Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 15, 2013.

Burn (Scotland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 26#Burn (Scotland

Marina Rodina[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. WJBscribe (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no consensus at Talk:Marina Orlova (Internet celebrity) that reliable sourcing for the name Marina Rodina exists. Target page is a BLP. Prodego talk 21:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A redirect suggesting that a person is known by an alternate name is as much a BLP violation as a statement to that effect in the article itself. bd2412 T 22:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The talk page discussion in 2010 cast doubts on the sources used, which is why "Marina Rodina" isn't mentioned at all in the article. It follows then that a redirect isn't appropriate. —Xezbeth (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep the subject publically published this alias themselves in 2007[1][2]. And in 2012, publically said it was their real name[3][4]. These are all perfectly valid self-published sources. Rodina also owns the Hotforwords company[5]. Google image searching both names also clearly brings up the same individual from multiple websites. As neither the nominator or speedy deleting admin above have attempted to find any sources, I suspect this to be a bad faith nomination.--Sinistrial (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, if consensus is that these are reliable sources then I am all for keeping the redirect. The 2010 discussion did not support the youtube info as a reliable source. Maybe that was wrong. But if there are reliable sources that this is her name, then you should first get consensus for it on Talk:Marina Orlova (Internet celebrity) and include it in the article. After that, create the redirect. Prodego talk 22:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a redirect with similar issues was recently kept, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 23#Todd Matthew Burns. Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would contend that there is a substantial difference between a possible middle name and an entirely different last name. bd2412 T 01:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sinistrial. This seems like BLP zealotry, and a misunderstanding of RS to boot. Sources need to be reliable for the statement being made, and a self-published source is fine for routine claims about one's self. Whether the subject was claiming that Marina Rodina was her real name or an alias, it's a likely enough search term that couldn't really point anywhere else. In conclusion, she probably wasn't lying about Rodina being her name at the time, and even if she were, that's not our problem. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 26 December 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.

Zeroty[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. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No mention on the target dab page; no hits elsewhere in Wikipedia; no relevant ghits. PamD 17:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be neologism LazyBastardGuy 22:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 00s (the decades, 1900-1910, 2000-2010, etc; the noughties, the naughties, the zeroties, the oughties) -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 00:09, 17 December 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.

Interstate 470 in Ohio[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 Withdrawn. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does not fit into WP:USSH naming conventions. AdmrBoltz 16:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep. Seems like a very obvious search term to me. Redirects exist so that readers do not have to know project naming conventions to find the article they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF? Obvious search term and standard naming for by-state routes. Same goes for the other two. --NE2 18:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It will break Template:Jct on Ohio's side, if deleted. If it doesn't break Jct, it's still a common search term.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 19:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing request. I see this is more than just this article that has these types of redirects, while not part of WP:USSH they can be seen as common search terms. --AdmrBoltz 19:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 470 in Ohio and West Virginia[edit]

Does not fit into WP:USSH naming conventions. AdmrBoltz 16:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep. This doesn't seem like an implausible search term for someone who knows that this I470 is in both states. Redirects exits so that readers can find the article they are looking for without having to know naming conventions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing request. I see this is more than just this article that has these types of redirects, while not part of WP:USSH they can be seen as common search terms. --AdmrBoltz 19:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 470 in West Virginia[edit]

Does not fit into WP:USSH naming conventions. AdmrBoltz 16:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep. Seems like a very obvious search term to me. Redirects exist so that readers do not have to know project naming conventions to find the article they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing request. I see this is more than just this article that has these types of redirects, while not part of WP:USSH they can be seen as common search terms. --AdmrBoltz 19:24, 15 December 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.

T:P2[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. WJBscribe (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted. All the DKY shortcuts start with T:DYK and this one also has T:DYK/P2 anyway. WOSlinker (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If we go back to October, before 'the CNR' discussions about these redirects, T:P2 received 5 pageviews vs T:DYK/P2's 33 pageviews. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mainspace rot. No need to maintain or support this irrelevant one. -DePiep (talk) 11:14, 23 December 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.

T:MI and Template:MI[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. WJBscribe (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be sorted out with these two redirects as they point to different locations which could be confusing. WOSlinker (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both as they are. {{MI}} is apparently automatically replaced by {{Multiple issues}} when encountered by AutoWikiBrowser so it is not possible to determine from "what links here" what its current usage is, but the fact that it is on that list suggests that it is not infrequently encountered and that the replacement is (almost) always correct. T:MI on the other hand is not so treated and so it is easy to look at current uses, from that it appears that it is used only in discussions (ranging several years) and it is always used to refer to template:Multiple image. In other words, although there is the potential for confusion between T:MI and {{MI}} it appears that in practice this does not happen. The two templates have very different uses so any wrong use will be very easy to spot and correct, changing the target of one of them however will produce confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as they are I don't think making changes to either would be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong don't keep as they are T:X and Templeate:X should almost never lead to different locations. That would get way too confusing. T:X should lead to the same location as {{tl|X}}, much easier to remember shortcuts that way. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except all the evidence is that there is no confusion in practice. Thryduulf (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that, Thryd? -DePiep (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are no transclusions of T:MI, and none of the links to either page are intended for the other one based on the surrounding context. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the pseudo one. Say after me: T: is for Template space, so a page T:X is defined to be the same page as Template:X.
On a secondary level one could argue that changing the T:-redirect would solve it, but the current Redirection shows proves that there is absolutely no need for that pagename with corrected redirect. Also a mainspace rot. -DePiep (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the opposite. A user entering "T:MI" expects to end up at "Template:MI", and expects rightly so, because it is about Template space. And a user wanting to go to Template:MI may expect to be able to use T:MI.
Also, one cannot state there is no confusion because you don't know how many editors end up at the wrong MI page. -DePiep (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget and keep, respectively. These should certainly point at the same target, and doing vice versa may mess up AWB. --BDD (talk) 18:08, 26 December 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.

T:AD and Template:AD[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 26#T:AD and Template:AD

T:WPTECH and Template:WPTECH[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 and keep, respectively. No prejudice against an individual deletion nomination for the former. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be sorted out with these two redirects as they point to different locations which could be confusing. WOSlinker (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously primacy should be given to WikiProject Technology. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Pitorus is right; while "tech" may be locally identifying in the South Eastern United States, it certainly is not globally unique. Jclemens (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete T:WPTECH as cross namespace. Also per the others WikiProject Technology should take priority. 5.70.113.236 (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"T:" is a Pseudo-namespace (see the "major exception" of D6). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but deletion of T:WPTECH is the best option here. Considering there is confusion as they currently redirect to different places AND WikiProject Technology should take priority AND this one is cross-namepsace (even if it is one of the least harmful types of cross-namespace redirects), retargeting would not be sensible. I am not saying this should be deleted purely because it's cross-namespace, but it is a factor which should be taken into consideration. 5.70.112.192 (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
re EHC: the pseudo namespace T:X then should represent the same as page Template:X. -DePiep (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On a secondary level one could argue that changing the T:-redirect would solve it, but the current Redirection shows proves that there is absolutely no need for that pagename with corrected redirect. Also a mainspace rot. -DePiep (talk) 11:30, 23 December 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.

Badri (1999 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Points to dab page with no relevant entry. Created in page move2006.Orphan. PamD 09:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom LazyBastardGuy 22:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As G. K. Chesterton once said, don't tear down a fence until you know why it was built in the first place (paraphrasing). The 2000 film was originally created as the 1999 film redirect, then renamed to just Badri, then renamed to 2000 film. So, it's a redirect from page rename, meaning there are probably links on the web left over from when that was the title. And 1999 and 2000 are only one year apart, so there are many reasonable reasons to keep the redirect - maybe it was announced as 1999 but then delayed, maybe the 2001 film was announced for 1999 and the delayed, maybe there is quite a bit of confusion amongst moviegoers in the region as to when exactly it was released. Pointing to the disambiguation page is our reader's best bet for finding the article they are looking for. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, misleading redirect, it just creates confusion.Cavarrone 13:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Knowing why this came to be does not make it any more relevant for encyclopedic purposes. There is no Badri (1999 film). Having a link for one can only cause confusion and lead to misinformation. bd2412 T 13:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I notice there was a copy-and-paste job done from Badri to Badri (2000 film). TimBentley (talk) 00:07, 17 December 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.

Christopher (Fireman) Burke[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. WJBscribe (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Target is dab page with no relevant entry. Redirect created by COI editor in 2006, who edited several pages to mention non-notable musician. PamD 08:55, 15 December 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_December_15&oldid=1136083324"