Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 31, 2011

Football world cup[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 Keep with current target, additional navigation is provided to alternate usages of the term already thanks to the nomination below this one. --Taelus (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to World Cup. There are world cups in association football, Aussie rules football, American football and both codes of Rugby football. At least some of these sports have entirely separate competitions for male and female competitors as well. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why take to RFD? Be bold and do it if it makes sense. Although as PeeJay says, 99% of the time people will be looking for the FIFA World Cup article (googling "World Cup" confirms this). fish&karate 06:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Googling confirms nothing of the sort for me. My first page of results is a mish-mash of several different World Cup competitions. Powers T 11:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An error on my part - should have been googling "football world cup". Sorry. fish&karate 13:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both and add 'otheruses' template. Clearly the prime use but we need an easy way for the other cups to be found. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are too many other uses to reasonably list them all in a hatnote. That solution is not tenable. Powers T 02:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 'otheruses' would simply link to the World Cup disambiguation page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's already the case, so I thought you were proposing adding more direct links. Powers T 18:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Soccer world cup[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 Keep with current target. Hatnotes have already been added to the target to aid navigation. --Taelus (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A simple search for "soccer world cup" contains no indication of gender, but this redirect currently takes a reader to the article for the men's World Cup without so much as a hatnote to the Women's World Cup. This is inequitable. The redirect ought to be Retargeted to World Cup, or to a separate disambiguation page. Powers T 22:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate; also for Football World Cup. There are actually six FIFA world cups. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any changes - There may be six FIFA World Cups, but 90% of the time anyone searches for Soccer world cup, they will be looking for the men's tournament. – PeeJay 00:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree but we also need a route to the other cups; see revised view; below. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Retarget to World Cup#Association football. I was originally going to recommending keeping it as is but adding a hatnote at the target, but after boldly adding the hatnote I spotted that there was more than just the men's and women's competitions. Having reorganised the World Cup dab page into sections there is now a natural target. Keeping it as is (with a hatnote) is my second choice recommendation. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add 'otheruses' template. Also Football World Cup redirects there. I think the simplest way is an 'otheruses' tag and we can put all 6 cups on a disambiguation page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've nominated "Football world cup" separately above as I believe it should be treated differently. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose: If we can't agree that "soccer world cup" should redirect to what is arguably the largest and most popular sporting event on earth simply because there are other versions - that are all spinoffs of the original - then we mind as well always redirect to disambiguation pages (assuming one exists) in every case, regardless of the likelihood of the intended target of the search. The point of redirects is to make it easy for people to find what they're looking for - people clearly mean in almost every single case the FIFA World Cup when they type this in, there really is no need to have this discussion. Same goes for football world cup. Starwrath (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree but we also need an 'otheruses' template' so that the other cups can be found. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. Use hatnotes as well. We want to make it easy for users to find things - that's actually why "soccer world cup" redirects to FIFA World Cup in the first place - 'cause that is what the user is likely looking for. Starwrath (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Women's World Cup is just as important in women's soccer as the men's World Cup is in men's soccer. Especially in a Women's World Cup year such as 2011, it's just as likely someone searching for "soccer world cup" is looking for the women's tournament. Furthermore, it is sexist to assume that someone is always looking for the men's version of a sporting event. Powers T 02:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, the Women's World Cup has the same standing in women's soccer as the World Cup does in men's soccer, but in terms popularity, revenue, television viewers and so on it's not even a contest between the two. The revenue for the 2011 Women's World Cup was E50.6M which is 69M US$ (by today's rate)[1]. The revenue for the 2010 World Cup was $3.2B[2]. That means the Women's World Cup generated 2.2%, of the revenue generated by the World Cup. In what world are these events even remotely comparable? WP views for June 2010 WC were 2,316,157. WP views for July 2011 for WWC were 447,333. World Cup 2010 generated 80% more page views during the event. You can call it sexist. I call it basic math.Starwrath (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick search for "soccer highest tv rating" points to female matches in 1999 and 2011. Why would global popularity matter when the name "soccer" is typically used by Americans? DS Belgium (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • U.S. television ratings for Men v Women are no where close. Sure, the finals in 1999 and 2011 of the Women's World Cup were well watched in the U.S. - because the U.S. was playing. But the top soccer telecasts in the U.S. (counting all networks showing the events) the top 5 are: [3]. The first game in the group stage U.S. versus England did substantially better than the 2011 Women's final when both were played on a weekend afternoon. The average viewership of World Cup on ESPN was 1.8 [4] while for the women it was .6 [5]. 2011 U.S. v Brazil QF drew 3.9M on a weekend afternoon. U.S. v Ghana QF drew 19.4M on a weekend afternoon. Now unfortunately the U.S. sucks at soccer, but could you imagine what the ratings would be if the U.S. made a semi-final or final? The final without the U.S. drew 24M+ anyway. Even if you say that the term "soccer" is mostly used by Americans, clearly Americans overwhelmingly - by your TV ratings argument - prefer watching the men. Starwrath (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And how many of those viewers were watching on Univision? Since that's not an English-language channel, it shouldn't count toward determining English-language primary topics. Powers T 18:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Wikipedia is not the place to promote women's soccer or even equality among the genders for that matter. The men's tournament is the primary topic for "Fifa World Cup" so obviously that tournament is also the primary topic for "Soccer World Cup". Both those terms are equally ambiguous and are both are much more likely to be used in searching by someone looking the men's tournament. FIFA World Cup has about 10 times more views than FIFA Women's World Cup.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy? On what grounds? Wikipedia:Speedy keep lists five possibilities: 1) Withdrawn nomination, 2) Frivolous or disruptive nomination, 3) Banned nominator, 4) Policy or guideline page, or 5) Linked from the Main Page. Which of those do you think applies? Powers T 18:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Category:People from Orillia, Ontario[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, uncontested for weeks. --Taelus (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only actual purpose this soft redirect achieves, I'm sure, is to have users accidently link bios to it, where they can link and save without seeing the actual category / category redirect page. Therefore, obviously, constant monitoring of this and all soft redirect pages is required, and time and effort lost. So unless administrators have a way of doing this monitoring readily, I say that this particular soft redirect and many if not most others, serve less purpose then not having themn, as users can spot and delete redundantly started up categories speedily at categories for discussion. Mayumashu (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/[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 Keep, and protect to avoid future issues. --Taelus (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently causes a problem, as a recent Twinkle glitch filed at least one AFD here by mistake. This page has histories of AFDs being filed here by mistake, and I can't see anyone making such a typo — in fact it looks like the entire page was made by mistake in the first place. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to a protected error page that explains that this page is not where nominations should be placed, if possible with a link to the correct page (does WP:AFD/TODAY work still?). Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mostly harmless (no edits in five years), potentially useful. Typo is easy to make by cutting and pasting from the URL. —Kusma (t·c) 21:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can plausibly imagine people making this typo and it gets 7-800 hits a month. Protecting it might prevent people mistakenly filing AfDs here, and I don't think deleting it would fix any Twinkle glitch. Hut 8.5 14:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a reasonable redirect, but protect it. Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - likely typo especially as many websites end with / Simply south...... creating lakes for 5 years 19:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Portal:Sesame Street[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, uncontested for three weeks. --Taelus (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused cross-namespace redirect. (It was used inside a {{Portal}} template on three articles, but I removed them as the use was clearly not helpful to anyone.) Powers T 14:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Non-free use poster[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 --Taelus (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unused, Created as a temporary re-direct whilst rationale renaming was carried out. Can be safely removed Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as reduntant and unused. Take to TFD if dispute. Si Trew (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1950–56 Pacific typhoon seasons[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 Keep --Taelus (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article no longer goes up to 1956, but now goes through 1959. The initial article doesn't need to be redirected, but doesn't really fit any of the speedy deletion categories. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep to maintain the history of the article that was at this title between 2008 and a few minutes before this RfD nomination. Even the very active mirrors will take a few days to catch up, and links from external sites and users bookmarks will still be around for a long time, potentially a matter of years. We redirect old titles to new titles by default precisely to enable people to continue to find the content they were looking for. Deleting a redirect like this requires a good reason and none has been given, indeed deleting would actively harm Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - harmless and doesn't meet any deletion criterion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_31&oldid=1039424233"