Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 5, 2014.

Służewiec Przemysłowy[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. --BDD (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2014 (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.

A Madness Shared by Two[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 Folie à deux. Revdel has also been carried out. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term - the article does not mention this non-notable book. Additionally, page history has a large copyvio in it, so it will need revdelling at the very least. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Folie à deux which literally means "madness shared by two" (It's even in the lede). --Lenticel (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revdel and leave the target as is, or delete. The capitals make it a title. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2014 (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/Education program[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. Personally, I don't really like this outcome, but as long as there are going to be incoming external links here from a decent source, there's clear harm in deleting. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly named title. The deletion log will point readers to the correct title. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding Wikipedia/WikiProject Medicine as it is the same issue, created for the same reasons, by the same chap. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 01:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was correctly named at the time. An article in a medical journal was published using this link, and the link was useful when the article was fresh. It is less useful now, and if it is problematic for it to exist, then it could be deleted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bluerasberry, I dont understand "It was correctly named at the time." This content was never titled "Wikipedia/Education program" or "Wikipedia/WikiProject Medicine". It looks like a copy-editing problem in the article "Citing Wikipedia" http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g1819 , published 06 March 2014, of which you are the sole author. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg It was correct in the sense that it solved a problem and, so far as I know, did not cause any problem. Yes, it was due to a copy editing problem in an article I wrote. I know nothing about policy on making odd links in weird spaces on Wikipedia, but since it was possible for me to make it and I had a use for it, I made it. I presumed if there were no good reasons to do this sometimes then it would be prohibited in the software. I prefer to keep it if it causes no harm but do not object at all to it being deleted if its harm outweights the benefit. The benefit is very low but not nonexistent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That the software allows it doesnt mean it is appropriate. If we allow it for you, then we have to allow it for everyone. There are nearly 100 deleted Wikipedia/* titles in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AUndelete&prefix=Wikipedia%2F , and the only other Wikipedia/ redirect in Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia/ is Wikipedia/History, which redirects to mainspace, but I have nominated it anyway at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 10, in the hope that this prefix can be easily checked for any pages which need to be investigated for probable problems. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is forbidden to me then likewise it should be forbidden to everyone, and so far as I know this is not the case. How does this sound as a compromise - you write a short rule (1-2 sentences) which says that this is forbidden, advertise it appropriately (1-2 places, "Hey check this link"), and I will be the first supporter of the rule. If it passes after 1-2 weeks then I will support this deletion. Right now, so far as I know, no rule prohibits this, no argument has been made to establish harm coming from this, and I have argued that a minimal benefit comes from keeping it. You might even wish to make a general rule that odd pages are not to be created in odd spaces, and that only named spaces are acceptable places to store information. I am more concerned preventing this from being enforced without a rule than I am with actually deleting it, because I do want to encourage an environment where people do what seems intuitive to make things work here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep if these links were published then we really should not be breaking them without a good reason (linkrot is something we should avoid). At present they are harmless, not in the way of encyclopaedic content and used. Thryduulf (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SUBPAGEs are no longer valid in mainspace -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note WP:RFD#KEEP which explicitly mentions why subpages should not be automatically deleted. None of these are harmful and all are correct, so deletion will bring no benefits and in the case of the published ones at least will be harmful. Deletion therefore has no justification. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not automated deletion - this is RFD, where we make a community decision. Regarding wp:RKEEP's point about subpages, please note that wp:subpage is about actual pages in a namespace with the subpage feature enabled, not redirects in mainspace which happen to contain a '/' somewhere in the title.
        As I have said in another discussion where you've tried this logic, WP:RKEEP refers to encyclopedia articles which previously included '/' in the title, like Australia/People, as that was once the actual (and stable) content page title approved by policy/practise at the time; see the old wording. These redirects created by User:Bluerasberry were created in 2014 (i.e. not old), and point to project space (i.e. not encyclopedia articles), ... so .. very strange use of policy to defend these redirects for which there is apparently no precedent ..? John Vandenberg (chat) 07:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is indeed not an automated deletion, but your (and the anon whose rationale I was refuting's) sole reason for wanting this deleted is that it appears to be a subpage without any consideration for other factors. My support for this is based on the fact that it is both harmless and used, meaning that deletion would bring no benefits to Wikipedia while making it harder for people following the links to this redirect to find what they are looking for which harms Wikipedia. I don't care about precedents regarding other redirects (see WP:OTHERSTUFF) I care about this redirect and Wikipedia's readers. Thryduulf (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment John Vandenberg Thryduulf I made the pages and I will say again that I see no rule prohibiting this. If someone wrote a line in Wikipedia:Subpages or wherever else appropriate that said this is disallowed then I would support the deletion. If no one can come up with a rule to forbid this, and perhaps it should be forbidden, then I see no rule to delete it. Here is a sample explanation to copy over - "Content has to be placed in established top level headings, like the article space, "Wikipedia:", or "User:". Even though it is permissible to create content in odd named spaces, content in these spaces can be deleted on sight. If a situation arises where there is some unusual temporary need for content in these spaces, like a malformed url from an external website directing to the wrong place on Wikipedia, then for a reasonable length of time a redirect may be created and used in an odd space." If someone pasted this over then I would support its inclusion on the talk page, and support the deletion of this link. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Bluerasberry, it is in WP:R#DELETE#6 'It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace...' John Vandenberg (chat) 12:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this is a major problem then it should be down at a software level and all pages starting with Wikipedia/ should be redirected to their Wikipedia: counterparts. But it clearly isn't an issue by looking at the stats for these and other non-existent titles beginning with "Wikipedia/". 2.30.93.60 (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2014 (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) 21:30, 5 December 2014 (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 (UNESCO World Heritage Site)[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. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This disambiguation title is inaccurate. Wikipedia is not a UNESCO World Heritage Site. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep the first sentence of the target explains why the article was originally created at this title: "Wikipedia for World Heritage refers to the efforts put forth to get Wikipedia listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site." Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2014 (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) 21:29, 5 December 2014 (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.

Kenny Schwartz[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. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schwartz has had a long career. American Dad! is certainly not the only show he has worked on. In fact, he's not even currently working on it, so it seems unfair to point a TV writer who's still active in the industry to just one show out of many he's done. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. It looks like he has a lot of projects based on his IMDB listing. --Lenticel (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2014 (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/2014_December_5&oldid=1037875910"