Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 16, 2014.

Wikipedia:Nawab Faizunnesa Govt. Girls' High 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 speedy delete as a redirect to a deleted page. — Scott • talk 11:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

inappropriate cross-namespace redirect DexDor (talk) 08:01, 16 January 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.

Complimentary SoundCloud (complimentary SoundCloud download)[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 as recently created and completely implausible. — Scott • talk 12:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

misleading; target article mentions nothing about a complimentary download or the term "complimentary SoundCloud" Adabow (talk) 07:25, 16 January 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.

Complimentary SoundCloud set[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. Assuming the "rename" suggestions mean that there should be a SoundCloud set redirect, anyone can create that. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

misleading; target article mentions nothing about a complimentary set Adabow (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Good point on the most appropriate target, SoundCloud#Features, having been somewhat WP:EASTEREGGish, – thanks. I've expanded it a little (mitigating that) and am seeking sources for precise coverage (as the SoundCloud website was redesigned last year, and some terms want dating).   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not as though the term "complimentary SoundCloud set" has been used by any reliable sources. It would be much, much clearer to describe music available for free downloads on SoundCloud as just that, ie xyz was made available for free on SoundCloud instead of xyz was made available as a complimentary SoundCloud set". Linking to this redirect in articles should be discouraged for this reason. Noone will type this term into the search bar, so the redirect is absolutely pointless and misleading. Adabow (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Features section of the SoundClound article itself, "sets" are now called "playlists". Si Trew (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, I made the "playlist" name addition, which seems to've gone live with a heap of changes from their beta-test site. Currently, both names are in use on the site ("set" and "playlist"). I've emailed them asking for a link to a press-release / announcement on these changes.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Including the "complimentary" makes it an unlikely search term; beyond the obvious how does a complimentary SoundCloud set (or playlist) differ from one requiring a consideration? Would people really search for "complimentary"? And then even with "set" or "playlist" or "download", wouldn't people more likely just search "SoundCloud"?
For most things, being complimentary is just part of a business model and is not inherent in what the thing is. There's no complimentary bar or complimentary inflight magazine, for example, only bar (establishment) and inflight magazine (although there is such a thing as a free lunch). Si Trew (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename without "Complimentary": I agree with Si Trew on "complimentary" being superfluous to the noun-phrase. (Vote changed accordingly.)   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 01:06, 20 January 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:EXPREV[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. WJBscribe (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

shortcut to failed proposal; presence confusing in dropdown search list NE Ent 03:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment When I put 'WP:EXP' into the search box, this redirect doesnt appear. When I put 'WP:EXPR' into the search box, this appears last on the list of five matches. In those case, for me at least, this redirect doesnt appear to be causing much of a problem. Are you seeing it appear for some other search terms? Or is your annoyance that it appears at all? Is there another target you would prefer this shortcut is used for? John Vandenberg (chat) 06:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A shortcut with long-written namespace name is a contradictio. We simply do not provide all typing variants for XNR pages. -DePiep (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You misunderstand, Wikipedia:EXPREV is exactly the same page as WP:EXPREV - it is not possible to have one without the other. Keep in the absence of any reason to delete (failed proposals are perfectly valid targets). Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Failed proposals can still have shortcuts. There doesn't seem to be anything else for this to point to, so there's no problem here. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 22 January 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:Eric Orr[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 as uncontroversial housekeeping. — Scott • talk 11:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why this redirect should be here. buffbills7701 02:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete housekeeping deletion of redirect from a pagemove of an article in the wrong namespace. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:36, 16 January 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.

NOTFORUM[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) 18:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to in-universe term. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; clearly not about various political/governmental shutdowns of forums that were later declared not forums. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Malformed, contaminates mainspace search. — Scott • talk 11:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. XNR from mainspace without ns prefix is bad enough. Then, self-reference (to wikipedia) is to be separated from articles (mainspace & content). -DePiep (talk) 13:19, 18 January 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.

WPMILHIST[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) 18:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Shortcut without a colon, with 10 or less pageviews in all month between Jan-June and September-Nov 2013, with 16 pageviews in July and August. (December being the exception due to a lot of people analysing our catalog of WP:CNRs.) WP:INARWP:MILHIST goes to the same target. Prior examples of redirects like this being deleted are Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 9#WPAFRICA, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 13, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 13, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 7#WPBURMA.

This one was previously kept at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_9#WPMILHIST. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete already exists as WP:MILHIST and this is a typo missing the colon that activates the namespace alias, becoming a WP:XNR to pipework. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible typo, clearly sends the editor to what they're looking for, no argument has been presented to support deletion. WilyD 10:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you mean, no argument has been presented to support deletion? -DePiep (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Malformed and utterly redundant. Incidentally, WilyD, your endless copy-and-paste keep message is starting to get annoying. An argument has been presented, even though you seem determined to stick your fingers in your ears and go LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING! — Scott • talk 11:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not copy-pasting anything. Continually nominating things for deletion for no reason at all is a bad practice. As long as people continue to do it, I'm going to continue to call it out. No argument at all has been presented to support deletion. Not one word. This redirect has been nominated for deletion for absolutely no encyclopaedic purpose, which is a bad practice. WilyD 10:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hoarding unused redirects to non-article content from mainspace is "encyclopaedic"? Mister, I'm not sure that you know what that word means. You also keep saying "no reason" when reasons have been given, as above. The reason is that this redirect is malformed and redundant to a correctly-formed shortcut and demonstrates no credible evidence of purposeful usage. In other words, it's fricking useless junk. I can't believe that I have to rehash the nominator's rationale to you in such a basic fashion. — Scott • talk 11:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep. You both actually have points, Wily's are just poorly phrased. The redirect is not "encyclopaedic" but neither is it "useless junk" as it clearly takes at least some people who arrive here to the encyclopaedia-supporting content they are looking for, and that is just as valid a use of a redirect as one to encyclopaedic content itself. There is evidence of use (page hits) which cannot tell us whether the use was purposeful or not. It is exceedingly unlikely that all the uses are people clicking on random article expecting to find an article, and it is also very unlikley that anyone is looking for an article at this title, therefore it is reasonable to presume that the majority of uses are intentional. Additionally, there is evidence from "what links here" of use that does show the context of use, and excluding the mentions of deletion discussions every single use is intentional, further strengthening the case. Finally, I see no evidence that anything has changed since the previous discussion where Sadads, Rossami and Eraserhead1 all recommended keeping with the rationale "nothing wrong with a cross namespace redirect, as long as it does not have the potential to confuse". So although the nomination does have a reason, it is very significantly weaker than the argument to keep. Thryduulf (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. But why, if you want to keep something, do you always say "no argument has been presented to support deletion"? The nominator didn't even propose deletion (this is Redirects for Discussion), and deletion or retention are not the only two options; this is the fallacy of the excluded middle. Keeping the status quo is the default anyway, so you might just as well write "keep" with no further comment. Your phrasing is provocative, even if you don't mean it to be, when interpreted as "my argument to keep is that no other argument, if any, actually holds". Si Trew (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Wrong or no prefix, in a XNR from mainspace. Even in WP:-space we do not maintain typo shortcuts. So let's delete this mainspace pollution. If you make a typo, you might not find what you need. Fine, we are not google. -DePiep (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What on earth have typos got to do with this? We do maintain typo shortcuts where they are well used and don't conflict with anything, and making it harder for people to find something is a Bad Thing not something to be encouraged (because it benefits nobody while disadvantaging some people). Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 18 January 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.

WPINAR[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. Also, I just realized that I got disoriented and started closing some discussions a day early. The outcome of those discussions seems clear, but feel free to contact me with any concerns regarding these. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Shortcut without a colon, with less than 10 pageviews in every month between Jan-Nov 2013. (December being the exception due to a lot of people analysing our catalog of WP:CNRs.) WP:INAR goes to the same target. Prior examples of redirects like this being deleted are Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 9#WPAFRICA, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 13, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 13, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 7#WPBURMA. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete already exists as WP:INAR and this is a typo missing the colon that activates the namespace alias, becoming a WP:XNR to pipework. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Malformed, unnecessary, mainspace contamination. — Scott • talk 11:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite "unnecessary" not being a reason to delete a redirect, "mainspace contamination" being extremely weak on it's own, and the existence of other redirects being relevant only in a choice between "delete" and "move without redirect". There are three signigicant difference between this redirect and "WPMILHIST" above (which I am recommending be kept): (1) There is no evidence from "what links here" of intentional use, and the page views are lower. (2) "INAR" isn't an obvious search term for "Arunachal Pradesh" - at least to someone like me with no knowledge of the subject. I accept it might be obvious to someone familiar with Indian topics, but the Arunachal Pradesh article doesn't give "INAR" or "AR" prominent mention, unlike the infobox at Arkansas notes "AR" as an abbreviation for that state for example. In contrast, whatever you think of the redirect, "MILHIST" does have logical connection to "military history". This means it is less certain that the page views represent people ending up where they intended. (3) Although not immediately required for content, it is not implausible that it will be a search term for content in future. On their own, none of the three reasons are strong enough to recommend deletion, but combined I find the balance is in favour of the encyclopaedia being best served by this not being a redirect to this page. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 18 January 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_January_16&oldid=1050184065"