Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 14, 2014.

미셸오바마[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 WP:SNOW delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:13, 15 August 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.

Piotr Żyżelewicz[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. There is useful information at the target and a case for WP:RED deletion has not been made. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He also played in other bands � (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: apparently Piotr Żyżelewicz is best known for his participation in this band, so redirect is warranted. Other notable bands he played in could be listed in his entry within target article, which is more then enough to address the nom's issue. As I gather, there are several articles about him in Polish music-related media, which on its own does not allow to stubify the title immediately (narrow topical and geographical scope of sources) or delete the redirect per WP:RED, but warrants tagging redirect with {{R with possibilities}}. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator, per above. GiantSnowman 18:53, 9 August 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) 00:45, 14 August 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:SINGLE[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. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused cross-namespace redirect. — Keφr 10:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A standard psuedo-namespace template shortcut. This shortcut was previously nominated for deletion three times, and was kept each time. - Eureka Lott 01:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTAGAIN is an argument to avoid. Also, previous discussions were batch nominations; at least part of the reason for keeping was that the nomination failed to address templates individually. What are the merits of this particular redirect? Nobody seems to be using it. This one hit every few days might just as well be Googlebot. — Keφr 05:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It might be better to ask what has changed since those earlier discussions. You haven't identified any of our reasons for deleting a redirect. What makes this harmful? - Eureka Lott 06:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is a cross-namespace redirect from article space, which defeats separation of encyclopaedic content from infrastructure, and there is no evidence of its usefulness, so it makes little sense to apply the grandfather clause to it. The template has other redirects; typing {{tl|Oneref}} is only one character longer, for one. {{SINGLE}} and other variations are free to create. Do I have to repeat it every single time? — Keφr 06:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: no more or less valid deletion rationale was presented. While term "SINGLE" is ambiguous (there are single issue warnings, templates for singles, etc.), page history does not reveal any confusion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this pseudo-namespace is not needed. Frietjes (talk) 23:34, 5 August 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) 00:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep. Convenient, which is a reason for a redirect of this nature. "not needed" is in a sense true of every shortcut--we could always write them out in full. "NOTAGAIN" can be a valid argument--because of variable attendance here, sufficient nominations can delete anything; it's accepted at afd that too many are a bad practice, though it has proven incapable of numerical definition. DGG ( talk ) 15:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Convenient for whom? Literally nobody uses these particular two redirects, if backlinks and visit counters are any indication: one visit every few days is just a web crawler, and the only backlinks come from deletion nominations. The "we could always write them out in full" argument is a strawman — I am not arguing against shortcuts in general. — Keφr 10:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm just passing through here, and I can't speak for T:SINGLE, but I use T:VGR in edit summaries quite often (as in something like "removed excessive reviews per T:VGR"). It's very handy. Bertaut (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Bertaut: You used it exactly once; "quite often" is an overstatement. "T:VGR" points not to a policy, guideline or even an essay or WikiProject practices page, but to a template; it took me a while to notice Template:Video game reviews#Guidelines buried under the enormous TOC. Editors unfamiliar with the template will be similarly confused, but refining the redirect to point to the section may be confusing in its own way. Meanwhile, WP:VGR and WP:VGRT are free to create to point to the section, can be re-pointed wherever else these guidelines may be moved and still make sense after the move (or in fact, make even more sense). — Keφr 02:49, 15 September 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.

IPhone 6[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 to delete, default to keep. Furthermore, no information has been added which would make this deletion any more likely than the last few times. Protonk (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the 4th Nomination for RFD. See 1st, 2nd, 3rd nomination for reason. I want that page to be deleted. CloudComputation Talk freely
CloudTracker 04:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL: there is no such product, no launch date, and no information to provide to readers. This redirect is unhelpful and confusing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Are we really going to rehash this again? The last discussion took a month and a half to close and it is not even two months cold yet. Do we really need to continue to disrupt this redirect with this pointedness? To be clear WP:CRYSTAL is only a guideline about article content. It does not, however, prohibit useful redirects, especially a redirect from a term that has gotten massive coverage. How much coverage? The latest google search brings up 77 Million results, all of which link the term "iPhone 6" with the "iPhone" line of devices. Now how can a Wikipedia redirect ignore such a massive amount of coverage? This is turning out to be a classic example of gaming the system and wikilawyering, in order to prevent the redirect from serving its function.
  • Some very notable examples of articles that link the term "iPhone 6" to the iPhone include: Forbes, International Business Times, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, Bloomberg, The Daily Mail, Yahoo, India Today, The Telegraph, and many more. Not only are these not rumor sites, but these are very reliable sources, and these are all from this past week.
  • Its time to stop this charade and let the redirect do its work. Stop disrupting Wikipedia for very minor issues. A redirect is not hurting anyone, so just Back away from the horse, its dead already.--JOJ Hutton 13:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy or snow keep. It is obvious that the term is used.It is less obvious to me why we do not have an article on it--if any future product is certain to be real, this one is. In the meantime we need at once a redirect. There are real problems at WP that need cleanup. DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep for two reasons. First, no deletion rationale provided. Second, This is the third RFD in six months. Trying again and again and again until one gets the result they want is disrupty and WP:POINTy. Resolute 16:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - obvious search term, sends readers to what they're looking for, and at this point we want to discourage creation. No apparent encyclopaedic rationale for deletion. WilyD 16:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and Protect. Nothing has changed since previous discussions. --erachima talk 19:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I meant the precise reverse, exactly as I stated. This is a clear candidate for Category:Protected redirects due to the continued edit warring and disruption related to it. --erachima talk 16:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is protected because for keeping the "temporarily soft redirect" with RFD template to prevent adding spetaculations. "Nothing has changed" is not a sufficient reason. CloudComputation Talk freely
    CloudTracker     04:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to be an abuse of process, if the first, second, and third time didn't merit a change or deletion - why should it now? Nominator should know better and simply wanting the page deleted for no other reason is incredibly disruptive. Stop wasting our time already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Windows 9 now have 1.15 Billion results. But, those are from the sources that JOJHutton has said (BusinessNewsDaily, Yahoo, Recode)! As now Windows 9 is deleted, why don't delete iPhone 6?! This discussion will end up like Windows 9. CloudComputation Talk freely
    CloudTracker     01:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. This is Wikipedia, not Google. or Bing. Windows 9 was salted right after the RFD closed as delete even 1.15 Billion results were found in Google. CloudComputation Talk freely
      CloudTracker       02:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • More reasons: This redirect is misleading people who is finding info for the upcoming iPhone. This redirect will not be harmful once Apple officers have told that iPhone 6 is coming and the Shipping date. And Per the comment below. CloudComputation Talk freely
        CloudTracker         10:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • More reasons: This redirect misleads 500 readers a day. There is no such spetaculations for iPhone 6 in the iPhone article, so readers don't get what they find. Instead of redirecting, how about telling them there's no such article to persuade them to find another websites for spetaculations? CloudComputation Talk freely
          CloudTracker           00:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects are means of leading readers to information. A redirect that is not doing so is misleading and harmful, instead of being useful. It sends the reader after a wild goose chase: He or she peruses 58 pages (A4 pages) and finds nothing, eventually realizing that his time is wasted. It is better to let readers' search for iPhone 6 to reach the search page, where they immediately realize no such article exists. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Codename Lisa, people looking for iPhone 6 on Wikipedia will instead get redirected to a page that has nothing about what they're meant to look for, we don't want to mislead our readers, do we? - TheChampionMan1234 10:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment CloudComputation forgot one little thing when he/she made the comparison of the "iPhone 6" redirect to the "Windows 9" redirect. When doing a Google search, you need to use "Quotes" in order to refine the search and get the exact search results that you are looking for. Case in point, when the Google search is conducted using actual "quotes", the result is not in the billions, but a few million. Thats a massive 12 to 1 comparison of the two searches. --JOJ Hutton 13:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly does it change? How does this 12 to 1 count change the fact that both "Windows 9" and "iPhone 6" are not covered in Wikipedia, and that we have absolutely no target for both redirects? Obviously, all people searching for "iPhone 6" did type " 6" because they did not want to get to "iPhone" article. P.S.: 48,500,000 to 6,200,000 is actually less then 8:1, but who cares... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again Oh and those of you using WP:CRYSTAL as some sort of reason for deletion should actually read what it says, especially the part that says Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Good Day.--JOJ Hutton 16:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Addition Given the fact that last month, this redirect alone averaged around 500 article views a day and this month the views have increased, its obvious that this redirect needs to go somewhere, instead of simply be deleted. In fact, I would argue that the amount of information coming out about this product is so unprecedentedly massive, that we may need to create the article anyway, well ahead of the announcement date in September.--JOJ Hutton 19:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, stop flooding! 4 comments in sequence...
      Where can I read a product announcement about iPhone 6? Where can I read any information about iPhone 6 on Wikipedia? Redirects exist with a single purpose: to get reader to the information he looks for. Until Wikipedia contains information about iPhone 6, there is nowhere to redirect to. Of these 500 daily viewers exactly 0 (zero) found information they were searching.
      Massive amount of information? Please, point me to any single reliable source whose statement about iPhone 6 is more or less credible. All of this massive amount of information can't be included per WP:CRYSTAL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Last time, I said delete. Everyday 500 users (As what JOJHutton said) can't find their desired information about the iPhone Six. JOJHutton, stop it! I promise, this is the last discussion if you agree with Lisa, Czarkoff, TC1234 and me. A redirect shouldn't be an placeholder. Link to related AN/I notice: Click here CloudComputation See also: 3rd nomination Talk freely
        CloudTracker         00:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy procedural keep Nominator offers WP:IDONTLIKEIT with no listed reason, and lists prior nominations that failed to delete it (so all previous reasons have failed). -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Reason listed on my comment. Find the reason. I nominated this not only for WP:IDONTLIKEIT but the redirect is definitely a disruption. It misleads 500 users. Speedy keep is no good for readers. CloudComputation Talk freely
      CloudTracker       12:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • "find it" is not a reason, we're not supposed to be mind readers, trying to interpret what parts of previous nominations apply to your current nomination -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reason is not to "find it"! Reason/Rationale here: This redirect misleads 500 readers a day. There is no such spetaculations for iPhone 6 in the iPhone article, so readers don't get what they find. Instead of redirecting, how about telling them there's no such article to persuade them to find another websites for spetaculations? CloudComputation Talk freely
          CloudTracker           00:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTAGAIN is an argument to avoid either. Particularily after previous AfD ended with "no consensus". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't a NOTAGAIN, since the nominator didn't provide sufficient reasoning. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is. Reason provided on your comment. It's not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, instead, you're favors keeping because it's the 4th nomination? I'm sure when the iPhone 6 is officially introduced the 5th nomination is running but will be ended a few days after all. CloudComputation Talk freely
          CloudTracker           00:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We should discourage wikilawyering and pointy nominations. Besides, a google search shows that the web is abuzz about the gadget.--Lenticel (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure! And what does it change? We have no information to redirect people to. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh, right. That's the point: "iPhone 6" redirects people to the page on the iPhone, which tells them by omission that the iPhone 6 has yet to be announced. Which answers their question. The alternative is that "iPhone 6" take them to WP:SALT, which does the same thing but in a less helpful fashion. --erachima talk 08:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, lack of information at iPhone tells nothing: the page may have been vandalized, information may have been moved elsewhere without a notice, etc. Deletion and creation protection, on the other hand, indeed would inform readers of lack of material. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you think the page might be vandalized and prefer the technical error message because you are well-acquainted with the behind-the-curtains of Wikipedia. The casual reader will figure out their answer much more quickly from the the fact that the page on the iPhone says there are five iPhones than to an apparent technical error message. They're both ultimately acceptable methods, but principle of least astonishment says that we take people to articles rather than error messages whenever possible. --erachima talk 09:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • How come it's wikilawyering? Provide a reason! Wikilawyering is just, using WP policies beyond WP:COMMONSENSE. In addition, This redirect misleads 500 readers a day. There is no such spetaculations for iPhone 6 in the iPhone article, so readers don't get what they find. Instead of redirecting, how about telling them there's no such article to persuade them to find another websites for spetaculations? 00:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment After some IP replaced the redirect with a copyvio article (that I have revdeleted), I have semiprotected the redirect for a short time. I don't see much harm in the redirect being there and a proper article made soon, when information is available. —Kusma (t·c) 14:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree with erachima, I think it's more astonishing to be taken to an article which has no information about what you are looking for. Siuenti (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh Look More iPhone 6 articles [1], [2], [3]. And these are just today. All of them link the iPhone 6 to the iPhone. So its better to have this redirect that follows what the reliable sources say, than to have nothing at all. This is obviously not going to be deleted. Time to close and move on.--JOJ Hutton 18:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. All the keep arguments given in the previous RFDs and this RFD still apply; with the last RFD, that RFD was closed just a short time ago---what has changed since then to justify this RFD nomination as more than a spam nomination to try to force through a deletion through repeated nomination? —Lowellian (reply) 15:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simce the last nomination had no consensus, a new consensus can be reached by renominating while some information has added or changed. But the problem is, the iPhone article do not have any spetaculations for iPhone 6 so they can't find what they want without knowing it immediately. If it is an "no such article" page they can save their precious time to find another sources with such spetaculations. Do you want to see 500 readers getting misled? (This info is not provided in 3rd nomination,). And 5 votes for keep because 4th RFD?? See WP:NOTAGAIN. CloudComputation Talk freely
      CloudTracker       01:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • First off, it's you who keep saying that 500 people are being "mislead". There is no indication that anyone is being "mislead". The fact remains that anyone doing a search of "iPhone 6" is literally getting the very information that every reliable source confirms, that the iPhone 6 is an iPhone. That is why we have the redirect, and why anyone searching that term will be redirected to the iPhone. In addition, the argument that the iPhone article doesn't contain any information on the iPhone 6 is misleading. Not only does the redirect tell people that the iPhone 6 is an iPhone, which is what all the sources say, but it also is not one of the "reasons for deletion of a redirect". JOJ Hutton 03:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no such iPhone. You can know it by visiting http://apple.com/. The iPhone article have just one iPhone 6 reference - The Guardian. But a no such article page can persuade them to find another page. This is Wikipedia, not Bing, nor Google. Only official sources are the most realible sources. Others are just rumor sites, even if they're major sites (Like Yahoo). CloudComputation Talk freely
          CloudTracker           00:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • In addition Redirecting is not a helpful placeholder. The salted "NO SUCH PAGE" page prevents further redirects. Once announced, Administrators will be asked to unsalt and create the article. Until then, redirects are disruptive. CloudComputation Talk freely
          CloudTracker           00:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no such "announced" phone, but every reliable source says that there is such a phone and many have pictures that prove it. We go with reliable sources, even if its just a redirect at this point.--JOJ Hutton 01:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh Look I nearly forget the iPhone article cannot add any spetaculations for any unannounced products under the WP:CBALL Policy, so, literally, readers sure can't find what they want without knowing it immediately. If there's any spetaculations for iPhone 6 at the iPhone article, that's fine. But I'm talking about Spetaculations are considered disruptive under the WP:CBALL policy. So, basically, under WP:CBALL, the Redirect target article is prohibited to add any spetaculations about the redirect title, since "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.", readers can't find what they want. The realible sources may provide useful info, though. CloudComputation Talk freely
              CloudTracker               10:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow creation and give the device it's own article, the next generation of this deviced is confirmed by too many sources to count. 75.151.153.97 (talk) 15:14, 23 August 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_August_14&oldid=1138579422"