Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 October 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 14[edit]

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

John Ramage (ice hockey)[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 all (and refine). Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:R#DELETE #2 and #10. While I realize redirecting an article title for a person to their parent's article is not completely unprecedented, in cases like this I would argue it is a bad idea. First, it is confusing. Mentions of John Ramage will note that he is a hockey player, an the redirect takes the reader to a hockey player's article. It took me more than a few seconds to figure out why I was directed to the article I was, and I've followed both players! Second, while John Ramage is not yet notable, the potential exists that he will be at some point in the future. I would argue that unnecessary redirects such as this would hamper future creation of an article if he does. Especially since he would show up as a blue link in various hockey related lists, and someone checking those for notable individuals without articles could assume that an article has been created already. Third, I find no real value in linking the name of a person to their notable parent without good reason. This was simply a "because I can" creation that offers very little value. Resolute 00:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to add Griffin Reinhart and Sam Reinhart for the same reasons. Resolute 00:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is poor form to lump several requests together as each should be discussed on its own merits. That being said, all three redirects are a keep per WP:R#KEEP #2 and #5. They are useful redirects to articles that contains specific and informative content about the person.

  • John Ramage – Keep as a useful redirect. John is an up-coming professional ice hockey prospect who was drafted by the Calgary Flames in the 2010 NHL Entry Draft. His father's article Rob Ramage contains informative content about his son John.
  • Griffin Reinhart – Keep as a useful redirect. Griffin is an up-coming professional ice hockey prospect who is considered a top prospect for the 2012 NHL Entry Draft. His father's article Paul Reinhart contains informative content about his son Griffin.
  • Sam Reinhart – Keep as a useful redirect. Sam is an up-coming professional ice hockey prospect who was drafted by the Calgary Flames in the 2010 NHL Entry Draft. His father's article Paul Reinhart contains informative content about his son Sam. Dolovis (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it is not poor form to lump several together. In fact, multiple page nominations are specifically accounted for. As to your arguments, #2 is not applicable as none of them will aid accidental linking nor will creating such redirects reduce the odds of creating duplicate articles. And #5 is a rather silly point (though that is not your fault), given it is basically just WP:ILIKEIT. I don't believe that trumps either of my arguments. Resolute 04:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep alll - That said, John Ramage (ice hockey) should be retargetted to Rob Ramage#Personal which is the subsection where John is discussed. Each individual above is discussed in the article and there is no more appropriate place for the links to point. John Ramage (ice hockey) seems likely to get an article at some point so a red link doesn't seem like a horrible idea so I'd offer a weaker keep for John Ramage (ice hockey) than the others. —mako๛ 18:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nomination. The likely future articles will be better served by being red links than redirects. -DJSasso (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep John Ramage, although it would be better if the redirect was edited to go straight to the "Personal" section of the Rob Ramage page. Then the user could easily see the sourced information about John in that article. If and when he becomes notable enough for his own article, the redirect can be easily turned into an article, incorporating any sourced information from the current target. Neither WP:R#DELETE #2 nor #10 are applicable, since a redirect targeted at the "Personal" section should not be confusing at all, and there is relevant, sourced information in the redirect target. I don't have an opinion on Griffin or Sam Reinhart, since there is no sourced information about either in target. Rlendog (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sam and Griffin now sourced and expanded. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I am fine with Keeping them too. Rlendog (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and refine the target, in each case, to the #Personal section. The nominator is correct that the present John Ramage redirect is opaque but refining the targets to the #Personal sections I think fixes the issue. If any of these players were presently notable then I would support deletion per WP:RED. However, we have to deal with the 'as now' not the 'as may be'. I think that it is suboptimal to delete a useful redirect to solve a possible future problem. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:31, 17 October 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.

Algate Press[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 --Taelus (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page was a misspelling. It was a redirect, only linked from one other page. I have moved the page to the correct spelling, Aldgate Press, and corrected the misspelling in the only linked article. This page is now redundant, and potentially misleading. RolandR (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and refine the target to Freedom Press to avoid double redirect. Though lightly used it is an established title and is not implausible. This typo has even appeared in a legal judgement. Harmless and no policy grounds for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Seems like a possible mispelling and indeed we can see examples of folks that have done just that. It's not used much but the potential for harm here is very low. —mako๛ 18:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no reason to delete per the guideline, and it really is a common misspelling. It isn't misleading to have a common typo redirect to the correct page. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, likely typo. Simply south...... playing tunes for 5 years 20:34, 17 October 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.

About.com article on the Superman Curse[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 deletion (CSD R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not technically a CSD R2, I guess, since it points into Wikipedia: space, which is apparently allowed, but we shouldn't have redirects like this, right? I was searching for the article About.com and this came up, this can't be what we want readers to see, right? Herostratus (talk) 05:35, 14 October 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.

Quantum communication[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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself." The target isn't directed towards developing this subject. It can't be relied upon to cover quantum communication by a set stage of its development, except as an eventuality. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Quoted above was reason for deletion #10. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am not yet convinced that there is a discreet field of knowledge known as 'quantum communication'. Though this term is used widely in reliable sources, the context varies. However, many of the uses relate to quantum cryptography, e.g. one of many. The present target acts as a type of disambiguation page and seems a useful way of dealing with matters. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Quantum communication isn't a field of knowledge, it's the attempt to transfer information without violating the no communication theorem. The concept is not self-explanatory, nor does "quantum information" explain how the violations are actually worked around. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because you seem to know something about quantum communication, you should write a stub about it instead of wasting everyone's time deleting this suboptimal (?) redirect. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know it, I just interpreted it and am asserting my interpretation because it seems to fit contexts like quantum teleportation and quantum convolutional code better than seeing quantum communications as an analogue of telecommunication. I don't already have sources. If I can do the research with the time I have, I will, because I need to know this. When redirected, it's marked as a job that doesn't need doing. It never should have been created in the first place. Reversing that is just advertising it again. It's not telling someone else to do the job any more than Wikipedia was when it was a redlink back in 2008. Applying WP:BOLD to that is saying all of Wikipedia's redlinks are my obligation. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Bridgeplayer and a lack of a better solution. While the two are perhaps not directly connected, it is better that people be directed to the closest thing that we have to a related topic. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If you or others would like to create an article on the topic, just go ahead and do it. If you want to merge material out of the target article, you can discuss that first on the relevant talk page and then do it. Red links are a great way to help Wikipedia grow, but we can grow without them too. —mako๛ 18:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Redirects are harmful when they don't address the topic. They convince others that an important article has been written, and creating the redirect in the first place is just a way of freeing guilt about the its absence, Wikipedia's inherent incompleteness. I can't fix it, because I don't know about it yet. I need to learn about it, so I'm raising my hand to say, "hey, you guys know this isn't actually here, right?" If you redirect sine to math, I don't expect info on sine to ever show up on Wikipedia, because it's not encouraged. Its absence is not felt. That's exactly why the guidelines for redirect deletion say what I quoted about redlinks. It's been a redirect for 2 years. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 03:37, 16 October 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.

SS personnel assigned to Auschwitz[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. Rcsprinter (speak) 10:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the redirect is a different, separate topic from the topic of the target page. The target page concerns commanders only. The redirect page concerns all personnel at the camp. These are distinct topics and it is important to maintain that distinction. The target page is NOT designed to concern the personnel of the camp.Hoops gza (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The redirect target contains information on a significant variety of SS personnel assigned to Auschwitz; that the target is not a perfect match for the redirect title is not a reason to delete. We regularly redirect topics with no article to a related topic that is connected to or partly overlaps the topic being redirected, as this target does. I have no objection if there is somewhere else the nominator would like to point the redirect. Note also, a merge has occurred from this location, into the target article. If this redirect is deleted, attribution for the merged content would be lost, and a substantial portion of the target article would need to be deleted to comply with the attribution requirements of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Deleting the content just so we can get rid of a redirect with no major problems does not make sense. Monty845 04:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The part about attribution is not true. When the articles were merged, the history from the one *should* have been merged into the other, and if that hasn't been done then it should be. It's the actual stored revisions that provide the attribution. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: We do not routinely delete articles which have been merged into another, instead redirecting them to the place where the merge has occurred. This was also previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS personnel assigned to Auschwitz. -OberRanks (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is enough of a nexus between the two. Although it is true the current target article is not an exact match, redirects are to help general readers and it does send one to an article which is related. The articles were merged after discussion as there was overlapping content. Kierzek (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - redirects are purely search aids and do not need to be technically correct. What counts is that the title takes the reader to somewhere where useful information is present on the topic that they are enquiring after. As a byproduct of being kept, it also provides an easy and convenient way of meeting our GFDL attribution obligations.Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Given the history, the AfD discussion and the fact that there used to be an article at this page which was merged into the target on policy grounds, keeping this seems like a very good idea. —mako๛ 18:32, 15 October 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_October_14&oldid=1144574416"