Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 26

March 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 26, 2011

Workmate[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 Disambiguate. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Workmate → Employment (links to redirect • history • stats)

Target article makes no reference to the term, and it can have other meaning (such as the workbench) and this redirect prevents the user from searching for these. UltraMagnus^speak 09:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate between Co-worker and Workbench. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Bridgeplayer. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 28 March 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. I find the Keep arguments to be slightly more persuasive, but not enough to definitively call it a Keep. Definitely no consensus for deletion, though. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Datang town (Chengdu Datang) → Datang, Pujiang County (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete: Unlikely search term, given that "Chengdu Datang": 1) is the romanisation for what is a Chinese practise, namely listing the larger geopolitical divisions first. 2) does not disambiguate anything, because the name of the town is oddly in the disambiguating parentheses. HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This redirect was never intended to be a search term, likely or not - it serves to help document the pagemove. Second, "redundant" is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. All redirects are redundant by definition. We keep them unless they can be shown to be harmful to the project. Rossami (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Redundant" should not be interpreted to be my primary reason. Besides, if you weren't so quick to stall/provoke me, you would have read that I said that "Chengdu Datang" itself, not the re-direct, was redundant. To be blunt, you should be more careful to read comments in their entirety before bothering to post.

"Serves to help document the pagemove". By that logic, should "The R.O.C. (music artist)" re-direct to Republic of China, because the country page was moved to one on an artist? see this page history No! Likewise, there is no strong reason to document the bad judgment of a couple of users. This is arguably the most deletable re-direct I have presented, because it is using English to for what is an East Asian practise, and yet you find reasons for not deleting simply for the sake of finding reasons. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop taking the comments here so personally. And assume good faith that I did read your comment carefully and in full. You have since rewritten your nomination and this version is more clear. That said, I remain unconvinced. The example of the pagemove of the country-page to a musician's page is irrelevant. That was an act of vandalism quickly reversed. This was the original site of the article for almost a year before being moved to the current title. While all internal links to the old title have been corrected, we have no way to know whether or how many external links still exist to that title. Linkrot is a serious problem and redirects are an efficient and effective way to minimize the damage. And while parentheses may be used to indicate that the title needed disambiguation, that is not the only way they are used. Redirects are not endorsements of a title. If they are wrong but not actively harmful to the project, Wikipedia policy says that we are to tolerate them. Rossami (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So long as someone slaps WP:AGF at me, I shall not take them seriously; trust must be earned, and not be taken as a given.
  - This is what literal interpretation of the RD policy results in. You see where invoking the argument "documents a page move history" utterly fails?
  - Endorsement of a title or not, it is effectively an endorsement of the poor judgment of the original user. You have not at all addressed my concern that a re-direct uses what is an East Asian practise, so either you have chosen to ignore it (after reading it) or you did not read it at all.
  - The parentheses issue is moot, because firstly, you explained nothing about their other uses. In this case, the parentheses would certainly be used for disambiguation, but they fail; they do not disambiguate anything precisely because the name of the subject is in the disambiguating parentheses. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why is using East Asian practice wrong? Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia, and the target is certainly an East Asian topic. Also please note that assuming good faith is not optional. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I see where the mis-understanding may originate, but the creator is just laughable...This re-direct is clearly in English, and so it is not acceptable or plausible for it to use what is an East Asian practise. I would have less of an issue if a re-direct paralleling this were written in Chinese characters. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a plausible way to get there and doesn't disambiguate anything, really. --Nlu (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, firstly this documents a page move and so keeping the redirect is a good way to preserve the attribution history. Secondly this is getting hits - between 15 and 55 per month over the past year. Thirdly it does not conflict with anything. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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