Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 29, 2009

Great Repeal Bill[edit]

The result of the discussion was no consensus. In full possession of the same information, it definitely seems like the participants in this debate come to completely different conclusions on what that means. There is clearly no consensus to do anything in particular with this redirect at the moment. ~ mazca talk 19:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page was created on Wikipedia as a means for a political experiment (or whatever name you want to give it) to proceed, i.e. a place where everyone interested could participate in the drafting of a bill. The page was created by a British MP and promoted in the Telegraph newspaper by a friend-journalist (in itself a dubious journalistic practice, but that is not our problem). This is blatant misuse of Wikipedia. Some people on the Village Pump thought that it might be acceptable on Wikiversity (on which I have no opinion), and the page, already deleted, was resurrected, transwikied, and redeleted. Again on the Village Pump, some people thought a redirect might be a good idea, so this soft redirect was created. However, I feel this redirect is a very bad idea, since we are in this way tolerating and even encouraging such blatant misuse of Wikipedia for non-encyclopedic purposes. We are not a free webhost, and MPs and journalists should know that, and if their page on Wikipedia gets deleted without a trace of where it may now be, too bad. We are not responsible for the errors other people make and have no obligation to support their private purposes at all. This redirect is of no use to Wikipedia, nor does it represent any sharing of knowledge on a sister site (like a wiktionary soft redirect does), but is a spam link. Fram (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirect. (see vote to delete below) The page should not have been created as a Wikipedia article; I think everyone here agrees with that. But since the Telegraph page is presumably going to keep linking to the Wikipedia title, we might as well send those incoming people to the thing they're looking for. I have a hard time believing that anyone will see the soft redirect and be encouraged to put stuff at Wikipedia that doesn't belong there; on the contrary, I think it might encourage anyone considering such a thing to make more effort to verify where their item should be, because it's certainly more elegant to link to something in its proper location than to route people through the quasi-error-message of a soft redirect. Whereas deleting the redirect and just sending people to an empty space won't help anyone. Propaniac (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One can wonder if it belongs at Wikiversity though ("it instead offers a series of tutorials, or courses, for the fostering of learning, rather than formal content.")... But I don't believe that the soft redirect will have the result you hope for. The end result is still that the misuses of Wikipedia for political aims is fruitful, since everyone following the link provided by his journalist-friend will have no trouble finding their page. Why should we accommodate them? In what way does it help Wikipedia? Fram (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really help Wikipedia, but it's a nice thing to do and I have serious doubts that it will hurt Wikipedia by encouraging imitators. I have no idea if putting the target at Wikiversity makes any sense, personally. (Incidentally, someone just posted at Village Pump that it looks like the originator put the page on another wiki. If the Telegraph link is updated to point there instead of here, the redirect probably should be deleted.) Propaniac (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep temporarily. I get the impression this wasn't created with the intention of abusing WP, but rather a misunderstanding of what WP is. It might not end up being useful for Wikiversity, but OR efforts like this are within WV's scope (part of Wikiversity's mission is to help explore how wikis can be used). Gently showing people the door is better in the long view than getting inappropriately defensive, and leaving a redirect for a week or so will give them time to readjust their links and avoid needless offense. It's harmless, leave it be for a week or so. --SB_Johnny | talk 00:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:AGF on the part of the originator and WP:IAR due to the circumstances --Cybercobra (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like they moved the project to http://ourlaw.wikispaces.com/ as noted in the update at the Telegraph page. --mikeu talk 00:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for at least a week or a month per consensus at [1], not to mention WP:AGF and WP:BITE. --mikeu talk 14:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since I participated in the original Village Pump discussion, it may not be appropriate that I speak here. In case it is, I would support keeping the redirect, for 12 months or so, as one of our objectives of volunteers and the foundation is to promote 'the wiki way'. I don't want people who are just discovering wikis to get completely lost. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just recreated Great repeal bill, which should also be subject to the outcome of this discussion. I recreated it as it is linked to from [2], hence is likely to get higher-than-normal traffic, and without its existence the trail of where the content is on Wikimedia will be broken. Mike Peel (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See, the English Wikiversity and the English Wikipedia are completely different sites, and Wikiversity can decide for themselves whether this is appropriate or not. Meanwhile, we must remember the scope of the project. This "bill" is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia (borderline soapbox, pointy), as well as unencyclopedic. Having an interwiki soft redirect in an article is relatively unheard of (it has been done: Chinese proverbs, Chinese radical index, Common Test Cases, Constructionism and reductionism (wiki)), but I honestly feel that ignore all rules does not apply here. Furthermore, the bill itself has been moved to a different site (per comment above by Mu301 (talk · contribs)), so we aren't doing any injustice to the blog's readers by deleting this. Regards, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the soft redirects are encyclopedic, which is why they're soft redirects (similar to interwiki templates). --SB_Johnny | talk 08:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Would you like to have a link to your pet political project from Wikipedia, the world's most popular online encyclopedia? Follow our simple three-step method, and you will enjoy a soft redirect to a poorly-policed sister project or external website for a minimum one full year! Seriously, this sort of thing needs to be firmly discouraged, lest we end up spending all our time debating which external, non-Wikipedia projects are soft-redirect worthy. Before trying to use us for his own ends, this fellow ought to have done his homework. The Telegraph has already printed a correction which includes the new URL; no one should be linking to Wikipedia for this anyway. (Incidentally, the blogging MEP is apparently a self-important twit. His correction opens with "It turns out that crowds - at least on Wikipedia - are not so wise after all. The draft Bill has now moved to a site where it cannot be so easily vandalised or deleted." I feel little inclination to bend over backwards for him, as he prefers to cast his own ignorance as our lack of wisdom.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The political project in itself I probably have some sympathy with; the use of WP to promote a political position I don't. For the same reason I argued to delete the list of Nobel laureates supporting Barack Obama or whatever that was called, this one also has to go. --Trovatore (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the gut reaction is outrage that someone else can use our encyclopedia for something they suggest. Once you get past that and actually think about it, this is something people will obviously come here and search for, this redirect is very useful and it is to something that does exist on a WMF project. To just delete it because we don't like it or we don't like the way something came about is blatantly unhelpful and frankly a little spiteful. – Toon 22:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aside from the now-corrected reference in the Telegraph blog entry (bear in mind that this was in a Telegraph-affiliated blog, not even a print article), is there any reason why anyone would think of Wikipedia when looking for links to this campaign? We're deleting it because it's something that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia – WP:NOT a directory of fringe, self-promotional political web projects – not because we dislike it. The only reason why a casual web surfer might come to Wikipedia when searching for information on this topic is because we tend to be ranked highly in Google searches. (Indeed, our soft redirect is already the ninth-highest ranking Google result for "Great Repeal Bill", despite containing no information and only existing for three days.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have to be kidding me, right? Why would anyone think of Wikipedia when looking for links to this campaign? Well how about because the blog itself (not just affiliated, but actually hosted on the Telegraph website) states that it is here? Stating that the "only reason why a casual web surfer might come to Wikipedia when searching for information on this topic is because we tend to be ranked highly in Google searches" is completely, totally, absolutely incorrect. The blog points it here. This is where it was originally hosted. This is also the most recognisable WMF site and where it was created. It's not even like we are hosting a project that doesn't belong on an encyclopedia, this is a redirect. Nothing more. Don't get me wrong, I couldn't be less of a Conservative voter if I tried — this is just the sensible thing to do. – Toon 03:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The blog post to which you linked includes a correction linking to the correct site, and has very nearly since we originally deleted the article. I don't know why the blog author didn't correct his first inline link, but it's not our fault if his decision not to do so slightly inconveniences some of his followers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you honestly believe that this redirect isn't helpful? Or that deleting it has any benefits whatsoever? – Toon 15:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, and no, respectively. The benefit I see – which I already described, and which I would certainly agree may be somewhat indirect and long-term in aspect – is that it will continue to discourage the inappropriate use of Wikipedia as a site to host or to promote pet non-encyclopedia projects. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (changed from keep vote above). Since the project's been set up at another site, it seems to me that the redirect to Wikiversity now does more harm than good since the project's "owner" is presumably watching the other site, not Wikiversity. In other words, the redirect is probably leading some users to what they think is the project, when it's actually just a copy of the project. (It's pretty stupid that the article still links to the Wikipedia page well before the corrected link, but I expect that if a user clicks the Wikipedia page and doesn't find anything, they'll go back to the article and then see the correction there.) Propaniac (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the other site states at the top:

NB. A more open wiki for this project is running in parallel here: **//http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Great_Repeal_Bill//**

You might like to participate in both this guarded forum, and the entirely open one. This is deliberate in order to be able to compare the results."

– Toon 22:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

God of Fuck[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete - obscure nickname that's potentially confusing due to the lack of mention in the target. ~ mazca talk 17:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manson once referred to himself as The God of Fuck in the lyrics of the 1994 Song "Cake and Sodomy". Outside of the song Manson has never referred himself as "The God of Fuck" and the phrase never caught on the media, so it has no nobility other then a couple lines in one song. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 19:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur - delete per nom --BsayUSDCSU[ π ] 01:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A single referral in a lyric does not a title make. I guess that would automatically make Kid Rock an American Bad Ass, a cowboy, and a... Bawitdaba? ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to User:Jafeluv Delete. Unlikely search term for Marilyn Manson (although the redirects do get some page views every now and then).[3][4] Furthermore, the phrase is not mentioned in the article, so the redirects are more likely to confuse readers than help. Jafeluv (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Brevity[edit]

The result of the discussion was Re-targeted to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#News style. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect - implies that the news style article is Wikipedia policy. McGeddon (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is used as a guide for Wikipedia policy - see all the Wikipedia namespace articles that link to it. ··gracefool☺ 21:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be an actual cross-namespace redirect, though, should it? The three talk pages that cite WP:Brevity are doing so as if the news style article itself is Wikipedia policy, when the actual relevant policy is just "some Wikipedians advocate using a news style".
Would WP:Brevity be better as a redirect to Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#News_style? --McGeddon (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like the ideal solution, no? ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's much better than the status quo... and it would eliminate a cross namespace redirect. The redirect has clear meaning only within Wikipedia project space; so, retarget per McGeddon. B.Wind (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Patmos Lodge[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Patmos is not a generic term for a lodge (as the redir creator then tried to imply in the Masonic Lodge article; rather it is the name of a specific lodge (like Washington Lodge, Level Lodge, etc), and it is both not appropriate to redirect a specific case to a generic article and not really what one would expect to hit off the search term. MSJapan (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree... If this particular Masonic lodge is notable, then we should have a seperate article on it. If not it should be deleted and not redirected. This is like redirecting an article on a local election to the article on Democracy. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if there were a list of Masonic lodges, this could reasonably link there. I agree that the generic target to Masonic lodge is worse than no redirect at all. --Trovatore (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I created the redirect out of a misunderstanding of how these naming conventions work. I thought they used the Greek placename "Patmos" as a concurrent term with Masonic. Feel free to delete the redirect until such time as a list of Masonic lodges or an article about this lodge is created. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as above post qualifies it for {{db-author}}. B.Wind (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

ISO/IEC 13818-3[edit]

The result of the discussion was no consensus, I suspect the vast majority of the people here were as confused as me as to what exactly the issue is here due to the technical complexity. Feel free to retarget them to a more appropriate standard or to create a separate article here - an RfD is not necessary. ~ mazca talk 17:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to remove redirection from ISO/IEC 13818-3 to MPEG-1 Layer II, or to create redirection from ISO/IEC 13818-3 to MPEG-2. As far as I know the ISO/IEC 13818-3 (MPEG-2 Part 3) specified extensions for all MPEG-1 Audio Layers I, II, III, not only Layer II. See article MP3 and MP1. The MP3 (MPEG-1 Layer III) was also extended by ISO/IEC 13818-3. Source: http://www.mpgedit.org/mpgedit/mpeg_format/mpeghdr.htm There could be a separate article about ISO/IEC 13818-3 containing informations about changes to MPEG-1 Part 3 Audio. 89.173.68.106 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

ISO/IEC 11172-3[edit]

The result of the discussion was no consensus, I suspect the vast majority of the people here were as confused as me as to what exactly the issue is here due to the technical complexity. Feel free to retarget them to a more appropriate standard or to create a separate article here - an RfD is not necessary. ~ mazca talk 17:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to remove redirection from ISO/IEC 11172-3 to MPEG-1 Layer II or to redirect ISO/IEC 11172-3 to MPEG-1 (ISO/IEC 11172). This ISO standard is formally known as MPEG-1 Part 3: Audio and defined MPEG-1 Audio with Layers I, II and III, not only Layer II. See articles about MP3 and MP1. [5] ISO/IEC 11172-3 could be a separate article for example with name MPEG-1 Audio containing short informations about Layers I, II and III. 89.173.68.106 (talk) 16:15, 29 July 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_July_29&oldid=1079637930"