Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 3, 2011

Status Quo[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 Status quo. Currently there is no main space links to this redirect. Ruslik_Zero 15:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A debate has been going on as to whether "Status Quo" should redirect to Status Quo (band), Status quo, or Status Quo (disambiguation). My view is that since "Status quo" receives 4 times the page hits of the band page, even with the capitalization, this page should redirect to "Status quo". Inks.LWC (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree - Status Quo should redirect to Status quo. However, it has been redirected to Status Quo (band) for awhile, and there are a lot of articles which link to Status Quo. These links need to be changed to Status Quo (band). A bot request should probably be started for this task. —SW— yak 00:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree should be simply redirected to the Latin term page, as in "Carpe Diem", there shouldn't even be a hat-note for the band on the target page, rather a note linking to a disambig page. If there are other uses Tachfin (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - A disambig page was made, but it's up for MfD, and a lot of the stuff on the disambig page failed WP:GNG. I randomly stumbled on this debate / edit war and figured the best thing to do was to take it to RfD, so I'm not as aware of the background as some of the editors who have been more involved with the pages. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment. stats.grok.se, the site that gives the hit counts, is case insensitive and thus unable to distinguish between hits for Status quo and Status Quo. I've not yet looked at the stats, links and history, etc but it's also important to remember that if X redirects to Y, which has a hatnote for Z, then the hits for Y will include people who were looking for both Y and Z and it's impossible to know how many people were searching for either. Stats need to be interpreted and in most cases shouldn't be the only criterion used to determine where a redirect points. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. I am not convinced that the page hits are particularly meaningful because many of the 'Status Quo' hits may well be due to readers looking for the band. However, I have never been much in favour of different capitalisations going in different directions because I don't think that readers are particularly careful about their case structures when entering search terms; I know that I'm not. The other possible target Status Quo (disambiguation) is clearly heading for deletion. The proposed retarget, with the hatnote, therefore is the cleanest solution. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Retarget with hatnot, but after bot request to point long standing links that point to Status Quo to Status Quo (band). Page hits do not really prove anything, as they do not indicate the reader's intended topic. Disamb page was always unnecessary. It's a tricky call, as "Status Quo" isn't, strictly speaking, the same as "status quo", but I appreciate the points Bridgeplayer makes above about different capitalisations. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Retarget to status quo or the disambiguation page, either way is fine with me. status quo should have a hatnote, either to the disambiguation page if that is to kept, or to the only other extant article in conflict if the DAB is to be removed. I was preparing to create an article for the restaurant, but if it is deemed not encyclopedic, then I wont bother. The pleasure craft was included on the disamb page merely for due diligence. The MA dance group I believe meets the criteria for an entry if not its own article, as they were featured on a televised show which itself has an article, and would therefore qualify for at least an entry in a subsection of that article. AQBachler (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hi, whether the restaurant is encyclopaedic depends on whether the sources are available to meet WP:GNG. If you consider that you have found the necessary sources I would not be discouraged at this point. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:57, 8 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.

File:DSC02499.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 Delete, G8 by User:Skier_Dude. Lenticel (talk) 07:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Useless name, file this being redirected to also up for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I did think this at the time. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 10:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a benefit to keeping redirects like this around for a short period to allow people to find the content at it's new location, but this is clearly not a useful search term and offers no benefit to the encyclopaedia in keeping it long term. It is about 2½ weeks since the move, and will be about 3½ when this discussion expires, which seems like long enough to me. It's true that there is almost no harm in keeping it either, but there is a very slim chance that someone will want to uploaded a truly useful image at this title in the future (it will get renamed, but we want to help new contributors where we can). Of course if the target is deleted this redirect can be deleted per WP:CSD#G8. Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 3 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.

CoolReader[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 15:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. Does not take the reader to any info about CoolReader. The only article to which it has linked is EPUB itself, which makes this redirect a circular redirect. Fleet Command (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP You are incorrect. This DOES link to a table which includes information and description on CoolReader (item 5 of 16). The fact that CoolReader does not (yet) have its own page is not grounds to obliterate the connection to the page where it is described (even if in minimal form). Wikipedia is not so much about the contents, but about the web of connections between contents. I would agree that the content for CoolReader is lacking, but that is not grounds to delete it entirely. Most articles, indeed Wikipedia as a whole, is a work in process. If we delete seeds of new content, few will survive to germinate.
More information on CoolReader can be found here:
Note, in particular, that the notes column of subject table includes the comment: Most popular SourceForge epub application. For this reason alone, the redirect should remain in place (until, and unless, someone creates an article page CoolReader).
In my humble opinion, a more constructive edit would be to create a page for this application or, at least, update the information in the table on the current redirect page.
Enquire (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am aware of that. I nominated the redirect for deletion in spite of knowing that because I was in EPUB (the list) and I wanted info, so I clicked on the link and was taken to where I was. (Hence, the wording of my nomination.) Anyway, your assertion of it being the most popular SourceForge application needs source. Fleet Command (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is intended to seed new content then it sounds like a case where RD#10 applies. "In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink" because the search engine will find the list entry and the redlink indicates a new article is wanted. A {{redirect to list entry}} should be reserved for entries that are unlikely to be notable enough to merit a separate article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the situation is somewhat confusing. Up to a few hours ago there was content at the target; here. This has now been removed, here, with the edit summary "rm nonnotable software". If, indeed, the software is non-notable then the case in RD#10 and WP:RED for having a red link is not made. I would add that my own searches have failed to find suitable material to support a worthwhile page. Further, the previous content at the target was sufficient to justify a redirect. Conversely, if the removed content stays out then the redirect must also go as it would then be confusing and pointless. The way forward should be to reach talk page agreement on the extent of any content about this software in the target first, before we can make an informed decision about the future of this redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the time being I reverted the edit and alerted the author to keep the item in place until this discussion is over. But that is the one problem with Enquire's reason too. We can't keep a redirect whose contents is bound to be deleted at any moment. Better go with a red link. However. what we need immediately is a source for that item. Fleet Command (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly the situation has been confused by other, behind the scenes, edits.
Note also that CoolReader on subject page is plain text (not hyper-text), so unsure how recursive redirect might have occurred previously (presumably hyper-text existed before, but has since been removed). If so, this would only add weight to my belief that a CoolReader page previously existed and has for some reason been deleted by some person ... thus creating this issue before us. Can anyone here access deleted pages and verify if CoolReader, CoolReader (ebook software), or similar, existed previously? If so, can it (a) be restored as was or, (b) restored here or other sandbox for updating and maintenance prior to re-publication?
With all due respect, when I originally created this redirect, it was NOT a double redirect. I believe, but cannot be totally sure, that this directed to a page that previously existed CoolReader (ebook software). For sure, I would never have created a redirect to another redirect or to a non-existent page (I always ensure that any such redirect works as intended and expected).
Evidently, other (as yet un-identified) edits have occurred since this redirect was first created such that it no longer works as it originally did. As for CoolReader itself, it most likely deserves a page in its own right (as do virtually all of the other applications in the table under the Software reading systems). Users who search for CoolReader should, at the very least, be directed to the table under Software reading systems and, better still, to a stand-alone article on CoolReader. I am inclined to believe that such an article CoolReader (ebook software) existed previously, but has been deleted by an advocate of the theory that less is more.
Based on some cursory searches, it is clear that this rendering application has a lot of supporters and should, at the very least, be indexed on Wikipedia. I suggest that those who are following this thread view (amongst other) ELs:
I am not putting up my hand (at least not right now) to create a CoolReader page. However, I am curious to know if one existed before (I suspect it did, and was deleted). If so, the problem could be resolved by un-deleting that page and reverting the redirect to that page ... and then, of course, finding folks to update and maintain that page.
Finally, since Android is trending now, it makes no sense to bury content relating to Android media apps.
BTW, for some perverse reason, when I click on edit, it opens edit for the section above ... so I am forced to edit the whole page. Is anyone else seeing this problem?
Enquire (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (BTW, the perverse reason for this is because the editor loads sections by section number, and someone had added a new section. This happens to me a lot on active discussion pages. When it happens you can just refresh the page so the edit links will point to the current section numbers.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The history is thus:
    • On 25 February, user:Enquire added CoolReader to the list at EPUB#Software reading systems, with a link to CoolReader (ebook software) (at this point a redlink) and the uncited claim that it is the "most popular SourceForge epub application".[1]
    • Five minutes later, the same user created CoolReader (ebook software) as a redirect to EPUB#Software reading systems.
    • Six minutes after this, Enquire created CoolReader as a redirect to CoolReader (ebook software). CoolReader was thus created as a double redirect.
    • Six hours after CoolReader was created, a bot fixed the double redirect, pointing CoolReader to EPUB#Software reading systems. There is no record of any deletions of either title, and other than the RfD tag being added to CoolReader, neither of the redirect pages have recieved any other edits.
    • On 10 June, user:Cornellier removed the link to CoolReader (ebook software) from the entry at EPUB#Software reading systems with the edit summary "remove circular reference", meaning not that there was a double redirect, but that a link from the article redirected back to the same article (i.e. on page X there is a link to page Y, but page Y is a redirect to page X).[2]
    • On 4 August, anonymous user:216.113.168.147 edited the list entry to include a link to CoolReader and a url to coolreader.org[3]; although this was malformated and corrected by a different anonymous user on 17 August [4].
    • On 18 August, user:MrOllie removed all redlinked entries from the list [5], although this didn't include the removal of CoolReader, the URL was deleted.
    • On 3 September, user:FleetCommand "removed the circular link" to CoolReader [6] and opened this RfD. Nine hours later he requested a citation for the "most popular SourceForge epub application" claim [7]
    • 10 hours after the citation was requested, user:MrOllie removed "nonnotable software" from the list, including CoolReader. [8]
    • Four hours after that (now early morning on the 4th) user:FleetCommand undid MrOllie's edit with the comment "Contested edit: And why did you remove non-notable software? This is not a stand-alone list after all" [9]. Currently this is the latest edit to the page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You forgot to mention that this very evil Fleet Command also sent BRD notification and opened a corresponding talk page discussion which achieved a consensus. This evil Fleet Command is so evil, don't you agree? Everyone does. Fleet Command (talk) 07:18, 6 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.

Renault 8B[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 --Taelus (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the former doesnot relate directly to the latter Petebutt (talk) 03:06, 3 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.

Renault 8 Bd engine[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 --Taelus (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the former is not directly related to the latter Petebutt (talk) 02:35, 3 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_3&oldid=1086097221"