Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 16[edit]

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

Centoctgesimal[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) 16:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another courtesy nomination for pages too old for CSD#R3. Rossami (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Centaoctagesimal - another in this chain. Rossami (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search on "centoctgesimal" or "centaoctagesimal" bring up few hits, almost all from wikipedia pages and wiki-clones. The reference to base 85 number system is not notable, and has itself been redirected to ascii85 encoding scheme. These redirects are obsolete since redirecting their original non-notable target, and are not likely to be used. Bcharles (talk) 17:06, 19 July 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.

Greatest Hitter Who Ever Lived[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. A quick glance at Google search results suggest this honorific is common enough and specific to Williams. --BDD (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page was incorrectly tagged for speedy-deletion under CSD#R3. Having been created in 2007, it is far too old to qualify and must be debated here. Courtesy nomination. Rossami (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Normally, I would frown upon such "greatest" redirects, but "Greatest Hitter Who Ever Lived" is in its target's lead and has often been used for Williams, e.g. [1] and [2]. Googling for "The Greatest Hitter Who Ever Lived" -williams, the top three results are for Ted Williams. TimBentley (talk) 22:23, 16 July 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.

List of Wizards of Waverly Place spells[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 as redirect but delete history to comply with the AFD result. Ruslik_Zero 19:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A list of plot devices which are better described in the main article's episode guide; article has been speedied twice and AfD'ed once already as fan-created minutia. Re-created today by the same user who has avoided several indefs under different accounts and immediately rd'ed; asking for a salt if this is deleted. Nate • (chatter) 03:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Actually, it has been to AfD twice, once as List of Wizards of Waverly Place spells and once as "Spells of Wizards of Waverly Place". As an article it is completely redundant to the episode list articles that already contain every spell ever used in the 106 episode run. At the very least the redirect should be fully protected but I'd support salting. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the memory prop; I knew it had been to AfD another time but forgot it was under another title. Nate • (chatter) 09:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect. This is one of the secondary purposes of a redirect - to serve as an easily watchlistable placeholder to discourage the re-creation of deleted content. Not only does the redirect itself serve to alert new users that we don't want content at this title, it also gives you a Talk page where the prior discussions can be easily cross-referenced so that new users don't innocently make the same mistake. If (and only if) the redirect gets overwritten with deleted content, then protection can be added to the redirect page. In the meantime, the title is neither confusing nor harmful to readers and reasonably matches other "list of fiction" titles. A redirect from this title to the main page about the topic would be plausible even if there hadn't been previous content. Rossami (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's rather idealistic to believe that even if the redirect "serves to alert new users that we don't want content at this title" that they will take notice of it. Unfortunately, new editors rarely seem to get that message. Even blatantly in-your-face messages like notes that say "do not add content that you have copied from other websites" get deleted and replaced with content that they've copied from other websites. Only yesterday I had to make this edit for the gazillionth time. This is especially the case with topics that appeal to younger readers, like this one. As for the talk page notices, they get ignored too. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Our history shows that redirects are surprisingly effective in this regard. I don't know why they work when, as you note, the copyright warnings so often do not but somehow they do. And the page can be easily protected if/when it is abused. Protection of a page with some content even if just a redirect is generally preferable to salting a blank title because the protection messages are more intuitive for new readers. Rossami (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's funny, I haven't found that. Between May and September every year, articles for the next television season for numerous shows are created, redirected, recreated, redirected ... it's a never ending battle.[3] --AussieLegend (✉) 17:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the TV series articles are a subtly different problem. In the example above, we will never want an article with the level of detail of plot device lists. The deletion debate proves it. Redirects in that scenario tend to stick - at least in my experience. Our precedent on lists of episodes, however, shows that we do eventually want and accept those articles. The create/redirect/recreate cycle is a debate over timing. Your own edit comment in the NCIS example noted that it was "premature". It stems from the inherent ambiguity of WP:CRYSTAL. Rossami (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. If the subject has been repeatedly deleted and recreated, it should be salted, period. It's not even a likely search term. --BDD (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami. Contra BDD if someone is searching for these spells then this is a far from unlikley search term, and the content they are looking for is at the target. Even if it only serves a handfull of people that is still more than a salted page will ever serve so a redirect, protected if necessary, serves our readers best. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What Thryduulf said – plus salted titles are too easy to get around with subtle changes. Leave the redirect and protect if necessary. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 13:29, 30 July 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_July_16&oldid=1138578932"