Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 6, 2014.

Henry Pym (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. WJBscribe (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the history of this redirect, perhaps the upcoming Ant-Man film was supposed to be called Henry Pym at some point, but I haven't found any evidence of that, and it seems unlikely anyway. Would anyone search for a Hulk film with Bruce Banner (film), for example? BDD (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems to be an unlikely search term that causes more confusion than it resolves.--Cúchullain t/c 21:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced: It shouldn't have been created to begin with. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Henry" and "Hank" have entirely different etymologies, so it is an unlikely search term. I imagine WilyD will say "no reason given for deletion" when all the above contributors have given reasons for deletion. Si Trew (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It was mistakenly created by me, I read it somewhere at that time and thought it would be the title. Apologies. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 03:10, 7 February 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:Web[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. WJBscribe (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Cite web}}; used in a handful of articles; not descriptive and probably not recognized by tools and bots. Originally a redirect to {{Db-web}}.  Gadget850 talk 17:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you want it retargeted to {{Db-web}}? I see no benefit to deletion. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Created in 2006 as a redirect to {{Db-web}}; changed to redirect to {{Cite web}} in 2009 ("CSD templates should all start with db- to not confuse people"). Doesn't appear that anyone missed it- would it really be a useful redirect to {{Db-web}}? --  Gadget850 talk 18:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Ultra Vires (outside our jurisdiction). This should be at TfD, not at RfD. If you want a really vague template try {{Citation}}. But there is already {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} etc and I use them a lot (and I actually check the references when they are there), but this doesn't belong at RfD, it is ultra vires take it to WP:TFD. It is not a cross namespace redirect or anything, but the discussion belongs at TFD not RFD, in my opinion. Si Trew (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the documentation there says to list template redirects at RfD. Only category redirects are treated differently; they're discussed at CfD. --BDD (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where, I couldn't find it. But I believe you. Si Trew (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's the last point in the What not to propose for discussion here section. --BDD (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
{{Citation}} is vague because it is meant to be vague, in the sense that it is not specific, as it is a generic citation template. "Web" is vague in the sense of being ambiguous. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take it back... the thing is {{Citation}} is kinda so vague I think its use is discouraged but I don't think there's a kinda tagging metatemplate to say the use of this template is discouraged (I bet there is somewhere) – but that's another story and my opinion holds no water. Si Trew (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and disambiguate or delete there are too many different web templates on Wikipedia for this to not be confusing. "cite web", "db web", "infobox website", "url", "HTTP", etc -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have changed {{web}} to {{cite web}} in all articles and a few other pages. I haven't bothered with sandbox pages that haven't been edited in years. --  Gadget850 talk 12:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? We haven't reached any consensus yet. Si Trew (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTBROKEN aside, this won't do any harm. It's conceivable but very unlikely that {{cite web}} would ever be renamed. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have many tools and bots that perform various tasks on citations. It is not worth updating these to use this underutilized redirect. --  Gadget850 talk 20:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, but essentially the redirect has already been subst (presuming delete) in good faith by you. I imagine cite web is used on, well, at least three or four articles judging by the number of refchecks I do (laughing at my own joke, sorry). I agree it should be subst and delete but other editors might not. Si Trew (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BDD, Unfortunately it is NOTBROKEN and but the rug has been pulled from under any editor who wants to say so or have another opinion, by being changed before consensus is reached (by which I mean when the RfD gets closed). But you are hoist with your own petard; it is NOTBROKEN. But it is done now and might as well stay done. Might as well just not have any discussion pages when things get done in the "engine room" as another editor puts it before they get discussed: that was my minor gripe, but it's not the end of the world. Of course for articles, it should be WP:BRD, but that doesn't apply to things outside of article space (or does it?) Si Trew (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • BRD applies almost everywhere on Wikipedia. The only major exceptions are other people's comments on discussion pages (basically don't touch them), major policies (always start with discussion), WP:OFFICE actions (never alter them), and legal text (never alter them without explicit permission from WMF legal). Thryduulf (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per הסרפד; too ambiguous. — Scott • talk 01:20, 9 February 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.

Jawan Singh Solanki[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) 17:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, please. Someone who appears to have a connection to the Solanki caste community keeps reinstating content at the redirect page. I've never been able to find confirmation that the article subject is known as Jawan Singh Solanki and certainly the common name is Jawan Singh. All I can find is mirrors and one or two caste-related websites that have no reliability.

Ascribing a caste relationship in a BLP without self-identification is a breach of our policies (there are some semi-related background notes here). So, what we have here is a redirect using an implausible name that also potentially violates BLP. Retaining the redirect "just in case" is not really an option because it pretty much enshrines the pretty serious violation. Sitush (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* DAB. Jawan Singh exists as a stub to an Indian Mahrana (2 July 1821 - 30 August 1838). One of them must be primary. The politician is a stub but that is fine, lots of things start as stubs. Si Trew (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Thank you for your pingback on my talk page. I looked into this again and became a bit clearer, but I was looking around the articles and trying to be clear to other editors here for their opinion. (I do actually look at articles rather than just decide by what the redirect says.)
What I see is that you reverted a change to Jawan Singh (politician) with this edit at 08:13 on 6 February (UTC) then a couple of hours later come to RfD to ask for a redirect to have something done with it (but don't say what you want done with it, do you want it deleted?). Si Trew (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whom do you mean by "Someone who appears to have a close connection to the Solanski caste"? Do you mean User:Vishwajeet singh solanki who also recently has edited Jawan Singh (politician) (in fact it was you who reverted his edits in the edit link I give above)? I appreciate that you do not (nor I) want to cast aspersions on others but it would help to name the name. Si Trew (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm getting confused between the title wording of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Redirects for Discussion. I've now indicated delete above, although I'm a bit surprised that you couldn't work that out from "Retaining the redirect "just in case" is not really an option because it pretty much enshrines the pretty serious violation." The impetus for coming here was this request but, really, there is nothing untoward going on here other than the existence of an obviously invalid redirect. I've no desire to name names etc because the precise identity is not important. I'm not too happy about being criticised here, btw: it seems a bit pedantic to me. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you do WP:BRD wouldn't the more suitable place be to do that at the page's article talk? Si Trew (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, didn't realise you were online. Yes I put it very badly but it is redirects for discussion', and he usual thing is to bold your opinion. I realise that it is confounding when Twinkle etc says it is redirects for deletion. I actually agree the redirect should be deleted; but with edits changing underfoot it is hard to make an opinion. When I looked at it last night it was a very small stub (but not marked as a stub). Si Trew (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The revision history at Jawan Singh Solanki (created 28 December 2013 with your page move) suggests there has been a bit of an edit battle going on. I can understand your frustration with that and I do happen to agree that if Solanski is the politician then he doesn't need the link in the first place (or at least it should be {{R from alternate name}}) but I doubt that can be settled through RfD. I also do appreciate the importance of BLP but with the article on the politician as it stands right now with no facts beyond birthdates etc it is hard to establish anything anyway, the person is probably not WP:N for that matter, but that is a different thing to argue than from trying to establish whether a redirect is worthwhile keeping, going and so on. I notice the redirect has also been admin protected, but then the fault is at the goings on at its target, it is not the redirect at fault. It is just a normal WP edit battle and the various authors should sort it out between them in good faith. RfD is not the place for it. Si Trew (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy to form an opinion. Find a source that says that Jawan Singh (politician) is known as "Jawan Singh Solanki" or delete the redirect because it is invalid and caste members keep warring in spite of it. The admin protection is referred to in my diff above and is a direct consequence. I think you are missing the various points here, sorry: although I realise that there are not many regulars with great knowledge of caste-related issues, this really should be a no-brainer. Or perhaps it is that I'm so familiar with those issues that I treating it with contempt? See, for example, user:Sitush/Common#Castelists for some related points. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not when an article changes a lot it isn't. Your version of the article and the one I saw were different things. It is not my place to have to find sources; that should be at the article but isn't right now. The article is unsourced, it is not notable, and so on. I don't know, but I don't tend to edit an article when I have raised it at an XfD until the consensus has been reached; it is not fair on other editors – so I am not going to find sources. It is the person adding content's responsibility to find sources, and I am not going to add content. Si Trew (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do what? I've not edited any Jawan Singh-variant article since I put up this thing for discussion, and nor has anyone else except for the admin protection being placed on the redirect. I feel like I'm losing the plot here. If you want to find a source then feel free to waste your time finding one but you are implying that I am attempting to game the system here and I don't like it. - Sitush (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. I have never had the pleasure to go to India and I know very little about the caste system except it exists and people still fight over it. But if there is a caste war going on then turning it into a Wikipedia edit war only adds to it, doesn't it? The way to resolve it is to ask the editors involved. When I said I am not going to find sources I meant I was not even going to attempt to find sources since I think it is outside the remit of what you are asking for when there is an edit war going on. I am not going to stand here as judge and jury; there are plenty of better editors here than I who can have their opinion if you give them time. The RfD will be open for seven days. I lose a lot of my personal battles here at RfD and some I win, but I edit Wikipedia because I want to make it a bit better a tiny bit better each day. And I am sure you do too. The thing is by chance you and I are online and you are turning one comment into seventeen when it shouldn't be like that. Let the matter rest, here at RfD, and let others get a chance to respond please. And thank you very much for your contributions to Wikipedia, I mean that most sincerely, to make it a better resource and a better place. I hope I do the same on the whole but I know I make mistakes and get things wrong too. Si Trew (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh. Please could you try to be a bit more patronising ... I'm not pulling rank but please go take a look at my history and you'll see that caste issues figure prominently. And please explain what an edit war has to do with this when there are no sources for the point that the caste POV warrior keeps warring to include. If you're not willing to look for sources then there really wasn't much point in you contributing, was there? - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not prepared to continue this barrage. I was polite, you are rude. Si Trew (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between being polite and being patronising. I suppose it is a variation on WP:DTR and sometimes it irks me. Anyway, apologies for any rudeness but when you don't know what you are talking about and don't want to research it, it is usually best to say nowt. - Sitush (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirect. Take it easy Sitush. There are no important hits for this collection of words that suggest it is a useful search term, and no hits in reliable sources: there's only one in Google Books, up against 70+ for "jawan singh"+sirohi, leading me to conclude that it's simply not a happening expression. In Google you will find some hits, but if you look carefully you'll find that many of them are Wikipedia-derived one way or another. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Drmies. Si Trew (talk) 18:31, 7 February 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.

Wikipedia rederects[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 Look up Wikipedia and Wikipedia:2007 foundraising, no consensus regarding the remaining three unwithdrawn nominations. WJBscribe (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of nonsensical redirects to Wikipedia. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all, I hope you don't mind me numbering these entries for ease of reference. Now then...
  • Delete 1, 2, 5, and 6, weak delete 7 and 8. None of these are particularly helpful. For the first six, searchers are probably looking for something more specific than Wikipedia generally. The last two are more like just implausible search terms. Someone using them probably is looking for Wikipedia, but it doesn't seem likely that people would use those terms before "Wikipedia" alone.
  • Retarget 3 and 4 to Wikipedia:Contact us - Donors (where Wikipedia:Donate redirects). From an admittedly quick search, this seems to be the best place to send people seeking information on Wikipedia's finances, and this target should please some editors by avoiding a CNR. It's also plausible that users searching for these terms may be seeking to donate. Yes, there's that "Donate to Wikipedia" link on the sidebar, but I don't know about you, my eyes just glaze over that area. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one else (except me) has voted on those I'll just withdraw them and boldly retarget them myself. If there's any further need for RFD to intervene in those, it would probably be better to handle those as in septate nomination anyway. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. Keep #5 with Mikael's retargeting. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
#5 Withdrawn. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I created #6 way back in 2005 when IPs and unregistered users could still create and start pages, and the technical means to "salt pages" did not exist yet. Totally forgot about that redirect. I have no objections to have it deleted now in 2014. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 6, 7 and 8 as they are all well used (especially 7, which gets up to 50 hits in some months) and help people who want to find out about Wikipedia find what they are looking for - they're good fodder for external search engines for example. I really don't understand the "nonsensical" comment in the nomination.
  • Delete 1. I would guess people are trying to look up something in Wikipedia (i.e. "look up Wikipedia blah" = "look up blah in Wikipedia). If redirects to special pages worked then I'd point this at the search page, but as they don't, deleting it will help take (although not all) people to the search page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot kinda per Thryduulf. The way to look up a search is to let the WP search engine do it, and let the Web spiders etc do it. It is not as if we are stuck with AltaVista or Ask Jeeves, times change. I do support redirects (and frequently add them if I think useful) but there is also a time for old ones to go. These are not harmless if they inhibit people searching. Si Trew (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except only in the case of #1 are they trying to search Wikipedia, with #6, 7 and 8 they are looking for information about Wikipedia that is present in the Wikipedia article so your harmfulness comment is incorrect regarding them. People do use natural language search queries - start typing something into google starting with "how", "what", "when", "where", "why" or "who" and look at the auto complete suggestions. Thryduulf (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that makes sense. Delete all except #6, #7, #8, per Thruduulf. No problem with people using natural language in search queries; I imagine most do these days (pace) Ask Jeeves which was I think the first really to let people do that. But it makes sense to send people to the right target wherever possible, and it does seem that this makes most sense. Si Trew (talk) 21:37, 8 February 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.

Don't think feel[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. WJBscribe (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Neil Diamond hit single "Don't Think... Feel" (1976) is substantially more notable in Google Books than the WP:RECENT Japanese song (2011). However Wikipedia editors rarely create articles for pre-2000 songs. Don't Think... Feel is in Category:Neil Diamond songs marker (shows as italics) to indicate a redirect to content in Neil Diamond's Beautiful Noise (album) but typing Don't think feel will redirect any top right hand box searches to the Japanese song only. Under these circumstances either deleting Don't think feel or creating a WP:TWODABS would be possible solutions. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per nom, create a setindex. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With only two topics involved and one article, this is the most sensible solution. Let's imagine two hypothetical readers, Alice and Bob. Alice is looking for the Idoling song, and Bob is looking for the Neil Diamond song. They both type "Don't think feel" into the search box. Already we've satisfied Alice. Bob needs only to click on the existing hatnote, and he's satisfied too. Now suppose we change the status quo and create a disambiguation page. After typing in the search term, both readers are now a click away from their desired topics. It's not the end of the world, but it does mean we've gone out of our way to make navigation more difficult for Alice and readers like her. In the absence a benefit to be had by changing this redirect, and since doing so could clearly cause some harm, it should not be changed. (Side note: I've created four articles on pre-2000 songs.) --BDD (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. Creating a dab page would add more steps for some readers wanting Idoling without reducing any steps for readers wanting Neal Diamond. The hat notes will get readers where they want to go in a much better fashion. And of course deletion should be a non-starter if readers are searching for this term.--Cúchullain t/c 21:14, 6 February 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.

User:Ming Bridges[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A separate user page should be created. The redirect was created because User:Huon moved the user page to the Afc namespace. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 09:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • convert to a soft redirect. That stops any confusion without breaking the link that the user does not seem to object to. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the redirect A user-page shouldn't redirect to an article. Delete or retarget to the user-talk page or something. It doesn't matter how we get rid of this sense it will be Ming's decision what go's on his user-page, or weather he'll even have one, once he gets back from his wikibreak. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or convert to wikilink. This redirect is clearly harmful, as it will result in messages for the user being accidentally placed onto the article's talk page, when clicking the user page link and then talk results in ending up at the article talk. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless Ming Bridges wants it kept this way. As such it's ASTONISHing, but if the user really wants his or her userpage to redirect thus, I won't object. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    She may transclude the article on her user page if she wants, but redirecting to an article will result in the article talk page taken as the user's talk page. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 12:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BDD and 70,50; WP:ASTONISH. Si Trew (talk) 17:36, 7 February 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_February_6&oldid=1039434873"