Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 28, 2014.

Google Australia[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. Number 57 10:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of topic in target page TheChampionMan1234 06:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, entirely unnecessary. I live in Hungary and get a combination of google.hu, google.co.uk, and google.com, as it tries to work out what I am up to: but I still get the same search results after a bit. There is no need for this. Si Trew (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep this gets at least 300 hits every month, deleting this will therefore hinder massive numbers of people for no benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. The only thing the target page says about Australia is that Google has scanned Australian books. Thryduulf, those ~300 people are probably looking for information on Google's operations in Australia. Do you think we're serving them properly? --BDD (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. BDD, we don't know what all these people look for, but WP:REDLINK only applies when redirect may be plausibly turned into article, which, as you demonstrated, is not the case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the existence of these additional redirects towards Google:
...Since none of the aforementioned redirects are articles, it is doubtful that they ever will be articles: the same seems to be true for Google Australia. For that reason, I do not believe WP:REDLINK applies to this case. Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really need to write this up as an essay, but this is what I call a condescending redirect. It is likely—I would say very likely— that a reader searching for "Google Australia" knows what Google is. We can be reasonably certain he or she wants to know about what Google does in Australia. Given that we have (next to) nothing to say about that topic, are we really satisfying their needs? If they just wanted to know about Google generally, they wouldn't use a more specific search term. --BDD (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: If that essay gets created, or if you find a consensus-supported guideline stating this, let me know: my "keep" vote is based solely on the fact that similar redirects exist (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but would be happy to change my stance based on a different consensus-driven decision/precedent (and also nominate the other redirects I mentioned ... for deletion). Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (next to) no information about this topic. Deleting the redirect will save people wasting their time looking for it. Siuenti (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BDD, I would call redirects like this deceptive redirects rather than condescending. (WP:DECEPTIVE is free....) The argument that deleting this will "hinder massive numbers of people" completely fails to consider that a redirect that does not deliver on the promise of its name is, in fact, a hindrance. I would much rather see a message saying "no such article" than be deceived by the false promise of a search result leading to an article that tells me nothing at all about what I was expecting to see. — Scott • talk 20:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Deceptive" is a good way of putting it too. I just imagine these redirects like reference interviews:
Reader: Excuse me, do you have any information on Google Australia?
Wikipedia: Yes, of course. Here's information on Google.
Reader: Yeah, but all this says about Australia is that Google scanned books there. What else does Google do in Australia?
Wikipedia: [No response.]
Reader: Um, I mean... thanks.
If we're coming up with a typology of problematic redirects, I'd think there are deceptive redirects which aren't necessarily condescending, so perhaps condescending redirects could be thought of as a subset. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: This imaginary dialog goes against the usage of this redirect: Terence Tao, List of Google hoaxes and easter eggs, Eureka Prizes, Yodel Australia and Androidland. Given that view count of these pages is orders of magnitude higher then of this redirect, I would not count on noticable amount of inbound traffic off-site. So far you are trying to underserve real users to provide questionable benefit to imaginary reader. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've unlinked these articles to gather off-site stats. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then that content should be covered at the target page, or expanded into its own. It's beside the point of whether the redirect is functional now. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: These 5 pages basicly say that Google did something via its Australian office (training of personnel, financing, fake holiday announcement). They point at Google without misleading anyone. Also note: Google is frequently viewed and frequently edited article; any potential encyclopedic content about Australian office of Google is more likely to land at Google rather at (rather obscure) Google Australia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete per BDD. The aforementioned point above about how this redirect is misleading is rather sound and has more encyclopedic value than keeping several misleading redirects. I'd honestly add the additional redirects I mentioned to this RFD, as well as Google Pakistan and Google pakistan, but I'll leave that for another RFD. Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it is misleading, which is perhaps WP:RFD#DELETE #2, but perhaps I am interpreting that a little too broadly. Isn't it also covered by WP:RFD#DELETE #10?
Incidentally, I was thinking yesterday when walking home it would be nice if the search engine would allow one to exclude certain pages (or terms), in particular so that one could exclude a particular redirect so as to see what would come up if it didn't exist. Someone will probably tell me that facility already exists. Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2014 (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.

Auburn Middle School (Disambiguation)[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. Number 57 10:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for speedy, declined as plausible. With a small 'd' in disambiguation it would at least look like a normal redirect, but capital D doesn't fit naming conventions. It is also not useful - the dab is at Auburn Middle School and no need for WP:INTDABLINK, which would use a small d anyway. Boleyn (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for purely technical reasons. Per the nominator's rationale ... yes, this redirect really should have qualified for CSD G6. Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Solely for technical reasons; now that we have the proper DAB up, this is duplicative. Nate • (chatter) 23:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry, I'm unwilling to delete just about any redirect that only differs in capitalization from a legitimate title or redirect. I know it requires some of that RfD doublethink, but while this redirect shouldn't've been created, now that it has, it shouldn't be deleted either. --BDD (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Small d or big D, it doesn't meet WP:INTDABLINK, so wouldn't be a legitimate redirect that only differs in capitalisation. Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Boleyn, pardon the very delayed response, but you're assuming "legitimate redirect" means one that would be used (properly) in a wikilink. Many redirects are kept which would not fall under that category. When I say this redirect is legitimate, I mostly mean that it is not misleading or confusing. Any reader using this search term (especially with a case-sensitive method such as a direct URL) will go exactly where he or she intends. Generally, redirects need to be problematic or harmful to be deleted. I just don't see how that's the case here. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what? Theres only one auburn middle school. Makes no sense to have it Nedgreiner (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Auburn Middle School and Auburn Middle School (Disambiguation). Please see my updated rationale in response to BDD's request for clarification. The former is a bad page that does not adhere to the disambiguation policy and the latter is redirect to a page that must not exist. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Codename Lisa, if you want to delete the dab (which is valid and entries meet MOS:DABMENTION), AfD would be the venue, as your prod was declined due to MOS:DABMENTION (which I assume, from your above comments, you didn't read). Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, Boleyn. If you compare the date and time on my comment above with the date and time of my PROD, you can see for yourself that your "which I assume" statement is wrong. Oh, and by the way, you and I both know that compliance with DABMENTION is required but is not enough. If not that, you and I both know that starting an AfD in this stage on my part is akin to requesting my username to be changed to Codename Pain in the Stomach. I am afraid I am disinclined to acquiesce. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep harmless and plausible redirect to a disambiguation page. No valid reason to delete the redirect has been presented. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I relist this with some hestitation, as an involved editor currently in the minority. Still, if another admin thought there was consensus, it probably would've been closed by now, and of course relisting doesn't mean it has to go another week before closing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Codename Lisa, could you clarify your position? You said the redirect should be deleted because the target page shouldn't exist. If the target article were deleted, the redirect would automatically be deleted as a G8. As long as we do have the target page, do you still think the redirect should be deleted? Or should your vote be seen as conditional? --BDD (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for asking. Taken alone, the nominator's nomination is valid. This redirect is akin to creating a [[Bill Gates (human)]] redirect for Bill Gates article, although per WP:DAB, same reasoning does not apply to Auburn Middle School (disambiguation). In fact, because the latter exists, there is more reason to delete the former as search engine would find the latter even when the former is given.
Now, why didn't I say all this in the original message? Well, I didn't expect that the deletion of Auburn Middle School would be contested. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do naming conventions apply to redirects? --BDD (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Er... If we don't, why do we have a bot roaming around and changing links like [[ambiguous X]] to [[ambiguous X (disambiguation)|ambiguous X]]? Maybe User:Anomie could kindly shed a light on this. Then again, this first time I wanted to make a disambiguation page, User:FleetCommand warned me not a capitalize the "D" because in his case, the dab page was renamed without leaving a redirect behind. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of redirect doesn't hinder the work of bots like that. I still find this discussion quite bizarre. I can't think of another time that a redirect that differs from an uncontroversial one only by the capitalization of one letter has attracted serious support for deletion at RfD. There are many appeals to naming conventions and the like here, which suggest that we're really not discussing the right question. The relevant ones are: is this redirect harmful? Will it take readers where they want to go? --BDD (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, we don't have a bot that changes [[ambiguous X]] to [[ambiguous X (disambiguation)|ambiguous X]] (or vice versa), and I can't think why one would have been approved to do that. Human users might and probably do do it (see WP:DPL), hopefully in compliance with WP:INTDABLINK. (not watching this page, ping me if further attention is needed) Anomie⚔ 20:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Anomie: Here is an instance: Special:Diff/564891509/next. (The bot explains: User:RussBot § About the hatnote task.) It appears I have by mistake thought you know a great deal about bots. Sorry about that. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. That does seem to be a valid task since it's strictly limited to certain parameters in certain templates where a bot can know that the link to the disambiguation page was intended. Anomie⚔ 10:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At any rate, I've created an AfD for the target page. I think it's at least worth discussing, and a delete result would resolve this one as well. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2014 (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.

Thalapathy (2013 film)[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) 16:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No such film exists. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This title was originally created as a duplicate article for the then-upcoming film Thalaivaa, and Thalapathy Thalapthy is the name of a song from that film. Ilayathalapathy (obviously containing the name of this redirect) is also in the title of a few of the references, Ilayathalapathy redirects to Vijay (actor), the star of Thalaivaa. All this makes me suspect there is some plausibility to this redirect, I'll inform Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force and see if they have any insight. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The quirky naming pattern turns this redirect into unlikely search aid, and the usage stats at noise level validate this argument. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:52, 6 May 2014 (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.

PortableTor[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. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from misspelling of the name of historical flavor of Tor Browser – Portable Tor. The typo (missing space between the words) doesn't seem plausible, and hit count at noise level suggests that the name is not used off site. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Just because there is no space in the official term doesn't mean that this redirect isn't useful. Unless there comes a time where there is another subject that can be referred to as the term with no space, this redirect serves its intended purpose. Steel1943 (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typos/incorrect spacing terms almost always serve a useful purpose, regardless of traffic levels. Unless the redirect's title is completely misleading (which this one is not), it could be useful to someone. Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2014 (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/2014_April_28&oldid=1138579385"