Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 3, 2009

Father Christmas (1987 film)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion as confusing. This is the remnant of a move, made when it was realized that the article was named after an incorrect release date, and has no history in need of merger. Its smattering of traffic (one or two dozen hits per month) was likely caused by links to the redirect from other articles that I have just now corrected. ToET 23:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this wasn't even a working title for any film made or released in 1987 that I could find (the closest I could get was a 1985 movie). B.Wind (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

/A\ redirects[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep /A\, delete others. Jafeluv (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also:


Similar to redirects previously deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_8#.2FA.5C_Atlantic and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_9#.2FA.5C (the second group is identical, but G4 deletion has been contested). Apparently some A Network press releases use "/A\" as a text stylization of the actual graphic logo, but there's no evidence this stylization is used outside those press releases. As such, these are not likely terms for searching or linking. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep /A\ → A (TV system) ; that's a perfectly good way for people to look for it, instead of the mess at the article A and A (disambiguation) . 76.66.197.30 (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Speedy delete all, either as recreated deleted redirects (CSD G4) or improbable typos/misnomers (CSD R3). No one would expect to find a name starting with /A\ instead of the official name. We got rid of a similar set in July (and those that now show as bluelinks on the previous discussion page are definite recreations that can be deleted now - how can a recreated redirect not be subject to CSD G4?); we should use this as precedent for eliminating the others. B.Wind (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that's simple, because consensus can change. And, these things (G4 issues) have come up before at various XfD processes without going through DRV. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, just to be clear, I have no problem at all with using the long process if there's been a reasonable objection to speedy deletion, as there was in this case. — Gavia immer (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but main I think one of these is enough. Gigs (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jutland Penninsula[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept & tagged as misspelling. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – since otherwise we should have such a spelling-error redirect for every peninsula in the world. Law Lord (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - while we don't go out of the way to create redirects with typos and misspellings, misspelling peninsula as "penninsula" does happen on occasion. In this case, the redirect would point to the article with the correct spelling, and therefore would make Wikipedia more user-friendly (see WP:RFD#KEEP). B.Wind (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – In my view, helping searches does not mean promoting ignorance. Keeping that redirect promotes letting ignorant people remain ignorant. Besides, in that case, we should make such pages for all peninsula articles. Perhaps we could compromise on letting the page Penninsula redirect to Peninsula? When somebody is searching for the Jutland Peninsula I very much doubt they will be writing anything but simply "Jutland". In other words, I disagree with the notion that the misspelling occurs following the word "Jutland" doing searches. --Law Lord (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to the correct spelling does not promote ignorance. It points the user to the correct spelling (with the notice of "Redirected from (misspelling)" just underneath the correct spelling); so it promotes education... which is precisely the purpose of an encyclopedia.B.Wind (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "redirected from" notice is in so small prints that the user will not notice it, and if he does, he will not care. So it promotes ignorance and contempt for knowledge, which goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. User:Thinking of England makes a wiser argument for the deletion than I do, so I just want to add, that those ending up at Jutland and looking for something else will now see a link to this nice new page: Jutland (disambiguation). --Law Lord (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While this redirect might save the occasional user from being presented with a page suggesting the proper spelling, it also causes all users who type "jutland p" into the search tool to be presented with two spellings of "peninsula" to choose from, and thus, on the whole, it makes Wikipedia less user-friendly. As an aside, I am intrigued by this redirect's history. It was created in 2001 with the text "see Jutland Peninsula" and automatically converted to a redirect the following year. It's creation comment, however, reads: <<*"Jutland Penninsula" is misspelled , should be deleted ."Jutland Peninsula" is already created>> which almost sounds like an author requesting deletion at time of creation. Strange. -- ToET 04:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very plausible error. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the doubled "n" is just as plausible a misspelling today as it was in 2001. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Both Law Lord's "ignorance" argument and ToE's argument about the redirect showing up at the search box apply to all redirects from misspellings. However, redirects from misspellings are most certainly allowed (see reasons for not deleting a redirect point #2), as long as it's plausible that the redirect could be useful for readers. Jafeluv (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. There certainly are elements that apply to {{R from misspelling}} in general, but there is a significant distinction between Jutland Penninsula → Jutland Peninsula and Penninsula → Peninsula. Taken to an extreme, applying all the various combinations of misspellings and miscapitalizations of multi-word titles would multiply the number of such redirects excessively. From a database point of view, the redirects are quite cheap, but there are a lot of other costs that are harder to quantify. Lord Law's concern about promoting ignorance is valid, although it needs to be weighed against the convenience of the automatic redirection. The concern is least applicable to simple typos, more applicable to actual misspellings, and most applicable to word-level conceptual misunderstandings. Interestingly, those lowest in this hierarchy are the easiest to automatically detect by the search tool while also requiring to most redirects to catch. Other costs of these redirects include their search engine influence and their maintenance costs. When articles are renamed and split, old redirects are often ignored and left pointing at incorrect targets. Automatic fixing of double redirects usually helps with the maintenance, but it sometimes causes problems of its own, as discussed at User talk:DarknessBot#DarknessBot a potential tool for vandals? -- Lesson to learn from Abu Dhabi redirects. Finally, the increased visibility of redirects via auto-completion adds to their cost (and at times, their benefit as well). There are a number of technical solutions to these issues. The search tool providing prominent links to obvious misspellings makes these redirects less valuable, but many articles are reached via other means. Perhaps the "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" page should do something similar. On the other hand, maintenance costs could be reduced via a means of linking related redirects, so that they are kept in sync with one another. Perhaps auto-completion should take a redirect's unprintworthiness into account when deciding what to display and when. Perhaps it does already, and could just use some tweaking, but the point is that the value and cost of redirects change as the interface to Wikipedia changes, and they should never be considered to have zero cost. (I recognize that WP:ALLORNOTHING apples to these individual decisions, but there should be a coherent strategy by which to judge them. Also note that I'm not WP:SNOWBALLing this particular nomination, but responding to the general issues raised by Jafeluv.) -- ToET 00:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Punch-Out!! (Wii) - All characters' dialogue translation[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete, considering that there is only one contributing editor (part for a prod) who has saved this at User:TiriPon/Punch-Out!! (Wii). As far as edit histories are concerned they should be recorded at the target as part of the transwiki. I'll do that now. Tikiwont (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Content from this page was moved to Wikiquote after previously being merged into the game article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Histmerge, then delete - target has several redirects going to it. Histmerging to one of them, say, Punch Out Wii (which was created in 2008 but currently has minimal history) would then allow the deletion of the redirect of a most highly unlikely search term (which is nowhere close to WP:NAME standards). B.Wind (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing a history merge to a completely random article is not a good idea. — RockMFR 22:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since a histmerge is to a redirect with little history, it wouldn't be to a "completely random article." Also, note that the name of redirect that I suggested is simply the name of the target, less the punctuation. It is a superior option than either deleting the history or keeping this mess of a redirect. B.Wind (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to preserve history for copyright or licensing issues when it comes to wikiquote... wikiquote is one big copyright violation anyway. Gigs (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a history merge is a bad idea if the content hasn't been copy-paste moved to the destination article. Moving the history to either a more plausible search target or a talk subpage could be considered, but please don't merge unrelated article histories. Jafeluv (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_3&oldid=616128277"