Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 October 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 19, 2011

Queued image[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 both. Ruslik_Zero 18:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to an image that would be "too much" for an article having a certain amount of text but possibly useful once the article is expanded, this redirect never seems to have gotten any significant use. PleaseStand (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Either the fact it's almost unused or the fact that's its a cross namespace redirect might not be enough alone to convince me that we're better off without this. But together, it tips the scale. —mako๛ 17:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - x-namespace redirects have significant disadvantages, and the limited advantages of these do not compensate. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:50, 6 November 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.

Simplify[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 Move to Simplify (album) and retarget to Simplification (disambiguation). Ruslik_Zero 18:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this article retarged to "simplication" or removed completely. This redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. The word "simplify" is a mathematical concept and should be directed to an appropriate math page. This redirect is currently being used to redirect to a bluegrass band because one of their albums is titled "Simplify." Nominating Simplification Kadey (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)kadey[reply]

Move to Simplify (song) then retarget the resulting 'Simplify' redirect to Simplification (disambiguation). - I think this is a better suggestion than what I threw out. If somebody really feels there needs to be a redirect at simplify they can create it and point it one of the places I suggested. —mako๛ 17:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean Simplify (album) (that was what the original article was about)? PleaseStand (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! Good catch, thanks. You are, of course, correct! Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:10, 21 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.

Tara Martin and Myrtle Fargate[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 temporary withdrawl per request. I may reopen this discussion if necessary and then let it relisted some other time. --Gh87 (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These two redirect pages have history logs of revisions that have infringed copyrights of http://www.soapcentral.com/ and http://www.pinevalleybulletin.com/. I have already reported this to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. They were formerly articles until the AfD, but no need to explain that. --Gh87 (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close - I don't think its correct to list these here now for two reasons. (1) If the issues is simply a copyright violation, the resolution of the copyright issue will affect the decision on how to act in regards to this redirect. (2) It's confusing and problematic to have two discusses going on at the same time if we can avoid it. I just closed your most recent RfD and suggested we reopen it after the copyright process is dealt with. I'm going to suggest someone else do the same thing here and would urge you to not nominate similar redirects for RfD in the future. —mako๛ 22:48, 19 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.

File:An Earthbound Misfit I.jpg[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. While there are a plurality of "delete" voices, they have not explained why deleting this will produce a greater benefit to the project than the benefits those recommending keep argue will follow from that course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect. Potentially misleading and implausible search term. FASTILYs (TALK) 19:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [1]. I will contact Brion if this redirect is deleted. WP:Redirects are cheap. This is the original upload location of the file that is the target of the redirect. Flat out common sense implores that we keep this redirect. Potentially, as humans, we could have died when we left our caves; so really there is zero weight behind "potentially". Who this would confuse, and how, I'm not sure, but perhaps you could enlighten me? That's all I have to say. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A comment Brion made once in a the middle of a conversation about systematic and out-of-process deletion of file redirects is not policy. If admins are deleting anything in Wikipedia without good reasons, they will be de-sysoped! Brion's comment was reasonable in context but does not apply in the context of a discussion whose purpose is to decide if there is a good reason to delete. Your threat is just a different flavor of Argumentum ad Jimbonem and its just plain wrong. If the decision in this RfD is to delete, it will either be because there is in fact a good reason or because our consensus process has become badly broken. If the latter is true, we have bigger problems than you can fix by tattling to Brion. —mako๛ 20:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not policy but it's entirely relevant and pertinent discussion, as it led to the ability to move files on Wikipedia, which led to the moving of this file (to what is certainly a better name). The redirect should remain; the deletion of redirects to moved files is just plain wrong, and should not even be up for discussion unless the filename is required to upload a new file for some imperative reason, or the original filename is rude or degrading. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there were good reasons to keep file redirects, some of which were brought up n that comment thread is relevant. References Brion's comment out of context in a way that suggests that you might unilaterally desysop any admin who closes this RfD with a consensus decision to delete because you disagree is both irrelevant and inappropriate. I agree with you and have thrown my $0.02 in support of your preferred resolution. But I disagree with the way you've argued to keep this redirect so much that I hesitated to do so. —mako๛ 22:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it was rather brash, though I merely meant I would bring it to his attention, not that I'd point him to that comment and call for the closing admin to be desysopted. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The redirect title does seem to be wrong and seems like an impossible search term. (Is it a mistake? Can someone more familiar with the topic can explain why the image was originally created with the old name?) That said, the redirect seems to get some traffic which might be off-site pages linking directly to the old image location. To the extent that this is the case, it's worth keeping the redirect around. Items in the File: namespace don't show up in the search autocomplete, so the harm is such that this redirect is even cheaper than usual. —mako๛ 22:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I" is part of the chorus from the Pink Floyd song Learning to Fly. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. That makes some sense. The old title isn't entirely crazy, even if it is quite obscure. I've changed my suggestion from "weak keep" to "keep". Thanks for the clarification! —mako๛ 01:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Redirects in the article/main namespace are useful for searches, but in the file/image namespace, are not. If someone looks for this old file name, he can see the deletion log. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Koavf; of limited utility. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So we're to expect non-technical users to read the deletion log and figure out what happened to the image, because the existence of the redirect isn't useful... How does that make any sense? The redirect provides that link quickly and easily. It does not hold up the creation of an image since an image should never exist under this name. This is not about searches, not one bit. It's about providing a service to users and not ourselves. It's amazing how much focus there can be to delete a harmless redirect, which comes cheap, and helps people find an image that's been moved (or should I just upload a new copy under this name?), but how little desire there is to require new articles be sourced, something equally technical to a new user. I still stand by the believe that using the reasoning that they can use the deletion log is A) advocating a link to the new location B) Expecting new users to think like you, an experienced user c) having no care as to the effect of rearranging content on the web. I honestly hope those who wish to delete this have experienced the unwitting frustration of a source gone dead that can't be recovered... Might make you rethink your position afterwards. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If people want to search for an image they will go to the article page, or use a category.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has absolutely nothing to do with searching. External sites reference our images. When they suddenly disappear, the owners come looking for the picture. Why is it so bad that we provide a redirect to the new location of said picture? Other than it "not being a common search target" - which isn't applicable because it wasn't created as a redirect, it was the original upload location - not one person here has provided a solid argument for why we can't keep this in place to convenience our readers. There's basically a bunch of delete votes saying "Ah, they can deal with it. Screw em" - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one owns anything here (WP:OWN), as as for keeping the name for some remote unknown person, I would refer you to WP:NOTHOST - the purpose of an image is only to add support to the Article - especially as the image only exits here as under a fair use rationale.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:15, 30 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.

Template:Family tree chart[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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirects to a userspace template which is three years in development. Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm assuming, based on what I can see, that these are basically unused. If they are used (or going to be) the pages should be moved out of the sandbox and into the Template namespace. If they are not going to be used, the redirects should never have been created in the first place. Seeing that User:Pee Tern has logged no contribution in a couple years, it seems like we can't except much to happen with these. Unless someone else steps, up, deleting the CNRs seem like the best course. —mako๛ 20:56, 19 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.

Wikipedia:Special:CrossNamespaceLinks[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 per WP:CSD G8. Rcsprinter (warn) 20:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the special page Special:CrossNamespaceLinks no longer exists. Ideal gas equation (talk) 14:58, 19 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.

Second order system[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. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this redirect should be deleted, because it can't be assumed that one looking for Second order systems generally intends to learn about the nondimensionalization of such systems. In fact, I'd guess otherwise: probably such redirect will astonish the person. 159.245.32.2 (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have alerted the creator. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I created the redirect to simplify the piped disambig page entry [[Nondimensionalization#Second_order_system|Second Order System]]. If this is misleading, I have no objection to the deletion of the redirect, but I wonder: Is there instead a relevant article to which this term could/should be redirected?--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The nominators argument is strong but I don't know what else might someone be looking for? If there are other types of second order systems, I think a disambiguation page would be the right course of action. —mako๛ 22:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a Gsearch shows a number of different 'second order systems'. We don't have the coverage to support a disamb page. I agree that targeting at one, rather narrow, usage is not helpful. Delete per WP:RED to encourage an article to be written. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:33, 6 November 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.

All My Children characters[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 close pending examination of copyright issues. The redirects have been listed for Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 October 19. If the nominator, or anyone else, wants to raise these issues after that process is finished, they should relist them here then. —mako๛ 22:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The history logs contain revisions that have violated copyrights. I originally wanted to do Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but recently there has not been one single touch on them before I've tagged them with {{rfd}}, so I don't know what administrators will do about previous revisions that have violated copyrights. Here are the sources, but I only put them in just the domain, not the whole: http://www.soapcentral.com/amc/whoswho/ and http://http://www.pinevalleybulletin.com/. Also, the List of All My Children miscellaneous characters have entries that violated copyrights of other sources without citations. Need I explain further? —Gh87 (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Sorry, I don't understand the selection criteria for these nominations. 'Gillian Andrassy Lavery' has not been blanked as copyvio but some which have been blanked are not listed here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as too soon. When pages contain copyvio material the normal procedure is for an admin to rule through those revisions in the history so that they can't be accessed. That can and should be done outwith RFD, normally at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. With regard to the future of these redirects, they depend on the result of the Wikipedia:Copyright problems discussion. If the target sections are deleted then these redirects should follow. However, if the blanked sections are replaced with non-copyvio material, once the history has been fixed, these redirects would be fine. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE — Per your requests, these redirects have been reported for copyright violations at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 October 19. --Gh87 (talk) 17:29, 19 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_19&oldid=1086346769"