Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 10, 2016.

Simon Ignatovski[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 speedily deleted by RHaworth per WP:CSD#R3. (Non-admin closure.) Sideways713 (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. There is no connection between this high school swimmer and any Communist political organizations. This is very likely a WP:BLP violation and it may be considered an attack page. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2016 (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.

Ancestral Thames.[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) 09:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is precedent against this. Implausible (but well-intentioned) redirect. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I think this falls under WP:R3. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The accidental inclusion of a period at the end of a redirect does not qualify for WP:CSD#R3. That criterion is restricted to truly implausible redirects - things so unlikely that they were probably created in bad faith. These, on the other hand, are good-faith attempts to fix the following scenario.
      User A edits an article and links "foo" at the end of the sentence. Not paying attention, he puts the brackets outside the period. User B reads the article and notices that "foo" is redlinked. Surprised, he goes to create the article but quickly realizes that foo does already exist. Thinking that others might make the same mistake, he redirects foo. to foo. While not the preferred way to fix the situation, it was not implausible as we use that term here. Rossami (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. -- Tavix (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a stylization or a title of a work that has a period in it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:18, 13 April 2016 (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.

Let's Marry[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 18#Let's Marry

Portal:Nautical/April/10/Selected article[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 18#Portal:Nautical/April/10/Selected article

File:PPA logo.png[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) 20:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, overly generic/ambiguous redirect to a file FASTILY 10:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The file was under this name for several years. There is no reason to insert red links in the article history. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Stefan2. "Generic" is not a listed reason to delete a redirect. Rossami (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2016 (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.

Pashtun (version 2)[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 mild WP:TRAINWRECK. Delete the Pashtun, Fanon, and Anura ones. Quietism and Krøller eller ej have been deleted by RHaworth and Anthony Appleyard, respectively. No prejudice against individual discussions on the remaining ones. It doesn't look like a one-size-fits-all approach will work here. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a ton of these "version 2" redirects. I don't think they serve any useful purpose and certainly aren't' likely search terms, and therefore should be deleted. However, some have rather lengthy histories and we may need to merge the histories of these to their current targets. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all and ensure all have the proper merge tags. History merges probably aren't worth the effort. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done. The edit history has been moved, but the leftover redirect has now been tagged {{Db-g6}} and is pending deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what advantage it has to move the redirect, nor why you single out this one in particular. Si Trew (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the redirect will result in a pagename that is useful instead of useless. Thus eliminating a useless pagename. If it was merged means keeping the edit history per WP:CWW, so displacing the page instead of deleting it is to be done. As for why I chose this page, it was the easiest one to find a solution for, since each would have a different solution, so there is no single place to rename these things to. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anthony Appleyard: Agreed, a lot of the results are not the "version 2" redirects, but to my knowledge, I don't think there is another method in which to make these pages appear in a standard Wikipedia search through its internal software. I have seen editors compile lists of pages where a certain string of text is located anywhere in the page name, but I'm not sure how they did it; it probably required the use of some sort of external tool. Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: The Wikipedia software maintainers should add to search-in-pagename an option to search in redirect page names. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anthony Appleyard: Thank you for the the thorough explanation about the history of these redirects and for your hard work tracking down the rest and merging histories. I can imagine that this took a fair amount of time to do, and I very much appreciate your efforts. How do you recommend we proceed with the pages that have parallel histories? I hadn't seen WP:Parallel histories until you linked it above, but that seems to suggest that we should leave the parallel histories at their current titles (i.e. at "Article X/version 2"), and I just want to make sure that is the correct method of preserving a parallel history. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Appleyard: thank you for your advice and guidance with this matter. The cloning idea sounds intriguing, and certainly could help resolve these issues in the future. I wonder if there are other procedural safeguards that we could implement during the article creation process to prevent the creation of duplicate articles? Perhaps there is a way to inform authors about similarly-titled existing articles? On the other hand, if these are all the "version 2s" that exist in the world, it may not be that common of a phenomenon. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have "resolved" Template talk:Populated places in New Castle County, Delaware/Version 2 and Template talk:The King of Queens/version 2. The will probably be deleted uncontroversially soon. Steel1943 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fanon/version 2, Quietism/version 2 and Anura/version 2 per Tavix; these titles do not have substantial edit history that needs to be retained. Keep the rest per WP:CWW and per my previous comment stating that I do not know where to move the edit histories of the other pages since they were disambiguation pages prior to becoming redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2016 (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/2016_April_10&oldid=1088110426"