Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 31, 2013

New articles[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 soft delete. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

deletion, because users trying to get to Wikipedia's new articles will be redirected to a disambiguation about articles Surfer43 (talk) 23:47, 31 May 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.

Free software development[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 Free software. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "open-source software development" article seems to be exactly not about free software or open-source software (in the "under an OSI-approved license" sense), it even avoids any mention of free software. AVRS (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article's lead section: "Open source software development is the process by which open source software (or similar software whose source code is publicly available) is often developed". Jarble (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the "often" was just added by me, here is the version before my edits. It didn't mention free software explicitly anywhere, only through the mention of source code and the navbox at the bottom. It does have "These are software products “available with its source code and under an open source license to study, change, and improve its design”" after it, but IMO the "publicly available" is too confusing to be clarified by that, it is as confusing as the name "freely (re)distributable software" sometimes used for free software in Russian Wikipedia. I think "publicly available" means availability to more than just the software user; and the article talks about more interaction between developers and users (see the History section, in which everything start with Eric S. Raymond's 1997 book). FSF/OSI's requirements do not include much interaction, software can be "FSF"-free or "OSI"-open-source without a "bazaar", and the article's subject might work just as well with noncommercial-only licenses. More closely related to the article seem to be Open source and Peer production. --AVRS (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just redirect "Free software development" to "Free software", but the latter does not really concern development process. --AVRS (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per AVRS. It won't be the greatest redirect, but Free software does contain discussion of the development process. It may make sense to create a #Development section there and refine the redirect to that section. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 10 June 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.

Berry blue[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 Berry Blue. I actually carried this out a few days ago and forgot to close the discussion. --BDD (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki redirect smileguy91talk 02:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Soft redirects to Wiktionary are acceptable; see Category:Redirects to Wiktionary pbp 03:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Berry Blue, make Berry Blue a disambiguation page covering the Jell-O, Pebbles cereal, etc., topics covered on WP per MOS:DABMENTION. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But none of those things are actual articles on berry blue; none of them describe Berry Blue in any sort of detail beyond "List of flavors: Berry Blue and a bunch of others". The wiktionary page is the only one that gives an explanation of the topic. Furthermore; I can find no other instance where a flavor redirects to all the brands that manufacture a product flavored with it pbp 13:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See MOS:DABMENTION for why that's not an issue. If the mentions of "Berry Blue" are not encyclopedic, they can be removed from the linked articles. If the lists remain on the linked articles, the ambiguous phrase can (and should) be disambiguated. Yes, we have many redirects from list mentions to the article with the list; no idea if any of them are "flavor lists", but it would be OK if this were the first. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I've fixed the wrong softredirect template on Berry Blue (wiktionary has a specialized template), and added a sample disambiguation page after it. I don't see why we would have two redirects to wiktionary, that PBP restored by undoing my hardredirect to the page under discussion, instead of redirecting one title to the other title. There should only be one soft redirect page, other spellings/forms should hard redirect to the soft redirect, we shouldn't end up having a soft redirect at every spelling variant. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, you shouldn't have made the edits you did. You essentially BOLDly did the things we're discussing whether should be done or not in this RfD. You should have waited to do them until after the RfD is decided. I remain strongly opposed to the disambiguation page; because it offers no information. If an article entitled List of products flavored Berry Blue was created, it'd be deleted quite quickly. I don't see why this gets a pass because it's a disambiguation. The only page in WikiMedia with any kind of information at all on what berry blue is is wikt:berry blue, and as such all other pages anywhere on WikiMedia should redirect to it pbp 14:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Duplicate, there were two softredirects to wiktionary for the same topic, with only capitalization variation. The recommended action is to merge the two pages together. Since "blue berry" is the version under redirect discussion, because it is a softredirect to wiktionary, and both are softredirects to wiktionary, I don't see how hardredirecting the "Blue Berry" page is a problem. That page was not under deletion discussion, but it was a duplication. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a list article might be deleted where a disambiguation non-article navigational page would not. You got the difference right there: it doesn't get a pass, but "just because it's a disambiguation" means that it's evaluated as a navigational page, not a list article. The articles mentioning "Berry Blue" on Wikipedia do indeed provide information on what Berry Blue may refer to. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with JHJ about retargeting with disambiguation page at Berry Blue, which should also mention Barry Blue in see also. older ≠ wiser 12:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See above as to why that's a bad move pbp 13:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing above that indicates that's a bad move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See my additional comments above. If the type of thing you, Konrad and 64 advocate was a list and not a disamb, it'd almost certainly be deleted pbp 14:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The proper Wiktionary Softredirect template is called {{Wiktionary redirect}} it does not change the matter of the redirect under discussion, since it is still a soft redirect, still points to the same location, and still falls under RfD, there is no material change in the primary usage of the page with a change in the template from the general {{soft redirect}} to the more specific {{Wiktionary redirect}}. The nominator's rationale is that it's a wiktionary redirect, the template change still results in a wiktionary redirect. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Good thing it's a disamb and not a list then. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Various responses. 1) I agree IP 126 and others should hold on before being BOLD with a discussion that has only just begun. 2) I don't agree with PBP that having a disambiguation is a bad thing. The entries satisfy MOS:DABMENTION, so I don't see the problem. older ≠ wiser 15:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Berry Blue per JHunterJ. bd2412 T 15:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hurricane Ramon[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 speedy delete to allow replacement by an article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need to delete the page so I can move my completed sandbox to this namespace. iPhoneHurricane95 01:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. Go for it. --Golbez (talk) 02:33, 31 May 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.

Calle Ridderwall[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 converted to an article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete this redirect, Calle should have his own article Xgeorg (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expand into article - Ridderwall meets one or more of the criteria listed at WP:NHOCKEY, so I have expanded the redirect into an article making this discussion moot. Dolovis (talk) 19:34, 31 May 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_May_31&oldid=1138579110"