Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 5, 2014.

User:The Herald/Nirmala (novel)[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 deleted at sole author's request. — Scott • talk 13:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article is made The Herald 13:43, 5 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.

.app[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 No consensus. Several options presented, no option clearly supported more than the others, and this discussion has been open for more than a month. Seems pretty clearly ... unclear. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any connections to Graphical Environment Manager, should rather redirect to Application bundle. Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 10:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:Retarget, to Mobile application software where "app" is right in the definition in the lede ("A mobile app, short for mobile application, or just app") rather than what seems to me also a bit overspecific. I remember GEM! Si Trew (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change to disambiguation page. GEM applications traditionally use the file extension .APP, that's why ".app" redirects to the GEM article. However, as I already mentioned in the edit summary when I created the redirect originally, there are a few other (more modern) uses of the .APP file extension as well (on Macs and on NeXT machines), so ".app" might need to become a disambiguation page in the future. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, I change my !vote. But I would Move Mobile application software to app and then disambiguate at App (disambiguation) for the other senses. Surely "app" to mean mobile application software is now the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Si Trew (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but this discussion isn't about app (which is already a disambiguation page), but about the file extension .app. Since we have found at least three different environments using the .app file extension, I think, we should make this a disambiguation page without primary topic, and then cross link the app and .app disambiguation pages through See Also links. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To say "it might need to become so in the future" is a bit WP:CRYSTAL, but there is a bit of vermicelli here that could do with sorting out. I don't see the need for a separate "dot app" DAB, just add entries at app, move that over to app (disambiguation) and then hatnote that mobile application software (when it moves) with an R to DAB at app (disambiguation). I started my career doing software for Sinclair QLs and Atari 8-bits and the original IBM PCs and VAX/VMS and I can't remember that file extension being used on any of those, but I am trying to rack my brains in case they were.Si Trew (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For example Mobile app at the DAB at App is a redirect through to mobile application software. Assuming (and I am assuming, I haven't checked) that the consensus was to call the article "Mobile application software" then at least that is what it should be called at the DAB rather than a DAB through a redirect. But I don't like to change things while they are under discussion. Si Trew (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to pc.net], Symbian OS also uses the ".app" file extension, I am not sure if that was one of the three you were discussing. It also says there it is used by Microsoft Visual FoxPro as part of its build process. It also seems to have been used by MicroFocus COBOL (here at filext.com) which I wrote my second year thesis in many years ago, blimey I feel old! In fact that second link has (if I counted correctly) 46 different applications where it is/was used. The words "worms" and "can" spring to mind :) Si Trew (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
;-) By "in the future" I was referring to the time when I created the redirect. That future is now. ;-)
Regarding having a separate disambiguation page for .app as a file extension, I guess, it makes even more sense, the more uses we find (even if we don't list them all). My rationale for having this sub-disambiguated on a different page named .app was that someone (possibly in the context of an article about file extensions or something similar) might semantically want to link to a file extension .app in general (for deliberate disambiguation by the reader, not the editor) rather than to a specific .app file association in a particular environment or various other meanings of app(s). Obviously, we can't do this, if we combine app and .app into a single disambiguation page and let .app redirect to app. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose just point it to the disambiguation page for "app". I don't see a need for a separate disambiguation page for ".app". -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't want to hinder the discussion by just multiplying examples, but EXE and .exe would seem to be a good one. The first redirects to the second, but exe is a DAB. At .exe it says has hatnote "for other uses see EXE (disambiguation)", which with Exe (disambiguation) are not actually DABs but redirects back to the DAB at Exe). The article itself discusses all three uses of the file extension and doesn't seem to want to split off into separate articles (I am sure there are many more uses but that is just WP:NOTFINISHED). To my mind those two R to DABs are unnecessary but that's a separate point – it's more that adding these R to DABs etc and separate DABs kind of things creates rather than reduces confusion, "let's have a DAB that is in itself ambiguous" Of course it's taken as read they would be hatnoted one to the other etc, I just don't see the need for two separate DAB pages. Si Trew (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to App per IP. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have no information in Wikipedia about ".app"; deleting this redirect would expose this fact. Retargetting to app is not allowed per WP:PTM. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to application bundle, per my comment above. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:45, 18 March 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, Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Bundled software is a DAB. What has it to do with .app or app? Si Trew (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. But the way Wikipedia searches has changed a bit. Right now, I typed "Pacific Rim" in the search box and was taken to Pacific Rim but was informed: "(Redirected from Pacific rim)". Something has gone wrong somewhere. But I am not sure. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Dab - TLA file extensions stopped being unique many years ago. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC).
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.

Serb Sarajevo[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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like deletion for same reasons as this article. All history about name used before is explained in Target article so I think it's not needed to stay here (talking about redirect). Lighthouse01 (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete per Lighthouse01. A quick search shows this term is not used widely, if at all, in English. Most searches I tried bring up Wikipedia as the main articles for the various battles of the mid-1990s etc but not with this specific term in any of them. This term in a sense is not racist, at least to an ignorant English speaking audience, unless "Serb" itself you would consider racist (in which case Brit is racist, just because a term is incorect doesn't make it racist). But it's just an unlikely search term. Serb points at Serbs although Serbian is a DAB and perhaps Serb should be redirected to there. Language can be a very powerful tool for racism so I shouldn't like WP to encourage racism: but as an encyclopaedia we must acknowledge it exists. Si Trew (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way I just meant "ignorant" in the sense of "not knowing about something and wanting to find out", not in the sense of "the entire English audience are just plain stupid". Si Trew (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a former name addressed and bolded (in alternate form) on the target page. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 31 March 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, Steel1943 (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep per BDD. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC).
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.

Redirects to Zoophilia[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 no consensus. I was originally going to relist this (again), but then after reviewing the comments below, it actually seems as though consensus will not be formed on these redirects due to different proposed options for all of them. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not very useful or neutral redirects. Conti|✉ 14:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)it[reply]

  • Comment. Deliberately without looking at the target (I tend to do that to kinda be impartial) "Zoophilia" etymologically from the Greek and I imagine in any dictionary means "love of animals" in the sense of caring for them, and does not mean "bestiality". Either redirect these to Bestiality or delete them. Si Trew (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. OK after saying that comment, deliberately not looing, I looked at the target. Bestiality redirects to Zoophilia and that is a reasonable redirect. The others, which all redirect to Zoophilia], would seem to be reasonable redirects to that target as well, although they could go via bestiality but I don't see the point of doing that jump through. It may be that Zoophilia and bestiality should be separated out into distinct articles, one expressing a liking of animals and one expressing a sexual desire for them, but it's a well-established article and I can't see the harm in these being where they stand. Si Trew (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SiTrew. These would be better pointed at Bestiality if that were a separate article, but it isn't and double redirects automatically get corrected by bots so the target is reasonable, especially since there is a section in the article about terminology. The article does not have specific sections dealing with horses and/or dogs, and so there is no more specific target available, so the top of the page is the best place to send people. That said I would add a hatnote, Animal rape redirects here, for rape among non-human animals see Sexual coercion, like the one at Rape. I'd also note at Talk:Zoophilia and on the redirect talk pages that if bestiality is ever split off as a separate article that the redirects should be retargeted there. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That makes a lot of sense. I hadn't found Sexual coercion and that is a bit of an odd lede don't you think, since it starts "Sexual coercion in animals" and is specifically about animals but the title is just "Sexual coercion" which I would have thought would mean Rape or indecent assault etc in the more general sense, should that article be moved to Sexual coercion in animals (or Sexual coercion of animals or somesuch)? 15:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
But isn't a hatnote that reads "animal rape redirects here" entirely and utterly in violation of WP:NPOV? If the article itself would state "Zoophilia is the rape of animals" or whatever, I'd be fine with that. But as it stands, this seems like a serious violation of WP:NPOV to me, hence the nomination here. --Conti|✉ 16:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. There are two things that people might be looking for when searching "animal rape" - rape of animals by humans, which is covered (as well as interactions that not everybody considers rape) in the Zoophilia article, and rape of one non-human animal by another which is covered by the Sexual coercion article. I think the former is the primary topic for the term, hence it should be the target with a hatnote to the lesser term. The hatnote does not say that Zoophilia is animal rape, only that the concept is covered in that article. See also WP:RNEUTRAL. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the hatnote does not say or imply anything. I know that it is not intended by anyone to mean or imply anything, but it very clearly does. Perhaps the hatnote could be reworded somehow to make it neutral, but as it stands I consider it unacceptable per WP:NPOV. I suppose a disambiguation page would solve that problem, but I'm not sure if that wouldn't be overkill. Redirecting the term to Sexual coercion would also be an alternative (I truly have no idea what kind of article anyone searching for "animal rape" would expect). --Conti|✉ 18:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page would not be appropriate per WP:TWODABS if there is a primary topic. The majority of the google hits on a search for "animal rape" -Wikipedia are about bestiality and so that is clearly the primary topic. As for the NPOV comment, I don't understand how a simple factual statement that a term with two meanings, one of which is covered in this article and one of which isn't, redirects here is expressing any point of view at all. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can imply non-neutral connotations with a simple factual statement, which is exactly what is happening here. Would you be okay with a hatnot on Pedophilia that would read "Childlove redirects here, for other meanings of the term see X"? --Conti|✉ 17:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that there are multiple uses of term "childlove", the paedophilia article deals with the primary use, and the other uses are dealt with in other articles, then yes such a hatnote would be absolutely correct. Our reporting that a term exists and refers to a topic covered in this article does not imply anything about the legitimacy, neutrality, appropriateness, etc. of the term. Exactly what connotations are you seeing in these hatnotes? Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You open up the article on Zoophilia on Wikipedia, and the very first thing that greets you are the words "Animal rape redirects here". Thus we are giving the impression that Zoophilia is an article about animal rape. That is not neutral, no matter how you look at it. Yes, I know that the statement is factual and that we in no way intend to imply anything along those lines, but we do imply that all the same, and the average reader will be influenced by that notice, whether we want it or not. --Conti|✉ 20:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you see is a statement that this article covers one meaning of the term "animal rape", which it does. What the article is about comes with the bolded statement in the first sentence "Zoophilia is...". I'm not sure where you're getting the impression otherwise, but if we were to go down the lines you seem to be encouraging we would need to review every singe hatnote on the project ({{redirect}} alone has over 26,000 transclusions), and the result would make it significantly harder for people to find the article they are looking for. Go ahead and propose doing that if you wish, but I still don't understand your point of view. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't understand yours, so I suppose we have that in common. Do you at least agree that - in theory - it is possible that hatnotes can have a WP:NPOV problem, or are they all inherently neutral to you? What I'm saying is that not everybody has the same knowledge of Wikipedia as you and I have, and that "animal rape redirects here" is not as straightforward to everyone as you might think. You and I know that it means that the topic is covered in the article in some capability, but many others will equate that hatnote with "This is the article about animal rape, ergo Wikipedia says that Zoophilia is animal rape", regardless of what the actual article says. If you do not think that a good portion of our readers will interpret the hatnote like that, then I cannot help you. --Conti|✉ 22:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it said something like "This article promotes the raping of animals" then it would be biased, so it is possible. However, when worded neutrally they are by definition neutral. I have been working with redirects and hatnotes for years, and I don't recall anyone taking the line you are doing - and I've definitely never seen any evidence that hatnotes are interpreted in the way you seem to be assuming people do. If you have any evidence that everybody has been wrong all these years then please do share it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I've seen a non-neutral redirect being used like that, so I have no prior experience with similar cases, either. Since you have more experience than me in this field, I would be curious to hear if there are indeed similar cases without anyone ever having complained about it. I hope I did not come across as having a problem with hatnotes in general, as you seem to imply. They are perfectly fine in all cases I have seen so far, except this one. This is the first hatnote I've come across that can be interpreted in such a non-neutral way. --Conti|✉ 23:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Non-neutral redirects exist by the thousand. Ones where there is also a hatnote are fewer. I can't bring to mind specifically to mind right now but I'll see what I can do (I'm about go to bed and don't know how much time I'll have on Wikipedia before Monday so it might take a few days, sorry). Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Maybe I'm just overly sensitive and the only one thinking this should not be done, but as I said, this is the first time I've ever come across a non-neutral redirect being explicitly mentioned in a hatnote like that. --Conti|✉ 14:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there were then presumably the greek for Horse Rape would be "Hippophilia" and the Greek for "Dogfuck", I am not sure, but would be kanaphilia? Since these don't exist the redirect is the best solution, and I am not suggesting to create more redirects. Si Trew (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting Hippophilia, love of horses, to be a redlink but it actually redirects to -phil-, so that should somehow be sorted too, if "Horse rape" goes to "Zoophilia" then so should Hippophilia, at least if it means a sexual desire for horses (which it doesn't it generally means just people liking horses, equestrians or something like that). Oh what a tangled web we unweave. Canaphilia doesn't exist. Si Trew (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All these -philia words are neologisms and do not seem to be used in any kind of serious journals or articles in regard to this topic. I was tempted to just nominate them along with these redirects. --Conti|✉ 16:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are neologisms and back formations I imagine from someone who went to a public school and learned three words of classical Greek and wasn't paying attention, unlike me who went to a comprehensive school and paid attention and learned the rule of three from doing carpentry (or got caned if he didn't). But that is not the point, since the redirect exists, it has to point somewhere or be deleted, and Thryduulf is quite right it should be a separate nomination. Si Trew (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: "Cynophilia" is not a neologism, and this word appears to be present in several publications. Jarble (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant it neologism in the sense of the Latin (which is itself a portmanteau word or mot-valise being half-Latin and half-Greek, like "television") that the meaning has changed from a love of animals (dogs) to a sexual desire for them; in that sense yes it is not a new word but a new meaning for it. Si Trew (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: It does exist, but it's spelled "cynophilia", not "canaphilia". Jarble (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually look at the page you linked? All but one result seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. This just shows that it is indeed a neologism that's practically unused. --Conti|✉ 19:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I found Sexual coercion from the hatnote at Rape. The two terms are overlapping concepts, and there seemingly isn't felt the need for separate articles on them in either humans or other animals, and I think the hatnotes and leads serve as adequate explanation of the topics, but feel free to discuss a page move if you think "in animals" is needed - this is not the right venue for such a discussion. Any discussion of the Hippophilia redirect should be in a separate nomination as it is independent of these three redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Animal rape and Horse rape to Sexual coercion. I agree that that's somewhat of an odd title, but best to treat these search terms as legitimate queries about rape in (other) animals. Delete Dogfuck as an unlikely search term, probably intended as a joke. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: these links should be retargeted in this way. This is the most reasonable suggestion I've seen so far. Jarble (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back on this, I wouldn't mind Horse rape being deleted as well, since horses aren't mentioned at Sexual coercion. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if one animal forces non-consensual sex onto another animal (all non-humans), wouldn't this also be "animal rape"? (and is so termed in atleast some material I've read) Or is the term "rape" on Wikipedia reserved for humans? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I note above "animal rape" can mean "rape of a non-human animal by a human" or "rape of one non-human animal by another". The former topic is dealt with in the Zoophilia article, the latter in the Sexual coercion article. This is why I am recommending a hatnote at the present target. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I added a hatnote to the article before, but it was removed by the editor who nominated this redirect for deletion. Jarble (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I now see, so this is the discussion part of the BRD cycle. Above Conti is continuing to argue that a hatnote would be an NPOV violation, I am arguing it would be nothing of the sort. More opinions are needed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And if it is just WP:BRD, which is fine, then that should be discussed on its talk page before coming here – but nobody ever does that any more. Si Trew (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is the correct venue as the redirect has been nominated for deletion in good faith by the nominator. If the redirect doesn't point to Zoophilia then the argument about a hatnote there is moot. I have left a message on the Zoophilia article talk page noting this discussion also includes the possibility of a hatnote there. Thinking about it now it would make sense to put a note at talk:Sexual coercion too, but I'm not awake enough to craft a message that is both concise and neutral, but anyone is of course free to add one before I get chance (See above re availability). Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well what about say artificial insemination in animals, that bulls etc are essentially masturbated for their sperm and then that is injected into cows, as part of animal breeding? Or the same with horses on a stud farm? Some might consider that animal rape or sexual coercion, some wouldn't. To me the hatnote was perfectly NPOV. Personally I should like to have the titles changed and Zoophilia since it basically discusses Bestiality is probably best to reverse the redirect, but that is not under discussion here. The hatnoting is fine and as Thryduulf says there is no point making a DAB, it would be WP:TWODABS but since Bestiality redirects anyway back to Zoophilia that is just running around the houses and pointless. Yes, I would split the two meanings out, but they aren't at the moment and the purpose here is to decide where the redirects should go: and they should go to zoophilia. I don't know why someone would come here looking for animal pornography or so on when there are plenty of good porn sites on the internet for that (unless unlike me you never put in "dog muck" or "hippodrome" or whatever into Google and get interesting results) but what is our job here is to tie up and decide what is the best target for these redirects. I cannot see how a hatnote that just says "x or y redirects here" is NPOV, it is just a statement of fact. Si Trew (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is very inappropriate and should be deleted, especially the 'Dogfuck' one. Ned1230|Whine|Stalk 15:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "horse rape" and "dogfuck" outright (why the hell do we have those?) and redirect "animal rape" to sexual coercion ("in animals" seems like a very useful addition, but this isn't that conversation), adding a hatnote which directs users who want to know about human rape of animals to zoophilia. The question seems to be "is a user searching 'animal rape' trying to find out about rape among animals or by humans," and the former seems, at a guess, to be more likely. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think they could be searching for anything. Some could be searching for animal rape, some for bestiality, some for rape of animals by humans (I not Thryduulf's use of the term non-human animals and I respect it but refuse to use it myself) and some of animals against other animals. I think this redirect is very contentious. I have no idea what a "dogfuck" even is, does it mean a dog being in heat and wanting to have sex with another dog, or does it mean something else entirely? The point is, that this redirect has to go somewhere or be deleted. Since three were proposed, do you want them all deleted or just one? Si Trew (talk) 12:16, 21 March 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, Steel1943 (talk) 07:32, 5 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.

T. L. Handy Middle School[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 Bay City, Michigan#Education. Most middle schools are regarded as non-notable and a redirect to the school district article when it exists (this one doesn't), or failing that the locality, is the usual action per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I consider the argument to delete per WP:REDLINK as invalid, partly because there is no evidence of notability and partly because there is a full article earlier in the history that can be boldly reverted to if an editor is of the opinion that notability does in fact exist. I have addressed the concern over the circular nature of the redirect by blacking the link at the target. Refining the target to point to the section where the school is mentioned is plainly correct. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

deletion, I don't think anyone might enter the middle school name when searching for the town; others might disagree Ymerhav (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is linked but not described at the target (as one of three middle schools in Bay City, Michigan) but then that's just going in circles. Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage the creation of the article. Si Trew (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment schools without articles are traditionally redirected to the educational district/authority responsible for them, or to an "Education" or similar section of the locality article if one exists. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back. My school The Heathcote School which I am glad to hear has finally been bulldozed does have an article. It does seem a bit patchy since British International School Cairo doesn't have an article, so I think there is quite a patchiness around school articles and just whoever once went to one makes an article. in my view the policy needs tightening, but this is not the place to do it. Si Trew (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But only American schools apparently. Other schools are not notable, or at least that is what it seems de facto. Si Trew (talk) 09:34, 18 March 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, Steel1943 (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. The existence of this redirect is partly meant to discourage the creation of an article, which in this case is a good thing. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ymerhav and SimonTrew, can you take a second look at this? --BDD (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The redirect is mentioned in the article Bay City, Michigan under section "Education", but that is just a circular redirect. I can't see the point of then redirecting it back to exactly the section (and the only section) where it is mentioned. It's just a circular link and should go under WP:RFD#Delete R7: I quote (amongst other reasons in that section) "meaning it redirects to itself". It does not redirect quite to itself literally, but it does it via a redirect hop and ends up back where it started.
The only links in article space are:
<PHILOSOPHY> Deliberately when searching for these things I don't use search engines other than the Wikipedia one, because our job is to help people find articles they are interested in and so improve Wikipedia's search and our readers' desire to find out about something. Sometimes that means deleting a redirect to let the search engine take over; sometimes it means guiding it. </PHILOSOPHY>
So, Wikipedia's search also brings up that Patrick Yandall graduated from there in 1977, but it is not linked there. He is apparently a smooth jazz player, whereas I am an extremely rough jazz player, given a comb and a bit of paper.
That's the extent of the claim to fame for T. L. Handy Middle School, one politician and one football match. Change the pipes to conform to MoS and delete the redirect.
Perhaps I should add, as if I had not gone on long enough, it was changed from an article to a redirect with this edit of September 2013 and the Edit Comment of "redirect to school district's or cities article per school article guidelines WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG by User:John from Idegon.
To put the nail in the coffin, we don't have an article on T. L. Handy, so presumably he is a non-notable mentor of a non-notable school. Trew has done his homework as usual. Si Trew (talk) 20:57, th4 May 2014 (UTC)
Si, I think RFD#DELETE #7 only applies to malformed redirects, i.e. Foo redirecting to Foo. Circular redirects—i.e., those only wikilinked from the page they link to—are generally unhelpful but not inherently harmful. In cases where the redirect could plausibly be expanded to an article, they're quite benign, for example, for a musician currently only covered in the context of the one band.
Anyway, I just don't see why this isn't a straightforward application of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Since middle school names generally get redirected somewhere, I don't see a real benefit to leaving this one red. No, we probably won't ever have an article on the school, but as Nyttend noted, discouraging creation of a standalone article (i.e., from a student of the school messing around) is a good thing here. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the redirect, no article needed per Nyttend and BDD. John from Idegon (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sed qui bono? But who benefits from this? The alumni of T. L. Handy Middle School for having their school on Wikipedia. T. L. Handy doesn't benefit, because he or she hasn't an article. The rest of the English-speaking world suffer from this needless clutter when attempting to search. Handy for example is a DAB of which the first entry is that it is a German term for a mobile telephone/cellphone, which indeed it is (and an interesting etymology to it becoming so, too, though it is not mentioned at Mobile phone nor at Personal Handy-phone System).
Is there a way to differentiate concisely that "middle school" in the US probably means something slightly different from "middle school" in the UK? I am not sure how we would do that beyond what it says in the lede at middle school, "A middle school or junior high school (the latter I believe is purely US although infiltrates UK English through TV program(mes) but is not used in everyday UK speech). Si Trew (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't blame me, blame BDD, who asked for an opinion from me and got one! Si Trew (talk) 00:27, 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.

Template:R&B[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 25#Template:R&B

Template:R&b[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 24#Template:R&b

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_5&oldid=1039433920"