Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 25[edit]

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

Dried cherry redirects[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete all as unlikely search terms. (Note: 6 separate nominations were consolidated as part of this closure.)--Aervanath (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term which would now redirect to Dried cherry anyway. Drawn Some (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to dried cherry. Seems like a harmless enough redirect and might possibly be helpful to someone, as do the rest in this group - suggest taking them all together in one discussion. SpinningSpark 23:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. These seem like pretty far fetched search terms for someone looking for dried cherry. Someone looking for the history of dried cherries will probably search for "history of dried cherries". Jafeluv (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

2 redirects: "Downtown Troy" and "Downtown Hudson"[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep both.--Aervanath (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(created recently as redirect to Central Troy Historic District, then deleted, then recently recreated as redirect to Troy, New York)
(created recently as redirect to Hudson Historic District (New York), then deleted, then recreated)

Request deletion of these two recently created, for several reasons:

  • 1: The redirects do not aid readers who might be searching for target articles. In the absence of the Downtown Troy redirect, I believe a reader searching on "Downtown Troy" would have found their way immediately to Downtown Troy Historic District Central Troy Historic District, a very nice NRHP HD article. The Downtown Troy redirect was set up at first to direct there but now redirects to Troy, New York, an article which has no section on Downtown Troy and no proper noun use of the phrase. I don't know, but believe the change of redirect target may have been because the HD is named just for the general area it is in, but the HD article does not strive to describe the larger area. I see no evidence that "Downtown Troy" is a commonly used term for any specific area, actually. Thus the existence of the redirect only serves to suggest to the reader that there will be an article or section somewhere about a defined area of that name, and that does not exist. In the case of Downtown Hudson there is also, I believe, no area commonly referred to by that name, and no proper noun coverage in the target article.
  • 2: The redirects were created in the midst of an ongoing discussion about NRHP HD articles and redirects and mergers/split proposals and so on, in Connecticut, see Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut#Extending edit warring to other states. While it may not have been assuming good faith on my part, tt seemed to me that the two here might have been created simply to use in supporting arguments about CT NRHP HDs and town/villages, as if to suggest that it is usual for there to be parallel articles and/or redirects, everywhere, for NRHP HDs of format "Name Historic District" and a neighborhood/village of corresponding "Name" or "Name (Town)". In general I believe it would be unhelpful to go down the entire list of 14,000 U.S. NRHP HDs and create competing articles at "Name" or "Name (town)", in effect relying upon the notability of the NRHP HDs named "Name Historic District" that are in the same general area, but in fact not necessarily entirely overlapping very much in history or geographic area. As a general matter, then, I think it best to call in question the manufacture of piggy-back redirects like this, and in these 2 cases in NYS, to delete them. doncram (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and modify. As the creator of the target articles, I actually think they'd be OK as long as the state was added (i.e., Downtown Troy, New York, Downtown Troy, NY and similarly for Hudson). Troy's downtown is mostly covered by its historic district, and Hudson's actually covers a huge portion of its developed area, much less downtown. Daniel Case (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am afraid Daniel Case may be being deliberately unclear (perhaps to avoid "taking sides" in a parental-unit-like way, as he works with both Polaron and myself elsewhere?). By "Keep and modify", what Daniel appears to be meaning is not to have the two redirects that were nominated for deletion, but perhaps other redirects from similar names with ", New York", consistent with usual place-naming conventions, could be created, and directed in at least one of the two cases to a different target. So, Daniel, could you please clarify if this understanding is not correct, but in the present discussion I believe Daniel's view is DELETE and then so far there is a consensus of two in that direction. Further, actually, about a redirect from "Downtown Troy, New York", I don't see a natural target for it to redirect to, because there is no section or proper noun usage of "Downtown Troy" in the Troy, New York article, and because the Downtown Troy HD article does not cover the entire downtown area. Also, about a "Downtown Hudson, New York" redirect, Daniel is saying the Downtown Hudson HD article covers a huge other area, so is not an appropriate target. I further don't think it would add value for someone to revise any or all of the four existing articles ("Troy, New York", "Downtown Troy HD", "Hudson, New York", or "Downtown Hudson HD (New York)") just so that they would serve better as redirect targets. So, I am back to: it seems best to just delete the redirects, which are new and unused. doncram (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To anyone familiar with those cities, those seem like moving the goalpost. Downtown Troy is more or less contiguous with the historic district. And you read too much into my argument with Hudson ... the 45-block grid is downtown, more or less. It doesn't include any significant undeveloped areas save Promenade Park. Per the principle of least astonishment, incorporated in the redirect guideline, someone searching on "Downtown Hudson, New York" would not be at all astonished to end up at the Hudson Historic District article. Likewise with Troy.

Googling on Downtown+Troy+NY, I don't find many hits that would refer to a location outside the historic district. Doing this for Hudson] is a little harder because hits related to New York City come up, but still the ones referring to the Columbia County seat land in that 139-acre section. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: this is, I allow, not always true. I would support the deletion of a "Downtown Monroe, NY" redirect to Village of Monroe Historic District since that district is not at all downtown, rather a more residential area immediately to the east. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create additional redirects per Daniel Case with the state name. Retarget to city article if it is the case that the historic district is not representative of the downtown area. From reading the historic district articles, I had gathered that these represented the main part of the downtown areas of these cities. Since there were no downtown articles, it seemed to me that you could find out more about the downtown areas from the historic district articles than from the city articles. --Polaron | Talk 16:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible search terms. --NE2 21:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both in the fashion proposed by Daniel Case. These seem like plausible search terms and plausible destinations for a searcher. --Orlady | Talk 17:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Daniel Case has stated clearly where he thinks the two should redirect to, so I don't really understand a vote to follow the fashion proposed by him. "Likewise with Troy" means what, keep the redirect for "Downtown Troy" in place, which directs to Troy, New York? Or change it to direct to Central Troy Historic District? I still think both of these should best be deleted, as not helpful to readers who would otherwise easily find the candidate articles if they searched on those exact terms, and a bit unhelpful in fact, because each redirect seems to promise an article on exactly the given topic, which does not exist. I guess this is looking like "No consensus to delete", though, with delegation to Daniel Case to choose whichever targets for these redirects that he deems best. doncram (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My reading was that Daniel Case had suggested that both of these redirects should point to the historic district articles. --Orlady (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was my intent, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

various Tolland County, Connecticut NRHP HDs[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete all. 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. (note: I have refactored this discussion to make it more readable.)--Aervanath (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 10 redirects to be deleted are various National Register of Historic Places listings in Tolland County, Connecticut NRHP-listed Historic districts (HDs):

Monroe Center Historic District

General reasons for deleting this redirect have been given. It was stated below by Polaron that this, along with 3 others "have had discussions about why leaving the redirect in place may be better than deletion." The only such discussion is this statement by Polaron "Delete all except Monroe Center and Naugatuck Center, which at least mention and describe the bounds of the historic district,....".

To respond specificly about Monroe Center, it is factually incorrect that the Monroe article describes the bounds of the historic district. What the Monroe article has is a section: 

==On the National Register of Historic Places==
* '''Daniel Basset House''' — 1024 Monroe Turnpike (added [[September 23]], [[2002]])
* '''Monroe Center Historic District''' — CT 110 and CT 111 (added [[September 19]], [[1977]])
* '''Stevenson Dam Hydroelectric Plant''' — CT 34 (added [[October 29]], [[2000]])
* '''[[Thomas Hawley House]]''' — 514 Purdy Hill Rd. (added [[May 11]], [[1980]])

I see mention of a location, not a description of bounds. It would be appropriate, in my view, to have the mention of Monroe Center Historic District there, and in the Tolland County NRHP list, appear as a redlink, to indicate to editors that they are free to create an article about the wikipedia-notable topic of the NRHP-listed historic district. I appreciate that no one has gone to change the Monroe article just to "win" this RFD discussion, allowing this to continue to serve as an example of many others like it in the CT NRHP list. Even if it were amended to include bounds and a sentence or few more about the HD, I would still think it best to have redlink to the NRHP HD name, mainly for possible NRHP HD editors and hence future readers, and at no harm to current readers. Certainly at the current state of the Monroe, Connecticut article, I think deleting the redirect is appropriate, even obviously appropriate. Thanks. doncram (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naugatuck Center Historic District
Note: Naugatuck is not in Tolland County. --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, and I checked the Tolland County NRHP list and find it is not listed there, so there is no error to correct. I meant to include only Tolland County ones in this batch of redirects to delete, but, yes, this one is in New Haven County. The deletion of redirect is still requested. doncram (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Polaron, below, asserts that there is not consensus about this redirect and 3 others, as there has been discussion about them. The only discussion against this redirect which I can find was his statement below that he disagreed because the town article contained mention of the historic district and described its bounds. I replied to his statement explaining why i thought that did not matter, and there was no further discussion. For reference, the only mention in the town article is, in a list of NRHPs in the town, the item of "Naugatuck Center Historic District — Roughly bounded by Fairview Avenue, Hillside Avenue, Terrace Avenue, Water Street and Pleasant View Street (added 30 August 1999)". That is no more information than appears in the New Haven County NRHP list, and in fact the town article's statement of the NRHP listing date is incorrect. The NRHP list-article gives July 30, 1999 as the date, which is correct according to the National Register database which i just checked. Even if there were more information in either place, it would be appropriate in both places to show a redlink to the NRHP HD article name, conveying that an editor can open an article about the HD. doncram (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to know that this location is not an error in NRIS. I agree that the Naugatuck article contains little information about the historic district, but it contains a long section on the history of the town, including the following statement about the town common, which presumably is in the historic district: "The town common features 11 commissions by the renowned New York architecture firm of McKim, Mead and White," it lists some other historic properties that are probably in the historic district, and it has photos of several historic buildings that appear to be in the district. If (as I naively assumed at one time) the NRHP Wikiproject was interested in giving people information about the heritage that is commemorated by National Register listings, that article is more informative than the list-article and would be a worthwhile redirect. However, if there is consensus that the most interesting aspects of National Register listings are their listing dates, metes and bounds, and the names of architectural styles, then I have to agree that this redirect is a dangerous thing that needs to be deleted. --Orlady (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On this occasion, I can distinguish the sarcasm in your comments, but I think it is misdirected. Perhaps you should criticise the Naugatuck, Connecticut article and remove the list of NRHP listing dates and bounds of districts from that article; i agree that the metes-and-bounds-and-listing date information there is excessive. It seems appropriate to keep it in the NRHP list-articles though. And it would seem appropriate to describe the bounds of a legal historic district in an article about it, so really i don't see where your sarcasm is appropriate, if directed towards me. I will not accept responsibility for what is in this and other CT town articles, which are largely unsourced.
By the way it is speculation (not that you asserting otherwise) that the town common and various specific buildings mentioned in the Naugatuck article are included in the historic district. It is probably a good guess that they are included, but in too-numerous-to-list other cases in Connecticut alone, editors' speculation of what must be included in a historic district has proven incorrect. The request is to delete these 10 redirects, and then later about 300 others, and to clear the way for development of NRHP HD articles. I would hope these would develop eventually like Daniel Case's nice articles such as Central Troy Historic District, which do indeed include listing dates and "metes and bounds".
It happens that in CT there has been a history of edit warring by one editor when any other editor started an NRHP HD article at an NRHP HD name that the one editor had redirected to a town article. Orlady, I don't believe you are as familiar with the previous history of such edit warring, but I believe you have seen some recent edit warring on a slightly higher level (involving at least some discussion of sources and facts), so you should give me some credence that, before, plenty of edit warring happened and was at an even lower level. I was affected, and one other editor has volunteered in this discussion that he/she was affected, and I believe there were others affected. I believe the edit-warring-editor has revised his practices, and at least would not now edit war in every such case. This initiative to delete these redirects is to partly to clear the air and clarify that separate articles on these wikipedia-notable NRHP HDs in fact will be allowed.
Anyhow, Orlady's sarcasm notwithstanding, she does not seem to disagree with the deletion of the redirect. doncram (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"but in too-numerous-to-list other cases in Connecticut alone, editors' speculation of what must be included in a historic district has proven incorrect" -- can you name even one such case where it was "proven incorrect" as to what is in the historic district? --Polaron | Talk 03:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
about Tolland County, CT NRHP HDs as a group

Request deletion of a first batch of 10 redirects of NRHP historic district (HD) names. Consensus in discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut#Moving forward, cleanup tasks and other sections on that Talk page is that these redirects are unhelpful and should be deleted. All were created in June 2008, have no useful edit history, and are unhelpful because a) they suggest, in the National Register of Historic Places listings in Tolland County, Connecticut list-article, that an article on the given NRHP HD is available. Each redirects instead to a town or CDP or village article that has no mention of the NRHP. And they are unhelpful because b) they suggest that the town article is the place to develop the NRHP HD material, such as adding NRHP infoboxes, while in fact in all cases it would be better to create a separate NRHP HD article, at least unless and until a very substantial overlap of all history and geographic area is established, which could theoretically justify a merger proposal later. However the future merger is extremely unlikely, and it is better in short term and almost certainly also in long term to have a separate article. I believe this is a fair representation of consensus view.

This is the first batch of 10 out of perhaps 300 redirect deletions needed. Each redirect has been edited to include a custom template, linking to the discussion at wt:List of RHPs in CT. The original creator of all of these redirects is participating in the discussion there and I consider this to be adequate notification. doncram (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've participated in the talk somewhat, but it's gone so fast that I can't keep up, so no vote from me. Please understand that "CDP" is census-designated place. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Monroe Center and Naugatuck Center, which at least mention and describe the bounds of the historic district, and Mansfield Center, which is a village where merging is appropriate. --Polaron | Talk 16:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Polaron, thanks for agreeing about 7 of the 10 cases, reducing the scale of the problem. I am trying to make a solution for about 300 redirect cases. I think the deletion-of-redirect is appropriate for the Monroe Center and Naugatuck Center cases too, where only the existence of a NRHP HD is mentioned in the town/village article, within a list of other NRHPs that are included in the town/village. Just like the same information (the name and the bounds of the HDs) is included in the NRHP list-article, National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut. In the absence of the redirect, a wikipedia reader searching on the exact phrase "Monroe Center Historic District" would do fine in finding their way to either the list-article or to the town article. And the redlink in the list-article, and the mention in the town article (which itself could be converted to a redlink), convey properly that the NRHP HD is a wikipedia-notable topic which an editor can start an article for. If a redirect is in place, that would tend to suggest incorrectly at the NRHP list-article that there is an article on the topic already. And it would tend to suggest incorrectly to someone who clicks on it there that it is intended for NRHP HD coverage to be developed within the Town/Village article, while in fact I would prefer to welcome a new article. Seriously, isn't it okay to delete these 2 redirects? Thanks for pointing out that those town/village articles mention the NRHP HDs, but I don't understand from your statement any reason why you would oppose deleting those redirects. I believe your opinion is also that separate NRHP HD articles can/should be created for these two, eventually, by any editor. doncram (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the Mansfield Center HD case, which is now a redirect to Mansfield Center, Connecticut article about a CDP, there is no coverage, not even any mention, of the Mansfield Center HD in the CDP article. Polaron, I understand from your statement here that you think, based on your own knowledge or upon sources you have which are not in the article, that ultimately it will be better to have one merged article covering the CDP and the NRHP HD. Can we please deal with that as a merger proposal later, but for now allow deletion of the redirect? If the redirect is deleted, it will show as a redlink and clarify at the NRHP list-article that there is no coverage of the NRHP HD yet, and allow for anyone to create an NRHP HD article, and to start adding pictures and descriptions of contributing properties and so on. This does not preclude a later merger with the CDP article, which can/should be handled by a regular merger proposal, which should be non-contentious later, when information about the bounds of the two areas and other information has been developed. I guess there are 20-50 cases like this in CT, which I would like to treat in the same way right now, by deleting the redirects and allowing for NRHP HD articles to be developed gradually. Polaron, since this does not preclude the ultimate merger of two Mansfield Center articles, is this not okay? It is what I have been proposing, and I think there is general consensus for it, in the RFC discussion at wt:List of RHPs in CT. I just think it is premature in this case and 20-50 similar others, to prejudge the merger decision. I would appreciate very much if you could agree to this approach. doncram (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mansfield Center is first and foremost a place. It happens that the Census Bureau treats it as a CDP, where it counted 973 people in 2000, and somebody (probably the Town of Mansfield, which is the legal local government) submitted an application to list it as a National Register historic district. There also may be a state or local historic district designation. I see two options for article coverage:
(1) Create three separate and distinct articles: One general article about the place; a second article about the demographic data for the CDP; and a third article about the National Register historic district, including its metes and bounds and the buildings that are included in it.
(2) Create a single article about the place that includes information about the historic district designation and the demographic data. Redirect Mansfield Center Historic District to point to that single article.
I prefer option 2, as I find option 1 to rather silly. --Orlady (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is silly to allow an NRHP HD article to be developed, even though it may eventually be merged into a CDP article later. There would be no harm done, and I think it would just advance the development of CT NRHP information in wikipedia sooner, to show a redlink and thereby to encourage anyone to start a fully sourced, focused article on the NRHP HD, without burden of relating it to a CDP that may or may not prove to be very similar in geographic area and shared history.
My proposal was to delete the redirect as an "obvious"-type decision for now, as there was no information in the CDP article to which it redirected, and no common information developed yet that would help make any decision about the likely best ultimate article to hold NRHP HD information. This is a representative example for perhaps many more (10 to 30?) very similar redirect cases in CT. The proposal overall is to delete all the similar redirect cases, and to signal and allow for NRHP HD articles to be developed, where information could be developed about the "metes and bounds and buildings". And then later informed merger proposals could be considered and resolved more easily. Note that it has been conceded or shown that many of the 300 or so redirects set up in June 2008 were to articles that are not the appropriate final article name. I don't want to debate each of the cases like this Mansfield Center HD one, requiring us to do research about the specifics, now. I would be happy to withdraw this one part of the RFD request, i.e. not to delete the Mansfield Center HD redirect, and to discuss that separately as an exception item, if we could otherwise agree to just delete the redirect in cases like this (where there is no information available to inform a guess whether the redirect will be the best final decision later). doncram (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amended to also keep Tolland Green as there is some discussion of the historic district in the article after all (per [1]). --Polaron | Talk 01:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion is Orlady's comment: "Here is one thought: ....Tolland, Connecticut does have some information about Tolland Green Historic District, which makes the current redirect more useful than no information at all (or could be the basis for a stub article). --Orlady (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)". And the information in the Tolland, CT town article is an informal passage about the town's green, which provides no description of the boundaries or importance of the NRHP HD which may include that green.[reply]
Does the presence of some informal, unsourced information in a town article about something that might be included in a NRHP HD article justify derailing a general solution to the RFC issue(s)? We could delete the info in the town article, but I would rather not get into that. Or we could start the Tolland Green H D article, but I would argue against including the unsourced passage from the town article, and my wish is to delete about 300 redirects, not to start 300 stub articles. Editors should be encouraged to get the NRHP application and other reliable sources, before starting a stub article. Deleting the redirect here, too, would appropriately signify to future editors that they can create the NRHP HD article, if they have sources. This isn't even a case where it is likely that a new HD article should be merged with an existing town article: from its name, I think it is highly unlikely that Tolland Green HD has substantially the same boundaries as Tolland, Connecticut. So I am back to wanting to delete the redirect here, too.
Further about what serves wikipedia readers, note that searching on "Tolland Green" now yields, for its first 4 hits:
# Tolland Green Historic District
redirect Tolland, Connecticut.
67 B (3 words) - 08:56, 25 June 2009
# Tolland, Connecticut (redirect from Tolland Green Historic District)
Tolland is a town in Tolland County , Connecticut , United States . ... The Green's features include an old-fashioned penny candy and ...
10 KB (1253 words) - 23:37, 5 June 2009
# National Register of Historic Places listings in Tolland County, Connecticut
List of Registered Historic Places in Tolland County, Connecticut ... 42 | Tolland Green Historic District 100px link off | 1997 | 8 | 1 ...
16 KB (1172 words) - 14:30, 13 June 2009
# Tolland, Massachusetts
Tolland is a town in Hampden County , Massachusetts , United States . ... It has been replaced with a picnic on the town green. ...
6 KB (728 words) - 18:52, 16 June 2009
If the first hit, the Tolland Green H D redirect itself, was deleted, I believe the Tolland, Connecticut article that is the 2nd hit would still appear near the top of the wikipedia search, again at about the same level as the Tolland, Massachusetts article, which also mentions a town green. I think that would be fine. And then also a search on "Tolland Green Historic District" would probably yield the county NRHP list-article, which includes more specifically about the HD, namely a short description of its boundaries, than any other article, so that would be best for a reader interested in the HD per se, too. If anywhere, the redirect for Tolland Green HD should go to the NRHP list-article, but that would be a circular redirect for readers browsing the NRHP list-article. I reiterate, deleting this redirect appears the correct thing to do. doncram (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that I am too dense to grasp the point you are trying to make in discussing WP search results.
It appears to me that Tolland, Connecticut includes plenty of information about the historic district in the center of town. (Specifically, it says "Tolland Green is the informal center of the community, and a national historic district. The Green's features include an old-fashioned penny candy and antiques store known to locals as the 'Red and White'; the town's original 19th century town hall, now an arts center; the 'Old Tolland Jail' museum; the 'Tolland Inn' bed and breakfast; and the Hicks-Stearns Museum, a restored Victorian house. The architectural styles on display, including the white steeples of several churches, are reminiscent of a picture-postcard New England scene." There are also several images of the district.) A person encountering a link to Tolland Green Historic District in an NRHP list would get far more benefit from that article than from a redlink, which is what they would see if the redirect were deleted. --Orlady (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to consider this one as type 1 in the RFC proposal: "1: Simple redirect ones with no NRHP content--Of the HDs that are redirected, it looks like 75% or so redirect to town or CDP articles that have no mention of the NRHP HD, have no NRHP categories added, no NRHP template, no NRHP infobox." I feel the Tolland article should not be seen as covering the NRHP HD already. It does not mention the NRHP HD by name and refers only to a "national historic district". Further, the Tolland article is not even the NRHP HD article location desired by anyone. Polaron and you I think would agree that it is not the right location to add "metes and bounds" and detailed description of each NRHP contributing property. So i feel it does a disservice to would-be CT NRHP article developers, to suggest by the redirect that the NRHP HD information must be added only to the Tolland article. It is better to suggest by a redlink in the NRHP list-article that a separate article can be created. Readers interested in the Tolland Green can easily find those couple sentences in the Tolland article now if they search on "Tolland Green". And, if orderly development of CT NRHP articles is supported, in part by deleting this redirect and many others, there will sooner be an actual Tolland Green HD article with plenty more information.
If you want to say this one does not meet the criteria laid out for type 1 in the RFC proposal, because there is mention of a "national historic district", then this one kicks into the type 2 grouping in the RFC proposal, for which, to settle matters, a stub NRHP article at Tolland Green HD must now be created (by the proposal). In the stub article, I will argue against unsourced statements being included, so actually a reader interested in Tolland Green may be less well served for a time, but ultimately there will be better info available. I would prefer to delete the redlink and be done with this one for now, but if you want to draw the line between Type 1 and Type 2 differently for this one i don't want to argue. Your choice. doncram (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Is the consensus then Yes, delete all 10 redirects? There has not been no question raised for 6 of the redirects, and in my view questions about why the other 4 should be redirected have been answered. The important thing here is to get a decent consenus, to apply to 300 or so other cases too, not to decide just these 10 cases. doncram (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize, no there is not a consensus to delete all 10. Six have had no objections (Andover Center, Bolton Green, Ellington Center, Hebron Center, Somers, Willington Common). The other four have had discussions about why leaving the redirect in place may be better than deletion. --Polaron | Talk 21:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is a matter of some judgment, but there having been some discussion does not mean a consensus of reasoned opinion is not apparent. Also, consensus in wikipedia is not the same as unanimous(sp?) voting. I have stated reasons why all 10 should be redirected. Pointing out that there has been some discussion, or a statement on the level of "I disagree" without reasons should not be allowed to derail reasonable, well-supported arguments for deletion of all of these redirects. I hope/expect a closing administrator will consider the quality of arguments given in the general and specific discussion of these redirects. doncram (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which if the reasons for deleting a redirect are these supposedly under? As long as the target mentions the topic being redirected, there is no valid reason to delete the redirect. If you're unhappy with that, create the article or fix the text in the current target to make the redirect topic more obvious. --Polaron | Talk 03:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the given list of reasons for redirects, reasons 7, 2, 4, 6 roughly apply. Reason #7, that "the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created." In none of these 10 cases and many others, is the NRHP HD a plausible typo for the town article to which it has been redirected. Reason #2, that the redirect causes confusion, is also paramount. These redirects have been used in the past by the creating editor to confuse and obfuscate others, and to serve in edit warring battles, for reasons I cannot understand or explain, to fight against the creation of wikipedia articles on the topics of the NRHP HDs. In the context, the confusion is the communication of message that an article will not be allowed at the NRHP HD name, which is dead wrong to convey because the NRHP HD is wikipedia notable in fact. Reason #4, that the redirect makes no sense, also applies in most cases. Also, the spirit of Reason #6, that "If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist or itself, it can be deleted immediately" is also applicable.
However, the given list of reasons for redirect don't fit precisely, because they are written in terms of describing when redirects to actual articles are justified. The 300 redirects in questions are, instead, redirects away from valid wikipedia articles to other articles. They are not reasonable synonyms for those articles. The redirects only reflect the general impression by one editor that it is possible that the target article, a town article, could be the correct place in wikipedia to cover the topic of the NRHP HD, while in fact the NRHP HD name is the naturally correct place to cover it. If a redirect was to be made for these NRHP HD names, the best redirect target for all, when the article has not yet been created, would be the corresponding county or state NRHP list-article. At the NRHP list-article, however, the best use of NRHP HD name is to show as a redlink. Really the redirects are of negative value.
I note that Polaron has started marching through another state NRHP list to set up such lousy redirects as well, escalating this discussion. At this point, I find his actions to be deliberately disrupting wikipedia, specifically the orderly process for NRHP article creation, given discussion in process here and in the RFC that is still open on this topic. doncram (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not uncommon for topics that are not yet currently developed enough to have a stand-alone article to be merged to an article on a larger topic where the smaller topic can be discussed. That is one of the uses of redirects. Are you proposing to undo all such cases throughout Wikipedia where a more specific but not yet developed topic redirects to a larger topic? If you really do believe these redirects are implausible typos, why didn't you speedy delete them under that criterion? #6 obviously doesn't apply so I don't know what you're going on about here. #4 is meant for nonsensical redirects, i.e. unrelated topics. #2 is the reason why the 6 that don't mention the district can be deleted as the targets do not mention the topic but they don't apply to the other 4. --Polaron | Talk 13:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and if there is no coverage, the the HD exists, add some. All are reasonable lookup terms for someone who not unreasonably expects us to have the article on the HD. DGG (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of ways to skin a cat[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. DrKiernan (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the humour nor the cat article covers cat skinning or mentions this adage. The redirects seem pointless and should be deleted. The article used to exist but is now in userspace at User:MartinHarper/cat skinning. SpinningSpark 07:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Those should probably have been deleted under R2 when the page was userified, instead of redirecting. Jafeluv (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The redirects have no useful value. --Orlady (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Both to Skinning.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How do you even get Humour from "List of ways to skin a cat"? When did animal cruelty become funny? Intelligentsium 01:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete- Not only does this fail Wikipedia's standards. It fails at being funny. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 18:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Talk:He Merry Thoughts[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy-deleted as CSD R3. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake made in move. Unlikely one will use this as a search term for The Merry Thoughts. NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 00:44, 25 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_25&oldid=1082504463"