Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 18, 2013.

List of Formula One constuctor records[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. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelt redirect. QueenCake (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, noting that the correctly spelled redirect (List of Formula One constructor records) already exists. DH85868993 (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom, clear typo. Tito☸Dutta 23:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - being misspelt or a typo is not a valid ground for deletion. The fact that this was created as a title shows that it is a plausible typo when someone is searching. The default is to keep redirects and we only delete if harmful, ie they meet a WP:RFD#DELETE criteria which this one does not. I have tagged the page {{R from misspelling}}. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible typo, no rationale has been presented to support deletion. WilyD 15:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:31, 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.

"A great necessity is laid upon you, if you will be honest with yourself, a great necessity to be good."[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) 18:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A long and unlikely search term JayJayWhat did I do? 00:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hm. We do have {{R from phrase}}, but this certainly does seem like an unlikely search term. I wonder if Wikiquote does this sort of thing. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that Know thy enemy does redirect to The Art of War, so it may be appropriate. However, I just can't see this long of a phrase ever being searched for. Delete. KonveyorBelt 18:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder why there are so many Cluebot III links to this one? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 07:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects are cheap. It's an unlikely search-term, but not altogether implausible. I see no harm in it. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not discussed at target as far as I can see. Siuenti (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Siuenti. While "a long and unlikely search term" is no reason to delete, "not discussed at target" is. As Siuenti is apparently correct, this redirect is purposeless at best, and potentially confusing at worst.Joefromrandb (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; search engine results show that a few people like to quote this passage. [1] [2] [3] Someone may encounter it without attribution [4], search Wikipedia to find out where it's taken from, and succeed because of this redirect. The redirect is the first result for a search for A great necessity is laid upon you. It's because the passage is not quoted in the target article that this redirect may be useful as an aid to searches. —rybec 10:06, 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.

Amyzon commune[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) 01:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It currently redirects to the wrong page, and since the genus in question - Amyzon (genus) - is not monotypic, I don't think redirecting to the genus article would be ideal either. Starting from the genus, the redirect would just take you back to the same page. In the lack of an article for the species, I think a redlink would be the best solution. That would also harmonize with the three other species listed. Soulkeeper (talk) 18:07, 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.

File:MerryChristmastoYou.jpg[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 27#File:MerryChristmastoYou.jpg

Private University of Science and Arts[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 proposal to revert the page move can be progressed at WP:RM and/or the article's talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The titles of these redirects are two ambiguous to say that this refers to specifically the one at Aleppo, as the title could refer to any science/art focused private universities in the world. Barring a complete article on this topic (or DAB but I'm not familiar with other topics enough either to make that), I propose to follow WP:Redlink's encouragement to create a topic should it be found in the future, rather than ambiguously point it to a narrower one. (Note that I did create the first redirect but it failed WP:CSD#R3.) TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 11:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. They may be ambiguous, but since this is the only university with that title about which we currently have an article, it makes sense to keep the redirect unless or until it needs to be turned into a disambiguation page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seems to be a disconnect here. We're both using the argument that the redirect needs to be a disambiguation page, and yet my conclusion is that WP:Redlink best serves that purpose and yours is that no other topic exists for this redirect. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the move should really be reverted for the same reasons. Though the name may seem "generic," I can't picture an article on the general idea of a Private university of science and arts, nor a good place to redirect such a term besides the only university with that actual name, at least based on our coverage. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. I think the name is so generic it does need a geographical name attached. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I googled the phrase and couldn't find any other institution by this name. How about you? It doesn't seem Wikipedia's place to critique organizations on the distinctiveness of their names. --BDD (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revert page move - there is no other institution with this name so there is nothing to disambiguate. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move back. Nothing to disambiguate and a generic article with this title seems very unlikely. Siuenti (talk) 11:18, 21 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.

James Burk[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 wrong forum. This has now been taken to Wikipedia:Requested moves#Technical requests. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Redirect (James Burk to James Burke) was created in 2010: at that point there were no articles on people called James Burk. In 2012 an article was created for someone actually called James Burk, who is at James Burk (sociologist). His article ought to be at "James Burk", with a hatnote pointing to the other spelling. The editor creating the 2012 article raised a question at Talk:James Burk but didn't get anywhere. Can we please sort it out now, by deleting this redirect so that the sociologist can be moved to his rightful article title? PamD 11:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. PamD 14:52, 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.

Namibia - India relations[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.] Magioladitis (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to have or create redirects with space since unspaced versions exist. For instance Namibia–India relations exists. I am in favour of creation of the unspaced versions but I am against the creation of every possible spacing version. Magioladitis (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - plausible search term, obviously sends the reader to what they're looking for. No argument has been advanced to support deletion. WilyD 08:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well we don't need to create redirects from every single spaced/unspaced version; just merely let whoever finds the redirects convenient create them themselves. The search terms are appropriately close enough to the target page that they could reasonably pop up in autocomplete. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created this redirect, so let me explain my rationale and prior actions - This is a project I have been working on from time to time for a while, intended to help users find bilateral relations articles more efficiently (I have gotten positive feedback on these efforts in the past). After bouncing it around for a while, it seemed most efficient to try to corral the several different iterations of how the article might be named (or mis-named) at once. So, with the help of Excel, I made a bunch of tables and put them on some user pages of mine, such as User:KConWiki/Bilateral relations redirects - India. Here is what the India / Namibia line looks like from that page:
Namibia‎ Namibia‎–India relations or India–Namibia‎ relations Namibia‎–India relations or India–Namibia‎ relations #redirect[[Namibia‎–India relations]] or #redirect[[India–Namibia‎ relations]] Namibia‎ - India relations Namibia‎-India relations Namibia‎ – India relations Namibia‎ India relations India–Namibia‎ relations India-Namibia‎ relations India - Namibia‎ relations India Namibia‎ relations India – Namibia‎ relations

Let me also include the statement that I put at the top of each of those pages:

The object of this project that I am working on is not to try to create a country A–country B article for every possible pair of countries in the world. It is rather to anticipate as many plausible searches as I can for existing bilateral relations article, and preemptively create redirects to the correctly titled article. I am starting with the U.S. and the U.K., and will move on to other countries in a semi-methodical manner as time allows. So, for instance, someone who searches using the phrase "Japan Italy relations" will be taken straight to Italy–Japan relations without first being taken to a list of search results.

So - That is a summary of what I am trying to accomplish. Are there certain combinations that are less likely to be searched for than others? Yes. Do I think that there is harm in creating redirects for those combinations? No. In total, I think that this will be of potential benefit for users, and my preference is to try to be as thorough as possible as I proceed. That being said, I am open to responses from the rest of the group. Please let me know if anyone would like to discuss further, and thanks to all of you for the important contributions you make to WP. KConWiki (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying you are trying to add very possible combination between countries. I just believe that we don't need 10 redirects for every pair of countries. I of course believe that we need a redirect B-A if A-B exists bit I don't think we need B - A, B -- A, B- A, B -A etc. Search on the top right corner only needs one to work just fine. Are these variations for people copy-pasting the search item? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:28, 22 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.

Dean Whitney[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) 23:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no sources that satisfy the GNG which don't violate WP:ROUTINE or WP:GEOSCOPE. Completely absurd as a search term for the 2004-04 Salmon Kings; he played only a single game for the team. Ravenswing 03:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - No WP:RFD#DELETE. The subject of the redirect is listed at the target page. The subject is not a likely candidate for a stand-alone article and, per WP:ONEEVENT, this is an appropriate redirect which is useful as it links the reader to the article where the person is mentioned. Dolovis (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, implausible search term. Nobody looking for "2004–05 Victoria Salmon Kings season" is going to use "Dean Whitney" as a search term. And, not withstanding the fact that redirects are cheap, redirects such as this are simply clutter. The only reason why anyone would ever click on it would be if they saw it on the season article, and as a result, they would be redirected to.... the season article. If, as the redirect's creator agrees, the player will never become notable, then the redirect should be deleted and the redlink removed from the article. Resolute 15:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Resolute. No one is going to be looking for that team's season by searching for Dean Whitney. If a player is never going to become notable then the link should be removed completely. -DJSasso (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a stretch. If all we can say about this person is that he played a game for this team in this season, readers are better off looking at a hockey reference site than Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 27 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.

Brandon Fagerheim[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) 12:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very non-notable sophomore player for relatively small-time college hockey program. Would fail dramatically as a standalone article, not coming remotely close to meeting the requirements of the GNG or WP:NHOCKEY, implausible search term for the collegiate program. Ravenswing 03:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - No WP:RFD#DELETE. The subject of the redirect is listed at the target page. The subject is not a likely candidate for a stand-alone article and, per WP:ONEEVENT, this is an appropriate redirect which is useful as it links the reader to the article where the person is mentioned. Dolovis (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, implausible search term. Nobody looking for "American International Yellow Jackets men's ice hockey" is going to use "Brandon Fagerheim" as a search term. Not to mention that the player only redirects to a roster sheet. The moment he leaves this team, his name will be removed and there will be no mention of the player at all. At that point, the redirect will become even more pointless clutter than it is now. Resolute 15:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No one looking for the team is going to use the name of this particular player. And as Resolute mentions once he leaves the team the page won't even mention him. -DJSasso (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Harmless enough for now, as long as he's mentioned on the target page. Once that changes, assuming he doesn't meet notability standards or have another team to retarget to, this will be safe to delete. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG and NHOCKEY, and name will be non-existent on article once he moves on. Hwy43 (talk) 08:54, 30 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_18&oldid=1142587463"