Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 9, 2011

US interstate roads[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. No prejudice against any of the options for updating the redirect (disambiguate, hatnote, etc.). I see no consensus for one modification over another. That, however, is an editing issue, not a deletion issue. There is absolutely no consensus for deletion, so the page will remain. What form it remains in is an issue for the page itself and/or it's talk page. A lack of a decision on what editing path should be followed is not a great reason IMHO for keeping open this now stale RFD. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One use was corrected to bypass the redirect. The Interstate Highway System (note the capital letters) is only one of two interstate (note the lower case letter) highway systems in the country. The older United States Numbered Highway System also runs interstate, and many components of the Interstate Highway System are intrastate only. The lowercase usage of this redirect is therefore inaccurate and confusing by pointing to only one of two possible systems. Imzadi 1979 → 18:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate - this redirect was only created yesterday so it is too early for any usage stats. However, it looks to me to be a really useful search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - My sense is that the large majority of folks will be expecting the article on the Interstate Highway System. That page contains a link, in the appropriate place, to the United States Numbered Highway System so folks that are really looking for that page will be able to find it. —mako๛ 06:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For what it's worth, I only created the "US interstate roads" redirect to fix a redlink, which in hindsight I see was a bad policy. If it's inconvenient or misleading, feel free to get rid of it. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a hatnote per Bridgeplayer, interstate highways are the clear primary topic for "US interstate roads" -wikipedia (case insensitive), and slightly most common relevant result for "interstate roads" -wikipedia (the primary topic is a song by Natural Snow Buildings, there is no primary topic among roads-related topics). Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your searches are case insensitive in a situation where case matters though. Interstate Highways are part of the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways, while interstate highways just cross state lines, and several Interstate Highways (H-1, H-2. H-3, I-4, I-12, I-16, etc plus most auxiliary Interstates) are all intrastate highways. Most components of the US Highway System also interstate as intrastate US Highways are supposed to be phased out. This is a case where case matters and it matters a lot. Imzadi 1979 → 21:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The searches are case insensitive, but the results are not and no distinction appears to be made. However accurately or inaccurately, and whatever the policy of some organisation is, when referring to "interstate roads" in the, US by any capitalisation, the significant majority mean the Interstate Highway system (or a specific road that is part of that system). The available evidence seems to show that in common usage "[I|i]nterstate" is thought of as meaning the equivalent of "motorway" in the UK (i.e. a limited-access, segregated road designed for the exclusive use of motor vehicles, generally over long distances and generally at high speed), not as "inter- + state". While it may be more interstate than the Interstate Highway system, the US Highway network and the roads that comprise it are not referred to as "interstate". Per WP:COMMONNAME our article titles are descriptive of common usage, not prescriptive to correct usage. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote: The U.S. Highway System is almost never referred to as the interstate system, despite the fact that most U.S. highways are interstate. The Interstate Highway system is almost always referred to as such. Furthermore, even though are a lot of routes in the Interstate System that are only in one state, most of the mileage of the system is interstate Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, most US highways are not interstate, but most US Highways are. (Yes, case in important there too.) If this redirect were US Interstate Highways, I wouldn't have nominated it at all. The case issue is important to the situation. Lower case=generic, capital=specific. Once again, with gusto:
    • Interstate Highway= part of the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways (Interstate Highway System_
    • US Highway= (with or without periods) part of the United States Numbered Highway System (US Highway System, US Routes)
    • interstate highway= a highway that crosses a state line, regardless of other type
    • US highway= (with or without periods) any highway in the US, regardless of other type
    Yes, the capitalization makes a difference. Intrastate US Highways are supposed to be extended or eliminated per American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) policy. Both the Interstate and US highway systems are both interstate in their mileage, the former extending to all 50 states, DC and Puerto Rico while the latter is only in the lower 48 and DC, even though both have components that are intrastate, intradistrict or intraterritorial. Imzadi 1979 → 23:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Bridgeplayer and Benjamin Mako Hill. –Fredddie™ 01:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a general comment: First, I will address the specific matter. It is telling that the user who created this redirect approves of deleting it. The user created it recognizes creating it may have been in error or not necessary. I do not see why we cannot just end it here. With regard to the redirect term, I have never heard the term "US interstate roads" used to refer to the Interstate Highway System. We do not need to create redirect terms for every single possible string that could be used to refer to the Interstate Highway System.
    That being said, while I recognize Imzadi1979's case distinctions are correct, I do not think they are a relevant argument for whether or not to create redirects or hatnotes. Correct me if I am wrong, but is not the Wikipedia search function case insensitive? If so, the distinction between "Interstate Highway" and "interstate highway" when used as search strings is irrelevant. The term "Interstate Highway" is clearly notable. The term "interstate highway" is not notable. US Highway or the equivalent form U.S. Highway is notable; US highway is not. The term "Interstate" already has a disambiguation page, which I think is enough to allay confusion.  VC  02:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While the internal MediaWiki search box is case insensitive, there are many other ways to search and browse Wikipedia, some of which are case sensitive and some of which are not, hence we have {{R from other capitalisation}} and similar categorisations for redirects. Secondly, notability is irrelevant to redirects - what matters is the balance of usefulness and harmfulness. In this case the search term is clearly useful, it is not conflicting with anything and there is relevant content to which it can point (although there is disagreement about which would be the most useful) - there is therefore no justification for deleting it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as you would have a hard time finding anyone in the US (or Canada, or anywhere else) who thinks interstate road, capitalized or not, refers to anything other than the Interstate Highway System. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Donde — as a lifelong resident of the USA, I've never heard anyone use "interstate" to refer to the US Highway system, except in an intentionally descriptive phrase such as above, "despite the fact that most U.S. highways are interstate". Phrases such as this title, which lack a specific descriptive context, inevitably refer to the subject covered by the target of this redirect, so it's definitely not ambiguous. Nyttend (talk) 11:53, 17 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.

L1a1[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 Not Delete. Not quite a "Keep", as everyone seems to think that the page should be changed, but there are multiple opinions as to what should actually be there. A disambig looks like the most popular choice. But someone who actually wants a disambig there will need to step up and actually write one. For the moment, there is absolutely no consensus to delete this thing. And absent that, I see no purpose in leaving this now-stale RFD lingering open. Any further actions can happen on the page itself and/or it's talk page. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should be re-targeted to L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle. Fourisplenty (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The target made sense when the redirect was created in 2005, when there was no article about the specific rifle as this was only started in February this year. Now the specific article exists the redirect needs retargetting. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disambiguate per Hohum's comments, it seems there are many things that receive this designation. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - looks a good solution. However, first we should resolve L1A1 Heavy Machine Gun which currently goes to M2 Browning for reasons that escape me since this formulation is not used in the target. If this is a legitimate usage then some form of disambiguation would be needed. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle seems like the right place for L1A1 to point. In regards to the comment before, someone should post something on the talk page for the M2 Browning. If editors on that page think the redirect should stay, I don't see a problem in having the two L1A1 redirects still exist and L1A1 should point to whichever one is more common or to a disambiguation. —mako๛ 06:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The British Army call an updated version of the M2, the L1A1. See http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/support-weapons/1464.aspx . (Hohum @) 23:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - Based on the new information from Hohum (Thanks!) Either with a dab page or with dab text on the top of the article. My intuition is that the latter makes more sense. —mako๛ 02:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - I also think that a hatnote on L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle, as the prime use, is the way to go. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The British army and others, have a habit of calling multiple weapons systems L1A1. Rocket 66mm HEAT L1A1 (M72 LAW), L1A1 Grenade Discharger, L1A1 tear gas hand grenade, (New Zealand) L1A1 81mm mortar, HE bomb L1A1 for 51mm mortar, etc. (Hohum @) 12:04, 11 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.

Pricing games redirects[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 --Taelus (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are one too many redirects that I would like to nominate later. The above redirects are too uncommon to type nowadays. I cannot explain anymore; my head feels exhausted. Here is the link to many redirects: [1]. By the way, exclude the redirects that do not have "(The Price is Right pricing game)" or anything else resembling. --Gh87 (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all and refine targets to the relevant sections. All the ones I've checked relate to a section about the game at the target, they are not interfering with anything, and are perfectly valid search terms (and are getting at least a few hits a month). They are also quietly discouraging the creation of individual articles about the games. No reason to delete these redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and refine the targets - the key point of the nomination is "The above redirects are too uncommon to type". I do understand and acknowledge this concern. However, that is not how the redirect is likely to be used. What is most probable is that a reader will type, for example, '1/2 off' into the search box and will get offered '1/2 Off (The Price is Right Pricing Game)'. Used this way, I think that these redirects are useful and should be kept. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all but refine the targets as per above. The redirects are very unlikely to get their articles so there's no real point in deleting them. Redirects are cheap. —mako๛ 06:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Life is short. Redirects are cheap. Should redirect to specific sections, rather than the lead, though Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:30, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_9&oldid=1136448350"