Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 2, 2013.

WP:SINBAD[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) 06:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-intuitive and seems to be unused. Not used in last 90 days according to this counter. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional information: Even though it looks like a WP:SHORTCUT it does not seem to be used as such. There are no incoming wikilinks, and I can't find any use of the terms "Wikipedia:Sinbad" or "WP:SINBAD" in the English Wikipedia, not counting usages associated with this deletion proposal. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if there is a point to this redirect then it's lost on me! The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not understand the shortcut, and I cannot find any information on its target page that explains the shortcut. Steel1943 (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vague, unless someone can explain what it means then it's better to remove it.--Lenticel (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The reference is to a very sophisticated hoax perpetrated against the comedian Sinbad on Wikipedia many years ago [1]. The incident is worth remembering, but if the shortcut isn't actually being used it's likely to cause confusion if and when it actually is used, and shortcut bloat is worth fighting. There are plenty of other usable redirects to this commonly cited policy. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, you mean the hoax discussed at Talk:Sinbad (comedian)/Death hoax (which I moved from its old home of Talk:Sinbad/Death hoax and which I put a {{talkarchive}} header on)? OK, now it makes sense WHY this was created, but I still say delete. Or change the redirect to this very discussion (j/k!). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, this information explains why WP:SINBAD was created years ago. At this point, the shortcut does not hold as much importance as it had previously, so I still say delete. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Retarget to the archive page → Talk:Sinbad (comedian)/Death hoax. Harmless, and no telling how many backlinks there are out there on the vast Internet. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "WP:" shortcuts into article- or article-talk space are generally discouraged and done only with a very good reason. As much as this seems like a good idea, it doesn't rise to the level of "a very good reason." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:09, 4 November 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.

Climate of Nagorno-Karabakh[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) 06:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Target is not about Nagorno-Karabakh specifically, this should be a red-link if there is no appropriate target. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now - The closest target would be Nagorno-Karabakh#Geography but it should be expanded first before it can accommodate the redirect. --Lenticel (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am with Lenticel on this one. For the redirect we need something specific at Nagorno-Karabakh about the climate. Since we presently have nothing we should fess up and delete the redirect. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:05, 2 November 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.

Dark pastel green[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 Shades of green#Dark pastel green. --BDD (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

  • Minor variation of a color, not notable enough for an article by itself.
  • We normally do not create separate (redirect) articles for such colors.
  • Already represented at Shades of green#Dark pastel green with all the info ever likely to exist.
  • No existing inlinks.

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change redirect to Shades of green#Dark pastel green - I agree that this is a minor variation of a color that is not notable enough for a standalone article. That though, is not a reason to delete a redirect, many titles that are not notable enough for a standalone article are redirected to articles. There are a many shades of green that are redirects and none of them are notable enough for their own article. It doesn't get a lot of traffic but over the last 90 days it access on the average over twice every day. GB fan 01:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Shades of green#Dark pastel green producing a useful redirect. This is a former article that had been redirected so there is useful history. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Shades of green#Dark pastel green since the nom said that it is briefly mentioned there so a redirect to that article would be okay--Lenticel (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Shades of green#Dark pastel green. If it's really true that "We normally do not create separate (redirect) articles for such colors", then we ought to start doing it. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm auditing the entire List of Colors. It is, indeed, unusual to have such redirect articles for minor variations of colors with no other information. If there's a consensus to create them, fine, let's do it for all ~1100 of them. I'm not sure what purpose they serve, though, since one should link to the target, not the redirect, from other articles, right? As far as hits, I'd be surprised if those are real (not from bots). I probably account for a dozen or two, total. It has no inlinks, so I'd be surprised if it gets any real human hits. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose would be to make it systematically possible to find Wikipedia's information on named colors starting with nothing more than the name of the color (and not, for example, starting with a detailed working knowledge of Wikipedia). 168.12.253.66 (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all redirect are not articles ("redirect article" is an oxymoron). This may seem like a minor distinction, but redirects and articles serve different purposes, and the criteria for having a redirect is very different then the criteria for having an article (e.g. notability mostly doesn't apply to redirects).
Secondly, the purpose of a redirect is not merely, or even primarily to aid in internal WP links (tough that is a secondary purpose). The primary purpose of redirects is to direct readers who look up to the article or section they're are looking for. The lack of color variation redirects is probably only because of Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF (they simply haven't been created yet), rather then conciseness against them; unless there's something I'm missing here color variation redirects should all be valid redirects to sections, and we have long-standing concession to create redirects to sections. A reader who wants to go to our section on Dark pastel green should not need to jump through hoops (espaly ones that might require detailed working knowledge of Wikipedia's color articles), he should be able to simply look up "Dark pastel green".
Lastly, it's a common misconception that one should link directly to the target, but it's the other way around. Per WP:NOTBROKEN it is usually better to link to the redirect rather then the target directly. Imagine all the links that would need to be fixed if we reorganized the color lists turned some of the colors into articles. There are many broken direct-to-target links on WP, usually because a section has been either renamed without the use of {{anchor}}, moved to another article, or has become it's own article. Better just to link to the redirects themselves, easer to fix handful of redirects then hundreds or thousands of direct links. Links to redirects are not broken and should not be "fixed". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:51, 5 November 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_November_2&oldid=1138579145"