Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 4[edit]

BANGERZ[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 The Bangerz. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This redirect was originally created for the album by Miley Cyrus, though it has become apparent that it will not be stylized in all-caps the way that albums like ARTPOP will be. Since the very few articles that were linked to this all-caps title have been corrected with the article's current name, in addition to having no significant edit history, I don't think it should be an issue deleting this redirect. WikiRedactor (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to The Bangerz. Bangerz already redirects to The Bangerz and I don't like pointing different capitalisations in different directions since users are not very careful when typing; I know that I'm not. The suggested retarget already has a hatnote for the album. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2013 (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.

Smythe's Creek[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. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smythes Creek and Smythesdale are separate though neighbouring locations. A redirect from Smythe's/Smythes Creek is inaccurate and uninformative in the first place. Recommend deletion, and when the article Smythes Creek is created that a redirect to that be put in place. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I probably created this; facts above are correct, but Smythesdale was so named for 10 years; there is no article for the locality (sans apostr.) nor for the creek- the redirect does give the reader some info; if greatgrandad was born there he was, most likely, born in Smythesdale Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you not say this in the article? That might have made it a valid redirect. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From the article's lead: "The town was known as Smythe's Creek until 1864." It possesses a cite and it's been in the lead since October 2008. I don't see a problem here. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now as a valid and useful redirect mentioned in the target. If an article is created for the modern locality then the redirect will then be retargeted with a suitable hatnote. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2013 (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:Salah[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 Template:Islamic prayer. Seems like a no-brainer now, but if either of the delete voters would still like to see this deleted outright, feel free to contact me and I'll reopen discussion. --BDD (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect with no apparent value. Certainly an unlikely search term. It's a shame WP:CSD doesn't cover these reverse cross-namespace redirects. --BDD (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete The quick deletion criteria talks about unlikely redirects, and this is one that should fall under that category. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My bad, this was meant to redirect to Template:Islamic prayer. "Salah" is the Arabic word for Islamic prayer. I don't know why I redirected it to the article. It must have been a mistake. Thanks for pointing this out. Mar4d (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete XNR -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retarget to {{Islamic prayer}} per Mar4d. Then it won't be a CNR/XNR. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:54, 5 September 2013 (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.

File:LG enV2.jpg[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 - consensus for keeping and no WP:RFD#DELETE grounds for deletion have been produced. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retitled image, no incoming links other than reports about duplicative names. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The file was under the previous name for a very long time. The nominator hasn't provided any evidence that no one outside Wikipedia is depending on the old file name. --14:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan2 (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2013 (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:Yogurt Rule[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. Sorry, I didn't notice that WP:YOGURTRULE had Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 17#Wikipedia:YOGURTRULE already been deleted. In light of that, and majority support, deletion seems the wisest course of action here. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old title, userfied as misleading and serving disruptive purposes (in misguided but good faith). Author later created Project-Userspace redirect Wikipedia:Yogurt Reminder which is arguably justifiable, but this one is obsolete and any future use could only be misleading. Of the seven incoming links, all should be either redlinks, or explicitly updated. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as misleading. There never is or was a "Yogurt Rule" except in the mind of the essay writer. Now the target has been renamed this shortcut misrepresents the content. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no policy based reasoning for this move/deletion. The MoS explicitly states "Shortcuts are created for the convenience of editors. It is possible to create a shortcut for any page at all." and that they are "not part of the encyclopedia". -Kai445 (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shortcuts should not though be misleading. This shortcut implies that the target is a rule, but it is not. It is a user essay that does not document a widespread consensus. The issue is not that the target has a shortcut (that's fine), the issue is that this shortcut is inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to preserve incoming links. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it has been put into user space, it doesn't need a redirect from article space. WP Cross namespace redirects is singularly unhelpful on this except to give examples of what might and might not sometimes be grumbled at. But if the MfD says take it to user space, there is no point YET for having even a redirect in article space. When the user edits the article and puts it into article space, it can stand there on its own feet. A Google search for "Yogurt Rule" brings up this RfD (not the article, this RfD) first, for me, then "Yogurt Land".; if you prefer the traditional British English spelling of "Yoghurt", Google has this WP RfD at first place then recipes at the next five. Si Trew (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep. We should take note that this redirect is not from article space, it is from project space (Wikipedia:). There are now five redirects to that essay and four of them are from project space. I agree that the concept of a "Yogurt Principle" goes counter to the present burden on closing administrators. They can't be expected to use a greater "community consensus" unless such an agreement is mentioned and referenced to other discussions by anyone involved in a present, ongoing discussion. I don't see any harm in any of the redirects. "Rule" or "principle" or "reminder" – all are appropriate when one thinks of "rule of thumb" or "Peter principle" or "gentle reminder". The essay is clear that it is not policy nor guideline. I see neither the harm nor any possible confusion, so Keep would be my !vote. (Note: If the tension here is that this redirect is a xnamespace one, then all four of the project redirects to this userspace essay should be removed, not just this one.) – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a big difference, in terms of impression to an unsuspecting editor, between a straight "rule" and a "rule of thumb". "of thumb" modifies to diminish the impact of "rule". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly no argument from me there. The word "rule" is ambiguous at best. That is precisely why it will do no harm to any "unsuspecting" contributor! They will be redirected to the userfied essay and find out that it's neither policy nor guideline. I doubt they will be so unsuspecting after that. "Rule" in this case turns out to be somewhat ironic, don't you think? The essay, for me, was a bit of dry humour, because how could anybody ask such an enormous task-burden from anybody whose entire contribution load is voluntary? It's air of seriousness made me laugh. Maybe it should be renamed "Yogurt Rule" and listed with all the other humorous essays. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 03:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Just as WP:YR was retargeted, I would have no qualms about retargeting WP:YP to, say, WP:YESPOV and turn it into a policy shortcut. The others can be kept as harmless. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 22:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Harmless only if never used. The author did not intend humor, I'm sure, he is entirely serious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sure! Just as this discussion has been so serious from the getgo about a very funny title, "Yogurt Rule". Johnny Carson reincarnate. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 11:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand. Why has this been relisted here, under the date July 22, when there is a not-yet-closed discussion [1] about the same redirect, posted by the same nominator on this same page, dated July 17? --MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The July 17 nominations were for the shortcuts (YOGURTRULE & YR). This nomination is for the old, pre-userfied, pre-renamed title (WP:Yogurt Rule). At the time of the MfD nomination, I expected a deletion or userfication without redirect. As the MfD closer left the redirects intact, without comment on the redirects, listing at RfD seemed the thing to do. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OIC. Well, the same arguments apply: Delete as inappropriate and misleading. The target article has been userfied and its name has been changed; it doesn't even use the phrase "Yogurt rule"; basically there is no such thing. The word "rule" implies a level of credibility that the article no longer claims and does not deserve. The fact that it redirects from WPspace is particularly inappropriate; in effect it moves the essay back into WPspace after it was removed from WPspace per discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The same is true of all those other redirects that Paine Ellsworth pointed out above, things like Wikipedia:Yogurt Principle and Wikipedia:Yogurt Reminder and Wikipedia:YP. In effect these are all attempts to sneak the essay back into WP space after the article was banished to userspace. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2013 (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.

Kerfew[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The purpose of this redirect is most likely a result of this discussion (which was actually about a non-notable rapper). One user suggested then redirecting this term to its current target, but I don't see the point of that because nowhere in that article does it mention anything close to this spelling of the word. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 07:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete pointless redirect — billinghurst sDrewth 04:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep typo redirect -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible typo. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the default for a redirect is to keep, "redirects are cheap". Also, no WP:RFD#DELETE grounds, harmless and just about a plausible typo. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't really a typo. A typo implies you just hit the wrong key. But K and C have some distance between them on most keyboards, as do E and U. Now, it may be a misspelling. Someone hears the word, guesses at its spelling, and gets it wrong. Or maybe they think this is related to the spelling of curb (UK: kerb). But absent evidence that this is actually a likely misspelling, I don't really see the value in keeping this. Kurfew maybe. Cerfew, probably not. Trying to link Kerfew to Curfew is much more of a stretch. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible guess at the spelling as BDD explains. Siuenti (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2013 (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.

Scared shitless[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 Fear. Nomination withdrawn. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It simply doesn't mean the same thing. ChemNerd (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, that makes more sense to me than deletion. ChemNerd (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2013 (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/2013_September_4&oldid=1138579349"