

KAZAKHSTAN and others[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 all. Tikiwont (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence ALL-CAPS title is likely to be used or is a common form for this topic (whole pile by same short-lived editor with history of good-faith but non-useful redirs). DMacks (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all as harmless {{Redirect from other capitalisation}}. I wouldn't encourage their creation, but given they have been created there isn't any benefit in deleting them. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful for navigation, deletion provides no benefits to the encyclopaedia. WilyD 07:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible miscapitalization.--Lenticel (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the country names as they may appear in machine-generated code such as that used in references (e.g. see Special:WhatLinksHere/GERMANY). No comment on the others. ☮Soap☮ 12:55, 28 September 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.

Hassaniya Arabic ()[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 WP:CSD#G6 - page obviously created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable redirect from move error —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:30, 24 September 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.

T:JLO[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. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no relevance to main namespace. Target is a low-traffic internal project page TB (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "T:" is normally used for shorcuts to the template namespace; the recognised shortcut for Wikipedia talk is "WT:" and indeed WT:JLO already exists as a redirect to the same target. Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf, it should be "WT:" -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 01:22, 26 September 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.

Тупак Шакур[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. Taking into account other related discussions, there is still consensus to not have these redirects, also referred to as WP:RFD#DELETE criterion 8, unless there are compelling reasons related to the subject of the article itself, and not just where this subject it is of interest to speakers of other languages.Tikiwont (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This redirect is from languages unrelated to Tupac, and should be deleted per WP:RFD#DELETE#8. Also per precedents for Selena Gomez, Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber at RFD in 2012 August. WP:NOTDICT, Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per recently reaffirmed consensus regarding redirects from languages unrelated to the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful for navigation, no benefit to deletion. WilyD 07:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The benefit is that we don't mislead editors into believing that this is the Done Thing, and wake up tomorrow with another million helpful Cyrillic transliterations of English names. Editors are not going to search the English Wikipedia using such strings. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:13, 25 September 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.

Ловато, Деми[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. Taking into account other related discussions, there is still consensus to not have these redirects, also referred to as WP:RFD#DELETE criterion 8, unless there are compelling reasons related to the subject of the article itself, and not just where this subject it is of interest to speakers of other languages.Tikiwont (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another Demi Lovato redirect from languages not related to Demi Lovato. Per recent Demi Lovato discussions, these kinds of redirects should be deleted. See 2012 August 23, 2012 August 25, similar RFD last year (2011 September 30) that was endorsed at DRV (2012 June 15). This language is unrelated to the target. Nothing to do with her Mexican, Irish, Italian, and English roots. WP:NOTDICT, Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per recently reaffirmed consensus regarding redirects from languages unrelated to the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful for navigation, no benefits of deletion have been articulated (nor do them seem to exist). WilyD 07:48, 25 September 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.

THE PESHTAMAL[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. Tikiwont (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{*THE PESHTAMAL → Peshtamal (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

No evidence "The" is a likely literal search-term for this topic, and the capitalization does not seem standard per topic (and it obviously fails MOS). It's a remnant from when article was moved to Peshtamal 4.5 years ago, so it's out-of-scope for WP:CSD#R3. I originally declined an inappropriate different flavor of CSD tag per process, and another admin had previously declined yet a different flavor from same tagger as also out-of-process. Given history, here we are per process... DMacks (talk) 08:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say else to delete. Too much wasted time for a tiny issue. CeeGee (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't a useful search term, nor is there likely to be incoming links as the article existed at this title for only 19 minutes. The stats show that, outside of the repeated inappropriate CSD tagging the redirect gets no hits above background noise. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful for navigation, no benefits of deletion have been articulated. Too much time has been wasted on this indeed, but here we are instead ... WilyD 07:48, 25 September 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.

List of Reborn! episodes (season 2–2)[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 (non-admin closure). Was the title for 9 months (valid {{R from move}}), possibility of incoming external links, sometimes gets more hits than background noise, no reason to believe redirect is confusing, no compelling reason to delete Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Firstly, it is a double redirect. Secondly, the title is clearly a mistake, redirecting to Reborn! (seasons 2-3). There is no such thing as "season 2-2," and the redirect's existence is confusing. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - plausible typo, useful for navigation, no reason to believe it's existence is confusing. As a double redirect, could be fixed without discussion. WilyD 07:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't see how (season 2-2) is a plausible typo. (seasons 2-3), yes, and (seasons 2-2) maybe, but (season 2-2) is too irrational. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • 2 is a plausible typo of 3, and number agreement with nouns is a tricky beast in English (if not only because en.wikipedia has a lot of 2nd, 3rd, etc. language speakers, but also dialects play differently). WilyD 07:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've fixed the double redirect. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag with {{R from typo}}. The page does in some months get more hits than the background noise, and as it was at this title for ~9 months there is the possibility of incoming external links. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 24 September 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.

September 11, 2011 attacks[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. JohnCD (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect, attacks clearly did not happen on September 11, 2011. Dough4872 02:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easy typo to make. "2011" is one character from "2001". This had existed sense 2011 December, and the traffic statistics show plenty of traffic, if I'm reading them correctly. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to have redirects for every possible typo? Someone could easily type in September 12, 2001 attacks or September 11, 2002 attacks. Dough4872 02:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The traffic statistics for those show almost no traffic. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plus we sometimes keep redirects we wouldn't want to encourage the creation of. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible typo, useful for navigation, no benefits to deleting this redirect have been articulated. WilyD 07:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag with {{R from typo}}. This got 57 hits in July and 79 in August, so is obviously very well used, meaning deletion would be harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all noosphere pollution. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The search function already copes with partial matches, and therefore there is no need for redirects from small typographic errors. We do not need redirects from Esptember 11, Sempetmber 11, September 11 2010, September 112 001 or any number of equally likely typos. This was more serious when we didn't have a fuzzy-matching search engine of our own, but those days are long gone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The internal search engine is only one of many way people find our articles. The majority of them do not have fuzzy matching, search suggestions, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even direct inbound links to typos like this link prominently to the search page, which gives the right result as the top match. The likelihood of this causing any actual failure is minimal, especially when one considers that there is a significant probability of many of the inbound hits being misbehaving bots or other tools rather than humans. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • But what is the benefit to the project of inconveniencing the many people using these redirects? Yes, people may be able to find the article they are looking for using the search engine (but there is no guarantee that they will), but why should they be required to make 2-3 clicks and read not-insignificant amounts of text explaining what they need to do and looking at search results when, at no cost to Wikipedia, they could be taken direct to the article they were searching for with no extra effort on their part? While it is impossible to know how many hits are from humans, long experience of looking at page view statistics for redirects indicates that they account for only around 2-3 hits/month on average, many well used obviously useful redirects get in the range 10-30 hits/month, this redirect is getting in the range 50-100 hits a month. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • More importantly, this redirect has been here sense 2011. Deleting it risks creating link-rot. From top of RFD page "avoid deleting such redirects if [...] You risk breaking incoming [...] links by deleting the redirect". Like I said, we do sometimes keep redirects we wouldn't encourage the creation of. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Applied dogmatically to any link over ten months old, that would preclude the deletion of redirects entirely. I'd suggest that's not the common understanding of what kind of links are likely to cause breakage if removed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point is that link rot is harmful, and creating it is a Bad Thing which reflects negatively on Wikipedia. This does not rule out deleting redirects in all cases, as there are occasions where the harm of keeping a redirect outweighs the harm of link rot. There are also cases where the stats show the redirect is not used, meaning there is very little chance of link rot. Generally, the higher the traffic levels the greater the liklihood of there being incomming links that deletion would break. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the grounds that the information encoded by the redirect is wrong. The year 2011 has no relevance to the subject. Accuracy trumps friendliness. - TB (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the title is incorrect is a reason why we shouldn't have an article here. However the statistics show that people are looking for the content here, from innacurate external links, innacurate memories, typos and possibly other reasons. The redirect helps people find the content they are looking for, educating them in the process (and education is Wikipedia's prime goal). For these reasons and more we do not delete redirects simply for being inaccurate - see Category:Redirects from misspellings (currently 13,933 pages), Category:Redirects from incorrect names (1,147 pages), etc. It's also worth noting that those figures do not include uncategorised redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see no category containing redirects from incorrect dates. This is not a mis-spelling, orthographic error or inherited variation. It is the wrong date. If our goal is to educate (rather than to compile knowledge), we'd be better off excising such errors. - TB (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Being an incorrect date doesn't keep it from being a typo (typos fall under Category:Redirects from misspellings). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • We do have redirects from incorrect dates - I know we've recently discussed a couple relating to the year films were released. It seems they aren't categorised though (I don't have stats, but I suspect categorised redirects are in the minority). We don't distinguish between redirects from incorrect dates and other types of incorrect titles, so they'd appear in category:Redirects from incorrect titles or category:Redirects from misspellings. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is (or rather there should be) a firm distinction between useful typos and just-plain-wrong information. There is utility in a redirect from the (entirely fictional) red-bellied wibler to it's correct spelling (red-bellied wibbler, of course). If the subject was referred to as a red-throated wibbler in some reliable sources, a redirect from this alternate name has merit (of course, remembering to cite these sources). However I do not believe we should link crimson-bellied wibbler on the grounds of 'it might be useful' - at best we'd be introducing confusion and error, at worst just plain making things up. The redirect under discussion here falls, in my opinion, far too wrong for us to retain. - TB (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is not always possible to make such a firm distinction and this case is a good example - "September 11, 2011 attacks" is an incorrect title, as the year is wrong. However "2011" is also a plausible typo for "2001", evidenced by the high usage figures, and it is this latter reason why it should be kept. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • We may have to agree to disagree about this one - in my view, the wrongness of the encoded information clearly outweighs any utility it has. The only compromise that comes to mind would be to convert the link to a soft redirect along the lines of "No globally significant attacks occurred on this date. Did you mean ... " or (I did a quick scan of the news and don't think this necessary) "A terrorist attack took place in Wiblonia on this day, and military attacks in the towns of Wibbleville and Wibleton. It was also the tenth anniversary of ...". - TB (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Topbanana's wrong information argument is a reason to keep this. With this redirect, someone who believes the attacks were in 2011 will be shown that they were in 2001. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like others said, this is a plausible redirect, and there's no good reason to break this link. We shouldn't keep all old redirects just because they're old, but age is a good reason to give old redirects the benefit of the doubt; when they're otherwise not causing problems, we should keep old redirects because they're old. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 25 October 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.

Bad Ass Mother Fucker[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 as too ambiguous. Tikiwont (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This pages redirect seems to be changed often with no reasoning except fandom/attack. Possibly qualifies under WP:FORUM Piandcompany (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has been blocked on multiple occasions and is evidently a vandal-only account. I'm reverting the redirect, there wasn't even an explanation given. --Activism1234 00:34, 24 September 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.

Wikipedia:File namespace[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 all retargeted in the absence of any objection. JohnCD (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-target all to Help:Files, but I'm not too sure if this is the best target, so I wanted to get the some input. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm not sure without a bit more thought what the best target for these would be, but the first two should definitely lead to the same target. Whether the same target is necessarily best for WP:FILE, I'm not sure. Also worth noting is that WP:Files points at Wikipedia:Media, a disambiguation page, to which it might be worth adding Help:Files. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adding Wikipedia:Files to nomination. Also it's target should be the same as Wikipedia:FILE. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it above using {{rfd2m}}. I agree that it should point to the same place as WP:FILE, and once we've decided where that is we can point WP:FILES there too (but it's not worth creating until we have decided). Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll retarget them all to Help:Files. This RFD has been open for a mouth, nobody's objected, and it looks like I'm not going to get any input, and that seams like the best target. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:55, 23 October 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_September_24&oldid=1138578547"