Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 16, 2013.

John Matua[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 31#John Matua.

List of misconceptions about illegal drugs" \l "Man slices off his face and feeds it to dogs#Man slices off his face and feeds it to dogs[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) 18:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

implausible typo. I presented this as an example of a redirect we didn't need to create and next thing I know someone went and created it. The idea that this particular combination of words with this particular punctuation is a plausible search term is just silly. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even assuming that all three are links gone wrong and followed by humans (and not the more probable bot/script/counting problems), we shouldn't cater to every possible error on other sites. Can anyone check how many other variations are being hit with less than 1,000 but more than e.g. 100 hits per week? This may give an idea of whether these truly are human hits or not. Fram (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article to which it redirects gets about 3500 hits a week. I doubt that there would be 20k hits to a plausible redirect, unless it is a spambot. See the rest of the current redlinks list to see more such plausible spambot cases. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A purpler website posting that (malformed) link would explain that. That said there's something odd going on here. It appeared on this weeks TOPRED, yet the regular stats show it as not having any views over the past 90 days, and the target as not having anything near 10,000 views.
I don't know what to make of these contradictory stats, so I'm maintaining my keep vote. The potential harm of deleting this is massive numbers of people not getting to their intended article, whereas the potential harm of keeping this is insignificant. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible typo. We don't need to support all broken software there is out there that tries to crawl WP and pollute WP:TOPRED with junk entries. jni (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we don't need to support broken software that tries to crawl Wikipedia. It's real people trying to read Wikipedia that I'm worried about. The problem is how do we tell the difference between a broken crawler and a real person? Unless you can tell reliably tell the difference, you risk massive numbers of people not getting to their intended article by treating it as just a crawler. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and also delete WP:TOPRED if that makes people create redirects like this. We should not bend over backwards to provide band-aids over errors outside of Wikipedia. —Kusma (t·c) 21:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a redirect is hardly bending over backwards. Redirects are cheap, and creating a (and maintaining) a redirect is a trivial effort. It's about as far from bending over backwards as you can get. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Creating one redirect isn't a problem, creating thousands is. —Kusma (t·c) 18:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons outlined above. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:22, 19 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.

Wikipedia:Special:FewestRevisions[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 nomination. So I noticed that Special:FewestRevisions as pointed was actually updated and not blank like I had seen it earlier before, but there were still problems with that special page raised on the WT: page for it which I will inquire at VPT. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 11:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No longer relevant for our purposes. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Special:FewestRevisions and [[1]] for incoming traffic. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 17:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but not because of the nominator's reasons. Special:FewestRevisions is blank and can't be updated, so this redirect is useless. Perhaps it would be different if it were frequently linked or had a substantial history, but neither one of those is true. Nyttend (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Special:FewestRevisions is not blank for me and claims to have been updated at 21:08 today. The page exists as a soft redirect because it's talk page Wikipedia talk:Special:FewestRevisions is the designated place to discuss the special page (special pages do not have talk pages themselves). The talk page itself gets signifcant traffic [2]. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know why the list was empty and then got filled (it was definitely empty at 18:35), but it's not useless as I thought. I'd also totally forgotten how we use WT:space pages as substitutes for the lack of a Special talk:space. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 16 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.

Stevenson High School[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 Stevenson High School and retarget the rest to that page. WJBscribe (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There actually is a Stevenson High School in Stevenson, Washington, whose name has nothing to do with Adlai Stevenson, so these redirects makes little sense, cause confusion, and should be deleted. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate Stevenson High School to cover this Washington high school and any others that may coincidentally be so named, and retarget the rest to that page. bd2412 T 04:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per db2412, since deletion would resolve one problem without helping us reach the Washington school. Nyttend (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless and until someone writes an article on that high school. Once they have done so, have it at the base title and use a hatnote for schools named after Adlai. --BDD (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Orlady. Good find. --BDD (talk) 20:42, 18 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.

Karel Jonas House[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 procedural close as now out of scope since it has now been converted into an article. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect. The redirect, pointing to Charles Jonas (Wisconsin politician), apparently was created to fill in a slot in National Register of Historic Places listings in Racine County, Wisconsin. However, the linked article is about Charles (Karel) Jonas, not about his house. This is not a valid destination for the redirect. Orlady (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The first bullet (and its three sub-bullets) from WP:REDDEAL are relevant here, plus WP:R#DELETE #10 — the presence of this redirect obscures the fact that we have no article on the house. If Orlady's assessment is right, it was created to pad statistics instead of to improve our encyclopedia. The redlink tells readers that we don't have substantial content on the house, while the bluelink makes it sound as if we have an article on the subject. Nyttend (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons above Einbierbitte (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep. If the historic significance of an NRHP listing derives primarily or exclusively from its association with an individual person (NRHP criterion B), then it would be a perfectly legitimate editorial approach to treat the listing as a section within the article about the person rather than as a freestanding article. This seems to me to be the editor's logic behind creation of the redirect and the edits of 11/15/13 to the "Charles Jonas (Wisconsin politician)" article. If (a) that really was the editor's intent and (b) the house's significance really is based on criterion B only, then the better approach would be to improve and complete the discussion of the house in the person's article (very much needed) rather than to merely undo what the editor has already done (see WP:BEFORE). I've requested a copy of the nomination from the NPS to check up on what criteria were cited. — Ipoellet (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the editor's going around creating tons of pages for the purpose of making bluelinks in lists, despite warnings and reminders that adding unsourced material (including to the bio article) is not appropriate. If this were a good-faith editor adding this link, it would be different. Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I don't have a copy of the nomination form, this Wisconsin Historical Society listing indicates that the house also has architectural significance, so it would make sense to have a separate article on the house. Given that information, I concur with Nyttend's reasoning. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing nomination. Someone has converted the redirect to an article. This is a good thing! --Orlady (talk) 22:43, 20 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.

Dense[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) 12:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Density is a primary topic, a basic concept in physics. "Dense" is an adjective that describes the state of having density. It follows that Dense should redirect to Density, not to Density (disambiguation). bd2412 T 02:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose, while it might be clear in physics contexts, across all topics google hits that there is not a primary topic with a couple of mathematics applications appearing highly placed along with at least one musical artist and a typeface for which we don't have articles. Thryduulf (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I agree with Thyrduulf. Because "dense" has many different meanings, it is appropriate for this title to redirect to the disambiguation page. --Orlady (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Density also has many different meanings, but we have determined that it has a primary topic. bd2412 T 04:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Just because "density" has a primary topic does not mean that "dense" does any more than "mercury" not having a primary topic does. Thryduulf (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is not clear that the physics usage is the primary subject and FWIW this page was formerly an article [3] on the mathematics topics. The Whispering Wind (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. This is the usual treatment for adjectival forms. --BDD (talk) 18:24, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_16&oldid=1138578754"