Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 12, 2010

The result of the discussion was delete. Redirects of this kind are harmless and usually kept; I think the requester's worries are illusory, but this is no big deal and I see no harm in agreeing to her request. JohnCD (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donald braswell[edit]

delete the original page with lower case 'b'. This is an unnecessary redirect Lucia medea (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I would happily see this one go, but there are probably tens of thousands of redirects like this, and I think they are generally considered acceptable. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are trying to eventually set up a page for Donald's father, also named Donald Braswell, who is a singer/actor. This will require Donald's page to be redirected to Donald Braswell II, and I'd like to limit the number of redirects on the page. Lucia medea (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would you like to limit the number of redirects on the page? Which page? Josh Parris 01:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To prevent it from being a double redirect. People will (eventually) be redirected only from "Donald Braswell" to "Donald Braswell II". Lucia medea (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what Wikipedia says about about a double redirect:
    "A redirect is a special page that automatically causes the text of another page to be displayed in its place. A redirect that points to another redirect is called a double redirect. These pages are undesirable, because Wikipedia's MediaWiki software will not follow the second redirect, in order to prevent infinite loops (to prevent endless looping, a redirect will not "pass through" more than one entry; if someone is redirected to a redirect, the chain stops after the first redirect). These situations create slow, unpleasant experiences for the reader, waste server resources, and make the navigational structure of the site confusing." Lucia medea (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Don't worry about it. There's at least one bot that runs around fixing double-redirects. Josh Parris 05:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand this kind of redirects happen all the time, but the original page was an error on my part. Deleting it would be a simple action that would not hurt anyone and would only make Wikipedia cleaner and more efficient. Lucia medea (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, deleting makes it less efficient, as now there's a delete record as well (on Wikipedia, nothing is deleted; but stuff does become non-visible). Don't worry about performance, worry about building an encyclopedia. Redirects are handy for other users who make the same error - so this redirect is helpful. Josh Parris 04:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Granted, it's not helpful right now because it's being discussed, proposed for deletion. But normally it would be invisible. Josh Parris 00:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects can be a slower irritating way for users to get to where they want to go and invalid pages clutter up Wikipedia servers. If someone wants to clean up areas they are creating and maintaining, I would think that is a good thing for everyone Plus as mentioned an unneeded redirect increases the risk of later having a double redirect. Unnecessary pages and redirects ought to be deleted.Wikiauthenticity (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment above. Josh Parris 04:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a way to keep the Donald braswell name from appearing in the dropdown when a search is done, so someone doesn't accidentally select it and have go through the redirect? I think most searches are typed lower case which brings up both version the way it is now. Thanks.Wikiauthenticity (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Picking either of them will get you to the right article. Don't worry about it. Josh Parris 11:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see the reasoning behind denying someone the option of cleaning up a mistake they made, and why so much time and energy is devoted to disallowing the cleanup, rather than just cleaning it up. Why would Wikipedia want to hold onto garbage pages and subject the public to weed through them to get to where they want to go. You would think if there are people wanting to make Wikipedia look better, they would be embraced not shoved to the side and vilified.Wikiauthenticity (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally a redirect just magically takes you to the article it targets and you don't see that page that brought you here. It was by proposing it for deletion that it stopped functioning as a redirect and you saw that bloody big sign and related chatter on the redirect page rather than the Donald Braswell article. Josh Parris 00:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually that's not quite true. The reason we put the request in was that when people put in a search for "donald braswell" they are presented with the faulty page in two ways. One is it shows in the drop down that appears and they will sometimes pick the wrong one. If they just hit enter in the search they are presented with a list that contains both pages. This is how I encountered the first time and asked to have it deleted. Also, when the redirect is executed there is a message at the top of the page that says "redirected from Donald braswell". All three are just a bit tacky looking and we would like to have it cleaned up. Thank you.Wikiauthenticity (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? If I type 'donald braswell' into the search box and press return it takes me straight to the redirect - and would take me to the correctly capitalised article if it weren't for the deletion notice. Did you click on 'search' instead? That will take you to a search results page no matter how many articles there are. As for "it shows in the drop down that appears and they will sometimes pick the wrong one" - it's only the 'wrong' one if there's some other reason to dis-prefer the redirect to the article; so we seem to be left just with your distaste for the "redirected from" notice at the top: and I really don't think that's important enough to be worth setting a precedent of deleting the thousands of redirects of this type that we have, which would be very time-consuming and render tons of them useless for a week. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is trying to set any precedents or ask for other changes. Just one little one that the directions say is easy and normally done as I quoted from the redirect pages below. We are simply trying to clean up a little mess that serves no purpose. As I said there are 3 ways the redirect is seen. 1) in the dropdown when typing in search. 2) When clicking search it comes up in the list. 3) on the top of the valid screen it is shown as having been redirected. Also, we ultimately want another page built for his father "Donald Braswell" and this redirect will be in error. The time it has taken up of peoples time here would have easily been saved by simply deleting the page. If it is such a odious task to delete this simple error, maybe some consideration of letting the authors delete their own errors? Really guys, I don't want any arguments or hard feelings here. Why is this really such a big thing?Wikiauthenticity (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The request to delete this page fits the acceptable reasons in the deletion criteria page
    "Redundant or otherwise useless templates".Wikiauthenticity (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion for valid and invalid delete criteria. Josh Parris 00:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing out that page to us. I think the thing is, this discussion seems a bit unnecessary. I don't think anyone is anxious to keep the page that was put up in error. I haven't heard from anyone saying they like the page and think it should remain. Why anyone thought this needed to be a controversial topic is a mystery to me. The page is totally unhelpful makes no improvement to the encyclopedia, so why are there people wanting to force us to have it if we don't want it? To quote from the discussion page you informed us about it says:
  • "deleting redirects is cheap since the deletion coding takes up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. In general, there is no harm in deleting problematic redirects that do not contribute to improving the encyclopedia. The default result of any RfD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination."Wikiauthenticity (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm a bit confused by Wikiauthority's comment "The reason we put the [deletion] request", since it was in fact Lucia medea who opened the discussion... have I misunderstood something? Olaf Davis (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm involved in content for this page and have an interest in its validity and appearance.Wikiauthenticity (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How long does this process take before a determination is made and the redirect discussion page can be removed?Wikiauthenticity (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I read somewhere that the process takes seven days, which would be tomorrow. Who makes that final decision and what criteria do they use to making it? Wikiauthenticity and I are the only ones providing content for the Donald Braswell page in this discussion. Why would people not involved in the creation or modification of the page be so concerned about the deletion of an error? Lucia medea (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"Miller Cylindrical"[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: useless quotations marks. The last one has got also a full stop. Basilicofresco (msg) 18:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If you hadn't listed them here I would have eventually. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but note that while the quotes do belong on the last one, as it is a direct quotation, the period is IMHO a little too specific. --Thinboy00 @217, i.e. 04:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Diabeetus[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Closure is a little early, but this seems clear cut. This won't be deleted, as it's a perfectly valid search term, nor should it be retargeted. GlassCobra 04:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should redirect to Wilford Brimley, since he made popular this word. MW talk contribs 17:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's no way it could logically be mentioned in Wilford's article, so it shouldn't be a redirect there. It also seems a bit fishy as a redirect to "Diabetes." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pronunciation \ˌdī-ə-ˈbē-təs\ is common, and an accepted variant of "diabetes" according to Merriam-Webster. If this redirect is even going to exist at all (I'm not sure we need redirects for every phonetic corruption imaginable), it's already pointing at the right place. Redirecting to Brimley would just be Internet-centric systemic bias. Fran Rogers (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And after thinking it over, I'd say keep (in this condition); I agree it's a pretty valid search term. Fran Rogers (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect to Diabetes mellitus. Reasonable search term. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fran Rogers. If this is going to exist, I'd rather it point to something that people will likely want to look for if they search with this title. Anecdotally, I've heard many people pronounce Diabetes as Diabeetus. Killiondude (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a possible misspelling of the illness based on its pronunciation, but it should certainly target the illness it describes, not the person who pronounces it that way on commercials.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Phonetic spelling of pronunciation. –xenotalk 21:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"Liturgical Christians"[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO useless, I suggest deletion. Moreover there are useless quotes in the redirect name and the target section does not exist. Basilicofresco (msg) 17:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:SURP[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and implausible redirect ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 15:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No reason to think anyone is likely to use this. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag with {{R from shortcut}}. Plausible shortcut. --Thinboy00 @215, i.e. 04:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it a plausible shortcut? On which planet is "surp" a recognised contraction of the word "usurp"? ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 08:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; also, there are already several redirects, such as WP:USURP (only one character longer), to the target page. –Black Falcon (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Meaning of Uttarakhand[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions as redirects. Similar to WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#What is wikipedia. I have left out famous phrases such as Definition of art, Definition of Insanity, Definition of Life, Meaning of lyrics, Meaning of names, and Meaning of pain. — the Man in Question (in question) 11:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

IIPM Advertising Controversy[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect uses an acronym IIPM in its name IIPM Advertising Controversy but there are many institutions that go by the name IIPM. Further, current naming conventions disallow the usage of the acronym in the title name unless the particular institution also uses it. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 04:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep—"naming conventions disallow the usage of the acronym in the title name unless the particular institution also uses it": but this particular institution does use it [1] – ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 15:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there are other uses of "IIPM Advertising Controversy" then we can have a disambig page: otherwise the fact that there are other uses of "IIPM" is irrelevant. Also this appears to be the commonest use of "IIPM". JamesBWatson (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Greace[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grease dab page. Delete No obvious reason why this misspelling is specific to the musical, even more ambiguous as shown by User:Kusma --Cybercobra (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The misspelling isn't specific to the musical, which is why it redirects to the disambiguation page. It is just a misspelling which otherwise leads to nowhere. This redirect speeds up the users experience.SkE (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: also a misspelling of Greece, unclear what the user typing this wants. Telling them to go through search is better than redirecting them to the wrong page. —Кузьма討論 09:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. GREACE is an acronym for "Greek Atorvastatin and Coronary Evaluation"[2][3][4] (references are all over the internet, mostly in regards to a specific study), but there is no Wikipedia article on the subject. — the Man in Question (in question) 11:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An improbable misspelling, and not specific to this usage if it does occur. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not an improbable misspelling due to the fact that is phonetically the same for both spelling variations. SkE (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but you can't redirect something to 2 different places, and I'm pretty sure we don't make disambiguation pages for misspellings. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. There cannot be misspelling disambiguations, and there's no other way to save it. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:11, 14 January 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_January_12&oldid=1091465468"