Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 April 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 14, 2011

Book:BuzzLightyear[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 no consensus to delete. Skomorokh 11:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect created while correcting a typo in the page title. The move is documented (diff) in the page history of the target page, so attribution is not an issue. The page was moved less than an hour after it was created and it has no incoming links, so linkrot is not an issue. And, finally, the redirect is unused and unneeded—typing "Book:Buzz" into the search box will cause the target page to appear in the drop-down list—so deleting it will not negatively impact searches. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, There are other ways than to search than to use the search bar, and some of them do not support the drop-down list. Also it doing no harm (it may even be useful) so it should be kept. Tideflat (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tideflat. What benefit would the encyclopaedia or it's readers gain from the deletion of this redirect? Thryduulf (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A page should be useful, not merely harmless: What benefit does the encyclopedia gain from keeping this redirect? In addition, shall we, then, start creating redirects from incorrect spacing variants for other pages? Should Henry Beresford, 3rd Marquess of Waterford have redirects from HenryBeresford, 3rd Marquess of Waterford; Henry Beresford,3rd Marquess of Waterford; Henry Beresford, 3rdMarquess of Waterford; Henry Beresford, 3rd Marquessof Waterford; Henry Beresford, 3rd Marquess ofWaterford; HenryBeresford,3rd Marquess of Waterford; HenryBeresford, 3rdMarquess of Waterford; HenryBeresford, 3rd Marquessof Waterford; HenryBeresford, 3rd Marquess ofWaterford; and so on, all the way to HenryBeresford,3rdMarquessofWaterford? -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If any of them are likely to be common search terms, then they should be created. Redirects are so cheap that deleting them costs more than retaining them, but this does not mean that we should create or encourage the creation of similar ones. See also reductio ad absurdum. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Individually, none of them are likely or common search terms, much like Book:BuzzLightyear. If the target page was a high-traffic page, then at least that could create some usage (e.g. UnitedStates receives several hundred hits per month simply because it redirects to a high-traffic target that receives about 1.5–2 million hits per month), but that is not the case here: Book:Buzz Lightyear receives only 15–25 hits per month.
          If we keep this redirect (almost unused, with a target that receives 15–25 hits), thereby implying that we consider it to be useful, then why would we not want to create or encourage the creation of similar ones? If this type of redirect (missing space, extremely low traffic, low-traffic target) is considered useful in this case, why wouldn't it be considered useful in a similar case?
          As for the point about deleting costing more than retention, see WP:PERFORMANCE: the cost associated with deleting a redirect is so minor as not to be worth the worry. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Keeping it does not imply it to be useful enough to create more similar ones, it meanly means that it hiding it from the public is not useful. Tideflat (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It seems that we are coming from different assumptions: "a page should exist only if it is useful" versus "a page should be deleted only if it is harmful". If so, I'm not sure there is a way to reconcile the two positions; oh, well, c'est la vie. :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could have a redirect for "Book:raeythgiL zzuB" as well if we wanted, but that would be similarly pointless. If there were any reason to think people might use the CamelCase version of the name then so be it, but there isn't. And that means that the redirect is potentially harmful as it implies we should have redirects for CamelCase everywhere. If the user who had created it had requested speedy deletion as a user error nobody would have batted an eyelid. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The existence of one redirect does not imply anything regarding the existence or otherwise of other redirects. Just because some camelcase redirects are harmful, does not mean that all camelcase redirects are harmful. See logical fallacies. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, but it does imply that we're not going to delete pointless CamelCase redirects in future, on the grounds that they aren't doing any harm. All it takes is for one enthusiastic user with a free afternoon to come to that conclusion and you've got a huge proliferation of pointless redirects. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given that we haven't been deleting redirects that do no harm, including camelcase ones, for many years without that happening, I don't think it particularly likely. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not really accurate, actually. We have, over the years, deleted plenty of basically 'harmless' redirects (some recent examples) on the grounds that they are not useful. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:R from alternate[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. Black Falcon gives a good rationale for deletion over disambiguation. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This redirect is ambiguous. It could refer to any of the many redirect templates beginning with "R from alternative", e.g. Template:R from alternative spelling, Template:R from alternative language etc. I have corrected all the transclusion of this template and it was used instead for alternative spellings in some cases. McLerristarr | Mclay1 02:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a good argument to turn it into a Template disambiguation page, not to delete it. Rossami (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do template disambiguation pages even exist? It could be redirected to Template:R help; however, if it is not deleted, the users who have used it in the past may continue to use it without checking the results. Templates transcluded on redirect pages aren't visible without looking at a diff. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are rare but do exist. "R help" would also seem reasonable to me. Better might be a direct link to the Special page that you hardlinked below since that would dynamically update when new "R from alternative"s are created. Rossami (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC) and 15:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep alt spelling and alt lang are alt names, as is alt caps, and all the other alts. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You couldn't be more wrong. Theater is not an alternative name for Theatre; it's the same name just spelt differently. All the "from alternative" redirect templates exist separately for a reason and should be used in different circumstances. Here is a list of all the templates beginning with "R from alternative". McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Theatre is an alternate name for theater. One is the American English name, the other is Commonwealth English. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it's the same name just spelt differently. "Movie theatre" and "movie theater" are spelling variations of an alternative name for "cinema". McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you spell it differently, it's a different string of graphemes, therefore a different name. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • "String of graphemes" is not synonymous with "name" so I don't follow your logic. "Theatre" and "theater" will both appear under the same dictionary definition because they are the same word. McLerristarr | Mclay1 13:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Disambiguation is a reasonable option, but categorization of redirects is a technical function for which detailed indices—such as Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages and Template:R help—are more useful. In addition, it seems that the redirect is not used anymore (less than 3–5 hits per month in recent months), so a disambiguation page may end up providing little or no benefit. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2011 (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/2011_April_14&oldid=1138577591"