Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 18, 2009

Terrorist watch list[edit]

The result of the discussion was Re-targeted to Watchlist. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The American list, the target of the redirect, is just one terrorist watch list. Found the redirect by accident, which in context was referring to a French terrorist watch list. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Judy Garland as a Gay Icon[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 11:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - residue of an improper move, extremely unlikely search term, anyone searching for the article will hit the actual article well before the redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree, delete. Robert K S (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems pretty implausible that someone would search with that capitalization, and if they did, the search box corrects it anyway. No need for the redirect. Jafeluv (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Prettytable100[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. The talk page history is preserved on Template talk:Prettytable/Prettytable100. Ruslik_Zero 13:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect. Link to an already deprecated and unstranscluded template, that is just kept for some compatibility reasons. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:There and Template:Pound link[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 11:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions (There), (Pound link), unlikely to be used again. Editors usually use the redirect target shortcut ({{sl}}). Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 17:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jose Galves FC[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Useful redirect. Ruslik_Zero 13:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jose Galves does not exist in Peru and it is clearly known that the Peruvian football club José Gálvez ends with a z. MicroX 17:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep as a plausible misspelling. Many users do not know how to insert accents and 's' is a reasonable phonetic misrepresentation of 'z'. PaulJones (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt that people would type FC, since the club is known as FBC, a very common suffix/prefix in Peruvian football clubs. For the accent marks, there is already a Jose Galvez redirect without them. --MicroX 03:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not all users will be knowledgable about Peruvian football. FC is a common British abreviation, and someone looking for information may use it. The redirect is to help people find the content they are looking for, while the article gives them the correct information. PaulJones (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While either of the three deviations—no accents, "s" instead of "z", and "FC" instead of "FBC"—are plausible when considered individually, for the reasons noted by PaulJones, I believe that the combination of the three makes this is an implausible search term. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If each of the three misspellings presented by Black Falcon above are considered plausible misspellings, any combination thereof could also be considered plausible. Jafeluv (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see the article Conjunction fallacy. The probability of two or more independent events occurring in conjunction is never more than and at most equal to the probability of one occurring alone. Let's consider an example involving rolling dice and say, for the moment, that rolling a "6" is equivalent to making a typo.
  1. The probability of rolling a "6" (that is, making one typographical mistake) on a single roll of a standard, six-sided die is 1/6, or approximately 16.7%.
  2. The probability of rolling at least one "6" (that is, making at least one typographical mistake) in three rolls is approximately 42.1%. This can be calulated through the formula: 1-(5/6)^n, where "n" is the number of rolls.
  3. The probability of rolling "6" three times in a row (that is, making three specific typographical mistakes in a row) is less than 0.5%. This can be calculated through the formula: (1/6)^n, where "n" is the number of rolls.
So, while any combination of misspellings, including the one being considered in this discussion, is possible, this fact does not make all combinations probable (or plausible). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that if 0.5% (or 0.05%) of the people looking for this article type in "Jose Galves FC" when looking for José Gálvez FBC, this redirect does serve a purpose and should not be deleted. After all, "redirects are cheap". Jafeluv (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The percentages relect the probabilities associated with outcomes of die rolls; while the statistical principle applies in both situations, the percentages themselves apply only to the die roll example. Still, I would hazard a guess that the probability of anyone reaching this redirect is actually less than 0.5%: there are only six possible outcomes when we roll a die, but the number of possible typos is much larger. Finally, anyone searching for "Jose Galves FC" would see the target article as the first result, so it's not as if deleting the redirect will prevent readers from reaching the article. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except these spellings are not indepenent random events - they are all associated with misrepresenting a non English term in English. As such, someone using one is likely to use the others at the same time. PaulJones (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that it depends on whether we view this search as being a plausible cross-linguistic misrepresentation, in which case a redirect title that combines three errors may in fact be more likely to be searched than one which contains only one or two errors, or basically a typographical error. While the unaccented characters definitely fall into the former category, perhaps as does the use of "s" instead of "z", I think that "FC" instead of "FBC" falls into the latter category. FC is a common abbreviation (its use is not limited to the UK, by the way), but I find it a little implausible that anyone who knows the name of the club would not know a little about Peruvian football (at least the "FBC" part). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 20:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

José Galves FC[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete José Galves does not exist in Peru and it is clearly known that the Peruvian football club José Gálvez ends with a z. MicroX 17:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete while similar arguments as those above can be used, the mixed use of accents makes this a less plausible term. PaulJones (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my rationale above in the discussion above. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because of the way Spanish spelling works, Galves is a plausible misspelling for Gálvez, but Gálves isn't. Thus, there are only two errors here, not three. Soap Talk/Contributions 15:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Estadio Max Austin[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When this article was created, the name was only misspelled. The stadium name is Max Augustín and has nothing to do with Max Austin. MicroX 16:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as a potentially misleading redirect from an implausible typo ("Austin" is not a plausible misspelling of "Augustín"). The redirect is potentially misleading because there are people named "Max Austin" who are mentioned in Wikipedia (none with articles yet). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Nauruan Wikipedia[edit]

The result of the discussion was Re-targeted to List of Wikipedias. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable language article website, redundant to List of Wikipedias for a bunch of minor smaller language Wikis. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 15:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fijian Wikipedia[edit]

The result of the discussion was Re-targeted to List of Wikipedias. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable language article website, I request to re-target at List of Wikipedias. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 15:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hana to Akuma[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted per CSD R2. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It redirects to a user subpage and pages are not to be redirected to a user subpage. Srinivas 14:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hero of War[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:MUSIC; songs that were not singles don't merit or require an article. It's been decided that "Hero of War" is not or will not be the new single for Appeal to Reason, the latest Rise Against album, and it hasn't even charted. Alex (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think the nominator is unfamiliar with the RfD process. It is for discussing redirects, not the articles they have replaced. He probably means may mean that the redirect is an unlikely search term, and any small number of people who would search for "Hero of War" would not be looking for the Rise Against song. Therefore, the redirect should be deleted. It's just a guess on a rationale for deletion though. Timmeh!(review me) 15:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems like a plausible search term to me, and so if the song isn't notable enough for an article in its own right, then redirecting to the album seems the obvious thing to do. 129.206.102.208 (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a probable song-redirect-to-album. As a side note this is a funny coincidence as today was the first time I heard this song... Tavix |  Talk  05:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix as a song-to-album redirect. "Hero of War" is a track on Appeal to Reason and is, therefore, a plausible search term for the album; for the purposes of redirection, it does not really matter that the song is not a single. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as well. It is best to keep the history of contributors' work, and "Hero of War" really isn't a likely search term for anything other than the song. Timmeh 20:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, I don't know. What about someone looking for war heroes? War hero and War Hero already redirect to hero. The capitalized "W" makes no difference here, by the way, because since there's no article/redirect at hero of war, the search box brings the reader here anyway when they search for the uncapitalized title. Jafeluv (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Set index articles[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Confusing cross-namespace redirect. Ruslik_Zero 11:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded cross-namespace redirect. Redundant to Wikipedia:Set index article. Also may be confusing or misleading to readers because of existing article on SET Index (which has a selfref hatnote leading to the WP:Disambiguation anyways). Ϫ 01:42, 18 June 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_June_18&oldid=1211679781"