Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 9, 2014.

Wikipedia:LIP[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Shortcut to failed proposal, with no accompanying talk page and very few linking pages. 12 hits in last 90 days John Vandenberg (chat) 16:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The shortcut may have been useful back in 2008 when this was a hot topic but it's a moot issue now and nobody cares anymore. How many pages link to it, though? Server space is free, and we don't want to make it too hard for somebody who might be digging into the history of image use on Wikipedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Three pages link to it. (User:CBM/NFCC discussion 2007-9-17, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria/Proposal & Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 28) I'll update those links to point to the full page name once this is deleted. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the nomination, the shortcut was only linked from three pages. It was created by Wikidemon created it. What does the nominator want to become of it? If there's another, more active page for which WP:LIP would be a good mnemonic, that would be a valid reason to retarget this. No such page has been mentioned, so I'm assuming the nominator wants it deleted. Is there a reason? If it's purely to free up a slot in the Wikipedia: name-space, please note that there are 17 576 (26 times 26 times 26) possible shortcuts of the form WP: followed by three letters. Looking at User:Scott/Notes/Shortcut table I see a lot of short shortcuts still available. With four letters after WP:, there are 456 976 possiblities. I took a quick look at the guideline linked from the nomination, WP:SHORTCUT, and the only text I found in it that discourages the unrestrained, profligate creation of shortcuts is the caveat that shortcuts are "usually from the Wikipedia namespace". If there's an impulse to conserve the name-space, changing the guideline would be a good place to begin. For example, requests could be made to only make shortcuts to project pages, to only create one shortcut per target page, or to wait until a proposal has attained consensus before making a shortcut to it. Keeping failed proposals, and the means to find them, is useful as a way to avoid repeating them. —rybec 03:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My God, somebody actually found that useful!! I think you're the first! :-) — Scott • talk 16:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - just because a proposal is failed doesn't mean shortcuts to its page should not be retained, and "housekeeping for the sake of housekeeping" does not improve the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it is not kept as a shortcut to the proposal, then it can be retargeted elsewhere to remain useful. Otherwise, it is harmless right where it is. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 05:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unless my imagination is failing me, it seems like it sends people to what they're looking for. If there's another plausible LIP, I'd support a disambiguation, but I can't imagine what it is. WilyD 09:47, 13 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.

CAT:LYOKO[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 11:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SHORTCUT for a content category with ~10 articles. 17 pageviews in last 90 days. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep entirely harmless. It's not the way of anything, and if someone wants to use it for something else in the future they can nominate it for retargetting then without inconveniencing anyone in the meanwhile. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. re PE: The harm is in the uncommon naming: categories already are in their namespace, no need or help to create a double (confusing) name from mainspace. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that were true then there would be consensus against all "CAT:" redirects, which is obviously not the case. Where categories have shortcuts, "CAT:blah" is the common naming. If you think that there is no need for this category to have a shortcut, that's fair enough but that doesn't translate into a reason to delete the redirect nor does it mean that the redirect is harmful in any way. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are pulling this individual XfD into some general policy one. Wasn't it you who disallowed exactly that some weeks ago, as a closing admin at that? You seem too pick your way by the day. -DePiep (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What Thryduulf said. With the controversial issue of pseudo-namespaces now discussed at the Village pump, there should be a hold put on listings of PNR shortcuts until that discussion is ended. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 05:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, clearly sends users to what they're looking for. No argument has been presented that supports deletion. WilyD 09:44, 13 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.

Shouldbesvg[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. WJBscribe (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR without a prefix; has a shorter shortcut CAT:SVG. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • move' This gets plenty of hits (no doubt through being advertised in the shortcut box and for being easy to remember). I would suggest moving it to WP:Shouldbesvg or CAT:Shouldbesvg (and creating the other as a redirect) as it's not a target that needs a mainspace link. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection to moving, but also dont see the need as CAT:SVG is a pretty decent shortcut for it. I've just now created CAT:GL (matching WP:GL) for the main parent cat of Category:Images that should be in SVG format. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete per nom. No objection to moving it without redirect to WP: space really but I can't really see any benefit in keeping this. I suspect the few hits this has got were from people clicking on the link in the shortcut box or stumbling across it rather than actually finding this useful. 94.5.119.135 (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't look like the title of a regular article, nor like something someone would search for when looking for non-project content. The name makes it obvious that this has something to do with an image, or images that is/are in raster format but could be converted to SVG. If it were tagged with {{R to project}} then someone forking or mirroring Wikipedia could easily identify it as Wikipedia-specific and deal with it, if desired. —rybec 03:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reason to have this ill-named redirect in mainspace. Keep namespace clean is a sound common sense. -DePiep (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For general information, the creator of this template, Lx45803, explained their reason for making it at Talk:Shouldbesvg. However, it's ill-formed. — Scott • talk 16:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--Lenticel (talk) 01:53, 14 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:POEM[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 disambiguate. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 11:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to userspace page created by a user who has a total of 350 edits, mostly not content, or content that has since been removed as unencyclopedic. The redirect has 18 hits in last 90 days. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget to Wikipedia:Poems about Wikipedia or Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Both seem logical, however we dont have many pages about Wikipedia poems, and one of the three has its own shortcut WP:HAIKU, and the other pages have low hit counts. I have a slight preference for the WikiProject being the target. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'd agree with that slight preference. They're listed above in the order I thought of them - I stumbled across the Haiku page only 2 days ago and added it to the list of poems then so that was top of my mind. I plan to create WP:POEMS as a redirect to whichever target is chosen when this RfD concludes unless any objects. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify to both Wikipedia:Poems about Wikipedia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry. Looks like both can accommodate the redirect although a hatnote would also be okay.--Lenticel (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or disambiguate; perhaps the current target could be marked as historical or linked from the "See also" section of one of the other pages. The nominator mentioned the editing activity of the original creator of the target page, but a better indication is to look at the page's history. Its creator invited others to edit it, adding one word at a time, but there hasn't been much recent activity. —rybec 03:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per above ; current target should not be listed -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate – The <poem></poem> wiki markup tag should be on that disambiguation page also. The target is Help:Wiki markup#Retaining newlines and spaces, and Help:POEM already redirects there.  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  17:39, 11 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.

Michael Meaney (darts player)[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 all. JohnCD (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no point having this redirect, it was only created so 2014 BDO World Darts Championship has no red links. Koppapa (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all None of the individuals are mentioned in the target article and if they're red links then the notable ones are more likely to be created by interested editors. Keresaspa (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, if possible Red-links to personal names should rarely, if ever, exist (WP:REDNOT). Joefromrandb (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator hadn't tagged any of the redirects. I've copy-pasted this discussion from the 7 January page so they could be tagged more easily. —rybec 07:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The redirects are factually incorrect. Most of these players are not British and have nothing to do with the British Darts Organisation, other than attending events held by the organisation. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:55, 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.

David Guerra[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 David Molina. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 11:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted to make room for potential use by someone actually named David Guerra. IMDB has seven of them. Another editor recently had to move a redlink in the Spinal Tap film article to point to "David Guerra (actor)" instead. Disambiguation shouldn't be needed. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to David Molina whose name is "David Alejandro Molina Guerra"; if other articles show up, it can be turned into a disambiguation page -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
agree with 70.50.148.122, also WP:REDNOT advises that "red links to personal names should be avoided" —rybec 06:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per 70.50. — Scott • talk 16:38, 13 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.

Template:GinnRacing[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. JohnCD (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead template redirect. Redirect left by a move in 2007; no pages use, or will ever use, this template redirect. The Bushranger One ping only 01:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment With exactly 1 hit in 2013 (on 12 November) it's safe to say it is unused. The template appears to have had quite a few moves over the years so it would be useful for someone with more time than I have now to check that all the history is accounted for and that deleting this will not remove anything. Thryduulf (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I also checked through the move history. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Scott • talk 16:39, 13 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.

Yellow Harvest[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. JohnCD (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, this redirect may have made sense, to a since-removed section of a since-redirected article. It's pretty literally cruft now. BDD (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. The present target doesn't make any sense and there doesn't appear to be any other target to which it could sensibly point. Thryduulf (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment it used to direct to the "Blue Harvest" article, which seems to have been deleted in the last week. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the version of that article at the time the redirect was created. It was apparently a working title for The Simpsons Movie, but it's not mentioned there either. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That blue Harvest is a different article. Blue Harvest was originally an article about the working title for Return of the Jedi. The other article was recently moved form its original title Blue Harvest (Family Guy) as being the only article with that title meaning the the orginial Blue Harvest much have in fact been deleted unless I am missing something.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That article was moved to Blue Harvest (Star Wars). As mentioned above, it has since been redirected to Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. The normal process of fixing double redirects is how we ended up with "Yellow Harvest" pointing there. --BDD (talk) 23:58, 9 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_9&oldid=1138579682"