Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 8, 2014.

Corynantheidine[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) 00:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

deletion - This is a confusing redirect as the redirected name is a similarly named, but different, chemical substance to that described in the target. No mention of the redirected substance is made in the target. A user not paying scrupulous attention to the names of both substances can easily think they're reading about Corynantheidine when they are not. So the entry on the plant Mitragyna speciosa has a link to Corynantheidine, which is found in the plant, but the link takes the user to Corynanthine, which is not. So a user (me!) researching the pharmacological properties of the plant may be misled. Sydb (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the reasons given and to encourage article creation. There also exists a related, third substance called corynantheine. —rybec 15:29, 9 February 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.

Category:Article Incubator graduates[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 procedural close. Category redirects are discussed at WP:CFD; apologies for not making the nominator aware of this previously. --BDD (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AI is now closed down. This category will not have any further additions TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incubated articles are now moved to WP:Draftspace.  This is a category redirect, so it is supposed to be empty.  The target of the redirect will continue to have additions as there are articles that graduated from the incubator that are not yet categorized as such.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This redirect is linked from ~47 pages (mostly in user space), and the target category is not empty. The nomination seems to concern the usefulness of the target category more than the redirect. Would it be too bureaucratic to suggest that this instead be asked at WP:CFD? —rybec 15:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Article Incubator candidate for articlespace[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 procedural close. Category redirects are discussed at WP:CFD. --BDD (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article Incubator is now defunct. This category will not have any more additions to it TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

City Center, Florida[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) 17:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is so ambiguous as to be misleading; almost every city in Florida has a city center. NE2 14:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Every hit on the first two pages of a google search for "City Center, Florida" -Wikipedia is for Sun City Center, Florida but it isn't any better a search term for that. A possible target would be List of municipalities in Florida (where List of cities in Florida redirects), but I'm leaning towards favouring deletion over retargetting. Not enough to make a bolded recommendation at this point though. Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a plausible search term. Anyone looking for the city centre of a whole state is just being silly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ; at the very least, Miami, Tampa, Orlando would be thought of.-- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a difference between a part of a city that could be described by the generic term "city center", and a neighborhood who's proper name is "City Center" (rather like "new city" in the sense of a new city vs New City, Illinois). From City Center (disambiguation) and intitle:City Center, it would seem that this is the only "City Center" in Florida we have an article on. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What good does the redirect do? Is it likely that someone typing in City Center, Florida is looking for the Miami Beach neighborhood? I doubt it. --NE2 14:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it truly is the only notable notable neighborhood (or city or town) named "City Center" in Florida, it is very likely. If not, this can be disambiguated so as to list all notable "City Center"s in Florida. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to City Center (disambiguation) where I've added a link to Sun City Center, Florida. —rybec 04:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The name of that city is "Sun City Center" not "City Center", and even counting partial title matches, Sun City Center seams to be the only other "City Center" in Florida we have an article on. A hatnote on City Center (Miami Beach), or disambiguating like this would be better. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:15, 12 February 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.

Template:wprk[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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These aren't obvious abbreviations or shortcuts for rock music and unlikely for anyone but the creator of these to use because he can't add in 2 more letters to the more obvious and already existing shortcut for such projects, in this case {{WPRock}}. Also, there can be confusion with these in that WP:WPR redirects to Wikipedia:List of shortcuts/Project shortcuts, WP:R to Wikipedia:Redirect and then there's Wikipedia:Pronunciation respelling key (WPRK?). Too many possibilities when there are already more appropriate options. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "Template:wprk" - Wikipedia:Pronunciation respelling key is a significant extrapolation. We have discussed similar issues with Template:Cop. I think that unless there is a better place to which "Template:wprk" should redirect, that it should remain.
  • Weak keep for "Template:wpr" - Unless there is a better place to which "Template:wpr" should redirect, that it should remain. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. The connection to rock music is non-intuitive, and the redirect at {{WPRock}} is only 2 characters longer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per BHG. — Scott • talk 01:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To save space, a discussion similar to this one occurred at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_18#Template:Cop in which @Thryduulf: made some valid points on both March 24th and March 30th. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do". --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep As I said with Template:Cop, "Unless a WikiProject [or anyone else, for that matter] has actually expressed interest in usurping [these redirects], I don't see [them] doing any harm." Again, I qualify my vote because these redirects are new enough that deleting them won't cause serious harm. But overall, I see little benefit to keeping and no benefit to deletion. --BDD (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep wprk per BDD. Many, possibly most, templates with names starting "wp" (in any capitalisation) are associated with WikiProjects and including a W for the Wikipedia namespace is at best very uncommmon, I've just looked at a random sample of about 50 template redirects starting "WP" and in no case was the namespace represented in the acronym. This means that the alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep wpr. Mostly per BDD and my comment immediately above, however in this case there is a slight potential for confusion with a template for Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect (given that WP:R is the widely known shortcut to Wikipedia:Redirect). However there is no need to change it unless there is evidence that people are actually using it with the belief it points somewhere other than it does - evidence that I have been unable find. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is more the lazy option than a real improvement. The unclear short hand is confusing. The Banner talk 13:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both: no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:50, 16 February 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_February_8&oldid=1138579590"