Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 April 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 4, 2010

Libra (Academic Search)[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The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. Cnilep (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently a redirect to Microsoft Academic Search, which was deleted. Prior to February the page was a description of the search project under an apparently defunct name. I'm not sure if the redirect should be deleted, or maybe the page should be rolled back to that earlier content? A Google search for 'Libra academic search' (without quotation marks) returns links to Microsoft Academic Search, or pages describing same. Cnilep (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I reverted the page to the last non-redirect version in the history, then moved it to Microsoft Academic Search. That means that the redirect is no longer broken. Cnilep, would I be correct in assuming that you have no current objections? If so, you can close this RfD and remove the {{rfd}} tag from the redirect. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to keeping the redirect as repaired by A Stop at Willoughby. Cnilep (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Run Escape[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is a joke, the game is nowhere near pronounced that way. It's pronounced RuneScape. 194.144.87.74 (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both Redirects should aid navigation; joke redirects in the mainspace are simply unhelpful. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as joke redirects. Run Escape, a mere two months old, may be "young enough" to swat with a speedy deletion, but Run escape (created last November) may be too "old" to be considered "recently created." 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, a non-notable joke version of the name that is not commonly used at all. Potentially confusing for those not in the very niche group that may use it, and even that group uses it in the full knowledge that the real title is RuneScape. --Taelus (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Complete Adventures of Charlie and Willy Wonka[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. Creation of this "set index" does not make sense because it will be quickly sent to AFD and deleted. It would be much better to add this book to the list in the Roald Dahl article (possibly as a footnote to both stories) and retarget the redirect to a specific section. Ruslik_Zero 19:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a particularly helpful target, in my opinion. It just isn't relevant. There aren't any incoming links to worry about. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 16:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as properly redirected. As indicated here, there was a 1978 omnibus volume by the name of The Complete Adventures of Charlie and Mr Willy Wonka in which Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator were sold together under one cover. Redirecting to the author is indeed the appropriate course of action as it would be highly unlikely for the omnibus volume to get a Wikipedia article of its own. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in agreement with the anonymous user above. A redirect from a title by an author to the author's article is perfectly reasonable. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • disambiguate or keep. If this is an omnibus edition containing the two books, would it not be better to have a page that says "The Complete Adventures of Charlie and Willy Wonka is a 1978 omnibus book containing Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator? Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not if it is the only thing that it would say separate from the contents of the individual books. There are reasons that omnibus volumes generally do not have Wikipedia articles on their own: they have no notability outside of the individual components of the volume itself; they rarely get the reviews that the components originally received; omnibus volumes often are products of the publisher in a particular country, not necessarily the author (see the various omnibus editions of writings by Agatha Christie in the US and the UK, for example). A dab page is not plausible as there is nothing to disambiguate with this title. The only other option if someone is willing to put the time into it is to compile a list of omnibus volumes by Roald Dahl and retarget the redirect to it... but even then I'm not sure if that would withstand AfD scrutiny. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not suggesting an article, I'm suggesting that this is a plausible search term and that people looking for it would be better served by the articles on the two books that from the omnibus (which is what they're likely looking for) than the article about the author (which could be linked from the target page as well). It might not be a strict disambiguation page, but it fulfils a useful navigation function - a one-sentence summary of what the title is (an omnibus edition of two novels), an implicit statement that Wikipedia does not have an article about this specific edition but that it does have articles about the author (Roald Dahl) and the two books it contains (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator). Surely this helps the reader more than either a redlink or a redirect to the author? Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why not simply mention the title in the author's book list itself? A one sentence "article" whose sole purpose is to say that it is an omnibus volume will not survive RfD (in fact, it would make no sense to keep a one sentence "article" that has no reasonable chance of being further expanded). The list is already at the author's article; there's no need to retarget or create something that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines discourage. B.Wind (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It isn't an article and it isn't a redirect. It's a navigational aid to the reader, just like a disambiguation page is - the only difference is that the linked articles don't have ambiguously named titles. I don't know of any policies or guidelines that discourage such pages - can you point me to them please? Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've created a userspace darft at User:Thryduulf/The Complete Adventures of Charlie and Willy Wonka to show what I'm proposing. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • ...but even that would be an incorrect title as IP mentioned: it's The Complete Adventures of Charlie and Mr Willy Wonka. Creating a "disambiguation page" that doesn't disambiguate violates both WP:DISAMBIGUATION and MOS:DAB. and frankly might be more trouble than it's worth. The volume in itself is not important - a single line in the book list in the target article would give it appropriate weight. B.Wind (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok, well I'll just move that to the correct title and add a redirect to it from the present title. If instead of calling it a "disambiguation" page I called it a set index would that help? My goal is to help readers find the information they are looking for rather than slavishly follow a set of rules designed for a similar but different circumstance. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Second time I've mentioned it this week, but MOS:DAB#Break rules says something along the lines of "ignore these guidelines if doing so will be more helpful to readers than following them." In fact, it says exactly that. How is redirecting to Roald Dahl more useful to the reader? The proposed..."set index"...tells the reader we don't have that article exactly, but goes on to describe BRIEFLY what it is, giving appropriate weight, and gives convenient links to its component novels. Redirecting to Roald Dahl tells them "this is the author". People are being so strict with the guidelines, and so concerned with the rules and regulations that they're missing the point altogether; that the guidelines themselves are there (amongst other reasons) to make Wikipedia a more useful...thing. Place? Tool? Website? Encyclopedia? Yes, I think encyclopedia sounds right. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support disambig/"set index", as nominator - I wasn't clear enough in my nomination statement. My (possibly flawed) logic was that people searching for this don't want to see an article about Roald Dahl; if they did, they would simply search for Roald Dahl. I'm currently in agreement with Thryduulf—the current target isn't particularly helpful, the proposed dab-like page is. But whatever happens, this isn't he most importnat subject, the traffic is infintisemally negligible...wait, what does that even mean? Basically, there's almost no traffic, don't lose sleep over it, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Trimethyloxonium tetrafluoroborate[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two distinctly different chemicals (despite their names being different by only one letter). Does not seem notable enough to stubify. Ephemeronium (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Obviously makes no sense redirecting here, if they're two different chemicals. The target does mention it, and identifies them as related, but I don't think this is enough to warrent a redirect. I know little about the subject, so I can't judge notability, but if anyone would see stubifying as useful, they can just re-create it, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to a list? I know next to nothing about the subject, but it seems to me that if this chemical exists but there isn't enough for an article about it, then it might be worth retargetting the redirect to point to a list of similar chemicals. I'm guessing that such a list would contain the chemical formula, a few words about any notable uses, a link to articles about the chemical (where such exist) and appropriate see also and external link sections. I have no idea though whether we have such a list, or whether it would be a good idea to create one if we do. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No objection to stubbification or deletion to leave an encouraging redlink if that is consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps retarget to Oxonium ion? Ephemeronium (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or stubify - these are two different organic compounds (with the latter having one more carbon atom in its molecule than the former). Redirecting to oxonium ion is not a plausible solution as it would create a circular link and give the misleading impression that the new target would be significantly better than the current one (in fact, it would be trivially so). Trimethyloxonium tetrafluoroborate should have its own article; a redlink would encourage the creation of one. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This redirect is misleading; it would be best to redlink this so an interested editor would be encouraged to create an article on the compound in question. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify or maybe softredirect to a wikibook with a {{confused}} on it, if there is a suitable wikibook... 65.94.253.16 (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage creation of an actual article. A soft redirect is not an option. B.Wind (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

PGIA[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article neither mentions PGIA or Programmable-Gain Instrumentation Amplifier which PGIA is apparently short for. Boleyn3 (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Nomination fixed. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the above, noting that there are no internal links to this redirect. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not mentioned in target, although possibly a viable article. Converting it to a red link would be best to both encourage article creation if suitable, and to make it clear to those who use the search term that we don't have any information on the term for the time being. --Taelus (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Dance And Modeling 2010[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I originally found this through this AFD. The article was moved and re edited and is now a completely different article. (with a confusing history) The redirect should be deleted as a non-sequitur. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 4 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_4&oldid=1140156255"