Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 4, 2012

Trained reptiles[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) 16:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that someone looking this up would more likely be seeking information on real-world trained reptiles rather than a fairly obscure plot point in a work of fiction (for that matter, I'm not sure the phrase "trained reptiles" was used that much in the books, if at all). Logically it should redirect to a page Reptile training, by analogy with Trained animal and Trained hymenoptera, but since no such page exists I suggest 'delete'. 69.111.189.155 (talk) 15:38, 4 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.

Captured (film)[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 Captured! . Tikiwont (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Created in error following a page move. This film has never been called "Captured" and Captured (film) could releate to another film. Lugnuts And the horse 11:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget. If this film isn't known as Captured, then the redirect should point to Captured! as the only other film entry on the Captured dab page, and be removed from the dab page. If the 2011 film is or was sometimes known as Captured then the redirect should point to the disambiguation page and be tagged with {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}). It might also be beneficial to link the Captured and Captive dab pages via See also links, as mistaking one for the other in a title is very plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've missed the point. This creates a false blue link and doesn't help someone who clicks it via the current incoming links. Lugnuts And the horse 18:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf, and delink any incoming links to a different name if they're looking for another film (or redlink them to some other title) -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:24, 5 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.

Azari style (Iranian architecture)[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 Unnecessary at worst, possibly useful and reusable. Tikiwont (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the disambiguation "(Iranian architecture)" is unnecessary and hardly ever going to be searched for or included in a link. Constantine ✍ 08:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all and tag with {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. These are the result of very recent page moves (less than a day old) of titles that have existed since 2007 in some cases. Not only will there be many incomming external links to the old titles, but people will continue searching for where the articles used to be for a long time to come, and they are also required for attribution purposes. Unnecessary disambiguation does no harm, so there is no benefit to deleting them even if there weren't benefits to keeping them. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I checked to make sure that no links exist to the redirects from articles (there are a handful from talk pages and automated summaries). Attribution is assured through article history, and as for "people will continue searching for where the articles used to be", I really don't see anyone searching for "Azari style (Iranian architecture)" in these exact words. Constantine ✍ 10:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Internal links are of little importance, as these can easily changed. What matters are the links from external websites that we have no control over - indeed we can never know about the existence of most of them, just infer their existence from a combination of usage statistics and probability. As for searching, the internal search box is only one way people use to find Wikipedia articles, there are very many others, some of which take time to update and some which may never do so, and anyway if you've previously read an article at the title "Azari style (Iranian architecture)" and want to refer to it again, searching for "Azari style (Iranian architecture)" is a perfectly logical and likely thing to do. Finally regarding attribution, yes most of the page history is at the new title, but there is still the record of the move at the old title, and renaming the article is at least as significant event (and therefore at least as requiring of attribution) as changing the content. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: "Isfahani style" and "Khorasani style" also refer to two styles of poetry, so disambiguation is necessary there. --Z 10:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not aware of that, but it does not really change anything since the relevant articles do not exist to compete for the title. If and when Khorasani style (poetry) is created, then of course the architecture article should be moved and Khorasani style become a disambiguation page, but for now, this doesn't seem to be the case. If, as I see is now the case, the subject is dealt with, however briefly, in Persian literature, then a hatnote pointing interested readers there should suffice. Constantine ✍ 10:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry I meant to say, having redirects from those two disambiguated titles is necessary, I think.. --Z 10:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - may be useful for navigation, may be externally linked, nomination rationale contains no reasoning that would motivate deletion. WilyD 08:23, 18 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.

BADSITES[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) 16:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? ibicdlcod (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. TLDR version: I think it is neither vandalism nor useful. Long version: I expected this to be a cross-namespace redirect (CNR) to Wikipedia:Attack sites (shortcut: WP:BADSITES), but it seems it was created as a redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia and automatically retargetted when that page was redirected (cf. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 5#Criticism of Wikipedia). "BADSITES" does seem to get some criticism on the net, but it almost all appears to be about why we don't allow links to certain specific site(s) the author of the criticism is associated with/wants to link to. There is potentially valid criticism of the process of determining what is and isn't an attack site (I'm not involved with that though so don't know details), and possibly there is encyclopaedic discussion to be had about any high profile examples of controversy about a decision (if there have been any?) but this is quite a technical criticism and would sit better in one of the articles Criticism of Wikipedia was merged to (I don't know which one immediately though). However, I'm not seeing any potentially encyclopaedic criticism which uses the "BADSITES" jargon - everything that uses it is far too specific about individual cases for mainspace, so there is no evidence that our internal jargon has made it into the wider world and so would not merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia article. That said, I can see why it would be added as a redirect to the general Criticism article in good faith. All that combined means that I can see no benefit in having this as a redirect to the article namespace, as it would just confuse people looking for the Wikipedia space page. The only possibly valid target in other namespaces is Wikipedia:Attack sites, so would a CNR be justified in this case (article to Wikipedia: CNRs are rightly discouraged in most circumstances)? The most usual justification is benefit to very new users who don't yet understand namespaces, but I don't see that as an issue here as the only way such people are likely to come accross this page is by trying to add a link to a site deemed as an attack page and being informed about why their edit failed/was reverted. That explanation will universally include a direct link to the project-space page, so the mainspace redirect would be irrelevant. The redirect does get uses, but I'd be astonished if any of them were wanting something other than WP:BADSITES, so the existing redirect wont help them and discussions of similar CNRs has almost always resulted in consensus that the occasional user forgetting the "WP:" does not outweigh the potential harm of the CNR. So, with no valid target, I'm left recommending deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf (talk · contribs) as reasoning above. Not helpful. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 23:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vague and unhelpful.--Lenticel (talk) 06:19, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_4&oldid=1073158771"