Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 29, 2010

T:[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 Snow keep all. It's quite possible that a few of these may get other results if nominated separately, but the concensus for the group (and the T: prefix) seems clear. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is formalized for templatespace shortcut for navigation, what is it for "template talk"? And should the "P:" redirects also being deleted, also be formalized for portalspace? Then what of "portal talk"? Is template talk going to be "U:" ? ("TT:" , "MST:" both failed as proposals for aliases into template talk space). 184.144.166.27 (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Noone needs a shortcut to Template talk: or Portal talk:, they're not frequently trafficked namespaces. These pseudonamespace shortcuts were created precisely because there's a need for them, and they are frequently used. -- Ϫ 01:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As a categorical statement, it is false that all of these redirects are needed or used. Neither T:WPTECH nor Template:WikiProject Georgia Tech are frequently visited. Anomie⚔ 02:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Then shortcuts such as T:WPTECH should on their own be nominated for deletion, on a case-by-case basis according to need and use. -- Ϫ 04:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No one needs a shortcut to template talk? That's a very odd statement to make, since some template talk pages get quite a bit of traffic. 184.144.166.27 (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If a certain Template talk: namespace page gets a lot of traffic then why not create a T: pseudo-namespace shortcut there? Those who use it and know it exists also know where they're going when they use that specific shortcut. I can't see a user getting confused by typing in a very specific shortcut and expecting to be taken to a Template namespace page when there are so few T: shortcuts in existence to begin with. That's part of the freedom of pseudo-namespaces they're not defined by the software so we can create shortcuts to wherever we need to go the most. -- Ϫ 04:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is formalized into a templatespace alias, that would be better, since they would no longer be redirects in articlespace; it would be templatespace itself that has an alias (like [[WT:]] and [[WP:]], actual namespace markers) 184.144.166.27 (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's not just that the T: prefix is in the mainspace. It's also that T: is ambiguous. It could refer to the Talk: namespace or the Template: namespace, or possibly the Template talk: namespace. And I know these are useful for the searchbar, but they're not really necessary. Additionally, if a person uses the links often, they could theoretically create a toolbox on their userpage (or if they're really good with figuring it out, modify their skin to create a personal toolbox) with links to those pages. --- cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 19:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've created quite a few templates, and it's annoying to have to type out "template:" in front of their name any time I want to get to any one of them through the search box. A toolbox, whether on user page or via the skin, is impracticable when there are several dozen you might want to reach. Possible ambiguity can be dealt with by discussion - I'd suggest T: for template:, TT: for template talk:, P: for portal:, PT: for portal talk:. I don't see any need for an abbreviation for talk:, but if one is wanted, I'd suggest TK:. In any case, aliases provided by the software would be better, but until we have them, these redirects should stay. --NSH001 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      TT: for template talk won't happen, tt is already in use as the interwiki prefix for the Tatar language. And aliases provided by the software would impede creation of possible article titles that start with P: PT: etc. so there's no benefit in restricting those when those shortcuts would be infrequently used. No, we should stick with pseudo-namespace shortcuts and only create those that for high traffic pages that would require them. -- Ϫ 05:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most If some of the DYK ones are used as often as claimed above, keep them. But most of these seem useless except for the supremely lazy. Anomie⚔ 20:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keepStrong keep. I use T:TDYK on a everyday basis, it is very usefull. I can't see any problem with the other redirects either. --Soman (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and as soon as possible, because I really found it annoying to be diverted here when typing "T:TDYK" and I see I'm not the only one. On the surface it seems like "T" would be confusing, but in fact it's not since I think only one of those redirects, T:MP, goes to an actual talk page. There is simply no other need for a shortcut to a mainspace talk page; in all other namespaces the talk pages are accounted for by an added "T": WP --> WT, T ---> TT, and so forth. Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a proposal has been opened at VP to implement an alias, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_for_an_alias_to_templatespace . 184.144.166.27 (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least the DYK redirects - I type "T:TDYK" all the time to get to the page and was surprised to find it nominated for deletion today. Parsecboy (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - atleast the DYK ones - I'm pretty sure they're used on a regular basis. Connormah (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as useful well-known shortcuts. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as extremely useful shortcuts. Strikehold (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - I use some of these almost every day, and the others appear to be highly useful shortcuts. (I would not want to have to type out "Template talk:Did you know" every time I wanted to go there.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least the Main Page related shortcuts (DYK, ITN etc). These are frequently used, highly visible and very useful shortcuts, which are more convenient and can be used in more situations than {{tl}}. T:MP is and always has been a unique one-off page, in the same way as Main Page is uniquely in article space. It's continued existence should not influence the decision of what to do with other T: redirects. Modest Genius talk 15:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see many comments that all of these redirects should be kept because they are "highly useful" or "used on a regular basis". Let's look at the numbers:
    • T:TDYK/T:tdyk has been viewed 2000 times in November 2010.
    • T:DYK has been viewed 541 times in November 2010.
    • T:ITN has been viewed 267 times in November 2010.
    • T:DYK/Q has been viewed 141 times in November 2010.
    • T:DYK/P1 has been viewed 72 times in November 2010.
    • T:DYK/P3 has been viewed 56 times in November 2010.
    • T:DYK/P2 has been viewed 56 times in November 2010.
    • T:MI has been viewed 52 times in November 2010.
    • T:DYK/Q6 has been viewed 52 times in November 2010.
    • T:DYK/P4 has been viewed 52 times in November 2010.
    • T:OU has been viewed 50 times in November 2010.
    • T:SINGLE has been viewed 46 times in November 2010.
    • T:DYK/N has been viewed 46 times in November 2010.
    • T:ONES has been viewed 43 times in November 2010.
    • T:DYKT has been viewed 39 times in November 2010.
    • T:WPBIO has been viewed 33 times in November 2010.
    • T:DYK/Q3 has been viewed 26 times in November 2010.
    • T:DYK/Q5 has been viewed 25 times in November 2010.
    • T:DYK/Q1 has been viewed 23 times in November 2010.
    • T:CRW has been viewed 22 times in November 2010.
    • T:UAA has been viewed 21 times in November 2010.
    • T:VGR has been viewed 20 times in November 2010.
    • T:DYK/Q4 has been viewed 20 times in November 2010.
    • T:WP_Proposals has been viewed 19 times in November 2010.
    • T:ITN_BOX has been viewed 19 times in November 2010.
    • T:DYK/N/C has been viewed 19 times in November 2010.
    • T:S has been viewed 18 times in November 2010.
    • T:TT has been viewed 16 times in November 2010.
    • T:RFPP has been viewed 15 times in November 2010.
    • T:DYK/NN has been viewed 14 times in November 2010.
    • T:CENT has been viewed 13 times in November 2010.
    • T:AC has been viewed 13 times in November 2010.
    • T:WPTECH has been viewed 12 times in November 2010.
    • T:WPAF has been viewed 12 times in November 2010.
    • T:P2 has been viewed 12 times in November 2010.
    • T:N has been viewed 12 times in November 2010.
    • T:DYK/Q2 has been viewed 12 times in November 2010.
    • T:DYK/C has been viewed 12 times in November 2010.
    • T:AIV has been viewed 11 times in November 2010.
    • T:AD has been viewed 11 times in November 2010.
    • T:ITNBOX has been viewed 10 times in November 2010.
    • T:DYK/P has been viewed 10 times in November 2010.
    • T:WPProp has been viewed 8 times in November 2010.
    • T:DYK/PE has been viewed 6 times in November 2010.
While some of them do seem to be at least somewhat well-used, many of these are used only a few times per month, which doesn't really seem to be "highly used". Anomie⚔ 16:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. All of them are used, none of them conflict with anything (at least no evidence has been given that they do), and none are offensive. RfD is not the place to formalise or eradicate the T: pseudo-namespace, so mass nominations like this are not helpful especially with the vast range of hits these get so until an RfC or other proposal decides one way or the other about the class, we should keep all of them. If anyone has any particular objections to any particular redirect, then nominate it individually with reference to that specific redirect, not its membership of the class. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, because they're helpful. If you object to ones that are used just six times per month, nominate them separately: the idea of shortcuts to talk pages being formatted like this is well established, and there's no reason to inconvenience people by getting rid of the shortcuts. Regarding Mhiji's comment — if these redirects are deleted, how do you propose for me to get to one of these pages without typing the full name? I'll frequently type the full URL with the shortcut to get to one of these pages when I'm at another site, or I'll cut the URL down to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ and add the shortcut. There's no other way to go directly to the intended page, other than typing a sometimes-long name that I can't always remember. Nyttend (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, particularly T:TDYK which is an extremely helpful redirect. Harrias talk 15:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. "t:tdyk" was subject of this previous RFD where decision was keep. Why would this be re-suggested, i don't know. KEEP. --74.79.40.86 (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The outcome of that RFD was "no consensus", and as about 9 months has passed since that discussion a second nomination is not unreasonable imho, especially as it's part of a group nomination. I don't the group nomination is reasonable (see my comments above), but given that it has been made, and my reason for disliking the group nomination are not relevant to the previous discussion about t:tdyk, including it in the nomination is perfectly fine. Thryduulf (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close discussion as keep as soon as practicable, having frequently used links like T:TDYK not redirecting as they should for this (as far as I can tell) needless discussion is somewhere between irritating and disruptive. EdChem (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why T:AH is omitted here, but keep all.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least T:TDYK and T:DYK because I use them daily :-). Seriously, do they interfere with something or any other serious reason for deletion? Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A well-intentioned, but perhaps badly formatted nomination likely to end in disaster. It's true that while T: has ambiguity, there is some agreement about which ones should be used, particularly those as clearly shown through the page view statistics and the incoming links. Perhaps it is a previous nomination that sets a bad precedent for this one, but these redirects should be nominated on an individual basis, not collectively despite their common purposes. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Toxophile[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 Toxophile Retargetted to Extremophile, Toxophilite Kept. Lenticel (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look up toxophile in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Disambig redirect; retarget to an appropriate regular article, if there is one. bd2412 T 23:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

  • "toxophile"/"toxophil" and "toxophilite" are two different words with very different meanings, and the meaning of the latter indicates that redirecting toxophilite → archer is a fairly good idea (as is redirecting toxophily → archery). The appropriate target for the former is probably toxicity right now. Uncle G (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Archer is a disambiguation page, and it is not a good idea to redirect there because "Toxophile" could never refer to Archer, or Archer, or Archer. bd2412 T 21:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe redire to .. oh that word that means stuff that flourishes in harsh environments...  ? Rich Farmbrough, 12:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Extremophile. Rich Farmbrough, 12:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep toxophilite, retarget toxophile to extremophile, and add hatnotes to both targets as confusion between the two is not uncommon. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. I've fixed the disambig term. I will add hatnotes once this is formally closed. bd2412 T 00:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bomzh[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 Withdrawn by nominator after it had been retargetted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig redirect. Aside from the vague similarity in sound, I am not seeing the connection between the redirect term and any term on the disambig page. bd2412 T 23:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong target. A seonds googleing shows Bomzh to be an eastern block name for an outcast, homeless person or tramp (hence "bum" in American vernacular). Rich Farmbrough, 12:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
That's good enough for me. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Chicken claw[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 Keep, nom withdrew the rfd. Lenticel (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig redirect; not at all clear to me that the term should generically redirect. Perhaps re-redirect to chicken feet, and create a separate disambig page for other things known as a "Chicken claw"? bd2412 T 23:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

  • You can be bold and make that sort of change. Rich Farmbrough, 11:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Close - I've dabified the entry per nom. Please check if the entries are okay or if you could add more. --Lenticel (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good to me, removing the tag. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Carl Philip, Duke of Vermillandia[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 both. JohnCD (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these are madeup titles of a living person; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl of Vermillandia. Their existence leads to phoney pages like http://www.facebook.com/pages/Carl-Philip-Duke-of-Vermillandia/153752801302994?sk=wiki /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that's Facebook's problem. They are using redirects wrongly - as synonyms. Mark as redirect from wrong title, if you wish. Rich Farmbrough, 12:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    I can use {{R from incorrect name}} for the historical people, but these two redirects are a bit of a BLP issue. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. There are no English-language sources I have found using these names outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. The fact that a Wikipedia editor wants to promote the use of the name "Vermillandia" (an exonym for Värmland only confirmed to have been used in Latin) is not sufficient reason to create redirects such as this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Desiree Jennings controversy[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  Relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 13#Desiree Jennings controversy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful redirect: not mentioned in the target article. This article was previously deleted at AFD; it should just have been left as a red link, since this redirect isn't going to help anybody. Robofish (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is more helpful than no redirect since it says that the controversy is vaccine related. Possibly it should have been left as a red link, but it wasn't. Rich Farmbrough, 12:32, 30 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_29&oldid=1127484569"