Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 April 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 11, 2010

Very Terrible Video[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Deleted per CSD G6: Non-controversial clean-up. CSD G3: Vandalism. --Taelus (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Page Move vandal -- Boing! said Zebedee 23:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Angry German Kid[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. Retargetted over a year ago (Jan 1) following removal of information, and now deleted for the same. Salted once again, but as this has gotten a fair number of views each day, we may see a create request. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Angry German Kid in the list of internet phenomena article. macbookair3140 (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It had grown to [1] when it was removed in [2]. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt well. Repeatedly deleted and pointed to an article that doesn't mention the term. It's time to put this one to bed once and for all. It should also be pointed out that Angry German kid was speedily deleted in December 2008 as a result of this AfD. B.Wind (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and do not saltAngry German Kid is a more notable meme than was thought initially, since, rather than the random clip it was taken as, it was a self-made message. Rich Farmbrough, 22:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Otheruses4[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep. While definitely not unanimous, there is a clear belief that this is actively being used, and is likely to remain popular. Is it less-than-ideal? Perhaps, but are people using it? Clearly. What about a bot? That discussion has largely staled out, but most here seem unconvinced that doing so would be worth it. It has been noted, however, that the usage has significantly declined, and so this feels a little premature, as mentioned by some. While we may be shifting away from its current usage, as it stands currently editors will expect it to do what it does, which is the definition of a useful redirect. Additionally, individuals of both inclinations have referenced the recent discussions of {{otheruses3}} and {{otheruses1}}. Otu3/Otu1 are not otheruses4, but those discussions, especially when referenced as part of a more fully-fleshed argument, can inform our understanding. For the record, they are: Otu1 (TfD Feb 13), Otu3 (TfD Mar 6), Otu3 (RfD Mar 15), and Otu3 (DRV Mar 19) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per confusing.174.3.123.220 (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I tagged it, but then untagged it due to the approx. 10,000 transclusions. Perhaps it would be best to file a WP:BOTREQ, then nominate after that has completed? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bypassing this redirect was already rejected at BOTREQ. Keep per WP:R2D. –xenotalk 23:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion has come up before, but in this case, this isn't a template that falls in this category because this is a very confusing redirect. I have recently been manually orphaning this template with out objection and only supporters. I think it would be a good idea to orphan this template then delete the redirect. Otheruses3 is also a problem.174.3.123.220 (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In general bypassing template redirects is NOT the subject of WP:R2D. R2D is dealing with the possibility of creating new article more related on the piped link. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep widely used redirect, name of a template that had the about functionality, when all the templates were called "otheruses#". I can't see how it is confusing. Experienced editors will expect this template to exist. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment user:174.3.123.220 is systematically replacing the redirect with "about" . 65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Our hatnote templates are historically an enormous stupid mess, and I'm glad to see progress being made to turn them into a merely medium-sized mess, but {{otheruses4}} was the generically useful template for a very long time, and it's still not entirely orphaned. Once it has been orphaned and deprecated for a while, we can discuss deleting it - but for now it should stay. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I use this all the time. Not sure why it was renamed in the first place, since all these hatnotes are 'for other uses', but only sometimes say 'about'. But doesn't really matter as long as the redirect remains. Station1 (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Station1 and the recent Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 15#Template:Otheruses3. The 10,000 uses should be a clue that this is very much a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually, we discuss deleting it and then run a bot to delete the redirects.174.3.123.220 (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that. However, given that this usage is so high it indicates that there is a value in keeping the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Errr... The usage is so high most likely because people never bothered to discuss this redirect.174.3.123.220 (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a redirect from the old name, it is widely known, long time editors expect it to exist, it seems like a speedy keep to me. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see it as a speedy delete if is it useless. And the reason that it is not harmless is because for future editors, this can be very confusing.174.3.123.220 (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Except it isn't useless. The template was named otheruses4 from March 2005 to September 2009, so many editors who used it during those 4.5 years will expect it to still be there - doubly so as with the redirect in place, many will not have noticed that it isn't still at that title. Anyone who is confused by what {{otheruses4}} does (if it isn't obvious from the display) will go to either template:otheruses4 or template talk:otheruses4 where they will be redirected and educated. Breaking something like this offers no benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe a solution is to orphan it and with the incoming links, post a message at the editor's talk page about the easier template. After a few months, we can delete the redirect.174.3.123.220 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You left this message on my talkpage - "Please do not use {{otheruses4}}. It redirects to {{about}}." - but with no hint as to why. Isn't that what redirects are for? Otheruses4 is somewhat easier for me to remember and use as a logical variation of otheruses. What is the benefit of not using it? The only rationale I see is "confusing", but I'm not confused (except as to why anyone else would be). If anything, it might be more confusing to have a gap in the otheruses series ("hey, how come there's an otheruses5 but no otheruses4?"). I just don't see what's broken that needs fixing so badly. Station1 (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does anybody actually think this template is useful? The fact that it already exists and has transclusions is not a good reason to keep it. Like 174.3 said, discuss it based on its merits first and then a bot can orphan it. We deleted {{otheruses1}} when it had a large number of transclusions, and there's no reason not to do the same here (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_13#Template:Otheruses1). otheruses4 is entirely redundant, and we have way too many hatnote templates. It's confusing. -Frazzydee|✍ 16:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when orphaned for a while. Note that the number of uses is decreasing. stats in a moment. Rich Farmbrough, 22:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Usage was 19380 mainspace in November compared with 15911 on the 8th of April in all spaces. Rich Farmbrough, 01:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep and trout slap the IP for his inappropriate running around changing all transclusions to use {{about}} and running around demanding editors stop using it when there is, thus far, absolutely NO consensus for removing it (not that it isn't his first time pulling this crap). just because it is a redirect is not a valid reason to delete it and it is obviously heavily used, currently, by many editors. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it obvious if the usage is decreasing by 30+ items a day? Rich Farmbrough, 05:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • Is it ACTUALLY decreasing, or is it because this single IP has run around and removed it from hundreds of pages during this discussion? And whether the use is "decreasing", that is NOT a cessation. Can you actually provide actual evidence proving that no editors use this name in current edits versus about, even though the documentation still points to the many variants of other uses rather than about? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My experience says that this is actually decreasing. Take for example {{otheruses3}} nobody added it since it was orphaned about a month ago. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I can't imagine how this redirect can cause confusion. Once it is orphaned and has been orphaned for a while, deletion might be appropriate, but it's not doing any harm in the meantime, and may remain useful, particularly if contributors like User:Station1 above are still using it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

XWIS[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An IP pointed out here that this redirects to a section which primarily consists of advertising for XWIS. An article about XWIS was previously deleted. Una LagunaTalk 11:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tyröl[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the redirects were created by User:Kellyempire09, who invented these fake names for the subdivisions of the region of Tyrol as a provocation to editors/admins, who reverted/blocked his nationalist renaming campaign last fall. Kellyempire09 used the real names, changed the letter "o" to "ö" and then created new articles with redirects. (It is like creating redirects to USA with changing the letters to ÜSA, USÄ, ÜSÄ, ecc.) Therefore I suggest to delete the invented names/redirects. noclador (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. Other than Wikipedia "Tyröl" gets only 7 hits on google. One of these is either gibberish or some sort of mojibake, one of them is mojibake or possibly an OCR error. Of the other 5, only 4 are independent and none are in reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' redirects are cheap, only delete new or actually harmful redirects. Rich Farmbrough, 23:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Autonym (word)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to autonym. Jafeluv (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. #1: The target is wrong, see [3]. #2 "autonym" as a term for characterising words or names is ambigous and requires at least four different targets, see the existing disambiguation page autonym. #4 instead of changing this redirect into a second and redundant disambiguation page "autonym (word)" it seems better to simply delete it. Apologies for my English. 92.72.164.91 (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC) (Otfried Lieberknecht)[reply]

  • Retarget to the existing dabpage at autonym. We might as well also add the current target to that dabpage. There's no reason to delete this. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why keep a lemma with brackets as a redirect to the same lemma without brackets??? And no, we should please not add the target "autological word" to the existing dbapage "autonym", because these terms are not equivalent: mixing them up was a blunder which I just corrected. An "autological word" (as opposed to heterological word) is a word expressing a property which it also possesses (like "short", expressing the concept of "shortness" and being itself a short word), whereas an "autonym" -- in logic -- is just any word or symbol adduced (quoted) in a metalinguistic statement (like "'short' is an adjective"), and not simply used for representing its meaning (i.e. in object language). Both terms are logical terms, their understanding involves self-reference, and all autological words (as well as all heterological words) can be used autonymously (i.e. can be quoted in metalanguage), but their meanings are fundamentally distinct and not to be confused. --92.72.188.90 (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC) (Otfried Lieberknecht)[reply]
For keeping the redirect; because WP:Redirects are cheap. As for wether or not we should include autological word in the dab page, dab pages exists not to explain the subject, but to direct the reader to the article he is looking for. So if several readers can be expected to make the mistake of confusing the two terms, and hence look for Autological at autonym then might be a reason for including it on the dab page. Taemyr (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind redundancy and want to keep a redirect with brackets that nobody will enter as a search term: well, keep it, and redirect to the existing dabpage "autornym".
"So if several readers can be expected to make the mistake of confusing the two terms": Please put the stress on "if". So far, only somebody editing en.wikipedia.org made this mistake, and I have managed to spot one more (highly obscure) German book where the same mistake occurs. There are quite a number of terms with "auto-" that readers might but usually don't confuse with autonyms. So if you don't want to turn dabpages into lists of exotic and irrelevant mistakes, you should rather not add this wrong link to the existing dabpage. - "dab pages exists not to explain the subject": that's what they do, to a certain degree, by stating that a certain word "may refer to" certain other words. "Autonym may refer to autological word" is a misguiding statement, readers who don't follow the link will take this error for a fact, and others who follow the link will not find an explanation correcting this error, because "autonym" is not a relevant subject for an an article on "autological words". Unless you want to turn articles into explanations of irrelevant mistakes that somehow might but usually don't occur. --92.72.132.243 (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC) (Otfried Lieberknecht)[reply]
Yes. Inclusion on the dab page should not be automatic, and should depend on editor judgment on how likely readers are to make that particular mistake. However autonym is far from crowded and as such including autological word costs little. Also, if we include autological words on autonym it should be included in a "see also", or "not to be confused with" section. Taemyr (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable, thanks! --195.233.250.6 (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC) (Otfried Lieberknecht)[reply]
  • retarget to dab page and include the current target there per Gavia and Taemyr. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily redirected Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 17 April 2010 (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/2010_April_11&oldid=1091465649"