Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 16, 2012

Chris Fields[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deletion of this redirect, which causes confusion due to its sharing a name with a Republican congressional candidate (MN-5). If we really think this is a plausible search term, a disambiguation page could serve the purpose, although the man in the photo is unlikely to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. I'm not seeing a need for deletion here, either overwrite with a disambiguation page or overwrite with an article about the politician which includes a hatnote to the current target. In either scenario there is benefit in keeping the existing revision history. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (with the potential for overwrite) per Thryduulf. Rossami (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, the politician may not get his own page anyway. The district is so strongly Democratic that he's probably just token opposition. Withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2012 (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.

Final Fantasy Pairings: Zack and Aerith[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a rather implausible search term to me, but perhaps someone with more FF7 knowledge can correct me. It appears to be related to a series of articles about pairs of FF7 characters which were all deleted. I declined a speedy and am moving it here. -- Selket Talk 15:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of several fan fiction articles created by the same new user, like Final Fantasy Pair: Cloud and Lightning, where the creator twice removed my speedy delete tag in spite of being told to stop posting fan fiction. --Niemti (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It seems an overactive fan has decided to create a series of articles about their favorite "pairings." There's really nothing encyclopedic about any of the articles and the search terms are highly unlikely. I suggest a review of ALL pages created by the same editor and deletion of redirects created as a result. 50.131.220.134 (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2012 (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.

Rules to consider/Confer in e-mail debate[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 no consensus. Good arguments are made on both sides regarding link rot and the continued need for them. Arguments that rely on their being cross-namespace redirects are weak (although not entirely without merit) as the consensus regarding XNRs is not absolute but that their utility should be weighed against their potential disruption. This is particularly the case when their age is taken into consideration. In the circumstances, I don't see that relisting this discussion will likely produce a definitive answer in the short term. The no consensus closure of course leaves the door open for a future discussion if or when someone feels sufficient time has passed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added 15:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC):

Added 17:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC):

Added 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC):

Per reasons for deletion #6 "It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace." This redirect was left behind after the page was moved to Wikipedia namespace four years ago and deleted about that same time. All of the useful page history was moved along with the original article so none would be lost by deleting this. Moreover this redirect was not present from the time of the original page move (2008) until a few days ago when it was recreated. -- Selket Talk 15:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm going to add:
  • [Additions to nomination merged into list above; duplicates removed]
Some of these are deleted at present, but I expect the same admin who restored the original to restore these as well. -- Selket Talk 15:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all (and restore the ones that I missed). I do not consider these valid speedy-deletions under any existing or then-current criterion. Wikipedia Talk is a subset of Wikipedia and as such is excluded under R2.
    These titles all pre-date the creation of the separate namespaces. They go back to the days when sub-pages were an accepted and even encouraged structure of pages (and several go back to the oldest CamelCase days). Those naming conventions have since been deprecated and the content moved to more current titles but they all remain part of our history with an unknowable number of inbound links. Link rot is a pervasive problem that we should avoid whenever possible. These titles do not conflict with any encyclopedic content and create no potential potential for confusion on the part of readers.
    The arguments against cross-namespace redirects are weak at the best of times and largely irrelevant for these old redirects. They certainly do not justify the harm of breaking links. Rossami (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The validity of the prior speedy criteria is irrelevant since they are now in a deletion discussion. Also, they have no incoming links and nobody missed them for the last four years. The recreation of them at this point just encourages link rot. -- Selket Talk 15:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cleaned up the list and put them all in {{rfd2m}} format, for my own sanity if not for anyone else's. BigNate37(T) 17:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I see no tangible benefit to maintaining the technical integrity of what non-wiki links from 2004 there may be pointing at these redirects. Were there no reason for deletion, that may still be enough to satisfy the exceptionally low threshold for "usefulness" we employ at RfD, but that's not the case. Having these redirects in the main namespace causes them to appear as search results and on the search bar, which is unprofessional and unhelpful to the average reader. These redirects offer a dubious-at-best benefit to editors, in exchange for a minor inconvenience to readers. Even if it were an even tradeoff, I firmly believe in choosing ease of reading over ease of editing. Frankly, I don't see how one can dismiss the arguments against XNRs so easily—WP:XNR outlines ways that they harm non-editor users, and those points seem far more likely to be realized in this instance than the likelihood of any editor being seriously hampered by breaking these links. BigNate37(T) 17:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, BigNate37 and also Happy melon's excellent summary here. For many redirects avoiding link rot is a good argument, but considering the long-standing consensus against cross-namespace redirects, a compelling reason is needed to keep them. Avoiding link rot is not a compelling reason in this case. As Selket says, these have not been missed - just look at the stats for the last few years (apart from the last few days when they have been in and out of CAT:SD) - and yes, page visits are counted when visiting a non-existent page. As Happy melon pointed out in the discussion linked to above, these aren't redirects to policies they are links to discussions about them and most of them don't even link to the original discussions. (I highly doubt anyone would but) if anyone ever did want to see the original discussion they would have to root around in the history anyway and even as red links it is possible to see where the content has been moved to as the move log is provided on all deleted pages. (While both are pretty small) the chance of readers accidentally coming across these is far greater than anyone actually finding them useful now. 82.132.139.148 (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some of these titles have existed since 2001 and never should have been deleted in the first place; the chances of pages from 2008 linking (both onwiki and offwiki) also must be considered. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2012 (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.

List of supporting characters in C.I.D. (TV series)[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. Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how this redirect could be useful to anyone. Its simply complex and readers would just basically search for characters of the show or directly go to the show's main article. Why would someone want to search "supporting characters"?! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is where the article existed before being moved to the current title. The "supporting characters" nomenclature parallels the names used in a number of other TV-related articles and might be the sort of link that readers would guess exists. (Remember that not everyone navigates the wiki exclusively through the search engine.) The redirect is not obviously harmful or in the way of other content. It has existed for a year and, while the potential for link rot is not exceptionally high, it is still a non-zero risk. Redirects are cheap and there is no reason to delete this one. Rossami (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think we need to see what norms are followed on other similar articles and then accordingly apply it for all similar articles. That way we will have to create many such redirects. Also even if redirects are cheap, when primary topic has it all covered i find this redirect unnecessary. For TV shows that are just in their season 1 (example of American shows) we have all information in one article because we know that it might stop airing and then we will have to merge all unnecessarily split articles which were done so to give them appropriate space. Although there is a chance that a user might search the normal "List of awards won by XYZ" we don't have such redirects even if they are cheap. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That sounds like an argument to delete the target page as overly-detailed and premature. I am sympathetic to that argument but it is irrelevant to the redirect. If the target page is deleted, the redirect will go with it. If the target page is not deleted, the content may still be merged-and-redirected to a more general page on the same topic - at which time, this redirect will be be updated to also point to the merger target. But as long as the target page stands alone as a separate article, the current redirect appears both plausible and non-harmful. Why should the redirect be deleted? Rossami (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2012 (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.

List of forensic experts in C.I.D. (TV series)[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 per the consensus to keep the discussion above. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how this redirect could be useful to anyone. Its simply complex and readers would just basically search for characters of the show or directly go to the show's main article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets keep the discussion there itself and then appropriately apply it here too. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2012 (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.

Category 6e cable[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. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misnomer that redirects to Category 6 cable, which contains no mention of Category 6e. Lmatt (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Google finds a significant number of references to "category 6e cable". See, for example, here. If this is a misnomer, it appears to be a reasonably plausible one. The fact that it is not currently mentioned in the target article is irrelevant. Rossami (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cat 6 cable seems to come in cat 6 and cat 6a, 'A' for augmented. Cat 5, however, has a 5e variant. Category 5 enhanced superseded the original cat 5 standard. Either the redirect was created speculatively, or I'm simply unable to find information on the 6e spec (which is just as likely). BigNate37(T) 20:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To be clear on the precise issue here: the term "6e" is being used by resellers as marketing to sell (to installers, businesses, soho, & residential users) some kind of uncertified higher quality version of the vanilla "6" standard of cable. **I personally just bought a fully working one on Ebay ("Pluscom: 12meter 4 pair UTP RJ45 Cat6e patch network LAN ethernet cable", SKU: NG12M – for a massive £2.80, lol!) from one of the several sellers on there offering them. They are attempting to follow-on the usage of the REAL enhanced previous generation "5e" terminology, which is an actual fully-certified improved "enhanced" version of the vanilla "5" standard. Hence a redirect is appropriate given (a) it falls under the 6 standard, & (b) it's only being used as a marketing term, rather then an official certified version.
    A related but separate issue, is that the Category 6 cable page should really have some comment on this current marketing usage, to stop mass confusion by casual untechnical readers, who may be looking for info on what's appropriate for them to get for their usage needs (as I said on that pages talk page, it should be done by someone well informed in the subject matter). Additionally, there is another "augmented" official certified "6a" standard which has additional benefits over the vanilla "6" one. So in summary, you need BOTH "6e" and "6a" explained somehow on the Category 6 cable page. Jimthing (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add a further related point, Category 7 cable page doesn't even explain the use of the "Cat 7" term either. So that too needs some kind of summary of explanation on it. (I question who writes these pages sometimes, as it's all done without realising this site is used by a great deal of novices and not mostly highly technically adept industry types, the former of which are likely to find the info plainly confusing by it's clear omission.) Jimthing (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2012 (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.

Baadshah[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 Overwrite with a dab page. Ruslik_Zero 17:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Disambiguated page has to be created under "Baadshah", and movies with same title are to be listed. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per the nom.A disambg is really necessary. ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 11:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't require deletion of the redirect - just overwrite it with the disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and overwrite. Thryduulf is exactly correct - there is no need to delete the pagehistory prior to overwriting with disambiguation content (and several reasons why we want to keep that pagehistory intact). Rossami (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nomination is not a valid reason for deletion. I have some thoughts on disambiguating this term, but it's not necessary to keep the RfD open until that happens. BigNate37(T) 03:09, 14 August 2012 (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.

Independent Kosovo[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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting fixed by Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Proposed deletion of Independent Kosovo which leads to Republic of Kosovo.[reply]

  • Not a specific title for anything, we do not have Independent Abkhazia for part-recognised states nor Independent Bhutan for fully recognised states. Not an alternative name for any entity, article's existence is pointless. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I agree that we should not encourage the random addition of redirects, once they are here there is little point to deleting them. This title was the subject of some debate at Talk:Republic of Kosovo (now archived). Leaving the redirect in place preempts a recurrence of the partisan debates which have troubled that page. The redirect is not obviously harmful or confusing to readers and if the title is technically incorrect, well, that's a big part of what redirects are for - they point readers to the correct article where they can learn the correct title. Note: I have no opinion on the old retargetting debate (though I see no obvious reason to disagree with the 2011 consensus). Rossami (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep It redirects to just that - the independent Kosovo state, as opposed to the historical and geographical region of Kosovo. On the other hand, I'm not sure how useful is it - so it's "Keep" only if "independent Kosovo" is being used often in the media while meaning the Republic (a widespread shorthand term). --Niemti (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. You hit the nail on the head - the only argument PRO-keep in fairness is Rossami's observation that a discussion took place on the talk page. Without looking, I can predict easily who the characters were that pushed for the existence of the redirect but like you have stated, there is no media or published coverage that used this term nominally. Were it to be cited to distinguish it from former entities: a) the reporter is evidently demonstrating bias given its controversial nature (explained after); b) a transcript would look something like "unemployment remains the same in the independent Kosovo as it did prior to independence.", in other words, a small "i" for "independent". Concerning the first point, there is unequivocal bias out there. Al-jazeera English for example published a report on "the world's newest independent country" just three days following the declaration, and this was followed by a monologue on the hardship of the pro-independence population in previous years, repression by the former overlord, etc.. For those of us editing the articles, we are careful to maintain a balance. The alternative to Independent Kosovo is Rebel-held Kosovo if you are looking for alternative redirects for the same article. Now I am not for a minute suggesting the latter should be created, but you see the controversial nature; yet in reality, today we still have just over half the world's states which recognise the latter over the former. I'm saying that by holding onto this redirect, it legitimises Albanian propagandist editors in their goal to promote Kosovan articles to the same level with other sovereign nations. Also, if the redirect is as valid as its proponents in the earlier debate implied, then there is no reason we should not add it to the article: "Republic of Kosovo, also known as Independent Kosovo is a...". Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you've misunderstood me. If "independent Kosovo" is a widespread shorthand outside of Wikipedia, in the minestream media (where "Rebel-held Kosovo" is highly unlikely), then it fits to be a redirect. And the capitalization of the first word (like "Independent Kosovo") is automatic in Wikipedia article titles, like it is capitalized here because various other words are also capitalized in these titles: [1][2][3] or like here just because it's also the first word: [4][5][6] but otheriwse it's just "independent Kosovo": [7][8][9]. And yes, it appears to be pretty widespread. And again, Wikipedia's capitalization of the first word in every title is just automatic. --Niemti (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Per Rossami there is no benefit to deletion and a simple google seach shows that Independent Kosovo, with proper noun capitalisation is sometimes used to refer to the country. Although this is less common now than shortly after independence it remains a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not so. They only tend to be capitalised in the journal manner where all key words are capitalised, "The Rule of Law in Independent Kosovo". That statement entire of itself no more attaches independent to Kosovo than if it would struggling if it said, "Corruption in Struggling Kosovo". Besides, you get the same level of results for "Independent South Sudan" and "Independent East Tmor". Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A reminder, actually. Remember that the standard for redirects is not WP:NPOV but WP:RNEUTRAL. Redirect titles must be plausible. That is a much lower standard than "in widespread use". Rossami (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I'm glad you see my point in the NPOV vs RNEUTRAL issue and if indeed any of the above arguments carry genuine weight then I accept the redirect in good faith despite being the proposer for its removal. Note that I too have sought its usage and am only able to find citations such as this[10] which see capitalised headline key words but no special reference to IK in the text. As a matter of fact, as far as I can see in these searches[11], [12], [13], [14], they are all headlines. I'd like to see the usage in mainspace text if possible. Can anyone find an example, just one will be fine, of its usage whereby only IK is capitalised (eg. Voters in Independent Kosovo go to the polls next week...)? If so, it would throw a different light on this discussion. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a more important question than it may seem at first. Whether or not we have any evidence of Independent Kosovo being a term in use determines whether we mark this redirect as an alternate title or as unprintworthy. The issue at hand right now isn't so much keep/delete, but what kind of keep. BigNate37(T) 19:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not all against the keep. Some arguments have been produced and I now realise that with redirects, the NPOV policy is not as rigid as on actual articles. I too would like to know the basis for any "keep" baring in mind usage of the term is restricted to where the word "independent" may apply to any entity whether sovereign or self-delcared. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It doesn't matter how it's used in the real world, or whether that is correct or not, all that matters is: 1. the redirect is used, 2. the target is correct, and 3. the redirect is doing no harrm (it's not misleading, in the way of other content, etc). Deletion brings no benefit and indeed would disadvantage those who use it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Unless I am mistaken, your first two points say the same thing "redirect is used and target is correct", how exactly do we know that the redirect is used? I for one discovered it by accident when it appeared in the dropdown when I typed "Independent" whilst looking for something else. Is there an automated count to determine when a page is selected? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, there is a way to get a sense of how much a redirect is used. Click on the "stats" link at the top of the discussion thread. It's not a perfect counter but it's generally "directionally correct" as my old physics professor used to say. Rossami (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the redirect serves its purpose then! Or atleast Majuru's with his fine balanced argument! :) Let it stay. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - usually the Republic of Kosovo is intended. Majuru (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2012 (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/2012_July_16&oldid=1138578258"