Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 11, 2013

File:Ministry of Justice (United Kingdom) (logo).png[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. Wizardman 02:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Created by rename of file. Cloudbound (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep no reason to break 16 months worth of old revisions, break any links or transclusions from outside Wikipedia or obscure the attribution trail. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure how the attribution trail would be oscured when it is all within the history of the renamed file. Cloudbound (talk) 14:46, 12 February 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.

Connor Kenway[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 nominator has effectively changed their recommendation to keep, in comments here and actions taken on the article. GB fan 23:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted mainly on the grounds that it is inaccurately named, and it's existence as a redirect serves no purpose other than to propagate a falsehood (i.e. the character's surname is 'Kenway'). In the latest game, Assassin's Creed III we play a character named Ratonhnhaké:ton, later dubbed as 'Connor'. The two names are never seen together in any officially published media (the source of the error comes from early GameInformer promotional material). All and any mentions of 'Connor Kenway' have been removed from all articles on Wikipedia, so the target article does not contain the name as indicated by the redirect. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I would also like to quote the above reason given for possible deletion: '"The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted."

  • Keep It may be misleading, but not in the sense of the example you've quoted. You're arguing that there is no Connor Kenway, but that some people inaccurately refer to a character as such ("connor kenway" -wikipedia confirms the latter). Thus some people may type in "Connor Kenway" looking for this character, and thus the redirect is useful and should be kept. The redirect may be tagged with {{R from incorrect name}}, however. Browse what links to that template and you'll find hundreds of incorrect names that are still useful as redirects. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per BDD. A redirect isn't an article, and nowhere on Wikipedia is it claimed that is the correct usage of the name. If the incorrect name was used in a major source, then it's concievable that someone would type that in looking to get to the correct name. I don't know that there's any other Connor Kenway that the redirect could be better serving, so this seems to be doing more good than harm. InShaneee (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reference to 'Connor kenway' on Wikipedia because I went through and deleted every mention of the name. That said, I was unaware of the existence of {{R from incorrect name}}, so perhaps we can use that instead. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD and InShanee. Also, if this name was used by a major source, then there probably should be a reference to that on Wikipedia. The fact that you had to remove mentions of the name from Wikipedia is evidence that the name, despite being incorrect, is used and is therefore a likely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 12 February 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.

Wp ani[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. Wizardman 23:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any need for this cross-namespace redirect? It has 0 links, is a fairly implausible search term (btw, how cute is WP:ANNIE as a redirect?), and the user who created it got himself a CIR indefblock just two weeks later. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 01:47, 11 February 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.

Fursuitism[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. Wizardman 02:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted because it inaccurately suggests (as did the target article) that the term has general currency. In fact, it has merely been proposed in one paper ("an erotic interest in doing so could appropriately be called fursuitism"), and does not appear to have been used since in published work. It falls under WP:NEO and is unlikely to be useful. The creator of the redirect also created the target article, and added references to the term in furry fandom and fursuit with the same implication of general usage. GreenReaper (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. This gets well over 1000 hits each month, sometimes over 2000. The existence of a redirect does not imply anything about the legitimacy of the term (see WP:RNEUTRAL) - that is entirely a job for the article. Deletion would both be disruptive for a very large number of users while bringing no benefits and potentially leading to a duplicate, possibly non-neutral. article (which we obviously do not want). Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I imagine it gets hits because it was added to the articles concerned as a link, as mentioned above. The term had no hits until then. GreenReaper (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't matter why it's getting hits (as it's impossible to know), just that it is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK then. Let me just change the remaining link on fursuit, and we'll see how impossible it is. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You will still need to wait until at two months at the absolute minimum after this discussion is closed before reliable page view statistics will be available. Even then there will still be traffic from mirrors, bookmarks, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. I'm not sure what kind of "hits" Thryduulf is referring to, but if he's talking about Google search hits, then the obvious reply is that most of those hits are Wikipedia mirrors. A proper Google search excluding the terms Wikipedia and wiki gets me 330 results, and even then the first page still has copies of Wikipedia articles. So, yeah. If anything, this proves that we have helped creating and spreading a new term, which is precisely what we should not do. --Conti|✉ 11:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The hits I'm referring to are the page view statistics accessible by using the "stats" link above. Whether it is a neologism or not, and what google hits it does or does not get, are irrelevant to the fact that people use it and would be inconvenienced for no benefit (and possible harm to the encyclopaedia) by its deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that it is a neologism and we are the only ones in the web(!) spreading it does matter. Because we're not supposed to do that. Ever. --Conti|✉ 11:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, the hits started the day the redirect was created, which is also the day its creator added it to a new article, along with other neogolisms. They are the result of clicking internal links. The presence of the redirect inappropriately validates the use of the term. GreenReaper (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) Regardless of whether we should or should not include the term in the article is irrelevant to whether we have a redirect or not. We keep redirects that are useful search terms, regardless of why they are useful. Redirects used by real people are by definition useful. Redirects do not "validate" the term, they are merely ways people access content. Whether it was created properly or improperly is irrelevant. All that matters is that the redirect as it exists currently is used. If the internal links are removed and all traffic dissappears then nominate it for deletion then, but that cannot be known until a couple of months at least after this discussion is closed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nope, WP:NEO still matters. Though, personally, I'm fine with removing the links and seeing what happens, as it's pretty obvious that it's the links that cause the traffic. --Conti|✉ 12:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. The only deletion criterion I can see applying here is #8, and even that isn't a very good fit. Lots of people are using this redirect and it leads them to an article where this term is covered and explained, which sounds pretty useful to me. If the hit rate does slow down to a trickle now the links have been removed we can reconsider its usefulness. Sideways713 (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Thryduulf's arguments are persuasive. this looks like my brothers in fur want to hide the more exciting aspects of our fandom. besides, the term is used, but there aren't lots of references in reliable sources. mostly blogs etc. but it is a real term, and the target is correct. Xerofox (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above user is a troll-account and pretty much only exists to revert me and others and have opposing views on whatever I do. It's kinda fun, really. --Conti|✉ 18:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
wow rude. as long as we are making personal attacks, i suggest that Conti is trying to polish the image of our fandom by censoring sexually oriented images from furry fandom. so there. :P Xerofox (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as creator of the redirect). My main thoughts on this have mostly been made by others here already. "Fursuitism" is indeed the most common term used by social scientists, but only few researchers are working on the topic at all, so the term only rarely appears in high-end outlets (i.e., peer reviewed articles, books from major academic publishing houses, etc.). FWIW, it is also my impression that many folks in the community (and other alternative communities) want to downplay or bowdlerize the sexual aspects for keeping it respectable. — James Cantor (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • ..while others want to sensationalize it, yes. My problem with the term is that it is not a "common term", it is, as far as I can tell, a term suggested in passing in one paper, and that's it. If you have any more sources that use this term, that would definitely help. We are basically legitimizing a newly created word, which is the very definition of what we, as an encyclopedia, should not do. --Conti|✉ 23:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there a precedent about NEO applying to redirects? The policy (as written) refers repeatedly to articles.— James Cantor (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure. Personally, I don't see a difference between a redirect and an article in this case, however. It might not be written explicitly into the policy, but the spirit of the policy is quite clear on what is and what is not okay. And given that the majority of the Google results for this term lead to Wikipedia mirrors, we are very clearly violating the policy here. --Conti|✉ 00:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't quite see it that way. A redirect is away from a term toward a more established term, which is exactly what should happen. I am having trouble imagining how people looking for one term and getting sent by WP to another term somehow validates the first term. If anything it would seem to do the opposite. Am I missing something?— James Cantor (talk) 00:22, 15 February 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_February_11&oldid=1086346657"