Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 17

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 17, 2015.

Advanced persistent vector

[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; speedy deleted per criterion R3 by The Anome. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted: redirect replaced a cut-and-paste content fork of the target article, redirected back to original article in lieu of deletion, but title of redirect is not, as far as I can tell, a term that is in use anywhere, as a Google search for "Advanced persistent vector" will show -- Impsswoon (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that's no good it goes to the same place Advanced persistent threat. Where is the vector in it? It's nonsense and should be Deleted. Si Trew (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
?Comment' this is rubbish. The lede says it is, I shall try to find it media vectors i.e. things that influence journalists. That is a totally different meaning, and a neologism, from what I would expect to find. A vector is an angle and a distance, as any fule kno. You can't go bandying around techinical terms in that way and not expect a chartered engineer to say something back. It's nonsense, absolute nonsense. I'm trying to find Media slang or something but this is not used outside the mass media publishing industry: and it is an industry but they like to think they are all perfect. Si Trew (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot hope to bribe or twist
Thank God! The British journalist
But seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there's no occasion to.

— Humbert Wolfe

Si Trew (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2015 (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.

Uncle Adolf

[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) 14:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan'd redir, unlikely "misspelling", but has existed for 6 years. ― Padenton|✉   17:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I remember that film but I swear I saw it in English, so will try to find the title etc. IMDB should have it. What I call the "Hitler Channel", Yesterday (TV channel), it would be before their time when it was broadcast, but I can imagine them showing it. I swear it was in English, I have to find it. Si Trew (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's [here at IMDB], I think in English (not sure). Si Trew (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, deffo English. Nicholas Renton played the part and Ken Stott directed it. I think the decision now is not that it exists but what to do with it? 09:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm a liar since according to INMB Ken Stott did the acting and Nicholas Renton did the directing. But that seems unlikely since Ken Stott is usually behind the camera and Nicholas Renton in front of it. Anyway, we have to sort out WP not IMDB — it's a start. Si Trew (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am probably thinking of a different Kenneth Stott. Who produced all of Dennis Potter's TV films? Anyway, we are on our way to a solution. Si Trew (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, IIRC correctly (deliberately havent checked) that is Kenith Trodd, which seems a long way away. But if it reminds me would it remind others? I think the unusual spelling of "Kenith" is problably why I was kinda misled here. Si Trew (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2015 (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.

Jack Spratt (character)

[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) 14:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion.
History: JS(c) was very recently created by a move (made without any discussion) from Jack Spratt (fictional detective), on the grounds that it was "Proper disambiguation". In fact it was a case of improper ambiguation, since Jack Sprat (aka Jack Spratt) from the nursery rhyme is just as much a "character" as Jack Spratt from the Jasper Fforde nursery crime mystery novels. I moved it back (the mover hadn't changed links), leaving explanations on relevant talk pages, and then PRODed the R from move that was created. The mover unPRODed, changed it back to R to Jack Sprat (disambiguation).
Rationale: JS(c) serves no purpose, and can be misleading. Someone who types "Jack Spratt (" into the WP search box will be offered to choose between the "fictional detective" and the "character", and would presumably assume JS(c) means the other Jack Spratt, when it doesn't. Choor monster (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is an old joke and not a very funny one. Actually, I believe Humpty Dumpty was the name given to an extremely large cannon used to protect the Tower of London, and I'm not sure how that name originated, but see the Oxford Book of Nursery Rhymes as RS. Most nursery rhymes have a lot of history. Si Trew (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and Little Boy Blue choked himself. But what, in all due seriousness, is a nursery crime? Ah, now I see.--The Theosophist (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, Fforde′s Jack Spratt is obviously based on the rhyme′s Jack Sprat and this should be mentioned at the disambiguation page--The Theosophist (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

(1) That's a topic for the dab page, not here. (2) It's obvious, so why mention it? (3) It should not be mentioned, per MOS:DAB. Choor monster (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
(1) Agreed, just saying. (2) Obvious to me, after you demonstrated what sort of novels Jasper Fforde writes. (3) According to which section of this page?--The Theosophist (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Sigh. (2) It's obvious on the dab page, which starts off with the nursery rhyme name in bold. (3) Per your suggestion that it should be mentioned on the dab page, I referred you to MOS:DAB. Choor monster (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "fforde", like "fforbes",, is usually spelled with the two F's in lower case: it's a typographic ligature done by printers because they didn't realise it was a long F, according to Radio 4 the other day (so I would have trouble RSing that), but would whack the two F's together whhen people wrote it that way and they set it up in type. Psmith might serve as another example, but Wodehouse did that on purpose, and the P is silent, as in "taking the". Si Trew (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I can't resist this. Margot Asquith was once introduced to Jean Harlow and the latter said to her Hello, Margot. She replied, the T is silent, as in Harlot. Si Trew (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While initial-ff was traditionally lowercase (Rose ffrench, Arthur fforde), the author Jasper Fforde spells his last name with a capital F. Choor monster (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} as there are multiple Jack Spratt characters this could refer to which are listed on the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand how this reason leads to a "keep". Why bother with the incomplete disambiguation in the first place? Choor monster (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We have incomplete disambiguation redirects because people use them - the parenthetical disambiguation naming scheme is familiar to most readers and editors of Wikipedia so they search for titles like this. In this case it will be used by people looking for the article about a Jack Spratt character who don't know there is more than one. See also the top of the RfD page where the valid arguments for keeping and deleting redirects are enumerated (also WP:RDELETE and WP:RKEEP - here none of the reasons to delete apply but reason to keep #5 clearly does (note that this is too new for reliable usage statistics to exist though) and the spirit of keep reasons 2 and 3 is also relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, I meant "why bother with the incomplete disambiguation in the first place in this particular case?" I totally accept the utility of incomplete dabbing in cases like "Title (film)" as a dab to the various year XXXX films. There the rationale is excellent, as it's quite common to be aware of the one but not the other, and someone searches automatically but naively for "Title (film)". And even when you know there are two or more films, your memory of the exact year of the one you want is typically iffy.
    In this case, however, Jack Sprat of nursery rhyme fame is presumably known by 99+% of our readers, so instead of being helpful, this new dab-not-called-dab is confusing and a distraction. I would expect that someone who types "Jack Spratt (" and sees his choice of two completions, one to the "fictional detective", a regular article, and the to the "character", would presume that other one is heading for the nursery rhyme guy or somebody, but not—surprise surprise!—to a dab. So by reasons to delete #5, this should be deleted.
    I would of course not object to Jack Spratt (disambiguation) to be a redirect to Jack Sprat (disambiguation), for that is not confusing. Choor monster (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf, the nursery rhyme has a character named Jack Spratt, and there is the detective, etc, so pointing to the dab page is the correct thing to do -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the correct thing to do if we have this redirect in the first place. Why have it? Choor monster (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Jack Spratt redirects to Jack Sprat. I think I learned the rhyme with two T's but no doubt there are variations. The lede of that article lists both spellings. I'm inclined to take this over the top as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC but not very strongly, since there is obvious confusion here with the end T's. Si Trew (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect to disambig page, per Thryduulf: this is an obvious case where we have a policy that fits this case exactly. -- Impsswoon (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy? We have no policy that requires a redirect to a dab exist in the first place. There are times when it is pretty much unavoidable, multiple titles in the same medium, but here it seems totally unnecessary. Choor monster (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2015 (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.

Baron Sugar of Clapton

[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. The relisting of this discussion was bumbled, such that it remains on its original date too. I had closed that discussion as keep, and consensus here is the same. Stronger, if anything. --BDD (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC) revised 14:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"of Clapton" is part of the territorial designation, not the title. Practice is to have a redirect for the title itself, without the territorial designation. The Theosophist (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew: Which Baronetcy are you referring to?--The Theosophist (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that his title is "Baron Sugar". "of Clapton" is part of the territorial designation, not the title. --The Theosophist (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your point. His title is "Baron Sugar of Clapton" to distinguish him from (made up) "Baron Sugar of Mortlake". It is, is it not, part of his title? Even if not it is a useful search term, so it does no harm to keep it. The fact that I think he is an arsehole is irrelevant, that is his ennobled title. I appreciate we don't list people by their titles here, but this is a redirect and a useful one, the article does not say "Sir Alan Sugar" and never has, even before he was ennobled or knighted. Do you want to delete Sir Alan Sugar as well? Si Trew (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: No, you did not understand. His title is not "Baron Sugar of Clapton". His title is "Baron Sugar". As much as Quentin Davies' title is Baron Davies of Stamford and not "Baron Davies", Alan Sugar's title is "Baron Sugar". Note that the first person of the surname "Davies" who was created a Baron, David Davies, took the title "Baron Davies", without an "of". When the second person called Davies was created a Baron he took an "of" for distinguishment, and so did the third and the fourth and all others afterwards. By the very same logic, the first person whose surname was Sugar, took the title "Baron Sugar", without an "of". If another Sugar becomes a Baron, then there will be an "of".--The Theosophist (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: See also the Sainsbury's. The first Sainsbury who became a peer, Alan Sainsbury, took the simple title "Baron Sainsbury", without an "of", while the two others, John and David Sainsbury took "of's". Also, the Wolfson's: Leonard Wolfson, was just "Baron Wolfson", no "of" because he was the first of his surname to become a Baron. David and Simon Wolfson, on the other hand, took titles with "of's".--The Theosophist (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "of" actually is an important part of the title. If you are "Lord Finchley" you can pass it on to your son, if you are "Lord of Finchley" you cannot. It's the difference between an honorary title and a hereditary title. Si Trew (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: (I just noticed this one) It seems to me that you have an unclear view of the subject. What you mean by "honorary title" is what we actually call a life peerage, to begin with. The "of" plays absolutely no role concerning whether a title is a life peerage or an hereditary peerage. For example both Baron Widdrington (no "of") and Baron Willoughby of Parham (with "of") are hereditary peerages and both Baron Warner (no "of") and Baron Wilson of Rievaulx (with "of") are life peerages. The "of" is a bit irrelevant.--The Theosophist (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Patently it is an Honorary title and he does not own all of Clapton. He essentially chose his ownn title and being a "common bloke" called himself that. Nevertheless he is the Baron of Clapton and therefore Clapton is his Baronetcy. It is not even a borough let alone a baronetcy, but useful and correct are different things. Our raison d'etre here is to make things useful, not correct. Si Trew (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: First of all, it is not a "Baronetcy" it is a Barony, because we talk of a Baron, not a Baronet. Secondly, I do not know what is the purpose of all these feudal references. I do not see how it is relevant to our discussion either whether Alan Sugar owns Clapton or whether Clapton is a borough. And still you have not addressed my main argument. I am going to say it again: "of Clapton" is NOT part of the title.--The Theosophist (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not do titles anyway, so in a sense it is irrelevant. Sir John Major for example is a redirect to John Major. I don't call myself Simon Trew PhD and not just because I don't have one. But it is reasonable, I think, for redirects to direct in that matter. So the question is whether it's the correct title. If it is, it stays, if not, it goes. Si Trew (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any way to get Burke's Peerage online to check? 09:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Yes, but it requires subscription. Would the site of the House of Lords be as fine as Burke's?--The Theosophist (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) whacking this in before I read yours. I just thought of something. In the East of England, Anglia, there is a lot of good sugar grown by Tate & Lyle and the other one. Tbey are known as sugar barons, because they own so much land to plant sugar beet. Should we hatnote it? 09:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not have the slightest thought concerning how is this helpful in our discussion. "Sugar" is just his surname and even if it had to do with actual sugar, that was generations ago and there is no real connection.--The Theosophist (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah well it was just a thought, Sugar baron is a fairly common phrase. It might be on Wikt, I check. Si Trew (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Bizarelly, we actually have Category:Sugar barons but no article on it. Si Trew (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Again, would the site of the House of Lords be (as a source) as fine as Burke's Peerage?--The Theosophist (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • RS here in the bellylaugh: "Sir Alan Sugar takes House of Lords seat and becomes Baron Sugar of Clapton". Daily Telegraph. 20 July 2009.
@SimonTrew: So, what is a better source, the House of Lords (no "of"), Leigh Rayment (no "of"), the Letters Patent themselves (no "of") or the Telegraph (with "of"). Answer that, please.--The Theosophist (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
here at parliament.uk Si Trew (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I consider this one the best source, too. Do you see any "of Clapton" there?--The Theosophist (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew: Leigh Rayment, Letters Patent (from Hansard), Darryl Lundy, Debrett's --The Theosophist (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His official title is The Lord Sugar. We have to check how he was ennobled I guess, cos this could simply be wrong. A lord beats a baron any time, especially at poker. Baron is the lowest rank really so we better check that. It could be simply wrong. Si Trew (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: No, Baron and Lord are a bit synonymous. We never say "the Baron Smith" when he is a Baron. We say "the Lord Smith".--The Theűosophist (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)ű[reply]
He is actually Baron Sugar of Clapton in the London Borough of Hackney.
What more do you want? Si Trew (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Oh my God, have you ever read Letters Patent before? The title is what comes before the comma. What comes after the comma is the territorial designation. Look here for example. If the title has an "of", the title's "of" comes before the comma and there are TWO "of's" in the Letters Patent, that of the title and that of the territorial designation. If the title does not have an "of", then there is only one "of" in the Letters Patent, that of the territorial designation, as the comma comes after the name.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

..thanks. in the Hansard ref you gave it is "Baron Sugar, of Clapton" (I am not sure how important the comma is, but I think it is the sticking point on this one).

@SimonTrew: Indeed, it is. As you see, in the example I posted above it says: "Baron Stevenson of Balmacara, of Little Missenden in the County of Buckinghamshire" which means that his title is "Baron Stevenson of Balmacara" and he is from Little Missenden in the County of Buckinghamshire. On the other hand, "Baron Shipley, of Gosforth in the County of Tyne and Wear" means that the title is "Baron Shipley" and he is from Gosforth in the County of Tyne and Wear. So, in our case, his title is "Baron Sugar" and he is from Clapton in the London Borough of Hackney. Also, look here: "Baron Green of Deddington, of Deddington in the County of Oxfordshire". In this case, Deddington is referred to twice because it is part of both the title and the territorial designation. Thus, the title is "Baron Green of Deddington" and he is from Deddington in the County of Oxfordshire.
Don't insult me, of course I have read legal documents, how do you think I own my own house outright and have half a million quid in a pension fund without ever reading a legal document? The fact of the matter is not what is correct but what is useful. I have done my best research to make it useful. Si Trew (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for any offence.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Still, although it is not my custom, I would bet that it was the first time you read Letters Patent for creations of Peerages.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right on that one but I have read many legal documents in English, French and Hungarian: I usually speak at least three languages a day, so please don't insult my intelligence. I take it as an apology, although sorry is the usual word in English, je me trompe in French or bocsanat in Hungarian. I still don't know what to do with this, tending to keep, is the comma important or not? If the comma makes a difference we should delete it, but if it is not, we should keep it. Si Trew (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I certainly did not want to insult your intelligence and I said I am sorry at the Strasburger section. By the way, what I said about Lord Sugar and the comma also applies to Lord Strasburger (the comma is before Langridge).--The Theosophist (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) All this arguing is irrelevant here and were I not involved I would hat it as such. All that matters is whether "Baron Sugar of Clapton" is not a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I am sorry, but I would not call it irrelevant, at all. I believe that it was a healthy discussion and it will largely contribute to the eventual consensus.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Theosophist: it doesn't matter what his title is, what other people's titles are, why he has a title, whether his surname is relevant, what type of title it is, etc, for the purposes of determining whether this is a good redirect or not. These might be relevant questions elsewhere, but we are concerned here only with whether this specific redirect is useful. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Well, I have to agree. Still, I believe that this dicussion had to take place, whether this was the right place or not. And I believe that had I suggested to take the discussion somewhere else, it would have died out.--The Theosophist (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Hmm, I would not call it "alternate punctuation" but I do not think that it would look bad.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate punctuation because of the missing comma. But maybe {{R from alternate title}} is better. Also, redirects don't have to be categorized. Ivanvector (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: I believe that redirects that are even mildly controversial do have to be categorised. And you can certainly say that for this redirect.--The Theosophist (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Theosophist (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that a redirect should be kept if it is a common search term, whether or not it is correct. However, the utmost goal of Wikipedia is that the reader learns something, right? In our case, when someone searches for “Baron Sugar of Clapton” and they are automatically redirected to Alan Sugar, they are left with the impression that the incorrect title they entered is the subject′s actual title. But when the only redirect that exists is “Baron Sugar”, the correct form, even if they were about to write “of Clapton”, they back of and think “Oh, it looks like I was wrong in thinking that his title included «of Clapton» in it.” In other words, the very existence of this redirect makes the person who does the search believe that something wrong is actually true.--The Theosophist (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the proper education comes from the article's lede and infobox. Note that in addition to redirects helping readers as they type, they help editors get blue-links in that we hope will be to the correct target. For want of a comma an editor creates an undesirable red-link, and if it's the "wrong" blue-link, someone can fix it. Choor monster (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I perfectly agree with Simon here. I know that TL;DR is not meant as an offence, but, still, it hurts a little to see your beautiful, long argument tagged as TL;DR.--The Theosophist (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2015 (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.

Bryan Price (baseball, born 1986)

[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. User:The Theosophist already retargeted it (without discussion), so any argument is moot. (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Bryan Price (pitcher). Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2015 (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.

Ocsp

[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 as the nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Tavix |  Talk  23:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OCSP already redirects to Online Certificate Status Protocol; there is no need for another lowercase version, when the official acronym is capitalized. This lowercase version is showing up in search results. Deleting this page will still allow readers to be redirected to Online Certificate Status Protocol when they type "ocsp". Thus, I think this page should be deleted. Thanks. Tony Z. Tan · talk 14:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Please close this as "keep". I have changed my mind. Thanks, Tony Z. Tan · talk 21:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@Steel1943: I understand that, but when you search on Wikipedia, the search bar is usually not case-sensitive. For example, if you typed in the search bar "ocsp stapling", you will be automatically directed to OCSP Stapling, even though there is not a redirect at Ocsp stapling. (This is the case regardless of whether you pressed the "enter" key on your keyboard or clicked on the "search" button.) Thus the redirect at Ocsp doesn't really serve any real purpose, besides showing up in the list of search results in a confusing manner. Thanks, Tony Z. Tan · talk 18:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The internal search is only one of many methods to search and/or browse Wikipedia, most of which are case sensitive (e.g. direct URL entry, searches from the address bar, links) and search suggestions are only available to those using the internal search with javascript enabled. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: That makes sense to me. Thanks for explaining! I have changed my mind and don't think it should be deleted anymore. Tony Z. Tan · talk 21:08, 17 April 2015 (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.

Rare species of Penguin

[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 List of Sphenisciformes by population per WP:SNOW (or you can can consider it withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Tavix |  Talk  02:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone were to type this in, they would expect a list of the rare species of penguin. Instead, they would be confronted with a generic article that doesn't even mention the "rarity" of penguins. Delete as confusing. Tavix |  Talk  04:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it does. I think therefore at best we kinda DAB or hatnote the two, since there is conflicting information there, but a delete would seem the more reasonable choice. I guess in theory it could fire over to List of bird species by population or something like that: Do we have WikiProject:Ornithology which may advise? Si Trew (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, but we have WP:WikiProject Birds. I'll drop them a note. Si Trew (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With a population of 1,800 Thryduulf beats me on this one, probably, but I'll have a stab. The list is good but does not enumerate the Yellow-eyed penguin: of course that is easily fixed but I don't like doing so when things are being discussed. That its title is "lists" not"list" is also out of kilter, but can easily be moved, but if I did so now I imagine it would make matters worse. Si Trew (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2015 (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:NOTGOOGLE+

[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) 14:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of puzzled why this was ever created because it has zero links. Since Google+ was a failure I can't see this ever being used again. I don't think we should create shortcuts of every social network, website, etc., and say that it is something that Wikipedia is not. It's a bad precedent to start. Therefore, Delete as unhelpful/unuseful. Tavix |  Talk  04:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of those links is in article space: so no great harm in deleting it. One of the links, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_66 is interesting since it also mentions WP:NOTFACEBOOK, WP:NOTMYSPACE, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOTCHAT and WP:NOTFORUM. The last three I think are fine as kinda general topics but if we are going to name names, they should either be kept or deleted wholesale. I would go for Delete myself since I don't see they are of any use and are not in article space: just a bit of gnoming. Si Trew (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they redirect to different sections or nonexistent sections, as I said. Si Trew (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTGOOGLE+ redirects to an anchor which refers to the same section that WP:NOTFACEBOOK targets. In fact, it seems that they all target anchors in the same section. Steel1943 (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I don't know why but yesterday it just took me to the top of the page. That anchor actually includes all the ones I listed above, and the infobox on the right lists them too. I suppose that's a Keep then, changing mine. Si Trew (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2015 (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.

Boddy wieght problem

[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) 14:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RTYPO: One typo too many to be useful. Tavix |  Talk  04:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Never put down to criminality what you can explain by stupidity". Si Trew (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but, after seeing that the creator of the page was indeed a vandalism-only account, I ruled mistakes out.--The Theosophist (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2015 (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/2015_April_17&oldid=1138579964"