Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 7[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Help:Edit summary[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 both. Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirects. Mhiji 19:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. They are not implausible searches for inexperienced users, but they don't seem to be used. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Rossami, I hadn't thought of it from that perspective. Thryduulf (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why? What different perspective has Rossami given you? Mhiji 02:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That they're an important part of the project's history. The onus is always on those wanting to delete a redirect to show that deleting it would benefit the project more than keeping it. Here the argument for deleting is that they're "unnecessary" and "cross-namespace" (although the second is not cross-namespace). The first is a very weak reason as it is entirely subjective. The second is not a reason on it's own (CNR's can be good, bad or neutral so it's other attributes than being cross-namespace that determine their value). Counter to this is the assertion that they're an important part of the project's history, and have caused no-known confusion (i.e. they are not harmful). So, given they are not harmful and have benefit, there is no reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I said below, keeping them to be "part of the project's history" is ridiculous - that's not a reason to keep. If they're deleted the history doesn't go away... WP:NOHARM isn't a particularly good argument either. What do you mean they have benefit? And how is this any different from the "Portal:User:Luke Farrelly-Spain" and "Wikipedia:Portal:Vatican City/Selected panorama/Layout" ones below? You didn't argue we should keep them as "part of the project's history". Mhiji 13:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The history doesn't "go away", but it does become inaccessible to non-administrators (and less easy to find for administrators). The key differences between this redirect and the others you cite is the namespaces - Help: and Wikipedia: have significant overlap in terms of scope and content, the same is not true of user and portal, and wikipedia and portal (not that WP:WAX is a good argument to make). WP:NOHARM is a good reason for keeping the status quo when there is no compelling reason to change it, and as yet you have failed to provide a good reason to delete. As with everything on Wikipedia, it is up to those wanting to change the status quo to show that this is the course of action that will benefit the encyclopaedia most. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • But in this case there is no history to preserve! And I wasn't just saying WP:WAX, I was saying why is your attitude different in this case than it was a few days ago. Mhiji 14:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. They were created in apparent good faith by an established editor with a positive contribution history. They've been around since 2006 without creating any known confusion. Even if they are of only marginal value, there is zero value to deleting them. Leave them as part of the project's history. Rossami (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are these of marginal value? I don't see what the positive contribution history of the editor has to with anything? No-one was claiming that they are vandalism in any way - I'm sure they were created in good faith. Also the editor that created them is currently active and has been informed of this discussion and hasn't commented at all, so I'd take that to mean he's not bothered if they go - so we shouldn't be keeping them for his benefit. If I had come across this as a new editor I'd be very confused... These are confusing and not at all helpful. And how would we know if they'd confused anyone? There is no way to tell. If you type the first one in the search box it doesn't even come up. How are these of any value at all? And keeping them to be "part of the project's history" is ridiculous. If they're deleted the history doesn't go away... Mhiji 02:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The creator's positive contribution history is relevant evidence because Wikipedia policy requires us to assume good faith. In this context, that means assuming that the redirect is helpful to at least that one person who created the redirect. (A negative contribution history would nullify that assumption.) Not everyone navigates the wiki the same way that you or I do and redirects that seem unnecessary to you may be quite helpful to me. (WP:RFD#KEEP #5) That's why "unnecessary" and "unused" are explicitly not criteria for deletion of redirects.
        Choosing to not participate in a deletion discussion can not be taken as evidence one way or the other. Many users boycott these proceedings because of their lack of civility. (That is a generalization, not an accusation - this discussion has been civil so far.) Page creators also often decline to participate recognizing that they may not be able to bring the necessary disinterested perspective to the discussion.
        As to history, I'm sorry that you don't see the value in it. I and others do. I have little to add to Thryduulf's comments above. Rossami (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • We can't assume that the editor found it useful. Many editors create redirects because at the time they think it could be useful to others, not because they actually will ever find it useful themselves. And you think that the creator would not come forward and say "I find this useful, please don't delete it", because they'd be worried that they were being biased by saying that?! Don't be silly. With regards to history, I don't see the value in it because you haven't explained or provided a good argument as to why it is. And I was going to rewrite it here but can't be bothered, so see also my comment over at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_4#Wikipedia:Wikiportal.2FWar. Mhiji 17:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • So if I'm understanding your argument here correctly, those wanting to keep are not allowed to assume that a real editor who deliberately took the time and effort to make a good faith edit to the encyclopedia did so with the intent to make the encyclopedia better but you are allowed to assume that some unknown, unnamed, hypothetical future reader will somehow be confused by the same edit and to argue for deletion based solely on the personal value judgement that it's "unnecessary". I doubt that's what you intended but that's how your comment is coming across. Can you please clarify? Rossami (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An additional point is that neither of these redirects are in the actual encyclopaedia part of Wikipedia. One's in the project namespace and one's in the help namespace. You do realize that deleting things actually increases the size of the database, right Mhiji? They may have odd names and not seem particularly useful (I could understand Project:Edit summary but a reason for Project:Help:Edit summary is not immediately apparent.) but it doesn't "make room for more stuff" to delete them. Quite the converse, in fact. Uncle G (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I wasn't saying we should delete them on grounds of space... Mhiji 09:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Portal:User:Luke Farrelly-Spain[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 Speedy Delete.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, cross-namespace redirects. Mhiji 19:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6 - the pages were created in the wrong namespace and moved in 2008, the redirects were appropriate for a few days, but there has been no need for them for a long time now. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Portal:Vatican City/Selected panorama/Layout[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 Speedy delete. Mhiji 15:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, cross-namespace redirects. Mhiji 19:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. These are the result of a page move to the correct title carried out on 20 September 2009, the usefulness of the redirects ended at about the same time that September did. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:GFDL-with-disclaimer[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 19:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image license template. Kelly hi! 17:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Civil parish[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 Retarget to Civil parishes in England. Ruslik_Zero 19:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-target to Civil parish (disambiguation), or move Civil parish (disambiguation) back here. Civil parish is a term used only in Britain and Ireland. The redirect is better targeted at a dab page dealing with civil parishes only, rather than a list page which lists parishes generally. Either way, there is an issue with incoming links, but the user is likely to find the page he needs more quickly through the proposed target than the current target. Mhockey (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative would be to retarget to Civil parishes in England, as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, on the basis that England is the only country where the civil parish still has an administrative function. That would greatly reduce the incoming links problem --Mhockey (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Civil parishes in England, per discussion below. --Mhockey (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Civil parish has over 6,000 incoming links. By contrast, Conflict is the most-linked disambig with 140 incoming links. If this is to be pointed to the disambig, these links should be cleaned up beforehand per WP:FIXDABLINKS. I'm not particularly opposed to the change (neutral, don't know enough about those 6000+ links to say what's best), but I am opposed to making such a huge and disruptive change without any maintenance. --JaGatalk 18:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an even bigger cleanup task with the current redirect. WP:FIXDABLINKS called for a clean up when Civil parish was split into 4 articles here and became a dab page. It is no solution to redirect to a list article, which makes it harder, not easier, to navigate to the required article. A large majority of the incoming links (discounting those from Template:Types of administrative country subdivision, which should stay) appear to be from articles on English civil parishes, which need to point to Civil parishes in England, which is an article about civil parishes. It is just unhelpful for these links to point to Parish (administrative division), which is a list of countries which use "parish" (not even "civil parish") as an administrative division. --Mhockey (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Civil parish (disambiguation) is arguably not a true dab page. The term "civil parish" itself is not ambiguous, but the concept has evolved differently in the countries of the British Isles. So another option would be to reinstate Civil parish as a narrative article, covering the 19th century origin of the civil parish in the then single country of the United Kingdom, and linking to the four articles dealing with the subsequent history. --Mhockey (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as an article briefly covering the evolution of the different forms. Disambiguation pages should be reserved for circumstances where the term can have multiple meanings that can not be discussed in an article as related forms (for example if there was in addition to the political meaning, an album titled Civil Parish; or a film, A Civil Parish; or a racehorse named "Civil Parish"). Even then, the primary meaning would be the political term sitting at the main title, and the other forms would properly be relegated to a "Civil parish (disambiguation)" page. bd2412 T 20:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Note: I also think retargeting to Civil parishes in England is a reasonable option. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Civil parishes in England, hatnote to Civil parish (disambiguation). I'm about to tweak Civil parish (disambiguation) slightly to note the "former" nature where appropriate (having seen that it needs a few more words per line, I think it's best to improve it now, it's not really part of this discussion). If someone wanted to put an introductory article at Civil parish that could also get my vote. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there ought to be an introductory article at civil parish, instead of the dab page at civil parish (disambiguation). These aren't four separate meanings of the phrase "civil parish" - it's one concept about which we can say certain things in general, while providing links to the more specific articles that deal with the various countries (as well as more general articles, like the current redirect target). --Kotniski (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No actually, looking at it again, I think Chris is right - it's only the English ones that currently function, so that's the primary topic. Still no need for the dab page, though - there should be links to the other topics from the primary topic article, I would say from the article text (somewhere in the lead) rather than from a hatnote, and in fact that article could simply be renamed civil parish.--Kotniski (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd now go with retarget to Civil parishes in England. That leaves us with a dab page which is not really a dab page, but as long as it has the introductory note, I don't think anyone is going to be inconvenienced by that. --Mhockey (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

H:FILLINEDITSUMMARY[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 Speedy delete (G7: Requested by author). JamesBWatson (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. We already have WP:ES and the target, Help:Edit summary is shorter than this "shortcut" anyway. Mhiji 03:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

C:\[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 clearly no consensus to delete. There is also a clear consensus that at least some of these redirects should be retargetted. I do not, however, find a clear consensus on what the ideal redirect targets should be. There does appear to be a minor weight of opinion in favor of the single-letter redirects pointing to Drive letter assignment. I will make those changes but only as an ordinary-editor action. Copying this discussion into the respective Talk pages so debate may continue. Rossami (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially misleading/deceptive. Few page views. Delete. Mhiji 01:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be a bit clearer? In what way are these "potentially deceptive"? I agree that one might argue about what the correct targets are, but that's not a reason for deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep C:\ and A:\, Neutral about the rest. A:\ and C:\ seem are perfectly logical search terms, and none of them seem at all deceptive, misleading or otherwise harmful to me. I'm neutral about the others as they feel like less obvious search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple positions:
    • Retarget A:\ to Floppy disk. On DOS and Windows systems, drives A and B are reserved for floppy drives. (Network drives may be set up at those letters, but that is exceedingly rare.)
    • Retarget C:\ to Hard disk drive. The C drive is always a hard drive on Windows/DOS systems.
    • Neutral on the ones with forward slashes.
    • Keep others. They are plausible search terms. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget A:\ to Floppy disk and C:\ to Hard disk drive — common search terms for drives, etc. No comment about the rest. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget and Keep-I don't see how they're "misleading/deceptive" as you claim. Retarget A:\ to floppy drive and C:\ to hard drive. Everything else should be kept as is.Smallman12q (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget and Keep - This, That and the Other explained it quite well and I agree. --AOL Alex (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent. I find it strange that C:\WINDOWS redirects to an article about an operating system and C:\Program Files redirects to an article about a directory. I'm inclined to agree with others who suggest retargeting A:\ to Floppy disk and C:\ to Hard disk drive. —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A:\ and C:\ should stay as redirects to Drive letter assignment, where there is an explanation of the letters. There is nothing about this in floppy disk or hard disk drive which are about the devices. Peter E. James (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only one that I'd change would be A:/ which should redirect to the same place as A:\. Everything else seems fine as it is. I agree with Peter E. James that drive letters are a matter of drive letter assignment, not of actual I/O device hardware. C:\, C:/, A:\, and A:/ should all redirect to where C: already does, as indeed is mostly the case already. Redirecting to the I/O devices is wrongheaded. These aren't alternative names for I/O devices. Indeed, C:\, C:/, A:\, and A:/ are directory pathnames, not even drive letters, strictly speaking. The only other logical place for them to redirect is thus root directory, which would be my alternative choice.

    If we had an article on the Windows directory, C:\WINDOWS (and indeed C:\WINNT and WINDIR) would best redirect there. But no-one has written such an article yet. Uncle G (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Sidecar World Champions 1949-1979[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 Speedy delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per R3. Mhiji 00:40, 7 January 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_January_7&oldid=1142587649"