Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 30, 2011

FC Kirovsky Zavod Leningrad[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 18:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong redirect Postoronniy-13 (talk) 23:36, 30 July 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.

FC Kirovets St. Petersburg[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 18:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong redirect Postoronniy-13 (talk) 23:35, 30 July 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.

FC Kosmos-Kirovets Saint Petersburg[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 18:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong redirect Postoronniy-13 (talk) 15:21, 30 July 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.

FC Dzerzhinets Leningrad[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 18:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong redirect Postoronniy-13 (talk) 15:18, 30 July 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.

FC Avangard Leningrad[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 18:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong redirect Postoronniy-13 (talk) 15:14, 30 July 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.

Think thank[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts misspelling. Looks funny in article. Better to get a redlink and correct spelling than to suggest to a reader that this spelling was an "alternate." Not linked by any article at this nomination. Student7 (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is a surprisingly common misspelling as a search through Wikipedia articles shows. It is harmless and potentially useful so it should be kept. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bridgeplayer. This redirect has existed since 2nd December 2005, and apart from a 7-minute period on one day in September 2006 has not been at all controversial or problematic. Tagging with {{R from misspelling}} will mark it as unprintworthy and get any links to it corrected. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A common misspelling and mispronunciation. I for one, thought for a long time that was how it should be pronounced. Tideflat (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the nominator. It's better to get a redlink than a redirect that effectively encourages shoddy spelling. – PeeJay 01:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Hi, sorry we don't delete redirects to encourage good spelling. We have numerous {{R from misspelling}}. For deletion there needs to be a policy reason with no over-riding keep argument. It is long-standing policy to keep plausible misspellings because they aid searching; the reason for a redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I search for Wikipedia articles containing the phrase "think thank", the first article listed is Think tank. Surely that's enough? – PeeJay 01:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not an expert on the search function but this seems to put think-tank at the top precisely because of the redirect which is going its job. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep misspellings or misunderstandings are a good reason for redirects, just fix any inbound links that use it! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "What Links Here" does not currently list any articles that use it (of course, links outside WP:EN might...) Si Trew (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hopefully there won't be but we currently have about 18 pages that use it. Even reliable sources use this typo, e.g. here, so it is very foreseeable. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:26, 12 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.

Daignet[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 Daignet people. Lenticel (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Daignet" is in singular, but it should be in plural form. It is a group of people. CSD declined. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 14:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this word is used in the singular in the target so it seems an entirely reasonable search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Daignet people to avoid a double redirect. This redirect is useful, both per Bridgeplayer and to preserve the edit history, the content that was originally at this target was moved to Daignets and then to Daignet people. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Daignet people; should have recommended this first time! Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget I think a singluar form is entirely appropriate for a redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:43, 30 July 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.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (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 Retarget to Deathly Hallows (disambiguation). Although opinions are split over whether to keep it as an independent disambiguation page or to make it a redirect link to the broader entry, overall consensus for some form of disambiguation is clear. Besides, Deathly Hallows (disambiguation), despite containing links to video game and soundtrack articles, offers no confusion for readers to find the appropriate film titles. @pple complain 10:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. The article was split into two separate articles at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. The disambiguation term (film) is only added to article titles if it is necessary to disambiguate the article from articles that already have that name as per WP:NCF, which was originally the case to disambiguate the film from the book. Since the film articles now have their own unique titles, the (film) disambiguation is not required. Betty Logan (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore disambiguation page - the nominator converted the disambiguation page to this redirect and then, after her speedy was declined, brought it here. Not good practice. This does seem a useful disambiguation page for someone looking for the films as shown by a massive 267,256 hits last month. The correct way forward is to restore the disambiguation page and, if it is so desired, AfD the substantive page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't convert anything, I reverted the edit that turned the redirect into a disambiguation page without discussion. Why do you need a disambiguation page for two articles that aren't even disambiguated? Why do we need a disambiguation term for two articles that don't even carry the title it is disambiguating. It is redundant, nothing links to it, nothing needs to be disambiguated. Oh, and if you check the traffic usage you will notice that there isn't any traffic history for this term from the last few days now all the links have been corrected to the unambiguous articles. The traffic was from the redirect that was put in place after the move. Sloppy argument from Bridgeplayer, didn't check his facts. Betty Logan (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes there has been tooing and froing but the best way to determine whether the disambiguation page is merited is by restoring it and taking it to AfD. Oh, and placing silly templates, like this, hardly helps your case. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how it matters where it is nominated, its fate can be resolved here. The article move turned it into a redundant redirect, so let's deal with the problem that the article split presented us with. Betty Logan (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate either narrowly (Restore disambiguation page) or broadly (Retarget to Deathly Hallows (disambiguation)). "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)" is a very likely search term for those who know how we name articles (most people who've read two or three articles that have parenthetical disambiguation in the title) and who doesn't know that we have separate articles on the two parts of the film or who don't know how we will have named the separate articles. Redirecting to one or the other doesn't seem appropriate as (in the absence of any evidence) neither film seems to me like it will be primary over the other in the long term (although I've seen neither film). When we have an ambiguous title with no primary topic then we either create a disambiguation page at that title or redirect it to a disambiguation page at a related title, possibly covering a wider range of topics; we don't just leave readers to fend for themselves. In this case, either of the disambiguation options would be reasonable, and while I have a slight preference for the narrow disambiguation page this should only be used in the event of requiring a tie-break between them. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first idea is better. I doubt that anyone typing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) is looking for a soundtrack or video game.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave as redirect to Part 1. It should not be deleted because, as was already stated, users will expect there to be an article with the "(film)" disambiguator in the title. The broad disambiguation to "Deathly Hallows" is not useful, as anyone searching for "(film)" obviously is not looking for any of the other uses. The 2nd best option IMO is the narrow disambiguation (listing just the 2 film articles), but I think the best option is redirect to Part 1, as anyone who is unaware there are 2 articles probably (in my completely not scientifically researched opinion) is going to want to look at both parts and would more likely start with Part 1 and proceed to Part 2. LarryJeff (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say, out of the counter-arguments put forward so far this has a strong vein of logic to it. It's pretty clear no-one is for deletion, but if readers are searching on this particular term then it makes good sense they would prefer to start at the first article. Betty Logan (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I have added a disambig link to the top of the current target to avoid breaking easy navigation for readers whilst this RfD goes on. Please remove it during closure if it becomes redundant. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Restore disambiguation. This page was created by a move, and is a plausible search term, and is also plausibly embedded in external websites as links. Whether it redirects and then disambiguates by note, or is a disambiguation page itself doesn't particularly matter to me. Deleting it however will just break navigation with no real benefit. --Taelus (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore disambiguation page, or (second choice) make it redirect to somewhere. Don't delete a perfectly plausible search term.--Kotniski (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to disambiguation page as a conceivable search term. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to disambiguation page per above, and because it could easily refer to part 1 or part 2. Hurricanefan25 tropical cyclone 19:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - At this point, the redirect was changed into a redirect to another disambiguation page by a previously uninvolved user, thus all above comments are in the context of the old page. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Deathly Hallows (disambiguation). Although it is not that plausible of a search term except for those already extremely familiar with film naming conventions, it may be common for editors to use this search. It is an incomplete disambiguation and Deathly Hallows (disambiguation) already has both film links. (I already did this without realizing there was this discussion so I apologize for that. Thanks for letting me know Taelus!). There are currently no articles on Wikipedia that link to the name in discussion so I don't see why we need a separate sub-disambiguation page. BOVINEBOY2008 16:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're welcome. There is quite a bit of confusion as its been swapped between being a disambig and redirect several times now, thus I have requested full protection as its making discussions a nightmare due to the context continually changing. --Taelus (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The consensus is pretty clear there should be some form of disambiguation. There are two ways to do this: we can redirect to the disambiguation page at Deathly Hallows (disambiguation) or create a second disambiguation page. Since the two film titles don't actually need to be disambiguated, I still don't see the need for a disambiguation page for them, so I propose we simply redirect to Deathly Hallows (disambiguation) where readers can select the appropriate film and then fully protect the redirect, which shouldn't need editing once a decision is made. Betty Logan (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems reasonable; I'll support that plan.--Kotniski (talk) 18:34, 9 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_July_30&oldid=1057112008"