Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 15, 2010

Paddy the Wanderer,[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 speedy deleted WP:CSD#R3. JohnCD (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in title Drmies (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Tcassessed[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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping. Unneeded ambiguous redirect. Has no links except for one user space. Kumioko (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:DiagramNeeded 2[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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping. Unneeded self referencing redirect Kumioko (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Diagram needed 2[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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping. Self referencing redirect. Unneeded Kumioko (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:Quebec English[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 speedy delete per WP:G6 with the rationale "completely implausible redirect left from old AfC submission to template space". Airplaneman ✈ 22:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping. Unused and unneeded cross namespace redirect Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd assume this is fairly uncontroversial and can just be deleted... tagging as G6 now. sonia♫ 21:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Rookery School[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 Handsworth, West Midlands#Education. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article this redirects to isn't about Rookery School. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 14:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

T:AH[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. The redirect is old and is used on a number of pages. So, its deletion is likely to be harmful as it would break the links (See Wikipedia:R#Reasons_for_not_deleting). Ruslik_Zero 20:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping. Implausible and ambiguous redirect, hardly used and unneeded. Kumioko (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "What links here" provides some links, including archives, that would break if this is deleted. It's just your typical CNR shortcut, and since it was not recently created, we should probably keep it. The reason it's hardly used is most likely because it has not been installed as a shortcut at Template:ArticleHistory/doc, an oversight that will soon be remedied.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the fact that it wasn't recently created relevant? Mhiji (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:R#DELETE, RULE# 6.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  07:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good point. Mhiji (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the outcome of this discussion, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_6#T:, and the comments there. There's very few links and the "T:" pseudo-namespace is hardly ever used and per the comments in the other discussion, it is unclear with "T:" refers to "Template:" or "Talk:". This redirect is in the article space - article space should be for articles, not templates. Mhiji (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Special:PrefixIndex/T:, there don't appear to be very many. Howz about Special:PrefixIndex/H:, Special:PrefixIndex/C:, Special:PrefixIndex/Cat:, Special:PrefixIndex/MP:, Special:PrefixIndex/MoS: and Special:PrefixIndex/Mos:? These are all the pseudo-namespaces mentioned here. (Not pulling my "Keep", yet— still cojitatin'.)
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  07:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Forgot Special:PrefixIndex/P:, Special:PrefixIndex/MOS:, Special:PrefixIndex/CAT:.
I think P:, MOS: and CAT: should stay at the moment as they're widely used. There are no articles which use Cat:. As for the others, they're hardly ever used and I think most of them can go really. I've nominated the MP: ones here. Mhiji (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you in principle, Mhiji, but here's the thing... As we've both seen in the WP:CNR writing, the discussion on CNRs is still in-progress, and so far, the consensus is to hold onto the CNR's that go from "pseudo-namespace" to other namespace. The thing that's making me hold onto my "Keep" is that I'm not sure it's a good idea to start deleting these while the arguments are still ongoing, and while the present consensus appears to be that the pseudo-namespace CNRs should not be deleted. From the lede:
Well, perhaps you're right. Maybe the little- or no-used ones should be canned. I don't know. Maybe it would be better to do what I did and put them where they're supposed to go: As shortcuts on whatever page they Redirect to? They'll only get used if editors know about them.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  03:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—this is one of the few "T:" cross-namespace redirects I'd favor keeping, since {{ArticleHistory}} is used on thousands if not millions of article talk pages. The ArticleHistory syntax is complicated, so it helps to have a fast link to the template documentation when setting it up. Redirects are cheap; if there is a need for an article to use the title T:AH later we can re-evaluate, but until then I'd favor keeping this particular shortcut. –Grondemar 17:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite millions... currently 21879. Mhiji (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a reason that we should not have T: as a pseudo-namespace. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you care to clarify that reason? –Grondemar 06:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I imagine that it be because "T:" could easily be a redirect to a talk page in mainspace (as unlikely as that would be). For example, T:MP redirects to Talk:Main Page. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why this should be confusing or any big deal at all. The T: is a pseudo-namespace, and it can apply to Templates, Talk pages and all articles that begin with the letter "T" for all somebody should care.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Martin, Gary[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. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely that someone would type in a name in this fashion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep someone is likely to copy-paste that into the searchbox; or wikilink it from some list. 65.93.12.93 (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should we be creating redirects like this for every name then?! Mhiji (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many traditional encyclopedias list people by surname first. bd2412 T 05:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Should we be creating redirects like this for every name then?! Mhiji (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • We deal with redirects on a case by case basis; if you think others in this form would be useful then create them. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other similar redirects such as Obama, Barack and Bush, George. I think we should be consistent as to either create a redirect like this for all names, or don't use them at all. If we do start a trend of creating them, there's no reason why we won't have thousands and thousands of redirects like this in the future..... Because of this, I'd say delete. Mhiji (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects are purely search aids and there is no need or benefit in having them in any particular form. "If we keep this then we should create thousands more" is an invalid argument. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That wasn't my argument.... Read it again. Please don't quote me if you are not going to accurately (why not just copy-and-paste...?). I was saying that if we set a precedent, editors may see this and then create redirects for other articles which they are also interested in, which in turn may encourage other editors to create the same type of redirect for another article... etc etc etc. If we say keep to this and tomorrow another one is nominated I assume you are going to say keep to that as well? And if one is nominated after that? So, theoretically, eventually, there could be thousands of these things. When there's 1000 of them, are you going to say yes to the 1001th? If it got to 100000 are you going to keep saying keep? This could get out of hand... We shouldn't start a trend. If I know started creating a redirect for every bio article, you're saying you wouldn't object?! Mhiji (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that would be absolutely fine. In fact, I would encourage it. For every name that could be searched for on a last-name-first basis, we should have such a redirect. If we end up with a million of them, that would be no strain on Wikipedia. Redirects are cheap, and take up virtually none of our resources to maintain (we probably have several images being stored at Commons right now which take up more hard disk space than all of the redirects in Wikipedia). bd2412 T 19:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
          • OK, you make a very good argument. Keep per BD2412 and WP:CHEAP and per Bridgeplayer, it's potentially useful and harmless. Mhiji (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we have this discussion from time to time. This is potentially useful, harmless and there is no need to delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The arguments above are fine, but no one has noticed that Martin Gary (1831-1881) was a totally real person. The iota of value that this redirect has is strongly outweighed by the risk of confusion.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fortunately, this redirect points to a disambiguation page to which Martin Gary can be added, which will alleviate such confusion. bd2412 T 22:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
      • There's no point adding Martin Gary to the Gary Martin dab page... Mhiji (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree & Keep That's the whole point of having this redirect point to the DAB page— because this reversal of the name should not be added to the DAB.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  08:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Nothing links to it. It is nonstandard for such a redirect to exist. Redirects such as Obama, Barack and Bush, George should be deleted as nonstandard. Possibility of confusion with Martin Gary. — Anomalocaris (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you connect your contentions to some item of policy which deems this redirect to be "nonstandard"? If your concerns are really about Obama, Barack and Bush, George, you should nominate those separately, as the decision here will give no weight to the question of whether those should be deleted. bd2412 T 22:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The lack of incoming links is irrelevant for a redirect which is purely a search aid Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many places and lists have the surname first. Ng.j (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above; this is a potentially useful search term since it can come from a copy-paste. Redirects are cheap. –Grondemar 17:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Political Parties Throughout History[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 Closed and discussion opened at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political Parties Throughout History. –Grondemar 17:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This essay on American political parties was redirected to List of political parties in the United States. However, the title doesn't mention the U. S., and there is no article on the history of political parties, so this ought to be deleted. —innotata 00:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article and Prod/AfD if required - redirecting an article then bringing it here is a form of back-door deletion and is most undesirable. The correct procedure is to deal with the underlying article. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even see this before it was a redirect, so how is this back-door deletion? The article was essentially a poor essay with the same content as List of political parties in the United States. Why or how should it be prodded or brought to AFD: no process is needed to merge an article. —innotata 15:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can see there was no merge. 'Back door deletion' relates to the overall process not to any specific action. Deleting a non-merged article in this manner, even by different people, is bad practice. I agree that the underlying article/essay is rubbish but we should eliminate it for what it is not as a redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD—I'll take care of this myself. –Grondemar 17:14, 20 December 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_December_15&oldid=1148047956"