Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 6, 2010

House nigger[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G10 as an attack page. Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is just racism?! SE7Talk/Contribs 23:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Non Angli, sed Angeli"[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes unhelpful. Non Angli, sed Angeli already exists without. Quotes make no difference in the search box, anyway. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per repeated consensus on quotation marks.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I created this redirect last June for a notable quote, so I put it in quotation marks. I see that tMiQ created another version without quotes last month, and if that is preferable to you it doesn't matter much. Aesthetically I prefer the appearance of the quoted phrase as a Wikilink, but it's not a compelling argument. Wnt (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Glenfarclas's comment about the consensus regarding quotation marks. I don't think anybody is going to search for the quote in quotation marks so, per WP:REDIRECT, delete. JulieSpaulding 12:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not sure there is consensus around deleting redirects containing quotation marks when the phrase is an actual quotation. I think we need to take into account WP users who navigate by methods other than the search box, such as using the Special pages utility, or using outside search engines, or (even!) typing an article title into their browser's address bar. I think it is very reasonable for a WP user looking for an article on something that somebody said, or a phrase somebody wrote, to find it within quotation marks (via redirect). UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if a person typed in the phrase with quotation marks into a search engine, the Non Angli, sed Angeli redirect should come up anyway. I think that the number of people using your stated other two methods of navigation would be very small. JulieSpaulding 13:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I doubt many people use the address bar method of finding an article like this, especially since it requires typing in underscores for the spaces. And I may be missing something, since I've never used Special:SpecialPages, but I'm not sure how you'd get from it to Non Angli, sed Angeli, or why quotation marks would help.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is a quotation and not the title of a book (to which the "repeated consensus" refer), nickname, or fictional character. Note that in some of the deletion discussions, some phrases with quotation marks have been kept upon closing. Redundancy in itself is not a reason to delete a redirect, and it certainly does not generate confusion. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — the Man in Question (in question) 20:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that I accidentally made another quoted redirect, which I had to speedy-delete because just moving it left a copy. I proposed at the village pump that moved redirects shouldn't leave copies, and the consensus seems to be[1]... that "Redirects for discussion" is useless and there's no point deleting redirects! Perhaps someone here could offer a comment? Wnt (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The opinion of one frustrated editor does not constitute consensus. If it were truly "pointless", there would be no deletion process in place. WP:Deletion was developed through consensus, as was this procedure for deleting redirects. B.Wind (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The phrase may be a quote, but then again so is the name of any article if someone said it. Add superfluous quotations around phrases doesn't really add anything for anyone. Anyone searching for this would obviously see the right one. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Green Day's 8th Studio Album[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to 21st Century Breakdown ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Correct target would be 21st Century Breakdown (the 8th studio album), so if this is kept should be redirected there. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the stats paint an odd picture here. Until the end of January the redirect was consistently getting about 30 hits a month, with more than 3 visits in a day being exceptional. However in the 11 days since the 25th of January it's had 84 hits, with a minimum of 4 in a day. Given this sudden increased viewership is still current I'm reluctant to delete the redirect until I understand what is happening. I would support the retargetting though. Thryduulf (talk)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

JAMES VALERIO[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect was PRODed by User:Drunken Pirate with the reason "not needed". I have removed the dated PROD since redirects are not articles, but am neutral to deletion. Cnilep (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - while we do not encourage the creation of typo redirects, more than a few of us have inadvertently hit the CAPS LOCK key before entering something into the search box and hitting "Go." B.Wind (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless I'm mistaken, typing in an incorrect capitalization will still take you to the article unless there's another article with the same name but a different capitalization, which there obviously isn't here. So typing "BANGOR, MAINE" takes you straightaway to Bangor, Maine, and "FrEdErIcK i, HoLy RoMaN eMpErOr" to Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor. Again, unless I'm missing something, this redirect is useless, unless there were, say, also "James ValErio," in which case this redirect would need to target a disambiguation page anyway.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redundancy is not a valid argument for deleting a redirect. We should go out of our way to create redundancies in the redirect department, but there is actually a greater price for this discussion (and possible deletion) than the creation of the redirect in the first place. B.Wind (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Glenfarclas. Entering any capitalisation into the search box and hitting "Go" will lead you to the article of that name where there is only one article. Where there are two pages distinguished only by case, my limited experimentation with the only examples I can think of off the top of my head (Emu/EMU, Cobra/COBRA and Sabre/SABRE) shows that where you enter a case that doesn't match either of the page titles, you are taken to the one with the lower case title. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think that's right. As I was experimenting to find examples to mention above, I tried typing in "CAMELCASE" and "STUDLYCAPS", and wound up at CamelCase and StudlyCaps, but with notices that I had been redirected from Camelcase and Studlycaps. With other incorrect capitalizations where no all-minuscule redirect exists, you don't get the "redirected from." I should also mention, if you wikilink an incorrect capitalization where there is no redirect, you'll get a redlink and clicking it will take you to Create Page. There's no reason to encourage people to wikilink the BLOCK CAPITALIZATION of ordinary pagenames, so I'd think there's no reason to have a redirect from such a capitalization.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? What are you talking about? I was saying that characteristics of the wiki software make all-caps redirects generally useless (although Thryduulf's examples below of exceptions are very good ones). Read ALLORNOTHING again and get back to me.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Can't we just CSD it as an implausible redirect? I just prodded it to avoid a discussion, and last time I tried to CSD one of these I was advised to go to the talk page to build consensus, which seemed silly. This discussion must come up a lot here and I was trying to avoid it. PirateArgh!!1! 04:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it's not all that implausible to type something in all caps. At least, it doesn't strike me that it's so self-evidently implausible as to be speediable. My point above is merely that having a redirect serves no purpose because the MediaWiki software redirects such a query automatically. By the way, my understanding too is that redirects cannot be PRODed (see e.g. Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#When if ever is PROD for redirects?).  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point being we could have this discussion for every article and for every combination of capital letters. Redirects have no overhead, so the only reason to delete is to discourage people creating silly redirects that do nothing because it is a waste of time. But the overhead of this discussion outweighs that at this point. PirateArgh!!1! 08:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then propose a new speedy deletion criteria that allows them to be speedied, don't misuse an existing one. Something like "Redirects to a title that differs only in capitalisation where there is only one non-redirect page with that title in any capitalisation, and where the capitalisation of the redirect is not a plausible alternative internal or external link." ebay, Amy Macdonald, K.D. Lang, Tardis, Nasa and ALL CAPS are all examples of plausible redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never bothered to read the criteria. Deleting as CSD R3. PirateArgh!!1! 12:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should always read the exact wording for WP:CSD criteria. The community consensus is that they are deliberately worded precisely and are to be interpreted narrowly. The reason being that it is far better to err on the side of discussing something that doesn't need it rather than to delete something that there is no consensus to. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Declined, this does not fall under CSD R3 as it is not an implausible typo/misnomer. Consensus would need to be gained to create/modify speedy criteria to include all-caps redirects. --Taelus (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is the correct decision to remove it. Warrah (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Chris Bonnington[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is to help people find a person's name if they type it in wrongly. I don't think we should be encouraging this. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Fairly sure misspellings are one of the main uses of redirects, and if you check [2] its clear that it gets used--Jac16888Talk 15:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've tagged this as {{R from misspelling}} and am just about to go through and fix the ~10 pages that use the incorrect spelling. With ~150 hist each month, it's clear this does get used and it's also a very plausible typo for someone who does know the correct spelling to make. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - highly plausible typo, particularly if you've never seen the name written down. Scog (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Common misspelling. Why shouldn't helping people find articles be encouraged? Am I missing something? I probably am Keep, unless there is a notable Chris Bonnington (two 'n's), Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Broadgates Hall, Oxford,[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 IAR was meant for this. I'll reverse it personally if anyone gives a reason for their usefulness.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. I asked speedy delete for a bunch of 250 double-checked wrong redirects with a useless comma. Among old reditects, few were declined because they were not "recently created". Never mind... RFD. However IMHO they had to be speedy deleted even if they were not "recently created" because obiouvsly wrong. Basilicofresco (msg) 09:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete all - the final comma means they're all not useful.

Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was an improper close impeding the formation of a proper consensus. I ask the closer to self-revert. DES (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mama'sboysmusic[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 CSD U2: Userpage of a non-existant user. --Taelus (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no registered user under this name; User:Hippster22 created a page here which I've moved to his own userspace. This is now a useless redirect.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • (speedy) delete this seems to fall under the spirit of WP:CSD#G8 (sub pages with no parent page) and WP:CSD#U2 (User pages of users that do not exist). Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Unblock requests[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G7. –xenotalk 21:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect of little use. No real reason a reader would search for this, would be of no help anyway. Jac16888Talk 01:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, or if kept retarget to Wikipedia:Appealing a block. I suppose I can imagine someone typing "unblock" into the search window to find out how to get unblocked, but we already have Unblock, which has a hatnote to the proper place. I agree that typing "unblock requests" is unlikely.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can't really see a user searching that and not trying "Unblock", or following the links on their talk page if they get blocked. Additionally, this isn't helpful as a shortcut for admins to check out the category, as CAT:UNBLOCK is quicker. --Taelus (talk) 18:21, 10 February 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_February_6&oldid=1148047645"