Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 May 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 5
May 7 >

May 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 6, 2012

Template:Alibend[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. Whether this would be speedily deleted if it were created a matter of days ago is irrelevant to the convincing arguments for keeping this as a historical record that is not harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obscure name. Now unused. I have moved all the article to the target. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I would like to keep this redirect because it's easy to type (it was originally created to distinguish it from the upright animal liberation template: this one went at the end of articles; hence, alibend). Alan, it would have been a courtesy if you had mentioned all this animal rights work to me beforehand. I see you're also changing categories again. Please be careful there, because some of the AR groupings that look like "organizations" aren't: they are just ad hoc gatherings, or ideas. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Easy to type is of a far lesser importance than recognisability for other editors. When there are multiple footer templates it is nice to be able to identify them easily by name. Even more important with AWB since there is no preview screen. As for your concern about the re-categorisation rest assured that I am checking to see that there are an actual organisation rather than a campaign. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • People create shortened redirects all the time because they're easier to type. Re the cats, they say (as I recall) at the top of the page please not to change them without discussion, because fixing them is a lot of work. So please discuss before engaging in a lot of re-categorization -- it's not always easy or desirable to make the distinctions you're making. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thanks to SlimVirgin's explanation I now know what "alibend" means but if SlimVirgin hadn't explained it I would never have known because it's incredibly obscure. (I couldn't figure out what an "Ali bend" was!) Now that it has been removed from articles it's serving no purpose and is an implausible redirect. "Alib" just doesn't jump at all to "Animal Rights". --AussieLegend (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both for historical reference (may be orphaned now but links to it remain in pagehistory) and because it is a plausible (though obscure) shortcut created in good faith. Making life easier for our volunteer editors explicitly is a valid reason to create and allow a redirect. (It is not a strong enough reason to keep a redirect which is actively confusing or harmful but that does not appear to be the case here.) And many, many redirects and shortcuts are counter-intuitive the first time you see them. Who, for example, would expect to find Wikipedia's policy about speculative content at WP:CRYSTAL rather than to find something about geology or gemology. It makes sense once you know the history - just as this now does. Rossami (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is "alibend" plausible from "animal rights"? That's like saying "sotw" is plausible from "United States". --AussieLegend (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As SlimVirgin explained, this is the Animal LIBeration template that goes at the END of the article. It's not what I would have chosen but it's not obviously harmful or in the way of anything else. Rossami (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to the template's edit history it has never actually been the "Animal LIBeration template". Even when SlimVirgin created it, it was called " AnimaL rIghts". Alibend simply isn't a plausible abbreviation for Animal Rights. {{Animal liberation}} and {{Animal liberation}} exist as two separate and distinct templates. This unused redirect isn't needed. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the abbreviation makes very little sense, but if there are users that use the abbreviation, given that the target's a template, it should be kept. ...Though, if it's just one person that uses it, then it doesn't make much sense to keep it. --V2Blast (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But editors should be encouraged to use a template with a more meaningful name. It is no hardship to type a few extra characters. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, if I found "TPOSP" as an abbreviation for "United States", that would be a reason to keep a redirect called "TPOSP"? The only thing stopping this redirect from being speedily deleted under CSD:R3 is that it wasn't recently created. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are very good reasons why R3 is limited to recently created redirects. Additionally, this is not a speedy deletion candidate because of the good-faith arguments to keep it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good-faith arguments really have nothing to do with it. If the redirect had been created on 6 May and nominated under CSD:R3 then, it would have been a valid nomination. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Absolutely not. Speedy-deletions are set up for those narrow and specific situations where every reasonable editor will agree that the page needs deletion. The fact that good-faith arguments have been made to keep the redirect show that this was not an uncontroversial decision. It may have appeared "implausible" to you but it was entirely plausible to at least one other experienced editor. And that all by itself is enough to show that it was not a speedy-deletion candidate. Rossami (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Absolutely yes. If the redirect had been created on 6 May and nominated under CSD:R3 then, it would have been deleted without any arguments being put forth at all. Arguments have only been put forth because it was brought here. The assertion that "speedy-deletions are set up for those narrow and specific situations where every reasonable editor will agree that the page needs deletion" doesn't work, as CSD doesn't generally require arguments. If we required "every reasonable editor" to agree, we would never have anything deleted, since we rarely have a case where "every reasonable editor" agrees. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm sorry but you are fundamentally misunderstanding how WP:CSD was set up. The rule of "broad consensus" to the point of near unanimity is part and parcel of the operation of the speedy-deletion process. See, for example, criterion 2 of the "Read this before proposing new criteria" section or the opening section of WP:CSD itself. You can find a great deal more in the Talk archives from when the speedy-deletion process was first proposed.
                It is not necessary for "every reasonable editor" to explicitly assent to a speedy-deletion but a single reasoned objection is sufficient to abort (or reverse) the speedy-deletion and send the case to XfD for decision. (Exceptions apply for copyright and BLP violations.) This was a core condition upon which the right to delete without discussion was granted to admins by the community and remains an absolute requirement of the process. Rossami (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • How WP:CSD was set up is of absolutely no relevance to what I said. If {{alibend}} was created as a redirect to {{Animal rights}} on 6 May and was subsequently nominated under CSD:R3, any independent reviewing admin would have looked at it and deleted it immediately as there is no way that you can get to "animal rights" from "alibend". In the event that the deletion was contested, the outcome might be different, but that's not what I'm saying. The same would occur if {{davbelprog}} was created as a redirect to {{NCIS television}}. Just because one editor sees it as convenient, doesn't make it plausible. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:56, 22 May 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.

Hockey Player 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 No consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likely to meet GNG/WP:NHOCKEY in the near future. Just redirects to a passing mention that they are the relation of someone. Would be better served as red links due to their likely meeting notability in the near future. DJSasso (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • At least one of these was deleted after an AfD discussion. That decision is recent enough that the allegation that they are "likely to meet WP:NHOCKEY in the near future" is debatable. If/when they do clearly meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards, the redirects can be easily overwritten with content. In the meantime, the redirects point readers to the next-best page. It also keeps the respective Talk pages alive so editors can debate when and whether the subjects have each met the inclusion standards. Rossami (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the exception of Brock McGinn they are all less than half a season away from meeting the number of games requirement to meet WP:NHOCKEY. So are very much about to meet NHOCKEY. One player is only 10 games away. Red links help us avoid not noticing the player hasn't been created as has happened in the past. Red links are preferable to redirects in such situations. -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 26 April 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, Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 6 May 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.

The real meaning of amen[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) 14:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally implausible redirect, as far as I can tell. No reason to keep, in my opinion. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:17, 6 May 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.

The Legend of Zelda (2010 video game)[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) 20:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword was redirected from 2010 video game, but this game was actually released in November 2011. PlanetStar (talk | contribs) 21:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not sure about the rule for this but The Legend of Zelda (2010 video game) was the title of the article at one point until it became clear that the game would not be released in that year. Do we usually delete old article titles?--174.93.169.157 (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As IP above said, this was the original title for the article, and became a redirect once the page was moved. There may be pages on Wikipedia that still utilize the old wikilink, so I see no reason to delete. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the history I noticed that the article was once moved The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess II but then was moved back about three minutes later. I know I questioned deleting old articles tiles earlier but I wonder if this would be an exception?--174.93.169.157 (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above, although if any articles use it, those links should probably be fixed. --V2Blast (talk) 19:22, 14 May 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_May_6&oldid=1039432230"