Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 12, 2011

File:Ollie.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 speedy close as nothing to do - the redirect is on Commons not en.wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as orphan, residual from two image deletions, possible personal-use redirect, possible sly reference to Jean Shepherd's dog, used in Ollie Hopnoodle's Haven of Bliss. Also, cannot edit the redirect to add {{rfd}}, and cannot view the redirect's history(no link to history on the redirect page). Only two pages link to the redirect, solely due to deletion warning tags. I can't understand it, so I fear it. Lexein (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reason you cannot edit the redirect or view the history is that there is no page by this name on the English Wikipedia - the redirect is on Commons (Commons:File:Ollie.jpg) and is being picked up automatically by the software. If you still think the redirect should be deleted you will need to nominate it on Commons, where the relevant page would appear to be Commons:Commons:Deletion requests. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 13 September 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:Seeing the Elephant[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#G6. Cleanup following a clearly accidental move to the wrong namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as cross namespace. Does this qualify as a speedy one? Simply south...... creating lakes for 5 years 21:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - This was left over from a move that, in what was a mistake was moved very briefly to the project namespace. This pretty clearly qualifies as WP:CSD#G6. —mako๛ 04:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that was obviously a mistake corrected approximately 1 minute later. Deleted per WP:CSD#G6. It does not meet the criteria for R2 though as that is for redirects from the main namespace, not redirects to it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 13 September 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.

Hiro H3H[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 without prejudice to future conversion to article, should more information become present in current target. --Taelus (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No info at that article. re-direct opened just to blue up a red-link Petebutt (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - sufficient hits to show it is a used redirect. The target has useful information explaining it is a flying boat, who built it, that it was a prototype, and that only 1 was built. This is sufficient to justify the redirect. Also, this is most unlikely to be notable so deletion per WP:RED would not be justified. The way forward is to keep the redirect and expand/source the material at the target as thought appropriate. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I'm not as confident that this would fail notability guidelines. That said, this isn't my subject area so I hesitate to come down to hard in favor of delete in order to create a WP:RED. Barring a decision by folks more informed than I to make the link so that someone can create the article, the current situation seems fine. —mako๛ 04:41, 13 September 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:Passive voice[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. JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Originally this pointed to the section Use of the passive voice on Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. This page was merged. Consensus came to favour the MoS's not saying anything on the use of the passive. This redirect got pointed towards a section of a MoS page which had nothing to do with the use of the passive. It was brought up on the MoS talk page. It was noted that the redirect is confusing and misrepresentitive of current MoS guidlines. JIMp talk·cont 05:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bit more history of it: I noticed this as a redirect to Unsupported attributions at the beginning of August, and recognising that as inappropriate, (it was a bot that pointed it there, no-one to "blame" or to discuss with) I removed the redirect instruction, leaving the page blank. I now understand that that was not the correct thing to have done (although in my defence, WP:BLANK refers to article space, not project pages), and Hrafn, quite properly, suggested RfD rather than blanking in reverting my blanking of the page. Before initiating a RfD, I wanted to poll opinion at WT:MoS, which is the thread that Jimp refers to above. Kevin McE (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The passive voice is fine when used correctly, and having this redirect gives people the wrong impression. There's consensus not to say anything about the use of the passive in the MoS, because in the past we've had editors go around removing all instances of it—often leaving sentences in a mess—because they read somewhere that it was bad. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Almost no incoming links and almost no traffic to the redirect. In this case, the redirect seems more likely to confuse than to clarify so getting rid of it would probably help. —mako๛ 04:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget if a suitable MOS about passive voice can be found. Otherwise delete. (It is wondered how there can be not a single active guideline gently discouraging the use of passive voice.) --Lexein (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because consensus is that there are situations in which the passive voice is the correct one to use, and as SlimVirgin notes above that the previous guideline reagarding it resulted in well-meaning editors making things worse. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I think MOS should present that balanced view, then, not remain mute. Ah, well, whatever, delete. Struckthrough above. --Lexein (talk) 18:21, 13 September 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.

This Perfect Life[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 with refined target as per below consensus. --Taelus (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Album never existed or was ever released. Maybe at some point it could have been at someforeseen time in the future, but that fall under WP:CRYSTAL. There are no reliable sources for this album's expected release and was only redirected due to being bulk nominated. The album has zero notability and I would guess it would have been deleted in an AFD by itself for failing WP:NALBUMS. I don't know how this could serve a redirect anymore than that album by Charles Hamilton could. Its hits since being turned into a redirect are practically nil since people aren't searching for it. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:13, 12 September 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.

My Heart (Charles Hamilton album)[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 with refined target. --Taelus (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this were an article, this would be an easy delete. It's an album whose release is up in the air, so may never be released, and there is no reliable coverage on the album to convince me it would be a common search term as there are very few hits since it was turned into a redirect from an article following this AFD discussion in which is was bulk listed, meaning people were going finding this page from other pages, not going from this page elsewhere. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and refine target to Charles Hamilton (rapper)#Discography to maintain the edit history, which is a requirement of our license following a merge (as happened in this case). The redirect is not doing any harm, and being unused (which this redirect isn't) is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine target. This was redirected pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooklyn Girls. In addition to the licence implications the target states all that there is to know - ie that it is due to be released and the proposed lable. No doubt this will be expanded as more information becomes available. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are no sources for such an album, I have removed such information from the target article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine target - There are hundreds of hits coming in per day. The album should probably be mentioned somewhere in the article, but that's not my job to decide that here. —mako๛ 05:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why should something that doesn't exist, may never exist, and has no reliable sources be mentioned anywhere in the article? Less than 100 hits a day were most likely people linking from the artist's page to an unsubstantiated album article that has since been redirected following the AFD. Licensing rules aside, I don't understand why it should exist on wikipedia even as a redirect. It would be no different if I made up an album title, listed it on the artists' discography as his next album to be released at some undetermined future date, and then created a redirect for it. There is no such album. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stats for September still suggest that there is traffic to it after links were removed. If somebody is searching for information about the album, the artist's page is both the best place to send them and the best place to show them that the album has not yet been released. The fact that the ablum has not been made is a very good reason to delete the article and I'd support deleting such an article under TenPoundHammer's Law. But a redirect? They're cheap and I'm not at all convinced that this one isn't pulling its weight. —mako๛ 15:28, 16 September 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_September_12&oldid=1136083441"