Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 5, 2012

FЯED[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--Salix (talk): 04:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, most people would search Fred or Fred Figglehorn this the backwards R is not on people's keyboards. JayJayTalk to me 22:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't see it hurting anything. Sure, you can't search it from a non-Cyrillic keyboard, but someone who doesn't recognize the term could copy and paste it in a search, without having to know Fred Figglehorn or Fred (YouTube). FЯED is explained in the lead sentence, and is an appropriate redirect to have. 117Avenue (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eh, this one is harmless. Very few users except curious Russians and keyboarding geeks will type it out, but copy-pasters will also use it. Nate • (chatter) 05:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this is a good example of {{R from alternative name}} and should be tagged as such. Whatever way readers enter it, 29 views in first 8 days of existence is above noise level, so it is useful. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is almost no way that an English-language user on an English-language keyboard will be able to easily type the Cyrillic Я character. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but you don't need to type something to search for it. 117Avenue (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They may not type it, but they'll probably copy it off the YouTube search results for more info. Note Toys "R" Us also has the same redirect with the Cyrillic character. Nate • (chatter) 15:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Besides the reasons given before, deletion would have disappointed the sixty-three people who searched for it in February. Not an implausible redirect, not needlessly derogatory, not confusing, etc.; there's no good reason to delete this. Nyttend (talk) 15:43, 9 March 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.

Ben Davis (actor)[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 Ben Davis (disambiguation) and add both actors there.--Salix (talk): 04:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article "Ben Davis (actor)" to "Benjamin Byron Davis", because the latter name is what the actor is most credited under. However "Ben Davis (actor)" is linked in Les Misérables (musical) and Enjolras is not Benjamin Byron Davis where the redirect link is linked to, they are two different people. I am requesting deletion of "Ben Davis (actor)" to differentiate from Benjamin Byron Davis. QuasyBoy 19:29, 5 March 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.

2013 in television[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 all. Ruslik_Zero 18:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBrandley (talk · contribs) created this cluster of WP:CRYSTAL rd's that have no use until near October of each year due to the unpredictability of the TV business. Asking for a delete; beyond the big events we don't know there will be TV in its current form by 2020. "2013 and beyond" article is being put up on AfD for the same reasons, and these rd's are easily susceptible to being turned into unsourced spec articles. Nate • (chatter) 18:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep while the target article exists. The target article currently covers information on television up through 2020, so having redirects up through that year makes sense as long as the target article exists. While the target article is nominated for deletion, there is no reason to consider the redirects separately. If the target is deleted, then the redirects can be speedy deleted, and if the target is not deleted, then the redirects should be kept. Calathan (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that the target has been deleted, the redirects should probably be speedy deleted. Calathan (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: though they shouldn't have been created, the target is pretty relevant, so I see no good reason to delete this. Specifically true, given that the name template is used in {{years in television}}. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you are referring to the "2013 and beyond" link on that template, that was added to the template by the same editor who created these. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. I can't see how many people will really be searching for 2020 in television anytime soon. I agree that these may each turn into their own problem articles.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD § G8: now when there is no good target, these should go. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:27, 13 March 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.

International B.A. degree in Liberal Arts and Humanities[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) 15:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A recent AfD was closed as "delete" not "redirect", but this redirect was created. A quick Google search shows several universities that are offering or have offered a "B.A. degree in Liberal Arts and Humanities" including Rider University, Charles University in Prague, Iowa State University. Therefore a redirect to Tel Aviv University is inappropriate and could be considered promotional. Pontificalibus (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt: misleading. Given that (1) the name is unlikely to become an article and (2) I see no possible good target, this should be salted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bachelor of Arts, the more general topic about this kind of degree. I concur that this particular example is not especially notable or nor is it obviously unique to Tel Aviv University. Salting is overkill, though, if we can preempt with a reasonable redirect. Rossami (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect wouldn't preempt article creation unless it was protected, and that would be overkill, so I don't really see the purpose.--Pontificalibus (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see how anyone is going to type that into the search function, and therefore the point of having it as a redirect. Number 57 12:00, 7 March 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.

Gayzing[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 Gyalshing. JohnCD (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target doesn't match title meaning, WP:NOTNEO, WP:NOT#DICT #3, Google News search produces absolutely zero hits, google Scholar search produces nothing relevant. Zad68 (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Looking at original article it was about a non-notable neologism. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alternatively, how about a redirect to Gyalshing, as a Google search suggests this is a common misspelling of that place's alternate name? --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Pontificalibus. That is a reasonable alternate transliteration of a foreign name. I concur that the neologism can not be substantiated. Rossami (talk) 17:31, 6 March 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.

NPOV[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 Neutral point of view. JohnCD (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A typical example for cross-wiki redirect only supposed to save 3 key presses on typing shortcut. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep again. This redirect pre-dates the software change that records pagemoves in the moved-page's history. This is also where the content used to exist before the creation of the separate namespaces. This redirect is in use on almost 10,000 pages. In the decade that this redirect has been around, it has created no confusion. The arguments to delete cross-namespace redirects are weak and certainly do not justify the disruption that would be caused by deleting this historical artifact. Rossami (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I'm not sure that this is the reason we shouldn't perform housekeeping, it should be at least made a soft redirect and tagged with {{historical}}. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The folks who monitor the use of templates would remove {{historical}} from the redirect fairly quickly. That template is for proposals or procedures which either failed to gain consensus or which somehow lost consensus. (We keep them around so we can learn from them.) WP:NPOV is still in force and widely accepted. It has simply been moved to a different location. The "historical" tag doesn't apply to this situation.
        I'm not sure I understand the argument for a soft-redirect. How would that be better than the current hard-redirect? Why would you want to make new readers (the people who are primarily the target of comments including references to our NPOV policy) click twice rather than getting to their content in a single jump? Rossami (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • This redirect is the worst ever discussed here. Though it may be preserved for historical reasons (while replacing it with a right one is a better idea anyway), the use of such redirects should be discouraged as much as possible, as it provokes creation of cross-namespace redirects to save typing "WP:", generating the ugly mess. Keeping it easy to use for newcomers is a greatest disservice ever in Wikipedia's history. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd guess the vast majority of the existing 10,000 uses of this redirect are in ancient AfD discussions etc, and most needn't actually be wikilinked anyway. Making the redirect deprecated (e.g. per WP:NOTNEWS) would seem like a good idea.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I notice Npov goes to the mainspace Neutral dab page, which has a selfref template linking to the policy at the top. Maybe this is a solution? --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP!! KEEP!! KEEP!! Almost everyone who has had experience editing Wikipedia knows what NPOV means. I can't see what else they could be searching for. Keep as a useful XNR. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would an editor be searching in mainspace for a Wikipedia policy? Presumably because they didn't use the search function properly. What we mustn't do is let editors' convenience trump a reader's quest for knowledge. Even if 1000000 editors make that mistake, I assume they will be able to correct themselves, but if the redirect stops a single reader from searching for the acronym in a mainspace article, it is harming the project. Even if the acronym is not currently used in any article, returning a zero search result is preferable to redirecting straight to one of our own internal policy documents. Imagine if you searched Google for an obscure ancient machine part and got directed straight to an internal employee handbook about privacy policy implementation. You'd have no idea whether you machine part search would have given any results or not. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:25, 8 March 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.

Pile-on[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) 03:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The specific prank is not discussed in the current version of the article, and therefore, the redirect is confusing. PleaseStand (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Is there any reason why this issue can't be addressed in the target article? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. piling-on is not just a school prank, there are a multitude of other uses. (including on wikipedia's !voting processes) 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I concur with the anon editor. That phrase has many meanings but none now have the potential to become more than a mere dictionary definition. Rossami (talk) 17:39, 6 March 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_March_5&oldid=1142587538"