Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 February 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 7, 2011

Paper hanger (wallpapering)[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. The move is well documented in the target's history. Ruslik_Zero 19:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created in 2007 as a result of a page move. The target article has nothing to do with the title of this redirect, as Mundelein's speech is unrelated to hanging wallpaper. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the redirect's pagehistory because it helps to document the old pagemove. No objection to retargetting to a better current destination, though. Wallpaper maybe? Rossami (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - Fine with me to retarget this, but it really should not be kept as is since it is completely misleading. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a disambig page at Paper hanger, and that has the only entry link to this page. And a person is not too likely to type "Paper hanger (wallpapering)" into the search box. The entry at Paper hanger for "Paper hanger (wallpapering)" should go straight to Wallpaper. In the meantime, as it stands, this redirect is misleading. There is no need to document the page move (unless some technical policy requires it, which I don't think is true). Only page contents need to be preserved, and this redirect page never had any meaningful content. Herostratus (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The disambiguation entry at paper hanger has now been corrected. To your other point, GFDL considers editorial decisions about page titles to be "content" from the point of view of the encyclopedia. Changing a page title is, for example, more significant than minor grammatical corrections which we keep in history. I will concede that it is a technical point but I believe that we should be very conservative in matters of copyright. Personally, I still do not see anything misleading about this if retargetted. Rossami (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the fix at Paper hanger. So now, really, this page has nothing linking to it and so no function. Well, if the GDFL is that picky, I guess retarget it to Wallpaper. Herostratus (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez[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. Rossami makes good points, but the consensus is on the other side. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez are and will always be associated with the Boston Red Sox, but I don't think a redirect to the Red Sox article titled David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez is needed. Readers will easily see by looking at Ortiz's or Ramirez's articles that they are very muchly associated with the Red Sox, and those articles link to the Red Sox if readers want to find out more about it. Because of this, I think this redirect warrants deletion. Oriolesfan8 (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This redirect was apparently created in order to stop the growth of a new-user fork and to politely point him/her to the correct article without going through the pain and discord of an AfD discussion. Tens of thousands of these redirects exist throughout the project. While I agree that this is now a pretty pointless redirect, deleting it would appear to be even more pointless. It's existed for several years now without creating any harm or confusion. Why should we delete it? Rossami (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because, well, here we are discussing it. So we are spending time on it here. So its existence is costing me time right now. So let's get rid of it while we have here on the table, shall we? Because it's a pointless redirect. I'm sure, as you say, that it's existence had a reason at one time (and didn't you have to spend some time to look that up?). But that reason no longer applies. It's time is over. Its season has faded, and, like its eponymous brothers-in-sport, it must now, sadly, look to the day when it, too, must pass from the scene. Let that time be now. Let us not shrink from our duty. Delete it! Delete it, I say! Without fear or favor, let the thing be done! And if t'were done, best it be done quickly! Herostratus (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On 2011 Feb 11, the nominator of this discussion overwrote the {{rfd}} tag with a speedy-deletion tag and attempted to prematurely close the discussion. The discussion is reopened. Please do not do that again. Rossami (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Oops, sorry about that. I didn't know, since this redirect isn't vandalism, that I would have to let it sit here a week before it would be eligible for deltion. My apologies. Oriolesfan8 (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Oriolesfan8: You are the nominator and you can't close the discussion as you attempted to do above. You have to wait for another (uninvolved) editor to judge the result of the discussion. Thanks for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I'm so sorry! I've never done this before, so I didn't know. Thank you very much for informing me! Oriolesfan8 (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Starwood Hotel and Resort)[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is obviously a useless redirect. It was tagged for speedy deletion under CSD R3 (recently created implausible redirect), but since it dates from 20 January 2007 I did not see it as "recently created", and have brought it here instead. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Implausible typo, no significant page history, but way too old for speedy. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nobody will type that. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User:Beta cafe/Enter your new article name here[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. I've also blanked the page as suggested by Ruslik0, but this should be considered a bold editorial decision rather than a result of this debate. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect out of userspace to article space. G6 repeatedly declined even though I've seen plenty of these G6'd in the past. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't get it. What harm does it do for a user to have a userspace page redirecting out of their userspace? JamesBWatson (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur. A redirect from the articlespace to the userspace is potentially misleading and often presumed to be in bad-faith. No such argument applies to redirects from the userspace to the articlespace. In this case, the redirect is an artifact from the drafting of an article in userspace then promotion to the mainspace (an editing practice that we actually encourage). What harm does this do and what benefit is there to the project from deleting it? Rossami (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These routinely result when a user moves a completed article out of userspace. There is no policy at all that requires or even suggests deletion of these redirects. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. It would be fine if the userspace page was named correctly. But it is using a placeholder name. The redirect is misleading and unnecessary. The user may decide to create another new article (whose title they have not yet decided) at this placeholder title. The creator/owner is absent, and this article was the user's sole contribution, and as such, they are unlikely to miss this redirect. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, the user is "unlikely to miss this redirect", but on the other hand leaving it there will absolutely do no harm at all. If (as is probable) the user will never come back and doesn't care, then it doesn't matter in the least whether we keep or delete. If, on the other hand, the user does come back, then this redirect conceivably might help them find their way back to the article they once wrote. Very unlikely, but if there is ZERO chance of any harm then even a very unlikely chance of doing good justifies keeping it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami, Reaper, and James. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank. Redirects from the user space that result from page moves are usually blanked. Ruslik_Zero 19:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Yes, it's not really doing much harm, but is it really necessary? It's currently only 49 bytes, but there are likely thousands of tiny redirects just like this lurking around Wikipedia without any useful purpose. Whenever useless things like this are found, they should be eliminated. Personally, I would never think generate a useless redirect when creating a new article myself. I instead work on new articles on Microsoft Word documents and, except for maybe a little testing in one of my sandboxes, only place them on Wikipedia when they're fully developed. That really seems to avoid all the messy stuff. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re "they should be eliminated": Why? What does the project get back by deleting these redirects? We don't get any server space back, it doesn't increase the system's performance, it doesn't reduce the workload of any volunteer editor or admin. On the contrary, deletion actually adds another trivial entry to the database. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap was written based on the direct input of several of our developers years ago. Why do you think they are wrong? Rossami (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as people navigate Wikipedia in different ways, all of which are equally valid (which is why we have redirects to support this), people create articles in different ways too and this does not make any one way better or worse than any other way. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Workers' Party of Social Justice[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. The parties seems to be related. Ruslik_Zero 19:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is legally separate party with own history and I don't see any information about Workers' Party of Social Justice in article about Workers' Party. See Czech articles about Workers' Party (cs:Dělnická strana) and Workers' Party of Social Justice (cs:Dělnická strana sociální spravedlnosti)

  • According to this article, it is a thinly veiled "successor" party with the same leader, Tomáš Vandas, and identical positions. That would seem to imply that the redirect is appropriate but that the target article might be incomplete. Keep. (No objection, however, if someone wants to overwrite the redirect with content about the organization if it truly is separate.) Rossami (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are some personal and ideological differences but it is de facto successor of Workers' Party. Political successor not legal successor. Problem is that this party has own history from 2004 under names Strana občanů České republiky (Citizens Party of the Czech Republic), Demokratická strana sociální spravedlnosti (Democratic Party of Social Justice) and later it renamed to Workers' Party of Social Justice. In their earlier times they held different political position than now and cooperated with more political parties, not just with Workers' Party. About 2007 or 2008 they became significantly close to Workers' Party and when Workers' Party was banned most (but not all) active members of Workers' Party moved to Workers' Party of Social Justice. --Dezidor (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

RNAS Kingsnorth[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. Rossami questioned what the effect of deletion would be, but did not actually argue for "keep", and nor did anyone else. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, currently orphaned and creates the impression that there is an article where there is not. Confusingly, there are two Kingsnorths in Kent, many miles apart. One had a RNAS airship station, the other had a RAF airfield. Per WP:REDLINK, redlinks promote article creation. Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redlinks promote article creation only when they are actually linked from somewhere. As you noted, this redirect is currently orphaned so I'm afraid that turning it back to a redlink will not do what you intend. Rossami (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will be linked from somewhere - I've got a list article in preparation which will take some time to bash into a fit state to release. RNAS Kingsnorth will be linked from that list. Mjroots (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've found a couple of articles which should be linked to RNAS Kingsnorth, and accordingly have linked them, so it's no longer an orphan. Mjroots (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
N.B. A new stub article is now in place - it needs expanding, but it does have a number of wikilinks, so is most definitely no longer an orphan. Regards. Lynbarn (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_7&oldid=616124211"