Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 28, 2015.

Speculation that Iapetus is artificial[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. Deryck C. 01:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the point of this redirect. The target article doesn't describe Iapetus at all and this seems likely to be in the WP:FRINGE category. -- Tavix (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Apparently this was a theory pushed by and associated with Richard Hoagland. I agree the redirect serves little purpose at this point. CitiCat ♫ 23:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete confusing at best. I assume this is about Iapetus (moon)? --Lenticel (talk) 03:48, 1 December 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.

Speculation about the Harry Potter Storyline[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. Deryck C. 01:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia isn't the place for speculation. This is especially pointless since the series is completed... -- Tavix (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT#FANSITE --Lenticel (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this could have arguably made sense in 2005 when the article was redirect due to book 7 not being released. However, now it is completely pointless.--67.68.208.55 (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per others Legacypac (talk) 01:47, 2 December 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.

Myspace music codes[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 both. Deryck C. 01:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading. Someone searching for Myspace codes will not find it at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTPROMO which essentially covers these redirects' titles. Steel1943 (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO I assume that these redirects wants to point to content that shows HTML codes that can be used to build MySpace pages--Lenticel (talk) 10:33, 29 November 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.

Double Platinum[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 so that both redirects point to Music recording sales certification. (non-admin closure)  Paine  16:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing scenario here: I recently fixed several bad incoming links to Double Platinum; the links were split between the intended targets of Music recording sales certification, Double Platinum (film) (the new title of the article that was at Double Platinum), and Double Platinum (album). Per the confusion, I think that Double platinum and Double Platinum should target the same page, especially since I am unclear if the standard for naming music rankings is to capitalize all words in the ranking, and could not find a standard staying so anywhere. But ... should the page be Music recording sales certification or should it be Double platinum (disambiguation) (which would actually be a move to Double platinum or Double Platinum per WP:DABNAME)? Steel1943 (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Target both to Music recording sales certification. The film is a one-shot entity of comparative obscurity, while records are accorded platinum or double platinum status on an ongoing basis. Both the film and the record are named for the certification, bolstering its status as the clear primary topic of the term. bd2412 T 17:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
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.

The NCAA Battlefield[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. Deryck C. 01:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current target is confusing, and I don't think this is a plausible search term for anything else. -- Tavix (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:XY, considering that the NCAA covers more sports than American football, including basketball. In addition, American football is not exclusively an American college sport, since it is also played professionally. Steel1943 (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this is probably the reference. But, it doesn't look "official" enough to be an encyclopedic connection. Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NCAA has had a lot of legal battles as well, so it's possible it could refer to O'Bannon v. NCAA, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 18:07, 28 November 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.

Indian Occupied States and territories of India[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. Deryck C. 01:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malafide term with no reliable sources. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found a link using it at Manipur under "state" in the introduction inserted here. It had been there a while I believe so I presumed there was some dispute about Manipur but I can't see evidence of it either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. There's also a piped link in Bob Krist to "British Indian Occupied Territories|Diego Garcia". (British Indian Occupied Territories is red; perhaps British Indian Ocean Territory was intended.) Wherever Krist served, it wasn't the British Indian Occupied Terrotories, which we (the British) have not got. The last time I heard, Diego Garcia was occupied by Americans: from lede "[after 1973] the United States built a large naval and military base on Diego Garcia, which has been in continuous operation ever since". We also have Indian occupied territories in the Texas–Indian wars. Not only is it ambiguous who is Indian but who is doing the occupying and who is being occupied; let the search do it. Indian Territory is 15th on my search results. Si Trew (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect seems to be going for Ocean not Occupied. It is strange and should be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 10:24, 2 December 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.

Template:Con[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, default to keep. Deryck C. 01:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not mentioned at target (i.e. the doc for {{convert}}). It was only used in four articles, all of which had uses of {{convert}} very nearby: this kind of needless elegant variation could lead other editors to think that {{con}} and {{convert}} do different things (compare, for example, {{lang|de}} vs. {{lang-de}}). Stats are 4 hits in the last 90 days. Created December 2014. Si Trew (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a short-cut template, many of these exist, such as {{Wkfy}}. I'm all for replacing them, automatically if possible, but we should not deny editors short-cuts. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete This is confusing. Jimp 13:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Great shortcut! Shortcuts are called that for a reason. It is truly pissing in the wind to go after all the wonderful and useful shortcuts on Wikipedia. The sad truth is that there are thousands of redirects out there that really need to be deleted, and people are picking out useful shortcuts and wasting everybody's time at RfD. If an editor likes and uses a shortcut, and it's deleted, they'll just make another one that's perhaps even more cryptic. Go after the giants, please, and leave the little imps and elves alone. Happy holidays! Paine  20:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So useful that it was used in exactly four pages in a year, compared to "745,000+" for {{convert}}. I am not "pissing in the wind" going "after all the wonderful and useful shortcuts on Wikipedia". In the case of #Template:Covert, immediately below, I am arguing about one specific redirect, which is not even a shortcut, but a typo/misspelling. Template:R from misspelling even says "This redirect is made available to aid searches". I doubt any editor has tried to find a conversion template by typing "Template:Covert" into a search bar (or typing in "Covert" and electing only to search the "Template" namespace).
I self-identify as a WP:WIKIGNOME and so presumably am one of the "little imps and elves"; but I seem to be one who is "wasting everybody's time at RfD". I don't actually think it's a waste of time, but even if it were, it would only be a waste of my time: nobody is forced to read RfD or to read or participate in any particular discussion. If others want to "waste" their own time, that's up to them.
It's sometimes useful, I think, to bring a kinda test case to sample the likely consensus on other "giants" without side-arguments such as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is for that reason that I kept the discussion of {{cons}} and {{covert}} separate although they have the same target: I could imagine the axe falling on one but sparing the other. Si Trew (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take what I say personally, Si. By "giants", I meant the thousands of redirects out there that fail the guidelines and break the rules and that really need to be dug out and deleted. By "imps and elves", I didn't mean you nor myself (yes, I'm also a wikignome – there – I finally admitted it!) I just meant the useful shortcuts that seem to get on some people's nerves, but that aren't the least bit harmful nor useless. I've seen your contributions grow into gigantic proportion. And it is your time to waste, of a certainty; however, these imps and elves have a tendency to proliferate the more they are messed with, which is one reason that there are so many shortcut redirects today.  Paine  19:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth: I didn't take it personally and I hope you didn't mine, either. There seems to be a growing body of opinion – I don't think enough to make a consensus yet – that "too many" redirects to the same target can hurt a search, and that is kinda agnostic to namespaces. I was perhaps unwise to split the discussion of con/covert/j but on the other hand combining them may have entangled more points of difference, which would not apply to all three.
I am not sure Template:con is a useful redirect because it is not unambiguously convert; the reasons it sprang to mind are twofold: first, User:Jimp is a major contributor to the target template, and having raised the discussion about {{j}} I thought may usefully have some input to broaden the discussion; second that Tavix' point below that it is convert is queered by that it could be concat (or {{congenital malformations and deformations of nervous system}}, which could do with a shortcut), i.e. it is ambiguous. I'm just trying to add concrete examples.
To be clear: I've no problem with shortcuts in principle; each should be argued on its merits. Si Trew (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see a problem with this. It's Convert. It's easy to add it to the documentation if that's the problem. -- Tavix (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a reasonable abbreviation.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we already have {{cvt}} we do not need a confusing redirect at {{con}} because con is many many things, and this is not the most obvious meaning, as it doesn't do convolution. If we need a 3LA, then it should be {{cvt}} (though it would be better as a 4LA {{cvrt}} ) and not {{con}} ; but {{convert}} is already very short, so there should be no need for a shortform. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...we haveTemplate:conv as a 4LA (and it doesn't mean convection, conviction or conversation either: we have {{talk}} for the last, and that has no shortcuts). Is 4LA just your kinda rule of thumb or is there some policy/guideline about length of shortcuts? Si Trew (talk) 07:04, 30 November 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.

Template:Covert[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 12#Template:Covert

Wwwmyspace.com[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. The general consensus is that misspellings of domain names shouldn't point to the article about a site that isn't primarily known by its full domain name. Deryck C. 00:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the consensus that misspellings involving websites that aren't owned by the target are more harmful than helpful. These can be owned by domain parkers or other malicious sites and it is not something that we should be promoting. For more information, see the RFDs for Yahoo.om, CNNtürk.com, Berlin-ru.net, BSPN.com, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per precedents and possible security concerns.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several years ago we created redirects based on commonly Googled terms; "myspace.coom" evidently being such a thing that was searched for. The Internet works differently in this day and age so I don't really care whether this redirect is kept. Harej (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though for what it's worth, I don't think "myspace.coom" was a parked domain; I don't think "coom" was ever a valid TLD, but just a misspelling. Harej (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to potential security concerns. They're also not plausible misspellings anyways. --Lenticel (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I probably agree with the deletion (have to think about it), but Harej has just explained how they are not simply plausible mis-spellings but common ones. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Notes
  • Only the first exists as a domain.
  • Common misspellings as noted by User:Harej
  • Combined traffic of 200 hits per month.
  • As far as I can tell from List of Internet top-level domains none of the other top level domains even exist.

Hence:

  • Tentative delete wwwmyspace.com (though I'm not convinced there are security concerns).
  • Keep the rest.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete all . I really do not see the usefulness of any of them. DGG ( talk ) 09:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. If someone on the internet does not know about .com they are lost and should get offline. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 2 December 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.

Henrich Pette Institute[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 12#Henrich Pette Institute

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_28&oldid=1138580696"