Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 27, 2013

Matt Harvey (Baseball player)[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. --BDD (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Harvey is no longer in the minor leagues, which is what this redirect takes you to: the Mets minor league players page. Since we already have a "Matt Harvey (baseball)", I propose this one should be deleted. TCN7JM 15:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Matt Harvey (baseball). No need to delete. Sideways713 (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the reason to keep two of the same, and to re-target this one would just leave a double redirect. TCN7JM 16:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Disregard that last part. I thought "Matt Harvey (baseball)" was a redirect for a second. Just a brainfart. TCN7JM 16:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This may not be the most useful redirect in recorded history, but it's harmless and redirects are cheap. Sideways713 (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Sideways713 and tag with {{R from other disambiguation}}. The redirect is used and there is an obvious target, no reason at all to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2013 (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.

Parenthesis (disambiguation)[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 Disambiguate ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem useful, as there are no entries for "parenthesis" at the target dab page. PamD 13:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a product of several poorly coordinated changes, and even has not a useful edit history. Delete. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as there are a couple of other articles to which it could refer. I've drafted a dab page below the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two very partial matches, not valid dab page entries, and a "See also" which goes to a dab page already linked from the page to which the primary usage of Parenthesis redirects. PamD 16:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, per Thryduulf's good work. bd2412 T 15:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thryduulf's dab page is nice, but it shouldn't contain the partial matches In Parenthesis or Emphasis! (On Parenthesis). The only two things to disambiguate here are parenthesis and parenthesis (rhetoric), which would probably be better done with hatnotes if a primary topic can be decided upon. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Emphasis! (On Parenthesis) isn't absolutely necessary, but "Parenthesis" is a likely search term for In Parenthesis for someone who doesn't quite remember the name. If there weren't a need for a dab page I would still argue for retention of a blue link, as it is a likely search term for people looking for something they know (or suspect) is not the primary meaning but who don't know the title of what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As Thryduulf suggests, "In Parenthesis" is a reasonable inclusion, though Emphasis! (On Parenthesis) is less so. In addition, there is also ( ) (disambiguation), which should at least be a see also, though we might consider combining. And I'm unsure whether it needs a separate disambiguation page, but paren and parens also both redirect to the bracket article. Uses mostly seems to be a number of partial title matches, but there are at least some possible surname usage as well as some species binomials. Indeed, the genus Parens (moth) appears to be inaccessible from entering "parens". older ≠ wiser 12:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as dab page, per Bkonrad. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Thryduulf's draft dab.--Lenticel (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2013 (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.

Cambidge Common Historic District Amendment[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. The reason given for deletion is not valid, please see WP:RFD#KEEP (non-admin closure). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in title; it may cause confusion. There already exist the correct Cambridge Common Historic District Amendment. Please delete Michael! (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2013 (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.

Cambidge bay[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 (non-admin closure). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in title; it may cause confusion. Please delete Michael! (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unless you have any evidence that this has caused confusion since it was created in 2008 (I've not found any), then I don't see how deleting it will help anything. It is correctly tagged as {{R from misspelling}}. Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It was confusing to me, at least at first glance. The existence of this page suggests that there exists a location called Cambidge (without the "r"), as distinct from Cambridge. Don't get me wrong, I don't have any problems with redirect pages in general. However, I think this specific kind of Rs do more harm than good. Besides, if we keep redirects for typo's, we should create several billions of other useless "misspelled" redirects. Michael! (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait - does having a redirect from Danzig to Gdansk imply that these are two different places? To me, it explicitly states that they are the same place. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Danzig and Gdansk are two different names for the same city, yes, I don't have any problems with that (in fact, I actively encourage such redirects). However, both are correct names. Incorrect and misspelled redirects such as Gansk and Danzigg don't exist. That's the whole point. Keeping redirects such as "Cambidge" suggest that "Cambidge" is an alternative (and thus correct) name of "Cambridge" - which isn't the case. Michael! (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep tagged as {{R from typo}} , we have such things for a reason, indeed it's one of the reasons that redirects exist. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2013 (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/2013_April_27&oldid=1140238855"