Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 April 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 27, 2009

2009 swine flu outbreak/Table → Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 15:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded cross namespace redirect, created from a subpage of an article. Tavix |  Talk  21:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subpages are possible to make in the article space, but are not recommended to use. Tavix |  Talk  11:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tothwolf is correct in that these don't function as actual subpages, i.e. there is no breadcrumb to go to the "parent" page - it's not a true subpage. I'm fine with this redirect being deleted, but I'd like for it to delay for a few days (i.e. don't speedy close) while people find their way to the new location of the table. –xeno talk 17:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Stupid party → Conservative Party (UK)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing for deletion. At first this looked like a blatant POV redirect. However, upon Google searching "stupid party" with "politics", it does seem to be a nickname that is used for the UK party, although more in association with conservative politics in general. The article makes no mention of this phrase and neither does Wikipedia. Since the term doesn't look noteworthy, this redirect is not neutral to keep around in the encyclopedia. Jamie☆S93 20:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete even if it is used as a slang term, it is entirely partisan. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - quite possibly a WP:CSD#G10, page solely intended to disparage its target. Robofish (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks like a mischievous redirect. In any case it is a highly unlikely search term. TerriersFan (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Atomic Dodger → List of characters in Atomic Betty[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 15:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing deletion for this redirect after CSD was contested. The redirect, though two years old, was created by a sockpuppet of a known vandal evading a block. Also, the character name referred to in the redirect is inaccurate (the character's name is simply "Dodger".) BlueSquadronRaven 14:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this is the official website: http://www.atomicbetty.com/about_atomicroger.asp Atomic Dodger (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, thank you for pointing that out, I just realized most of the character's listing in the list is a copyright violation. Second, while that is the official site, I'm a little suspect of it in fact as it is a site maintained by the distributor of the show, not the producer. Third, he was not called or credited by that name in the show itself. Fourth, Hi, Hilary. --24.83.147.193 (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The above was, in fact, yours truly. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Redirects are cheap, so it doesn't have to be the "real name" to be worth one. Atomic Dodger (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Atomic Dodger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Note: Atomic Dodger has been blocked for sockpuppeting. Tavix |  Talk  11:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's funny how this topic seems to attract block evading vandals. Perhaps you should vote with your policies instead depending on who created the article, then you wouldn't be creating more of us. Wuzzit (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Sparrows Hearne turnpike → Sparrows Herne turnpike[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Wizardman 15:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is polluting the web. Last year I requested this page be speedy deleted as a mis-spelling. The request was rejected on the basis that redirects are cheap. If you now google "Sparrows Hearne" many of the hits returned are propagated copies of this redirect. You can barely find the genuine "Sparrows Hearne" in Essex for all the redirects to "Sparrows Herne" in Hertfordshire, many of them propagated from here. Bazj (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment the answer to this is not deletion of Sparrows Hearne redirect but to turn it into a stub for the Essex one. This will keep it seperate from the one in Hertfordshire with the similar spelling. A hatnote of each should link to the other. PaulJones (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider that, but apart from the school that's located on it, there doesn't seem to be anything notable about the street in Essex, and I have looked. Bazj (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
then how about a disabiguation page saying that it could mean either 1) Sparrows Hearne a road in Essex or Sparrow Herne turnpike in Hertforshire and linking to the latter article?PaulJones (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be starting down the road of creating disambiguation pages for every typo. In any case, that's not a reason to keep this redirect. Bazj (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to further add that disambiguation pages should generally be used when there are "three or more topics associated with the same term" (Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation page or disambiguation links?) and those topics are covered within Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Red links). So, for this case in particular, a disambiguation page is probably not warranted. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
which takes us back to stubs and hatnotes. To loose a redirect from a very plausible typo of one article because it is the correct spelling for something else, which may or may not be as notable, seems to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Therefore keep and it can be turned into an article on the Essex usage, with 'not to be confused with' hatnotes to the other, if and when someone can be bothered to write it. PaulJones (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Essex usage to make an article of. If we were discussing Sparrows Hearne → Sparrows Herne I'd agree with you, but we're not. There is no "Sparrows Hearne turnpike".
This REDIR's only impact is to pollute the internet (through all the other websites which republish WP content) obscuring the little genuine info to be found on "Sparrows Hearne". On Google the first three FOUR hits (this discussion's now been found by google) are rooted in this REDIR, the first genuine hit is fifth on the list. I think it goes hand-in-hand with the role of an encyclopedia to share information, that it should not spread mis-information.
As for the value of this REDIR to handle a plausible typo, I tried an experiment which I think adequately proves that REDIRs are not required to resolve typos. Bazj (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it is not even clear that the spelling of either road is consistent. Google Maps manages Sparrows Herne in Basildon, Essex and Sparrows Herne in Bushey, Hertfordshire. Meanwhile a book manages to use both spellings in the same sentence when taking about the turnpike [1] --Rumping (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out they're both HERNE. I checked a postcode on the royalmail.com website and it lists the Basildon one as Herne too. So every occurrence of Sparrows Hearne is a typo. Just reinforces the argument that the typo redir (through its propagation on wiki-leeches) is polluting the web. Bazj (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 14:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the relatively high number of hits on Google show that this is a common misspelling, despite being incorrect. That's a reason to keep a redirect, not delete it. It's true that pages like this can have misleading consequences elsewhere on the web, but that's not really a good enough reason for deletion. Robofish (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We're not responsible for everyone else misspelling the term, but deleting the redirect would make it more difficult to search for the proper name of the turnpike. Making navigating the encyclopedia more difficult is a Bad Thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

1/7=0.142857142857... → 1/7 (number)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 15:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article name is and always was absurd, and the redirect follows from a move. Recently created, never used except by automated processes and the article creator. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nobody will use that title for searching or linking. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete. I go with whichever opinion knows more about numbers. The mathematician knows best. --candle•wicke 21:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't think anyone else noticed that the redirect is incorrect. It says that 1/7 is equal to 0.14285... when it is approximately equal to that decimal. Tavix |  Talk  21:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it is correct, since there is a .... On Wikipedia, you can't have a bar over the decimals. MC10 | Sign here! 00:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't tell if you are trying to be funny or contradicting yourself... Tavix |  Talk  11:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There might be a point toward having 0.142857… and/or 0.142857 redirect to 1/7 (number) if that article were to be kept as an article, which is also under discussion. This particular article name is inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not contradicting myself or trying to be funny; actually read the reason. MC10 | Sign here! 02:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect isn't of the form decimal expansion --> fraction, it literally reads 1/7=0.142857142857... with an equals sign in there. This must be deleted; there are an infinite number of such ridiculous redirects possible. Resurr Section (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Resurr points out, there are an insane number of alternative redirects like this that we could have. It's not a likely search term in any way, shape, or form, so axe it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte per Resurr Section and EVula. - Nabla (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as an unlikely search term. PaulJones (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_27&oldid=1140544132"