Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 21, 2012

Editing template:Music of Hungary[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 — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result of a template in the mainspace being moved to the template space. Fails R2, but extremely unlikely search term. CtP (t • c) 15:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete. Consensus at WT:CSD is that redirects that result from moving a page obviously created in the wrong namespace are within the scope of speedy deletion criterion G6. 208.80.154.54 (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G6 per IP. Obviously unnecessary; it is a trivial matter of housekeeping to delete such a redirect. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:04, 22 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.

File:AMMB coverisms.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 Delete. Salix (talk): 18:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-titled image, No relevant incoming links, NOT R3 Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:24, 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.

File:Ichinomyia Hoi Aichi.png[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. Not causing harm, no valid reason to delete. Jafeluv (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-titled image, No incoming links Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, a harmless old title. See my comments on File:Pieratsunset.JPG for a fuller explanation. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basically this is just cruft cluttering up the encyclopedia, low stats indicate little use. Links from external sources are not our concern.--Salix (talk): 18:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nyttend. Being good net citizens and avoiding creating linkrot where it is unnecessary is very much our concern. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 8 September 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.

File:Xmmer.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. Not causing harm, no valid reason to delete. Jafeluv (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-titled image , No incoming links Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, a harmless old title. See my comments on File:Pieratsunset.JPG for a fuller explanation. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basically this is just cruft cluttering up the encyclopedia, low stats indicate little use. Links from external sources are not our concern.--Salix (talk): 18:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nyttend. Being good net citizens and avoiding creating linkrot where it is unnecessary is very much our concern. Deletion would bring no benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 8 September 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.

File:Colobus monkey.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. Not causing harm, no valid reason to delete. Jafeluv (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-titled image. No relevant incoming links Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, a harmless old title. See my comments on File:Pieratsunset.JPG for a fuller explanation. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basically this is just cruft cluttering up the encyclopedia, low stats indicate little use. Links from external sources are not our concern.--Salix (talk): 18:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nyttend. Being good net citizens and avoiding creating linkrot where it is unnecessary is very much our concern. Deletion would bring no benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 8 September 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.

File:CYP.PAPHOS.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 delete. Salix (talk): 18:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-titled image - No Incoming links Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, a harmless old title. See my comments on File:Pieratsunset.JPG for a fuller explanation. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too vague. See WP:IFN. BigNate37(T) 22:54, 24 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.

File:OnTour.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 delete. Salix (talk): 18:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-titled image - No relevant incoming links. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:25, 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.

File:-Into-Thin-Air -Death-on-Everest.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 delete. Salix (talk): 19:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-titled image - No incoming links Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:24, 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.

File:Tiger8.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 delete. Salix (talk): 19:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-titled image - No relevant incoming links Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, a harmless old title. See my comments on File:Pieratsunset.JPG for a fuller explanation. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too vague. See WP:IFN. BigNate37(T) 22:54, 24 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.

File:Pieratsunset.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. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-titled image - No relevant incoming links. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's not hurting anything, and it's old. When a title has existed since 2005, the only good reasons to delete it are housekeeping matters such as history merges or pagemoves (neither of which can be the case here) or a disruptive title, and nobody's going to be offended by "Pieratsunset". Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Weak delete Neutral. While I agree with Nyttend's points with respect to mainspace redirects, file redirects which were created by moves to a more descriptive title are another matter. Much of the reason is because file titles are only used by editors, not readers. Conversely, article titles are used by readers to find information, and may have value in the form of useful search terms or the prevention of external link rot. This means that once we fix the incoming links for the old redirect, there is no harm to our readers in removing the redirect. Such a redirect may still be useful so my argument isn't a justification for deleting all filespace redirects, but it's my opinion that in the case of nondescript file names like this one, deletion is preferable to ambiguous filenames. BigNate37(T) 01:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC) 01:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC) 22:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about links and histories? Your opinion will result in the breaking of links in page histories, and any links from other websites to this image will also be broken. Moreover, for ambiguous filenames, a redirect is helpful for the simple fact that it prevents reuploading. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Redlink images in page histories is a minor but common problem, and your point is a valid one. Websites should not be directly linking to Wikipedia images anyways, so I reject that concern outright—this isn't commons, and we're not a webhost. Lastly, while an ambiguous name can prevent re-uploading in the case of an exact name conflict, it also sets a precedent and encourages editors to use the non-descriptive titles when inserting media into articles; discouraging bad practices outweighs minor editor conveniences. Even taking my arguments for granted though, one must still weigh how nondescript the redirect is, vs. one's own personal threshold of "too nondescript." I changed my delete to weak delete above. Let me think on it further. BigNate37(T) 01:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why shouldn't they link to our images? I'm not talking about <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/09/Pieratsunset.JPG"> links; what I mean is a link like <a>this photo from Wikipedia</a>, in which you simply provide a link to go to the page. Nyttend (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • (This is starting to get off-topic, so if you'd like to move this part of the discussion elsewhere I would not object.) We're not a webhost, and we're not an image gallery. Wikipedia images are for use in articles. If it's licensed such that we're allowed to host an image for image's sake, then it's either on commons or about to be, which is a media gallery. At commons, the rationale for image redirects aligns more with the rationale here for article redirects, since there it is content rather than material for building content. In all other cases (that is, if an image is here and not on commons), why go out of our way to preserve hypothetical external links that violate the spirit of our fair use policy? It's essentially the same argument I would use if we were considering external links to navboxes—I won't lose sleep over external sites linking to them, but I sure wouldn't bother myself about preventing those kind of links from rotting. BigNate37(T) 22:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've changed my position above to neutral. Given Nyttend's reasoning, this isn't generic enough to justify breaking the image's past use in page histories. BigNate37(T) 22:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a free image. External reusers sometimes link back to Wikipedia for attribution. If some user reuses an article containing a free image, it is important that the link back to the file information page isn't broken. Reusers do not necessarily have the latest version of a page but might have an older copy which uses the old file name. I don't think that we should delete redirects to free images unless the redirect shadows a different image on Commons (in which case the redirect has to be deleted to make the Commons image accessible). Things may be different if the image is kept under a fair use claim. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:21, 6 September 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.

Degrassi Now or Never[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 both. JohnCD (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no mention on article. 117Avenue (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • nominations merged. Rossami (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Redirects are cheap, and the name "Now or Never" is used at "itunes.apple.com/us/tv-season/degrassi-now-or-never/id446816769" and "www.teennick.com/blog/tags/now%20or%20never/" in addition to other URLs.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So add every promotional name this show has had? 117Avenue (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not necessarily, it just that once the redirect exists it is not worth deleting. Tideflat (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - What Tideflat said, unless those two terms are used for something else, they should be kept, per WP:CHEAP.--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has now been over two weeks since this was nominated, and over one week since the last comment. Is someone going to disposition this redirect soon?--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My reluctance to comment was tacit agreement with Jax. BigNate37(T) 07:50, 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.

Wikipedia:Ididn'thearthat[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 Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point". JohnCD (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT all redirect to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point". Should Wikipedia:Ididn'thearthat also redirect there? Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_21&oldid=1039428898"