Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 17, 2013.

Suzanne Donovan[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) 16:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survivors of aircraft accidents are not normally notable or worthy of a mention in the article so dont need a redirect to accident or in some cases airline articles. Loads more in Category:Survivors of aviation accidents or incidents but here is the first batch of mainly A and B for discussion. Note these a Survivors not victims MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reluctant and weak keep. Wikipedia is not a memorial and neither survivors nor victims deserve an encyclopedia article merely because they were passengers in a tragedy. Unfortunately, a great many people create non-notable stubs after every tragedy and the general consensus answer has been to redirect those pages rather than drag the family & friends through AfD debates. Having said that, the redirects nominated above were all created as redirects. Being generous, I will assume that the author was attempting to preempt the stubs rather than to killing them after. I will not lose any sleep if this set are deleted and noting that this particular tragedy is now several years old now I think the pages are unlikely to become problems. But I am reluctant to make a hard rule or even a precedent against using redirects as a block against the unwanted memorials. Rossami (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not mentioned at target, namespace pollution. Siuenti (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - None of these people are even mentioned at the target articles. The closest to a mention is Sharon Angleman where a link to her website is in the external links section. -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 18 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.

:File:1910 Garment Workers' Strike.jpg[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, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete misleading redirect, strike was in 1913, not 1910 -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:36, 17 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.

Murder of Reginald Denny[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. JohnCD (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reginald Denny was assaulted, and some assailants were charged with attempted murder (others with assault, etc.). However, there are no sources indicating he was murdered, or even that he is dead. Thus, the redirect "might cause confusion". Superm401 - Talk 05:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep valid search term -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting case. By definition, most redirects are "wrong". Their primary purpose is to quickly point the reader to the right page where they will learn the truth. If some people thought he was murdered, then a redirect showing them that he was not would be entirely appropriate. In this case, however, Google returns lots of hits for "Reginald Denny" in proximity to "murder" but even a cursory review of the snippets shows no evidence that any significant group believes he was murdered. The redirect was the result of a pagemove from "Attack on..." to "Murder of...", a move that was immediately reversed. The user who moved the page has a questionable history and my ability to assume good faith in this case is a bit strained. On balance, delete. Rossami (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment On the day after Damian Williams was acquitted of the attempted murder of Reginald Denny[1] ; acquitted Damian Williams of the most serious charges arising out of his near-murder of Reginald Denny [2] ; or any of the other very many hits for this result [3] -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What? He's not even dead. --BDD (talk) 22:50, 24 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.

Democratic Party (Philippines)[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 "Democratic Parties" in Philippine history. The current one is called the "Democratic Party of the Philippines" or DPP. The historical one is simply called as the "Democratic Party" or DP, and there is no article for it so it should remain as a redlink. It's factually wrong to for the historical party to redirect to the modern one.

Note that the modern party was page moved to "Democratic Party (Philippines)" which was factually wrong and was reverted, that led to this mess. –HTD 04:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to disambiguation page -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The anon is correct. Be bold and overwrite the redirect with disambiguation content. There is no need to delete the pagehistory before fixing the page. Rossami (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • While this is a good idea, the modern Democratic Party of the Philippines is almost not referred to as the "Democratic Party". It is always called by its full name ("Democratic Party of the Philippines") or its acronym "DPP" (notice not "DP"). That means historical Democratic Party can use "Democratic Party (Philippines)" without that much confusion. Problem is there's no article for the historical party... –HTD 06:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make a stub is the only way of dealing with this situation. Disambiguation won't work, since the older party doesn't seem to have an article, resulting in a disambig page with only one article linked. If you delete the redirect, it is highly likely to be re-created by an unknowing editor. So, create a short stub at the title, and put {{confused}} links at the top of both pages. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify per Ego White Tray. The redirect should yield to a description of the party that actually has this name. This should be done boldly. Until then, it's a likely search term for the target article and should be kept. --BDD (talk) 22:49, 24 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.

Wikipedia:YOGURTRULE[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 without prejudice to creating either WP:YOGURT or WP:YOGHURT. Ruslik_Zero 19:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such "RULE". This "shortcut" is not "short" and its few instances are clearly only serving as a slogan to prominently stand out in running text. For more information, see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt_Rule. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and now that the target article Yogurt Reminder has been userfied,[4] that's even more reason not to have an official-looking WP link to it. --MelanieN (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading. There never is or was a "Yogurt Rule" except in the mind of the essay writer. Now the target has been renamed this shortcut misrepresents the content. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As noted, the fact that the essay has been both renamed and userfied makes deletion of this redirect particularly appropriate. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since the rules are principles I don't see any problem with "rule" redirecting to "principle". "It's not short enough" also doesn't strike me as a great argument; there are plenty of longer shortcuts. There are also plenty of "WP:" shortcuts to userspace essays. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existing redirect, Wikipedia:Yogurt Reminder -> User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle (arguably justifiable, I'm neutral on it) is more than sufficient, there is no need for Wikipedia:YOGURTRULE. "Rules are principles" is a great essay, but its meaning is that rules should be titled as "principles", not that principles should be titled "rules". Asserting (deliberately or not) ideas etc to be "rules" is a bad thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point, which I think is supported by the essay, is that there's not a concrete distinction between "rules" and "principles". If this were "yogurt policy" or "yogurt guideline" that'd be different, since those words have concrete meanings on the English Wikipedia. "Rule", however, is ambiguous: it could refer to a policy or guideline, or a rule followed by an individual editor, or something like WP:1RR to be imposed in certain circumstances, or (the closest thing to this case) a proposed policy or guideline. I don't disagree that there's some potential for confusion (e.g. a reader mistaking this for a policy or guideline), but I think that given the other possible meanings, the fact this is in userspace, the actual title, and the {{essay}} at the top, that possibility is lessened; and deleting this would do no significant good. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that blue linking YOGURTRULE, instead of using a correct link, if done, is very likely to have been done to overstate the linked page, and deletion is important to ensure that it doesn't happen again. On the other side, there is no reason to have this shortcut, it has zero proper uses. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're pre-emptively failing to assume good faith, but even if an editor were to use this redirect for that purpose I think the things I listed above (the ambiguity of "rule", userspace, the title's use of "reminder" and {{essay}}) would minimise the risk of any reader being taken in by it. I don't think we need to delete a potentially-useful redirect to prevent a misuse that, if it were to occur, would be incredibly ineffective. (I agree that there are few "proper uses" as far as linking to this, but I don't think there's anything improper about a reader searching for an essay using a title they're familiar with.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Deletion is important to ensure that it doesn't happen again" (User:SmokeyJoe). I think that is a wobbly leg to stand on. It assumes you know what should or should not be included in Wikipedia. I took this line on RfD a few months ago, by taking a redirect to article space, therefore outside of RfD's remit, and then speedily deleting it as the only contributor to the article (it being, before, simply a redirect with no other content.) I mentioned here, and on the article pages, and at AfD, that "a lot of other articles could go that way", but on the whole my experiment — I maintain, wholly within the "principles" or "rules" of AfD, RfD, CSD and whatnot, were voted down and someone silly suggested I be banned from WP for taking such a cunning tactic.
The best way to change a stupid law is not to ignore it but to enforce it. I think WP:YOGHURT is doing, as I did, bringing something in the way of a test case, and it deserves to be doomed, but it was well done to try it. And I really think you should AGF for that. Si Trew (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be advocating violation of WP:POINT? It is already history that this shortcut hindered productive discussion, there is no need to assume, it was a bad idea. It's author meant well, but the titling was a mistake. Other titles and shortcuts are now in play. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very funny title – and who knows? It might just return to project space! (as a humorous essay) – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 12:15, 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.

Wikipedia:YR[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 to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#years (where WP:YEAR redirects). --BDD (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The very short shortcut for a young contentious essay is inappropriate because very short shortcuts can be taken as implied acceptance of frequent use. For more information, see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt_Rule. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would be more useful and logical as a redirect to Wikipedia:YEAR. Jonathunder (talk) 03:06, 17 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.

2012-13[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. I considered the retarget proposal, but it could just as easily target 2012 in sports. As an unlikely and very vague search term, away it goes. --BDD (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous redirect (2012-13 could refer to anything that happened in those years) left over from a page move of article created at the wrong title. Original target of move is unrelated to current target of redirect. Koumz (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete or diambiguate this is extreme bias. The entire world is not composed of UEFA Champions League -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 2013 in sports since the leading uses of "2012-13" seem to be various sports seasons, most of which have at least some coverage on that page. I wouldn't oppose deletion, though. Sideways713 (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far too broad to redirect to any one target. And especially terrible as it is. oknazevad (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kill it with fire. This is a totally illogical target and an unlikely search phrase, for which no target seems appropriate. BTW it's not true that most uses of "2012-13" involve sports; other common examples include academic years, sessions of legislatures, and governmental fiscal years. --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 22 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.

2013-14[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. I considered the retarget proposal, but it could just as easily target 2013 in sports. As an unlikely and very vague search term, away it goes. --BDD (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous redirect (2013-14 could refer to anything that happened in those years) left over from a page move of article created at the wrong title. Original target of move is unrelated to current target of redirect. Koumz (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete or diambiguate this is extreme bias. The entire world is not composed of UEFA Champions League -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 2014 in sports per my argument at 2012-13. Just as in that case, I wouldn't oppose simply deleting this; since people are using this my first instinct is to keep something here, but the current target won't do. Sideways713 (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far too broad to redirect to any one target. And especially terrible as it is. oknazevad (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. This is a totally illogical target and an unlikely search phrase, for which no target seems appropriate. BTW it's not true that most uses of "2013-14" involve sports; other common examples include academic years, sessions of legislatures, and governmental fiscal years. --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RE people are using this: Until this listing the redirect was getting fewer than 10 hits per day, and heaven only knows what those viewers were looking for. --MelanieN (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you type "2013-14" into the search box the top 10 suggestions are all sports-related (with "2012-13" the same is true for 9 of the top 10); obviously there are many possible non-sports uses, but I think that still tells us something. And five or so hits per day is plenty; many perfectly legitimate redirects - or even articles - get far less than that. Like I said, though, I'm OK with deletion (or dabifying). Sideways713 (talk) 19:05, 22 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_17&oldid=1079936848"