Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 20[edit]

1921 Plebiscite in Silesia and Korfanty led violence → 1921 in Germany[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 06:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Used only on talk page and rather impossible for anybody to type casually, it was created during an old POV-heated discussion by an anon. The phrase "Korfanty led violence" is a highly POVed, inaccurate and offensive description the Silesian Uprisings.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Very very unlikely to be typed. -- Loukinho 07:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: implausible search or link target with more than a faint odor of POV-pushing. Xtifr tälk 02:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirects are cheap, but this falls under condition #3 of deletion criteria. --Aarktica 14:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

N.Y.H.C. (film) → N. Y. H. C. (film)[edit]

The result of the debate was Belongs at WP:RM. Page move requests belong at WP:RM. -- JLaTondre 02:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this to be an improper redirection as "N .Y. H. C." is incorrect. "N.Y.H.C." and "NYHC" are the shortened terms for "New York Hardcore". There are no spaces between the letters in either the general term nor in this particular film's title. IMDB page - http://imdb.com/title/tt0296774/ Uncle Cheech 18:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

American (disamb) → American[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 06:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misnamed DAB page, with "American" already serving as the disambiguation page! Nominated for deletion because most (if not all) people will go to the shorter name or correct DAB page name. JohnI 06:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB. Previous discussions on this issue at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 7#(disambig) → <disambiguation page> and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 6#(disambig) → (disambiguation). Carcharoth 03:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless. We do not delete useless redirects, we delete harmful redirects. Kusma (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I propose that it is a harmful redirect. We do delete useless REDIRECTs. See my note below. JohnI 21:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even (disambig) is dubious. I don't think we want to encourage creation of redirects from misspellings of the word disambiguation. The sort of poeple who link/type the '(disambiguation)' suffix should know enough to get it right and realize when they get it wrong. BigNate37(T) 13:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -Acjelen 13:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Loukinho 23:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Useless != harmful Phil Sandifer 17:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Agreed. That is still not a reason to keep.JohnI 21:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No reason is needed to keep a redirect. What is needed is a reason to delete. As this seems harmless, there is none. Phil Sandifer 14:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is "harmful" because it is a non-standard DAB page spelling, and therefore confusing. You do not deny that with any reason. JohnI 21:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  1. Newcomers may be confused and think that this is an alternative allowable spelling of "disambiguation",
  2. The redirect makes no sense, the standard is to type "American" or "American (disambiguation)". As this is the ONLY instance of this spelling (ie "disamb") almost no one will know it exists.
  3. Just because a REDIRECT is not harmful does not mean it should be kept. It must be useful as well. Please describe how it is useful to your good selves.
  4. Therefore, because it is both harmful (confusing), and non-useful I propose it should be deleted.
  • JohnI 21:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The points above that I find convincing are (a) 'Foo (disambiguation)' is not needed if there is already a 'Foo' that is a disambiguation page; (b) the spelling 'disamb' is not used anywhere else. We should not be adding every possible abbreviation of 'disambiguation'; that is too much to maintain. EdJohnston 04:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Phil is completely incorrect when he says that a reason is required for deleting a redirect. In fact, RfD is the only XfD where deletion is the default, and no reason is required. All that is required is that the nomination be unopposed for five days. In any case, "useless" is most certainly a valid reason for deletion, and there is extensive precedent to demonstrate this. Our threshold for defining useless is extremely low (that is to say, any hint of usefulness is sufficient to oppose a nomination), but in this case, there is no such hint. This is useless and maybe even slightly harmful as a bad example. Xtifr tälk 02:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extra points for the excellent dissemination of RfD practices. Well said; that's exactly how it should be and usually how it is. BigNate37(T) 02:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion should not be the default. It is always possible that there is edit history for merged text sitting in the page history of a redirect. This should always be investigated before deletion. It is still possible to delete the redirect, but you have to move the page to a suitable location first (to preserve the history) and then delete the new redirect that is created by the move. Carcharoth 03:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is, and personal opinion should not override XfD pages. On the RfD main page, it says "The default result of any RFD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete." Emphasis is from the source. BigNate37(T) 03:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not personal opinion. Looking at the same page you quoted from, we have: "The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are [...] a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history". In this case there is no non-trivial edit history, but there is always a need to check this. If this was not the case, then we would allow redirects to be deleted by the use of {{prod}}. The current status assumes that the nominator checked for non-trival edit history. I would be happier if the admins closing RfD debates confirmed that they check for non-trivial edit history before closing a nomination with no discussion. Carcharoth 03:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is a good point. Anyone closing RfDs should have read the section Redirects for Discussion page at Wikipedia:Deletion process, which states "Sometimes a redirect has history, and the history is significant - i.e. contains information about the addition of text. (This often happens because someone did a cut-and-paste "move", instead of using the "Move this page" button.) If this is the case, do not simply delete the redirect page, which we need to keep for copyright reasons." It then goes on to describe how to delete the redirect while preserving GFDL requirements. Thus, delete can still be the default but admins must be aware of the procedure for closing debates as delete. Non-trivial history should not be the reason a redirect is kept, but it should be checked for prior to deleting the page. BigNate37(T) 04:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is not just incorrectly done page moves. This situation is also found (and more commonly) with genuine merges as well. In a merge, you cannot move the edit history (unless it is a very simple case). You have to cut and paste and leave a redirect behind. See Wikipedia:Merge. Carcharoth 05:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually, if you read the link I gave it is very easy to follow those directions and preserve the history without being forced to keep the redirect. BigNate37(T) 08:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - did anyone spot (by looking at the page history) that there was a previous RfD debate that ended as "Keep"? How rare is that? A redirect coming up for deletion twice? Not that anyone would normally notice or remember the previous nomination... Carcharoth 03:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous discussions on this issue at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 7#(disambig) → <disambiguation page> and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 6#(disambig) → (disambiguation). Request that this nomination be relisted so that that discussion can be taken into account, or even better that the issue be discussed more extensively elsewhere - this seems to be a perennial issue. Carcharoth 03:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The previous discussion did not address this redirect specifically, it mostly revolves around the disambig v. disambiguate suffixes. Consensus didn't even exist to keep the disambig ones, let alone this awkward style. I fail to see how that discussion should forestall the debate of the disamb suffix. BigNate37(T) 03:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said, this seems to be a perennial discussion. Why not take the discussion somewhere else and thrash out a consensus that can be pointed at for future nominations? That would be more efficient than repeating the same arguments each time and (depending on who is contributing to the discussions) possibly getting different results each time. Carcharoth 03:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the disambig v. disambiguate matter is a perennial discussion. I've not seen any past debates on the disamb suffix at all. As far as taking it elsewhere to establish consensus, you are free to do so. However, with as much difficulty as there is establishing a keep consensus for the disambig suffix, I'd bet there isn't a snowball's chance for the (much) less common disamb suffix to gain consensus for being kept where redirects use it. BigNate37(T) 04:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't actually look closely enough and missed the difference between the disambig and disamb spellings, but it is essentially the same issue. Again, there is no need to discuss the two separately - it is a waste of time. There should be a centralised discussion on spelling in redirects and in particular 'shortcut' spellings such as these. These are essentially redirects funtioning as shortcuts. Carcharoth 05:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am for tightening up the rules for "disambiguation" page names. I personally don't think it matters that alternatively named pages have a REDIRECT inside, there should be a standard naming convention and we should stick to it. How do we make that happen?? Where is the correct place to make the decision to change the guidelines? JohnI 18:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Despite what Carcharoth is saying, this is actually a fine place to start. Decisions and precedent made at XfD discussions are often used to inform the creation of new guidelines. We can have a centralized discussion somewhere, but to suggest that we need one before we can make decisions is overly bureaucratic, IMO. See WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:CREEP. Xtifr tälk 01:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_20&oldid=1066817463"