Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 14[edit]

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

Wikipedia:10CR[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 as there is no consensus to delete. Not all shortcuts/pages that exist in the projectspace are official guidelines and policies, and as pointed out by users below there are many shortcuts. I don't believe it matters whether it points to userspace essays or projectspace essays. Other arguments here about the content of the target itself should be discussed at the user talk page, as they are outside the scope of Redirects for Discussion. The target also contains the usual disclaimer of 'this is an essay, not policy', thus the argument it decieves people into thinking it is official policy is weak. --Taelus (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP namespace redirect. A long and contentious user essay is using a WP namespace redirect to masquerade as a consensus-supported, Wikipedia-sanctioned guideline in the author's edit summaries. The author uses the redirect to help explain his deletions of images from articles which he believes are in violation of fair use policy. The author argues, in support of the use of the redirect, that cross-namespace redirects are commonplace and useful in edit summaries. True though that may be, the "WP" namespace carries the special cachet of community-vetted policy and should not be used inappropriately to redirect to one user's own rationale for a particular editing campaign he has chosen to carry out, particularly when such a campaign is controversial. As presently used in his edit summaries, the author makes it appear as if he is only following agreed-upon guidelines, when, upon further investigation, such is not actually the case. The author further provides a list of cross-namespace redirects which have been permitted to exist. The present redirect is distinguishable from all the provided examples in that none of the provided examples are in usage to justify, in edit summaries, individual (potentially controversial) edits. No editor makes a substantive edit to an article and then uses WP:HOLES as a shorthand explanation of the edit in an edit summary, as one might use WP:V or WP:NPOV. Furthermore, the name of this redirect, "10CR", gives it the appearance of an official rule number or guideline, increasing the chances of confusion for a consensus-supported guideline. Robert K S (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am not making an attempt to claim that my user space essay is consensus supported. I've clearly marked the essay with {{essay}}, which refutes that. The Wikipedia space contains far more than just community-vetted policy. The nominating editor's contributions to the Wikipedia space have, to date, been less than 5% of his edits, so it is understandable that he does not know this. Only a small fraction of WP space actually contains policy/guidelines. My edit summary makes no attempt to claim authority based on WP:10CR. All it does is ask the reader to see it. This is also true for WP:FIXNF, which also is not a consensus-supported document. However, the nominating editor doesn't seem to take issue with that? If you wish to see #10c enforcement stopped, as I have suggested many, many times to you today now, please start a thread at WT:NFC. I will be happy to assist in tagging it as an RfC. Attempting to stop the enforcement by shutting down the use of a user essay isn't the way to go about it, and will make matters worse, not better. I already have evidence that this essay has assisted in answering questions. Example; editor questions my removal of an image and believes I should discuss it first [1]. Sometime later, he modifies the comment he left to me removing the assertion that I should discuss removal first [2]. His initial assertion is addressed by the essay under the section "You should discuss the removal on article talk pages first". As to the supposed paucity of the use of the other WP shortcuts to userspace, I can provide a dizzying array of other examples. They are very, very common. In addition to the already noted redirects in the diff that Robert provided, there's approximately 280 more redirects to user essays, such as WP:BUTCHER, WP:CSIOR, WP:BAHAD, WP:OBSTACLE, WP:BAHA, WP:Secret pages, WP:UNIT REP, WP:ISSOC, WP:INNIE, WP:WWAH, WP:DIY, WP:OKAY, WP:COLTRUMP, WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP, and on and on and on. Are you really so certain that cross namespace redirects to userspace essays are not being used to explain actions? Perhaps you should take a look at "what links here" for WP:TR, which links to a userspace essay. Heck, we even have a member of arbcom with a userspace essay (User:Newyorkbrad/Bradspeak) with a WP shortcut to it: WP:BRAD. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look at the edit history of Bradspeak and tell me it's his essay. Cool Hand Luke 16:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not deceiving and plenty of precedent for userspace essays to get WP shortcuts. If you want to change this precedent, start an RfC about it. Equally, an RfD is not the place to question the topic of the essay. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment--as to whether it is deceiving, I was deceived, which is why I started to think something is wrong and raised the issue here. As to taking it to RfC, this doesn't need to be an RfC issue. The limited holding required for deletion here is whether it is appropriate to use a WP redirect to a user essay when the essay is routinely used as a shorthand explanation for a substantive edit in the article space. None of the other examples mentioned are used in this way. It has to be admitted that WP-namespace redirects carry a premium. To allow individual users to "claim" them in supporting editing enforcement initiatives, as opposed to opinion essays, is to invite confusion and acrimony. Robert K S (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You keep asserting that I am attempting to confuse, causing acrimony, etc. Yet, you've not proven this; just stated it. Regardless, these arguments would be against the presence of User:Hammersoft/NFCC 10c Removal, not a redirect to it. That something is from Wikipedia space doesn't mean it carries authority. I believe your confusion stems from the belief that Wikipedia space is only for policy and guidelines. This is false. In fact, policies and guidelines comprise only a very small fraction of Wikipedia space. You've learned something from this that should abate your confusion. It doesn't sustain as an argument to delete a valid shortcut to a valid userspace essay. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "That something is from Wikipedia space doesn't mean it carries authority." It carries that pretension when it is used in an edit summary shorthand explanation for a substantive edit in the article space, yes. Editors assume that WP-namedspace-hyperlinked edit decisions have grounding in policy. It's like if I fabricated a little shield for myself out of metal and pinned it to my jacket, and then went around in public telling people to stay off the grass, because I strongly believed that grass shouldn't be walked on. A small metal shield by itself is not an indicator of authority, but its use in an enforcement context could only lead to a conviction for me of impersonating a police officer. Robert K S (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is a conclusion that you have reached that is not grounded in fact. Your belief that everyone assumes what you think they do is not supported by any facts. Wikipedia space is NOT policy/guideline space. I'm sorry you are carrying a misapprehension as to what Wikipedia space is used for. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think it's an assumption that uses a "reasonable person" standard. Just as a reasonable person seeing a metal badge on a someone conducting enforcement actions would recognize the person as a law officer, any reasonable Wikipedia editor would assume a WP-namespace link in an edit summary explaining a substantive edit in the article space links to a consensus policy and not to a personal essay by the editor conducting the "enforcement". If you think it's not reasonable, it's contingent upon you to explain why, given that you created the essay and you created the project namespace redirect. I don't think "the project namespace is not just for policy" cuts it--no, it's not just for policy, but what you're doing is such a circumvention of the typical use of the project namespace and the cachet it carries that the burden ought to be on the one who wants to keep it to defend it. I've never seen any other editor do what you're doing--have you? Robert K S (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • In my long experience as a Wikipedian, I think you are the first person I've seen who has been unable to immediately appreciate that neither everything in the Wikipedia namespace, nor all WP shortcuts relate to consensus policies. WP shortcuts relate to consensus policy (e.g. WP:CSD), former policy (WP:T1), policy proposals (WP:USM), rejected policy proposals (WP:AMR), guidelines (WP:SK), proposed guidelines (WP:PHILMOS), rejected guidelines (WP:BI), user essays (WP:HAMMER), humour (WP:NCR), miscellaneous proposals (WP:USM), discussion pages (WP:RFC), requests for information and assistance (WP:RD/S), disambiguation pages (WP:ASK), reporting of infractions (WP:AE), informal dispute resolution (WP:MEDCAB), formal dispute resolution (WP:RFARB), rejected dispute resolution processes (WP:EDCO), deletion discussions (WP:RFD), editorial coordination pages (WP:USRD), reports (WP:DR/BLP), indicies (WP:DBR), navigation pages (WP:9), help pages (WP:ES), article maintenance pages (WP:ASOF), fun (WP:DOF), community pages (WP:MEETUP), legal license text (WP:FDL), external tools (WP:KT), templates (WP:ITN), categories (WP:CINA), mediawiki namespace pages (WP:BADIMAGE), and probably other things too. If you do not know what page a shortcut relates to then read that page. Also just because a shortcut or the page it relates to is misused, misquoted, misunderstood, etc, does not mean the shortcut is bad. Thryduulf (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • None of those are links to user pages. If I follow WP:BRD and edit one of those pages, discussion may ensue to lead to a consensus solution. Here, editing of the linked-to page is off-limits because it's someone's user page--it's their "turf" on Wikipedia. I don't have a problem with subsuming a small part of the project space for personal ownership, but when it's used as a play-police badge, we have to draw a line. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Userspace is not off-limits to collaborative editing - see WP:UP#OWN. You can have a civil discussion on the talk page as well, including about moving it to project-space if you think this is more appropriate. Deletion of the redirect is not the correct way to go about resolving your disagreement with the content of a page, nor any problems you may have with the conduct of a user. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • As a practical matter, I can't see how a userspace essay like this one could be collaboratively edited. I don't agree with much if any of the content on the user page in question (e.g., a headnote summary of "you need only to read this: NO" goes against the basic Wiki principle of friendliness to editors), but because it's that user's essay, editing it wouldn't result in a "collaboration" so much as an edit war. Deletion of the redirect is the appropriate action here. It is permitting the user to fake policy support for his own enforcement campaign. Robert K S (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • "It is permitting the user to fake policy support for his own enforcement campaign". No it isn't, because it is not a policy and does not claim to be. Actions taken citing "WP:10CR" are subject to exactly the same WP:BRD process as if justification was cited as "User:Hammersoft/NFCC 10c Removal". Edit warring is not acceptable in any namespace (note that it takes two to edit war, and your assumption that an edit of yours to that page would result in Hammersoft edit warring is arguably not one of good faith), no pages are barred from editing other than by the author unless there are legal reasons or there is a specific WP:OFFICE-mandated reason. Even those tiny number of pages can be discussed on the talk page, as any other page. The redirect has no bearing on any of this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC) and 15:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • @Robert; If you object to the wording at the top of the essay, I'm open to other suggestions. The issue it is attempting to address is a recurrent problem; people wanting to use NFCC without abiding by the requirements of NFCC and not willing to read to gain understanding. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Foxy Brown (2006 film)[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 17:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only film named Foxy Brown I know of is the 1974 film. There may have been a 2006 remake under consideration under one time, but it was never actually made. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Guffin bean[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. Although not the strongest consensus RfD will ever produce, it's clear that deletion isn't supported at this time. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This name for lima bean is completely unattested. The creator appears to have invented a number of "common names" for lima beans. I can think of no explanation short of vandalism. I urge that all of this user's contributions be investigated. Speciate (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the user seems to make a lot of good redirects too, from individual songs on an album to the album (, from plausable search terms to the list they're found in and from common mispellings to the proper article (antepasto to antipasto for instance). Given the fact a lot of these seem to be good redirects I'm not sure what's going on here. Maybe we should ask? HominidMachinae (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I informed the creator of this discussion. Upon consideration, he may not be a native speaker of English. He somehow mistakes names of authors of scientific papers for proper names of things, such as this invention that I removed here. Speciate (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those webpages relied on the erroneous Wikipedia page! Speciate (talk) 18:19, 23 June 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) 12:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Even this alternative name was created originally as an error in Wikipedia, it seems that now people have been using this name commonly, as the Library of Congress page suggests. If even the Library of Congress has been fooled for this long it means the public has taken the new name for granted. Wandering Courier (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The names were added to the article in 2005[6] by Sandman30s, and most seem to be valid, but obscure names, although some may refer to other types of bean. There was a typo in at least one of the names (which was corrected in 2009), and maybe Guffin is another typo (or it could just be a very obscure name). It is possible that Hraefen (the creator of the redirect) was just using the names already in the article, or from the Library of Congress page. The addition of the "Etchells" name (which is not mentioned in the Library of Congress page) is probably unrelated, and seems to be vandalism by anonymous users 82.8.244.26 and 94.9.82.139. Peter E. James (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Mahim Fishermen Colony[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 page restored to article version and deleted as CSD A7. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the word anything about a fishermen oclony anywhere in the article for Mahim, so I'm not sure why this redirect was created. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • See "Mahim Koliwada" below. -- œ™ 01:06, 20 June 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) 12:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and WP:PROD or take to WP:AfD. It is never good practice for an article to be redirected and then brought here; better to debate whether this is a notable subject and keep or delete. In any case this should not be a redirect; there is nothing about the colony in the target so a redirect only serves to confuse. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Mahim Koliwada[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 redirect deleted (see above). Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the word "Koliwada" anywhere in the article for Mahim, so I'm not sure why this redirect was created. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Looking at the history this was originally created as a very short new article about a Fishermen Colony called "Mahim Koliwada" which was tagged for speedy deletion but alternately redirected by another user to the regional area, Mahim, where the Colony is situated. Depending on the notability of this Colony the redirect could be kept and exist as a 'redirect with possibilities' but I doubt it's notable. Here's some information on it anyways: [7]. -- œ™ 01:04, 20 June 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) 12:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and WP:PROD or take to WP:AfD. It is never good practice for an article to be redirected and then brought here; better to debate whether this is a notable subject and keep or delete. In any case this should not be a redirect; there is nothing about the colony in the target so a redirect only serves to confuse. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Datang town (Chengdu Datang)[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 Datang town (Chengdu Datang). Datang town ( Chengdu Datang) as a highly improbable typo. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the following reasons:

  1. Confusing and misleading: Implies that Datang is part of the Chengdu Metropolitan Area when in fact it is rural. A typical Chinese would only use "X, Prefecture-level city" if X were part of Prefecture's (i.e. Chengdu) metro area, otherwise the county-level division (in this case Pujiang County) is used to disambiguate.
  2. What is in the parentheses is a romanisation of an East Asian practise, namely listing the political divisions in decreasing scope. It is simply inappropriate for anything on EN-Wiki written in English to be like this.
  3. Does not disambiguate anything, as the name of the town is in the parentheses, which serve as a means of disambiguating.
  4. Nothing links to either redirect, and since the page move from the last redirect occurred nearly 20 months ago, websites should have had ample time to have updated their links, so licensing (GFDL, I believe) is not an issue. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 19:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that the title is technically inaccurate doesn't mean it should be deleted. It redirects to a sensible destination. Whether it's inappropriate style is irrelevant, as outside links don't always use appropriate style. Redirects are cheap, and the reasons presented are not reasons to delete. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That even you admit that it is technically inaccurate means that the re-direct is misleading, which is a reason for deleting. Clearly you make a point to not bother reading my first point, to not at all consider the facts I presented (no, mentioning style alone is insufficient) and to cite the common excuse "re-directs are cheap". If it were not for those who stall these discussions, this would have been deleted tomorrow. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 17:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've had a long discussion in Las Vegas as to whether the article about the city should mention the Las Vegas strip. The strip is "technically" not part of Las Vegas, but no one agreed that the article should exclude it. Technicalities don't matter. If it's confusing, meaning it could refer to something else, then make it a disambig page. If it's merely inaccurate, the redirect people to a page that IS accurate and corrects the confusion. When if comes to deleting redirects, the burden of proof is on the deleter, not the one attempting to save it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one in their right mind would consider a rural town 60 km from a city's outlying airport part of that city's metro area. Why don't you check the map of this town's surroundings yourself? Misleading is misleading, and as stated above, "merely" inaccurate is a reason for deletion. Also, consider your response to be an applicable case of WP:OTHERSTUFF, because the point about Las Vegas is irrelevant, the strip is very near to the city limits. And I have already provided enough reason to delete this re-direct, and you have responded with nothing but WikiPolitics to my points. This is not a mere technicality. Technicalities involve administration, which you have alluded to above. Metropolitan areas are usually vaguely defined and certainly not defined on administrative terms. You have little, if no, case here and so are resorting to 'other stuff' and cannot come up with as much evidence as I provided above. Sigh. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 02:45, 26 June 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) 12:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both and salt. The overriding reason for deleting settlement redirects is if they take the reader to the wrong article and that does not appear to be the case here. Redirects are search terms, only, and do not need to use technically correct terminology. See also WP:RNEUTRAL. It is the role of the target article to explain the precise status of this place. This is the third discussion in three months and that is enough for the time being so salting should be considered. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:07, 4 August 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_July_14&oldid=1091633024"