Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 16, 2010

HMS Contess[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) 18:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, no such ship as HMS Contess in the Royal Navy. Correct name was Empire Contees, a merchant ship. Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

HMS Countess[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. Disambiguation doesn't seem really appropriate per WP:PTM, but even more importantly, there are no actual articles to disambiguate. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, no such ship as HMS Countess in the Royal Navy. Correct name was Empire Contees, a merchant ship. Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate - there have been at least two ships called 'HMS Countess X'; HMS Countess of Scarborough and HMS Countess of Carinthia. What the correct name for the target was needs sourcing. The nominator changed it here but we need a good source. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Sinbad Sweeney[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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deletion because the redirect is confusing and is novel/very obscure in nature. It misleads the reader as to the associated name 129.31.48.47 (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)— 129.31.48.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment - IP was apparently trying to nominate Sinbad Sweeney, a redirect to Thomas 'Sinbad' Sweeney. I'm voting keep on that - I don't see how it's misleading or confusing, and it's getting plenty of hits. (It seems to also be a former article, I guess Bridgeplayer can tell us about any legal stuff associated with that...) Sideways713 (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - thanks for identifying what was going on. I have now fixed the nomination. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems an entirely plausible search term to me. Since there is only one target that a searcher is likely to be seeking it is not confusing. So far as I can see, the target has been developed independently from the former article/redirect so there would be no GFDL issues. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Until 2000 Sinbad was the longest serving character in Brookside. He is one of the best know characters from the series. Looking at the precedent set with soap characters where anyone with a fleeting appearance on Corror has a page, someone who was one of the main characters on Brookside for around 16 years surely meets the notability threshold. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC) - Sorry it appears I misunderstood exactly which page we were talking about, however I can still see no reason why not to keep this. The character was never called Thomas in the series but referred to as Sinbad as he used to clean windows like a sailor would a porthole. Mtaylor848 (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sinbad in Brookside was never known as "Sinbad Sweeney" so I agree the redirect is confusing. He was always called either "Sinbad" or "Thomas Sweeney", never Sinbad Sweeney. I found it difficult to find the correct wikipage searching Sinbad + brookside. Using the incorrect term "Sinbad Sweeney" just confuses us. Im sure my soap buddies will agree. I vote to delete the redirect and just have Thomas "Sinbad" Sweeney as main page. —Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC).
  • Comment - none of that makes the redirect confusing or provides any grounds to delete. It would only be confusing if it took the reader to a page that they found unexpected. In this case, if they search on this term they are taken to the article they obviously want. Whether the guy is known by this name is not relevant; people use this redirect so it is a plausible search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree the redirect could not possibly create confusion. I used the name Thomas 'Sinbad' Sweeney to reflect both his real name and the name that he was known by. The redirect would only be used if someone typed that in as a search term, should someone not know him by that name then they would not be aware of it. I can't really see your point here. Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just out of interest, I googled "Sinbad Sweeney". The wikipedia result says "Sinbad Sweeney, a character in the soap opera Brookside played by Michael Starke". This is WRONG! Thomas Sweeney was the character, Sinbad was his nickname. He was never "Sinbad Sweeney". So to have a wikipedia page stating false information is counterproductive surely? As a fan of the soap and to preserve wiki integrity, I agree to delete this redirect. Thanks.BrookyBlue (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)— BrookyBlue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - since your account was created just 8 minutes before making this comment, and it is your only contribution, I think that we can draw appropriate conclusions. On your point, that quote was contained in Sinbad (disambiguation) and I have now corrected it. This is not relevant to the continuance of the redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @ Bridgeplayer, I see you have corrected the link title on Sinbad (disambiguation) however it still is incorrect on Google browser. Even after Google has crawled your corrected version page? Any idea whats happening here? BrookyBlue (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - most probably your cache is out of date. When I search here, it's just fine. Bridgeplayer (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nope, my cache is fine and I just checked your link now in your previous comment - it still reads "Sinbad Sweeney, a character...". Very curious. BrookyBlue (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Apologies, looks like I put my comment in the wrong place. I did mean the Sinbad (disambiguation) should be changed to "Thomas 'Sinbad' Sweeney, a character...". You are correct I dont post on wikipedia, I was just a fan of the soap and thought I could contribute positively to wikipedia and this page. BrookyBlue (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can see the arguments described here but given the nature of what we try to achieve here on wikipedia (i.e. the most accurate information I agree with deleting an inaccurate redirect such as this. Inaccurate in the sense the real character's details will be mislead in future by reading associated inaccurate names on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salus76 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC) — Salus76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - since your account was created just 8 minutes before making this comment, and it is your only contribution, I think that we can draw appropriate conclusions. Anyway, addressing your point, redirects do not provide information, misleading or otherwise, they are simply navigation aids - see WP:RNEUTRAL. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tone (signal)[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) 18:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused inappropriate redirect to disambig page Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK (for all) -- Gabi S. (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tone (music and acoustics)[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 Re-targeted to Musical tone. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused inappropriate redirect to disambig page Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Pitch (music). Its use is only occasional but it is used. The retarget provides helpful information to searchers. Deletion may break links in external sites. Harmless so no reason to delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason I was removing these was that tone doesn't mean pitch, which some readers got the impression that it does. And the redirect is not used at all except in some discussions (I made sure of that). It's hard to imagine why an external cite would use it and want to end up at the pitch article. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect not being used within articles is not relevant; that is not the purpose of redirects. External sites, known as mirrors, copy content from Wikipedia and deleting redirects often break links within those sites for no benefit. Redirecting doesn't equate 'tone' with 'pitch' - see WP:RNEUTRAL. What it does is point the reader to useful info. What would be helpful would be to add to the retarget, or elsewhere, an explanation of 'tone'. Something along the lines of "Tone is often used in conjunction with pitch. The primary distinction between the two is that pitch refers to the actual note sounded, such as G sharp, and tone most often refers to the quality of the sound." would be helpful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An external site would want to use a nonsensical redirect that's not used in article space? This one previously redirected to pitch (music); it's only use in article talk space is where an editor mentioned that he had fixed that; but redirect to a disambig page made no more sense, either. These were put in in error, and should just be removed, unless someone wants to write something like what you said, in a more appropriate place, and redirect there; maybe timbre? Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I made new stubs Musical tone to redirect this one to, and Signal tone for the others. All agree? Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tone (signaling)[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 Re-targeted to Signal tone. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused inappropriate redirect to disambig page Dicklyon (talk) 04:30, 16 September 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_September_16&oldid=775670416"