Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 2, 2009

The result of the discussion was move to Piaski (Powiat Świdnicki), with redirect suppressed (as a valid way to retain the history). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piaski (Powiat Åšwidnicki)[edit]

Deletion. No such name exists. This is the result of a poorly-configured text editor and an attempt to represent 'Piaski (Powiat Świdnicki)', possibly in UTF-8. There is a small amount of history and the article was merged with the current article in December 2006. A by-product is the existence of 'Piaski (Powiat Aswidnicki)', where an editor has removed the accents without necessarily appreciating the situation - nominated for deletion below. Jan1nad (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Merged content should not be deleted due to GFDL issues. Jafeluv (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Histmerge and Delete -- This redirect shouldn't stick around. The history needs to be merged but that can be in any of the ways specified on Wikipedia:Merge and delete as Jafeluv has suggested. —mako๛ 02:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete assuming someone is willing to take on the task of merging the history. This would seem a worthy case for the effort. -- ToET 03:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Piaski (Powiat Aswidnicki)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. No such name exists. This is the result of an editor creating a diactric-free version of a name which itself does not exist - see 'Piaski (Powiat Åšwidnicki)', above. There is no history. Jan1nad (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- As per the nominator. This is an unfortunate text encoding bug run amok. —mako๛ 02:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- ToET 03:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Redirects to Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete Are You Smarter Than a and ARE YOU SMARTER THAN A FIFTH GRADER; Keep all other. I do not really see a consensus for deletion of all redirects except Are You Smarter Than a, however, I will also delete ARE YOU SMARTER THAN A FIFTH GRADER, because it is highly unlikely search term. I want to note that Are you smarter than a 5th grader? is necessary for Go button to work correctly. Ruslik_Zero 12:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am not nominating any redirect which is even remotely useful, including:

See below for the actual deletion nominations. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5th Grader[edit]

"5th Grader" is too general a search term to be redirected to the article about the game show. The redirect has no significant incoming links or edit history worth preserving. Delete. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Thanks! —mako๛ 02:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are You Smarter Than a[edit]

This is an unlikely redirect from an incomplete title; it has no significant incoming links or edit history worth preserving (the pagemove history is preserved in the page history of the target article, and the pagemove was reverted within a few hours). Delete. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate - the UK version is Are You Smarter Than A 10 Year Old? (UK) (which should be moved to the correct capitalisation and correct disambiguation, if any is needed in the first place). There are several links from the current target article to that of various individual articles of international variants of the quiz show. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This idea has already been discussed on the talk page of the main article, where it was rejected; see Talk:Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?#Name Change? and Talk:Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?#Page reshuffle. There is no consensus to have an incomplete-title disambiguation page. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. That sounds worse than the other options. —mako๛ 02:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that this is a wider forum than the discussion page of an article. WP:CONLIMITED may come into play. Should there be a consensus here, it would be of the Wikipedia community. I think the issue of partial disambiguation is one worth discussing in the context of this RfD (there are actually quite a few dab pages with partial disambiguation) - and the question that comes to my mind is "can we use this as a way to organize all the options of the various Are You Smarter... articles into a relatively user-friendly page for navigation? I'd think not looking at the possibilities would be a mistake here. Regarding the issue at hand for this redirect, right now I'm on the fence as it clearly cannot be a redirect (too many possible targets), but I think that this title can be used to Wikipedia's advantage. B.Wind (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- As per nominator. —mako๛ 02:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. --Zach425 talk/contribs 20:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?[edit]

Since the target article Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? has a mixed-capitalization title, any correct-spelling search for the title will reach the article regardless of variations in capitalization. The same is true if the article is renamed to a title where the first letter of each word is capitalized. Thus, none of these redirects are needed for searching. In fact, the only effect of this redirect has been to allow users to link to the target article while using incorrect capitalization in the show's title. If these redirects are deleted, editors making such links will see redlinks instead of bluelinks and will be prompted to correct any errors. Delete. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as there really is no point in deleting it. The redirect will have the added benefit of comparing the erroneous title entered by the reader to the correct one, thus a gain over removing the redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that deleting the redirect will discourage users from linking to this mis-capitalized redirect from within articles. As long as the redirect exists, editors who link to the redirect will see a blue-link and not bother to correct the capitalization. In fact, before making this nomination I manually corrected about 25 such errors. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 23:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Generally, Wikilinks with incorrect capitalization would show blue anyway (if the only difference is that of capitalization), regardless of whether the redirect exists. Keeping the redirects would actually reduce the likelihood of someone creating an article with the wrong capitalization. The errors within the articles would still exist regardless of the existence of the redirects with alternative capitalization. Deleting the redirects would not change the issue of the in-article "names" being incorrect (the only "cure" for that is vigilence, as you undoubtedly know), but not all searches are initiated by clicking a Wikilink - many, if not most, are started by someone inputting an attempt at an article name at clicking "Go." B.Wind (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does not appear that wikilinks with incorrect capitalization show up as blue: see Are you smarter Than A 5th grader?, for example. So, while deleting the redirects would not guarantee that in-article names would be correct, it would at least make editors aware of the issue. To be honest, I am not very concerned that someone would create an article with the wrong capitalization, since it would take only a few redirects (none of which I nominated) to ensure that almost any search for the target article would be successful regardless of capitalization. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 03:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant redirects that should not be linked in articles[edit]

These are redirects that should not be linked from within articles and which do not aid searches because of redundancy with another redirect. The only effect of these redirects has been to allow users to link to the target article while using incorrect capitalization in the show's title (I have manually corrected all instances of this). If these redirects are deleted, editors making such links will see redlinks instead of bluelinks and will be prompted to correct any errors. Delete all. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all as there really is no point in deleting them. The redirects will have the added benefit of comparing the erroneous title entered by the reader to the correct one, thus a gain over removing the redirect. (Note: the first time I tried to reach the article, I forgot the question mark and had a different capitalisation - the redirection told me the correct title and that the word "Than" needed a capital "T"). While the ALL-CAPS example is a bit on the extreme side, most (if not all) of these variants are highly likely search items as they are from alternative capitalisation and/or missing the punctuation... or using the valid alternative of spelling "Fifth". 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are possible search items, but their existence does not help searching. The existence of the other redirects that I listed at the start of the section #Redirects to Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?, which are not part of this nomination, and the redirects I mentioned in this section ("due to existence of REDIRECT") make these redirects unnecessary. There is an advantage to deleting the redirects—it would discourage users from linking to them from within articles—and no downside to deleting them. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 23:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yet redundancy is not a valid reason to delete a redirect that also fits WP:RFD#KEEP (particularly #5). On the hand, I don't see how the objection conforms with any of the reasons to delete above. Alternate capitalization, plausible typographical errors, and the issue as to whether to include a question mark are all considerations when it comes to keeping a disputed redirect. In fact, if the only issue is the capitalization, deleting the alternate capitalization doesn't change a thing as far as the search is concerned, except whether or not it shows as a redirect upon redirection to the correct capitalization. Essentially, this is a tempest in a teapot that, regardless of the action at close, is not going to benefit Wikipedia when put in the context of the effort of conducting this discussion. B.Wind (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alternate capitalization, typographical errors, and incomplete titles can all be valid as redirects, but I've been careful to nominate only those redirects that are completely and utterly redundant for the purposes of searching. As you yourself note, "deleting the alternate capitalization doesn't change a thing as far as the search is concerned"; what it does change, however, is the likelihood that editors will type the incorrect-capitalization or incomplete title. While the redirects perhaps do not meet any of the nine reasons listed for deleting redirects, they do meet a broader criterion: they contribute to errors (minor ones, but errors nonetheless) in tens of articles for no appreciable benefit. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 03:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep -- I don't think that policy really supports your call to have these deleted and I'm skeptical that deleting these redirects will, in fact, cause people to use correct capitalization. I think that correct capitalization is going to be basically lost on most editors and having redirects will keep editors from being confused in a different way. Capitalization rules for linking are confusing to everyone but the most seasoned editors and redirects with alternate (and incorrect!) capitalization and a common and precedented. The only real "answer" the real problems you're trying to address here is vigilance by editors like you. It's the wiki way. —mako๛ 20:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

CHEIF EXECUTIVE OFFICER[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 15:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of ALL CAPS and misspelling make this an unlikely search term. There are currently no incoming links from Article namespace. Page was PRODed, but I thought RfD discussion might be a better avenue. Cnilep (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete redirect is unused, misspelled, and unnecessary. EmanWilm (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral -- I tend to agree with the nominator and EmanWilm but think that the harm seems pretty minor. —mako๛ 02:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per stats.grok.se, this term gets between 50 & 100 hits most months. Therefore, while it is a bizarre combination, its historical use signals that it should be retained. --Zach425 talk/contribs 02:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - it's a sad day for the case-insensitive stats.grok.se. Thanks, ToE. --Zach425 talk/contribs 19:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per EmanWilm as redundant to Cheif executive officer, which allows users who do not enter the correct spelling in the search box to find the article and renders unnecessary the existence of the all-CAPS version. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 03:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per EmanWilm and I call shenanigans on the statistics. Compare stats.grok.se with stats.grok.se and see that CHEIF EXECUTIVE OFFICER and Cheif executive officer have identical statistics. For shame stats.grok.se, I never knew you were case insensitive! -- ToET 13:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Postman Sam[edit]

The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted R3. --Thinboy00 @177, i.e. 03:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by now indefinitely-blocked user Ihatepingu, possibly as pure vandalism. The name "Postman Sam" does not return any Google hits about notable mailmen in the world of fiction, and if you look at the target article then you'll see that there is nothing about this there either because the offending user was blocked before he had a chance to make something up. 81.151.22.137 (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged for speedy deletion - created by a sockpuppet of a banned editor (CSD G5). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral --- If this is vandalism, I don't really see the harm that it's doing. —mako๛ 02:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Julia Jordan[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 10:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this person in the target article at this time or at the time the redirect was created.[1] Examination of links to the redirects show usage suggesting multiple people with this name, several of which may be more notable the the person suggested by this redirect. --Allen3 talk 15:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. I have changed the target to Virgin Media Television (from Virgin Media), which has her name bluelinked in the infobox. This does not affect the other issue presented in the nomination, that of multiple, differing uses of the name Julia Jordan. Disambiguation would be a viable option... if any of the other uses were in fact names of people who were the primary subject of an article (as opposed to an actor who portrayed a Mighty Morphin Power Ranger, for example). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Allen Abel[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete (can be recreated only as a full-blown article). Ruslik_Zero 19:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Allen Abel is a notable Canadian writer and broadcaster. Using his name as a redirect to the American hoaxter causes confusion, and could actually be damaging to the journalist's reputation if people get the two mixed up. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or overwrite - if a standalone article for the author can be written (even if it's only a stub), it would be best to create it (if this is done, I'd suggest hatnotes for both the new article and the one for the hoaxster); if no such article is forthcoming, then the redirect should be deleted as harmful and/or confusing. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ballets to the music of X[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete all. Ruslik_Zero 08:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ballets to the music of X

(Note: Open the collapsed box above to see all nominated redirects.) Delete. These were created in a good-faith attempt to create {{catmore}} links for similarly named categories. Unfortunately, the creator apparently didn't know that the template can be given a parameter that specifies the target article, instead of creating a redirect. Beyond linking the category and the main article, there's not really much use for these redirects, since they're pretty unlikely search terms for anyone looking for the composer articles. The corresponding catmore links have already been fixed to point to the target articles instead of these redirects. Jafeluv (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Roman Harris[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete (except the last revision) Ruslik_Zero 18:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page topic previously deleted as non-notable after an AfD; recreated page has different content, but only one useful line, the rest being an attempt at inserting an image via copy-paste of HTML from Google Image Search, with a redirect at the top of the page in addition. Non-copyvio content has little value since the topic has been determined as non-notable. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as redirect after removing the inappropriate information from the page. -- I've removed the copyvio stuff and left the redirect as an actual redirect. The content you're complaining about clearly doesn't belong there. That said, the redirect itself seems reasonable, points to a page that mentions the redirect subject, and seems unlikely to confuse anyone. —mako๛ 05:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point; then should the page be deleted to get the copyvio out of the history and then recreated as a normal redirect? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doing so is up to an admin. I certainly won't stand in the way. —mako๛ 20:32, 7 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_2&oldid=1136083649"