Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 15, 2009

Infinity/redirects[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy delete all, histmerge Kelly Johnson/redirects and Boston/redirects per Fullstop. Jafeluv (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self referencing redirect with a title that is a most unlikely search item. There is no reason for these in Wikipedia articlespace at all. With the same justification I also nominate

147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete them all as quickly as possible. It would seem to me that all of these could be speedily deleted (CSD G6) as housekeeping. Some of these have been around for quite some time, but I see no purpose for them, and their existence actually encourage creation more of these. There is no purpose of a (sub)page in articlespace named "redirect." B.Wind (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all -- As per B.Wind above. However, we should be careful to check the history for each one first. Redirects with this name seems like a likely place for an article with some history to end up. I haven't checked each of these but if there is no article text in the history, they can be quickly dispatched. —mako๛ 19:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked most of these and noticed that in each case, the redirect was generated by a move to a temporary position and then moved to its current (or at least later) position. Even in the cases of the nominations with long histories, there appeared nothing that needed to be saved that is already in the later position (I have asked an editor/admin whose name I kept seeing in many of these histories to drop by for his perspective, if he wishes). It seems that the content history moved with the article (and thus most of the targets have the complete history of the encyclopedic content). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Whoever deletes these should check before they throw the switch of course, but those results are pretty comforting. Thanks for your work on this! —mako๛ 04:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unneeded test pages, speedily if necessary. Robofish (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless there's a worthwhile history, Delete any redirect with "Redirect" in the name ← My new policy. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all plus possibly history merge in 2 cases. I've checked the histories of each, and ...
The following are the two articles that have some meaningful history:
  1. Kelly_Johnson, originally (31 October 2001) the article on Clarence Johnson. No meaningful history from the second edit onwards, but the history of the first edit should be merged if possible.
  2. Boston, originally (6 September 2001) the article on Boston. No meaningful history from the second edit onwards, but the history of the first edit should be merged if possible.
The following are the only two other articles that were not initially created as redirects (i.e. were not redirects at the time of the first edit).
  1. Infinity, originally (19 January 2008) vandalism. No meaningful history.
  2. Soil_(band), originally (3 December 2004) CSD-A1/G1 material. No meaningful history.
The rest were created as redirects to begin with, and have no meaningful history. -- Fullstop (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Sum Of[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep - retarget Rich Farmbrough, 15:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Not a sensible redirect (the article uses greek capital Σ to denote the sigma-algebra, but also clearly states that this should not be confused with mathematical “sum of” sign ∑. ... stpasha » talk » 22:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete this redirect[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deelte Rich Farmbrough, 15:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The name of the redirect says it all. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A bold admin can just delete and close this. —mako๛ 23:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • History merge into Stakk Attakk, then delete. The history is not as straightforward as it would seem to be with this title. The original Wrathchild article was turned into a redirect; Delete this redirect was (apparently) used as a sandbox for an article for Wrathchild's album Stakk Attakk, which was then moved to the album's title. At about the same time, the Wrathchild redirect was blanked, and then Stakk Attakk was moved to the name of the group. Because the (current) redirect in question is now dispensible, the only question would be whether there is history to spare (the redirect is about three months old). Any worthwhile history should be preserved, preferably merged into that of the Stakk Attakk redirect as the latter is a continuation of the beginning of the article that started at Delete this redirect. B.Wind (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing this research. A histmerge certainly does seem appropriate. —mako๛ 19:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete this redirect (that's practically a speedy candidate under WP:G7). Keep Stakk Attakk for history purposes; I've now redirected it to Stakk Attakk (album), and perhaps those two articles should be history-merged? Robofish (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

True cricket[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Jafeluv (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect attached to made up denomination of "true crickets", deleted from main article in this edit. uKER (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep -- For reasons I can't explain, this redirects get a bit of traffic. It doesn't seem to be causing any harm and certainly shouldn't point anywhere else. —mako๛ 00:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I'm no entomologist, but I've certainly heard the phrase used a lot to distinguish between true crickets (Gryllidae) and similar critters that are sometimes called crickets, and with "true" often used as if it was part of the proper name and not just an adjective. The distinction is implicitly dealt with in Cricket_(insect)#Taxonomy, the term shows up in numerous entomology sources early in a google search. -- ToET 15:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I've restored the "true cricket blurb" to the article. -- ToET 22:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - even if this is a "made up denomination", its existence in the vernacular means it should be maintained. —Zach425 talk/contribs 20:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point to Test cricket as the only true cricket. Rich Farmbrough, 15:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Is that meant to be a joke? This is about the insect, not the sports. --uKER (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Well, he does have a point. Cricket is about the sport and Crickets redirects to a dab page with the first link to Cricket (insect). The first 100 results of the google search (above) on "true crickets" are all about the insect (unless cylindrical ovipositors have something to do with the sport), but it isn't until result #16 of a search on "true cricket" that we learn that "the Mormon cricket is not a true cricket". The fifteen preceding results that deal with the sport tend not to use "true" as part of the proper noun, but speak of "a true cricket fan", "a true cricket great", "A Supposedly True (Cricket) Story", and "a true 'Cricket Wife'". It would seem that the current target is appropriate, and I doubt if Test cricket would appreciate a {{for3}} hatnote. Unless there is controversy amongst versions of the sport and this needs to be a dab to distinguish between the insect and those versions, I'd say this still looks like a keep. -- ToET 22:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

TV4 (Redirect)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Note that cottage pie (redirect) has been moved to cotage pie by Rich Farmbrough, making it already a redlink. Jafeluv (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Do we really need a redirect with a disambiguated name stating that it's a redirect? I hope not... I'm adding the following to the collection as they all seem to have the same, er, "problem":

... and just to drive the point home: TurboGrafx-16 (Old redirect) → TurboGrafx-16 (links to redirect) (stats) 

147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, we don't. Delete them all. Perhaps a bold admin can delete them speedily in the name of housekeeping (CSD G6). I hope so. Based on some of the edit notes left by nom as he posted these (and similar ones), the number of these defective (redirect) redirects in articlespace is in the dozens, if not the hundreds. There is no point in keeping any of these. B.Wind (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as entirely unnecessary. —Zach425 talk/contribs 20:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - presumably these were all made as test edits or by mistake, and thus can probably be speedy-deleted if necessary. Robofish (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Histmerge cottage pie (redirect) into cottage pie then delete and just delete the rest --- Cottage pie (redirect) seems to have collected some potentially useful information that, as far as I can tell, has been merged into cottage pie somehow. We should be careful to check for history for the rest. A few of the others have some history, but they seem to have been attempted cut-and-paste moves didn't collect any history on the article that now sits at the redirect. —mako๛ 04:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Link redirect[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cross-namespace redirect with a title that makes no sense at all without an in-project context. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - bad cross-namespace redirect; this could mean many things outside of Wikipedia, and shouldn't redirect to WP-space. Robofish (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one of the few scenarios in which I'll invoke WP:CNR. —Zach425 talk/contribs 22:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I'm with Zach on this one. I'm not as allergic to cross name redirects as some folks around here seem to be but this (a) gets almost no traffic (b) is indiscoverable and not a likely search term (c) is not linked to from anywhere. This can safely go. —mako๛ 04:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq/redirect[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this four-year-old redirect with a most highly improbable search item (not to mention self-referencing) for a name. This also has been a redirect in search of a target. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- I don't quite understand where this came from. The page itself has never had any content. I can find record of it being moved in either. I'd like to understand why it exists but, as is, I can't see any compelling reason to keep it. —mako๛ 19:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am adding the similarly-malformed John Roberts/redirects → John G. Roberts (links to redirect) (stats) , only two years old but with the same justification for deletion. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete -- This was moved here to "get ride of clutter" during other article name changes by someone would presumably have had it deleted if they knew any better. —mako๛ 19:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - Could we add something into the RfD policy about using speedy delete on /redirect pages instead of bringing them here? I'm struggling to think of any instance in which this type of deletion would be anything more than housekeeping. —Zach425 talk/contribs 22:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the RfD that's the policy here: it's a lack of presence in the categories for speedy deletion. All of these can end swiftly by an admin who believes that it is appropriate to speedy delete these as housekeeping (CSD G6). Some of these redirects are years old; so those speedy deletion categories dealing with recently created redirects do not apply. That leaves this up to RfD to handle... at least to this point. Perhaps it would be nice to start a "CSD R4" dealing with redirects with clearly temporary names such as Foo (redirect), Foo/redirect, or Foo/Temp, but then again, the devil will be in the details. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

+358914801[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a plausible search term, and consequently not a useful redirect. No incoming links. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- It's YLE's phone number. Among other things, Wikipedia is not a phone book, so this one should go. —mako๛ 19:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - only those who actually know YLE's phone number (thank you, Benjamin!) will get the connection (pardon the pun); to everybody else this is absolute nonsense. B.Wind (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

David Haydn-Jones[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a redlink is better than a redirect to a dab page with no entry. A short mention was added to the dab page back in January when the redirect was created, but it was reverted two hours later. ToET 15:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per TOE above. If he's not notable, we shouldn't have the redirect; if he is, making it a redlink might encourage someone to actually write the article. Robofish (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This shouldn't redirect to a disambiguation page on David Jones in any case. We should delete these and leave the red links so someone is prompted to create this article. —mako๛ 04:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:STN[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as never used and unmentioned shortcut to policy section already officially served by WP:SYN, WP:SYNTH, & WP:SYNTHESIS. It was created Jan 2008 but has no incoming links. (Also, it's been broken since the section title was changed on 3 March; I fixed it moments ago.) ToET 11:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused, superfluous, illogically named redirect. If it's been broken for 6 months and nobody's noticed, it's obviously of no benefit to the project. ShakingSpirittalk 11:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this shows it was never used.--Patton123 (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete -- Seems crazy that this has never been used, but if that's right, there is really no good justification for keeping this around. There's no strong reason to delete this, but might as well be out of the way so that someone who wants to create a sort redirect to a future WP policy page can use this. —mako๛ 04:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Patton123 was looking at stats for WP:STN (as I was as well) which shows no usage at all in it's twenty months of existence, but looking at stats for Wikipedia:STN (as linked in the nomination) I see that it was used 5 times from January 2008 through last month, so it wasn't quite never used. -- ToET 08:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Esmeralda Avenue[edit]

The result of the discussion was made a dab page Rich Farmbrough, 16:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as non-notable and confusing. The old version with two sentences and a couple of external links to nightclubs was more a spot for spam than a stub. The street description was merged into Valdivia, Chile but was removed the following month. Google search on "Esmeralda Avenue" yields about 16,000 results with no mention of "Valdivia" until the 4th page, and that mention being old mirrored Wikipedia material (as is most of the "about 70" (actually 18) results from searching on "Esmeralda Avenue" Valdivia). The redirect gets half a dozen hits a month, but these are likely as not attempts to learn of any of the many other Esmeralda Avenues out there. Does history of something this minor and short-lived merge need to be kept? ToET 10:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not mentioned in target page, highly ambiguous per Thinking of England above. Robofish (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We should make way for one of the other, more notable, Esmeralda Avenues. —mako๛ 04:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Terms for enemies[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor a thesaurus. The target is a disambiguation page, which in fact does not list synonyms for enemies and does not even have a section titled "Terms". The redirect is therefore both misleading and useless. R'n'B (call me Russ) 08:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It gets its half-dozen hits per month, but I don't see that it does them any good. -- ToET 11:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- per nominator and ToE above. Folks will be better off on a search results page. —mako๛ 04:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:RFAR/DPP[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion recommended. This short cut was mentioned as an example in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 11#Wikipedia:DRV/SV/ONS, but since then, this short cut has outlived its usefulness as it was retargeted to fix a double redirect and the abbreviation appears nowhere in its current (or even former) target page. It's time for this temporary short cut to go. B.Wind (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - old shortcut, no longer useful. Robofish (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete -- Old temporary shortcut with zero traffic give us few reasons to keep it around. The lack of harm caused gives us few compelling reasons to go out of way to delete it either. It could send someone to right place some day, but it probably won't. —mako๛ 04:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my deletion nomination on the RfD linked above. Nathan T 19:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orphan it first of course. Rich Farmbrough, 23:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

What wp is not[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep as a soft redirect. Jafeluv (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe cross name space redirects from main articles to Wikipedia were regularly deleted as self-reference. Miami33139 (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as self-reference - see discussion here. JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't we have hundreds of these cross-namespace redirects which self-reference? Such as How to cite wikipedia, List of Wikipedia policies, List of Wikipedians by edit count, New articles, Missing wikipedians, Cross-namespace redirects (eh eh), etc. Wikipedia's default search filter is mainspace-only, so a redirect such as this can be useful for newbies getting started. I can't see what harm to the project this could cause - if a reader's looking for 'what wp is not', it's obvious that they're looking for wikipedia's internal policies, not an encyclopedia article. ShakingSpirittalk 10:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's part OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Rich Farmbrough, 23:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep My reasons are clearly outlined here. --Hm2k (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as soft redirect As I've outlined in the past, using soft redirects across namespaces can be a useful tool to both help and teach newbies (and some of us old hands who can be forgetful...). —Zach425 talk/contribs 06:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Soft, as Zach has suggested, or hard as others have. Either is fine for me and I don't have a strong preference. This should kept around in either case. —mako๛ 04:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I previously removed an invalid CSD R2 from this redirect strictly due to the misapplication of the CSD template (R2 does not apply to redirects from the article to the Wikipedia: namespace). It may be worth considering using What Wikipedia is not as a redirect instead of What wp is not since it seems like it is less likely someone will search for wp vs Wikipedia. (Note that the RFD nom may not have been acting entirely in good faith, more information can be found here.) --Tothwolf (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you'd like to add What Wikipedia is not as a new redirect, that's your prerogative. Based on its high number of hits, however, What wp is not seems to be a likely search term in & of itself. —Zach425 talk/contribs 07:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based solely on the number of hits, What Wikipedia is not [1] probably wouldn't be worthwhile afterall. On the other hand, What WP is not probably should also exist as these terms do seem to have been getting a fair number of hits prior to the CSD tagging and RFD (both of which tend to dramatically increase hits). --Tothwolf (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If someone searches for What WP is not, they will be taken to the What wp is not page. The only utility in creating the uppercase version would be so that it did not appear as a redlink (see here); however, while CNRs can be useful, they should really not be linked from other pages. —Zach425 talk/contribs 22:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps, although the search box won't help for incoming links (may not be all that likely in this case anyway) and the search box case insensitivity is only going to function with modern GUI web browsers that support AJAX. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Member of the Taliban[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete all. Unlikely search terms and generally useless redirects. ~ mazca talk 19:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I originally closed this as having consensus to unlink the redirects too, but Geo Swan correctly pointed out that there probably was not. Hence, this RfD should be taken solely as consensus to delete, not to do anything else in particular. ~ mazca talk 06:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion recommended. Very unlikely search term since it already contains the actual search term, "Taliban." Somehow this fell through the cracks when we had a mass deletion of Taliban redirects (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 18#Taliban Airfield Commander and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 20#Al Qaida faciliator, among others. I am adding to this nomination:

tagged by User:Geo Swan for RfD 18 August 2009 but not posted here until now. The nomination is hereby completed at this time. B.Wind (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as extremely unlikely search term. JohnCD (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous RfDs. There's still a lot of redlink cleanup left, e.g. Special:WhatLinksHere/Associated with the Taliban (57 from article space, as I write this). I assume that these terms should simply be unlinked where they appear in the charges.see below -- ToET 11:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- As per previous RfDs. I've gone through and done much of the red link cleanup from previous RfDs but others should check and help. —mako๛ 18:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added the two redirects above that seem be from the same place. If folks can find others, they should include them here. I suspect that looking through the text of the articles in question will reveal more. That's how I found these two as I was cleaning up red links from previous RfD. That said, I've been going through pretty fast and am surely missing some.

Because we've been through this a couple time and since red link cleanup has been slow, I'm going to try to get a start on link cleanup for this whole group. I'll use edit summaries that make it clear which link I'm cleaning up in the unlikely case that this RfD ends up any differently from the previous very similar discussions. —mako๛ 18:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two more from the same group. ToET 00:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a bunch more have been added on by various nominators. I have verified #1-19 above as all terms linked only from charges against Guantanamo Bay detainees. #19 (Al Qaida's anthrax program is a little different in that it doesn't describe a person, but it is linked only from the page of a detainee as part of the "primary factors favor continued detention", and the word "anthrax" does not appear in the target Al-Qaeda article, so it should be deleted with the rest. -- ToET 23:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Collapsing the redlinks from al Qaida fighter to al Qaida was suggested in the earlier {{rfd}}. But the closing administrators did not include that suggestion in their conclusions. As I stated in the original {{rfd}} there are several reasons not to collapse these links. (1) The distinction between "al Qaeda fighter", "al Qaeda member", and "associate of al Qaeda" is not a trivial one. The studies by legal scholars at Seton Hall University, among others, focussed, in detail, on analyzing the distinction made by American intelligence analysts between al Qaeda fighter, al Qaeda member, and associate of al Qaeda. (2) All the articles that had a link to "al Qaida fighter, or reasonable equivalent, already contained a link to al Qaeda. I requested opinions at Requesting opinions on how best to handle characterizations of associations with al Qaida or Terrorism? So far no one who thought the redlinks should be collapsed has weighed in there. Geo Swan (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the terms you mention do not sound like legal definitions or the potential subjects of encyclopedic articles. They've been misinterpreted twice. Once by whoever created those redirects, and then once again today by at least ToE and myself. I suppose it's not unlikely that it will happen again. Why doesn't someone -- Geo Swan -- seems like the obvious candidate -- create a stub with a list of the classifications the government has used, a link to the academic work you've mentioned and any other other sources and a couple sentences by way of introduction. I think that will protect against both of the negative outcomes we've learned the hardware are more likely than we think. I've struck out my old suggestion and will suggest to retarget to a stub on US government classification of detainees. —mako๛ 04:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop redlink cleanup -- My apologies, Geo Swan. I had not looked at the old RfDs closely enough. I don't know if anyone jumped on the cleanup bandwagon besides Benjamin, but anyone who did should either roll back their edits as not supported by the RfD (or drop me a note to do so as the instigator) or enter the discussion at WT:TERRORISM#Requesting opinions on how best to handle characterizations of associations with al Qaida or Terrorism? if they feel that they still should be removed. Sorry. -- ToET 02:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The close of the RfDs dealt simply with the issue of whether or not the nominated redirects should be deleted. Anything beyond the delete close was not covered in the close, nor did the close of the RfD indicate whether or not the redlinks should be removed (the precedent is that, unless there is a clear intention of writing an article with exactly that title, the redlink should be gone and that the actual search item be linked once). But an RfD is not the venue in which to decide whether or not to have redlinks in an article - the talk page, or (better yet) the discussion page at the appropriate Wikiproject, is. This issue here is whether or not the nomination of several redirects similar to dozens that have been deleted last month should result in these new redirects joining them in oblivion. As I started this with two redirects that "fell through the cracks" last month, let me state simply that we need to apply the rules regarding redirects... and recommend deleting all of nominees as not only highly unlikely search items (the organizations themselves are the search items, not a person's role within them) but also extremely unlikely to have standalone articles with any of these titles. B.Wind (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a US government classification of detainees stub (or similar) is created before the close of this discussion. In the absence of a specific article on these classifications, any current link to "Taliban fighter" would be better as "Taliban fighter", to avoid confusion by the person clicking on the link. —Zach425 talk/contribs 06:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but since all these articles already have an explicit link to Taliban -- usually within a sentence or so of the instance of Taliban fighter, collapsing all links to "Taliban fighter" to plain old "Taliban fighter" does not have the advantage you assert -- if does not prevent confusion. What it would do is defeat the legitimate interests of readers. Legal scholars at Seton Hall University, military scholars at West Point, and other scholars elsewhere, have studied the distinctions made in the Guantanamo documents between "Taliban fighters", "Taliban members", and "Taliban associates". Our readers may want to go to an article specifically on "Taliban fighters". If Taliban fighters is a redlink, then at least, they can learn something by clicking on the "what links here" button for Taliban fighter -- unless those links are collapsed. Geo Swan (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Batter them up and fry them all - as redirects, they're pointless. Each title contains the actual search item and enough jetsam and flotsam to make them absolutely useless as redirects (it gets back to the idea of "likely search" items. To the people who are arguing about redlink cleanup and collapsing redlinks I say this: if you're going to write standalone articles with titles like Taliban fighter (do they fly at Mach 3?), Taliban member (what distinguishes them from the Taliban enough to have an article independent of the group?), or Member of, or associated with, the Taliban (how in the world is this going to be a standalone article?), then and only then can I see any utility in their names. But mark my words: any article with a title similar to Al Qaida travel facilitator will have a hard time surviving AfD, and keeping this as a redirect makes no sense whatsoever. Delete to the 16th power. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is an aphorism about judging books by their covers. What distinguishes someone who has been called a "Taliban member" from someone who has been called a "Taliban member"? As above the academic papers that examine that distinction in detail. Geo Swan (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Geo Swan, as you have added nine of the supplemental nominations and had nominated the 18 August group for deletion, I assume that you are speaking of how to handle links to your future article, and not advocating keeping these redirects as they are now. -- ToET 23:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here is that the red-links should either be piped to "Glossary of XXXX tribunal terms" or better, footnoted. There is little point leaving them as red-links in an attempt to draw attention to the phraseology - that borders on NPOV. Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • If an article isn't going to happen, a footnote sounds like it could be a good option - but only if someone (e.g., Geo Swan) creates a template with brief text about classification of detainees/tribunal terms. Leaving every article to have its own footnote text could introduce too much variability and would be too difficult to oversee. Barring the creation of a template, I'd still advocate deletion and either removing the redlinks or changing them as I laid out in my above opinion. —Zach425 talk/contribs 05:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: I've created a draft template on my talk page - if others think using a template is a good idea, feel free to use this page as a sandbox. —Zach425 talk/contribs 05:42, 19 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_September_15&oldid=1050030817"