Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 25, 2009

WikiBlame[edit]

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. ~ mazca talk 23:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect as a result of a page-move. No article namespace links. Killiondude (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The tool is possibly a relevant search term people look for when using Wikipedia. I moved it to Wikipedia:-space because it's mainly relevant for Wikipedia-users but the redirect allows people to find it when looking for it in the mainspace - which is where one would normally believe an article about a web service to reside. Since the tool has been covered in multiple external sources while reporting about who inserted a particular bit of text into an article, there is a good possibility that someone will enter "Wikiblame" into the search box to find information on it. Since redirects serve to aid the navigation especially of new and infrequent users, this redirect is one of those where a cross namespace redirect is desirable. Regards SoWhy 07:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a XNR from article space. There are some helpful redirects I can accept in that namespace, mainly ones that help newbie editors out, like Speedy Delete, or Articles for deletion. I don't think that WikiBlame is in that category, and I would very much like to keep the behind-the-scenes stuff out of main space as much as possible, since they of course also show up as false positives in searches of our readers. Amalthea 11:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I consider this a useful redirect, and I'd expect users to search for this term. Rjwilmsi 21:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirects from article space to other spaces are evil. They confuse new editors and readers.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fork the article to WP space, not move. WB is notable. Rich Farmbrough, 21:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    WP:NOTABLE notable? How so? Amalthea 21:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I feel the building analogy on the Cross namespace redirect page sums it up. CNRs from mainspace to project space make readers "fall into the pipework". Besides, any editor whose target is WP:WikiBlame would probably know enough about the project so that his/her next act is to add the prefix "WP:". Intelligentsium 01:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fork/Delete --- The XNR link should go. [User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich Farmbrough]] is right, of course. The redirect should be replaced with an encyclopedic article on the subject in the article namespace. —mako๛ 18:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Age Ageing[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 retargeted to Age and Ageing (non-admin close) B.Wind (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be deleted. OUP will never have a dedicated section to Age & Aging, and redlinks would serve the community more than a redirect to its publisher. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

various Hartford County, CT, redirects[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete all; no objections raised to any, and hence the consensus both here and in previous discussions applies: these redirects are best replaced with redlinks to encourage article creation. ~ mazca talk 22:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 5th batch of Connecticut NRHP Historic Districts (HDs), for which I propose deleting the redirect from NRHP name, to facilitate orderly article creation at the red-links that will then appear in the county-wide list articles such as National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford County, Connecticut. Previous batches of similar NRHP HD redirects were: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 10#various Litchfield County, CT, redirects, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 17#various Middlesex County, CT, redirects, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 13#various New Haven County, CT, redirects, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 25#various Tolland County, Connecticut NRHP HDs. As Aervanath noted in closing the similar Tolland County batch "While certain of the target articles contain information about the history of the town, and some contain a small list of sites of historical interest, none actually discuss the historic district as such. Per WP:Red link, "red links help Wikipedia grow", as they encourage people to build articles to fill the gap, whereas redirects do not."

Redirects proposed to be deleted:

doncram (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK and per User:Doncram's discussion. This list is good work. Wikipedia is ready to grow into these articles. —mako๛ 18:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Quibble (computing)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete - incorrect term with a bracketed disambiguator making it an unlikely search term. No merged content. ~ mazca talk 23:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "quibble" doesn't exist in quantum computing. The only references to it on Google are due to Wikipedia's page on the term, or its usage with the usual English meaning of "minor objection." Robin (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The bracketed qualifier makes this a highly unlikely search term. There was an article there before it was redirected to Qubit, but it doesn't seem to have been merged anywhere. Jafeluv (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral --- Very little benefit, very little harm. —mako๛ 18:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ballets designed by Ronald Bates[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete, unlikely search terms. ~ mazca talk 22:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlikely search terms. There are also a lot of redirects titled "Ballets by X", but I think they're a little more likely to be useful to readers than these. Jafeluv (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral --- Once again, little benefit. Then again, little harm either. Search terms are not likely but not impossible. —mako๛ 18:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per previous discussions on ballet redirects. I don't see the point in ignoring precedent here. B.Wind (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ballets by composer[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete, unlikely search terms, usage in catmore templates now corrected and removed. ~ mazca talk 22:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These redirects are named as categories (see Category:Ballet) rather than articles, and they seem to be pretty unlikely search terms. Jafeluv (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These exist as redirects from {{catmore}}s. — Robert Greer (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know that you can specify the article name with catmore, like this: {{catmore|Ballet}}? See Template:Catmore for more information. Jafeluv (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've corrected the catmore templates to point to the correct article instead of a redirect. Jafeluv (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: those who are feeling a case of déjà vu when reading this mass nomination are probably recalling Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Ballet redirects. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, since these were deleted following the RfD and subsequently recreated, I think G4 would apply here? Jafeluv (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jafeluv. The last 3 might have some usefulness, but getting rid of those would bring you to the better result of the category of the same name. Clubmarx (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --- If Jafeluv has fixed the source/need of these redirects, it seems they can safely be deleted. —mako๛ 20:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per previous discussions on ballet redirects. I don't see the point in ignoring precedent here. B.Wind (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Redirects to New York City Ballet related lists[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term for New York City Ballet, which was the original target. In its current form the redirect is a R2 candidate, but I'm briging it here since it could just as easily be retargeted to the article instead of the talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Ditto. — Robert Greer (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inappropriate self-reference. "Redirects..." makes sense only in a Wikipedia context. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think articles should start with 'redirect' - this is not useful as a redirect. Clubmarx (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --- Does very little harm but serves no purpose at all. —mako๛ 20:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Dance redirects[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unuseful redirect whose only purpose seems to be to act as the "main article" for Category:Dance redirects (which is now at CfD). Jafeluv (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Ditto. — Robert Greer (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see the purpose of this redirect. Debresser (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inappropriate self-reference. "Redirects..." makes sense only in a Wikipedia context. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Clubmarx (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --- Inappropriate self-reference and impossible search term. —mako๛ 20:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Content fork[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Article-namespace redirect pointing to Wikipedia-space page? uKER (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unnecessary, and unlikely to be helpful to readers. Any idea why these aren't covered by CSD R2 in the first place? Jafeluv (talk) 09:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered the same thing. Why would there ever be redirects from article space to WP? --uKER (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An informative answer to that question can be found here. Jafeluv (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedily or re-point to an article, people will use then it becomes harder to delete. Rich Farmbrough, 22:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Although the link above claims such redirects help newbies, I disagree, because they are more likely to think they have been redirected to an article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the term makes sense only within a Wikipedia context. A newbie would be unlikely to look for an article about content fork without first seeing the expression, which is used almost exclusively within the context of deletion debates and WP:NPOV.147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- For the cross namespace issues and the failure to find a more appropriate place to. —mako๛ 20:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kaimeng[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete, extremely tenuous connection, unlikely search term for Parity. ~ mazca talk 22:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request Delete as likely vandalism. Created October 2007 as redirect to God as sole edit to date by Aty3(talk·contribs) and retargeted five months later to Parity as sole edit to date by 69.86.115.155(talk). Google search yields no relevant results. ("Kai Meng" is a fairly common pair of personal names with Kaimeng less common.) Thinking of England (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaimeng is a possible variant of the Hanzi pinyin for 开门, meaning either an imperative sentence "Open [the] door"(there are no articles in Chinese), or "[an] Open door", which may relate to parity. However, I find it unlikely that anyone will search for this term, so Delete. Intelligentsium 02:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining the meaning -- I had thought the retargeting rather odd. As it is, parity is a dab page with links to a dozen articles, but none dealing with its general use as a synonym for equality. Wiktionary is the closest we get for that. -- Thinking of England (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - no visible connection, questionable creation/revision with no summaries. Weak because the redirect bizarrely gets between 5 & 10 hits most months. --Zach425 talk/contribs 09:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete -- as per Zach425 above. —mako๛ 20:12, 2 September 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_August_25&oldid=1136083803"