Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 12, 2014.

Rob Kelley[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 Rob Kelly. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 17:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article, meaning this is confusing and unhelpful. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:16, 12 January 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.

Fancruft[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 23#Fancruft

T:AD and Template:AD[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 after being relisted twice. WJBscribe (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be sorted out with these two redirects as they point to different locations which could be confusing. WOSlinker (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep T:AD as is, weak keep Template:AD as is. There appears to be no actual confusion, despite the theoretical possibility. T:AD gets a significant number of page views but hardly any links, suggesting that people use it only as a shortcut to reach the target page - the template can be used for it's intended purpose from the template page or when transcluded so having a shortcut to it makes sense and the stats show it is well used. Template:AD on the other hand was created as an alternatively capitalised version of Template:Ad (which has nearly 900 transclusions), but isn't transcluded itself and has few links. The stats utility isn't case sensitive so it is not possible to know whether this is being used to find the target template. However, in the absence of any evidence of confusion, I'm not convinced that changing it will be of benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I was doing active admin work, I used T:AD all the time as a four character shortcut to get to the central location for backlogs, speedies, unblocks, and the rest of pending admin work. I don't know how many others use it in this manner, and I have not in several years, but I would not object to a substitute shortcut being found for it, perhaps in the WP space, even though the 'admin dashboard' is, in fact, a template. Until I was notified by the filer, I had no idea that Template:Ad even existed. Jclemens (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong don't keep as they are T:X and Templeate:X should almost never lead to different locations. That would get way too confusing. T:X should lead to the same location as {{tl|X}}, much easier to remember shortcuts that way. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with EHC; one of them needs to go, and I lean towards the Advert template being the target of 'Ad'. Template:Ad goes back to 2005, and Template:AD was created in December 2007. The target Template:Advert is more likely to be included in new user training material, as it should be part of basic user vocab. T:AD was created in November 2009, and the stats show it is receiving moderate amounts of usage. Jclemens suggestion of finding a new shortcut for the admin dashboard is good. We can also add a note on template:Advert to direct admins to the correct template, and list the new shortcut there. WP:AD is used as Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. WP:DASH links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes. T:DASH/Template:DASH is free. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the pseudo one. Say after me: T: is for Template space, so a page T:X is defined to be the same page as Template:X.
On a secondary level one could argue that changing the T:-redirect would solve it, but the current Redirection shows proves that there is absolutely no need for that pagename with corrected redirect. Also a mainspace rot.
And admins should be re-edicated to avoid mainspace rot pages - long time ago. They are the ones supposed to know about keeping mainspace clean. -DePiep (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this defined? Surely the fact that there exist T:X redirects that do not point at Template:X and that there is no evidence of any confusion demonstrates that your assertions are incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Play child? WP:Pseudo-namespace. So T:AD not being equal to Template:AD is against that definition. A redirect I consider equal here. -DePiep (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2013 (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) 18:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DePiep: that just says that T: is for shortcuts to the template namespace, which this is. It says nothing about T:X being the same as Template:X. Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a redefinition to match the case. It also defies the resaonable and intuitive expectation of any user typing the T: for Template: Meanwhile, WP:Pseudo-namespace description is changing under out feet - I'll challenge those changes. -DePiep (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. As per previous rationales above, there is nothing wrong with these shortcuts; they should stay helpful and useful as they are. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 04:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I gently point to the rationale provided above that T:AD is defined to be the same page as Template:AD. -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete T:AD, redirect Template:AD to Template:Advertisement, create Template:DASH; per John Vandenburg. If a T:{name} must exist, it should always redirect to Template:{name}. — Scott • talk 21:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget and keep, respectively. These definitely shouldn't have different targets, and I think John's analysis supports {{advert}} as the most logical target. --BDD (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that today the T: page is clearly not used as that proposed redirect proves that there is no need for that one. DePiep (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, people don't use T:AD to link to template:Advert in discussions, they use it to refer to template:Admin dashboard in exactly the same way that they don't use {{AD}} to transclude the Admin Dashboard but do use it to transclude the cleanup notice about. This is not logical when looking at the two redirects out of context, but people are not logical and retargetting either one will break links and expectations. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Armbrust The Homunculus 14:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust The Homunculus 14:56, 12 January 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.

Rebel league[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 dabify. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 17:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible and fuzzy search term. What made the WHA any more of a "rebel league" than any other professional sports league seeking to compete with an established league? North America alone has had a couple dozen. Ravenswing 11:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a plausible search term. Many sources have used this term for the WHA, including the 2004 book about the WHA which used the term as its title. Willes, Ed (2004). The Rebel League: The Short and Unruly Life of The World Hockey Association. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart. ISBN 0-7710-8947-3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolovis (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. If the book was worthy of an article, then this might be an appropriate redirect for the book. It is not, however, a proper redirect for this particular league. The ABA, AFL, WHA, even the Western Hockey League have all been "rebel leagues", and there are others. Resolute 18:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. "Rebel league" is a very plausible search term, but if there are many leagues it could refer to and there is no primary topic then there needs to be a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per above, listing those that are shown to frequently or prominently referred to as such. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate to link to leagues that have been described as "rebel" (and explain for each who did the describing!). — Scott • talk 14:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Disambiguate Clearly not appropriate to redirect to the WHA. -DJSasso (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. By analogy, breakaway league is also a common term – at least in UK-oriented articles – as a search can easily attest. Yet there is no DAB for that term (perhaps because the search is quite good enough). This may indicate, or otherwise, the need for a DAB. Si Trew (talk) 13:53, 18 January 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.

The rebel league[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 Rebel league. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 17:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible and fuzzy search term. What made the WHA any more of a "rebel league" than any other professional sports league seeking to compete with an established league? North America alone has had a couple dozen. Ravenswing 11:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a plausible search term. Many sources have used this term for the WHA, including the 2004 book about the WHA which used the term as its title. Willes, Ed (2004). The Rebel League: The Short and Unruly Life of The World Hockey Association. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart. ISBN 0-7710-8947-3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolovis (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. If the book was worthy of an article, then this might be an appropriate redirect for the book. It is not, however, a proper redirect for this particular league. The ABA, AFL, WHA, even the Western Hockey League have all been "rebel leagues", and there are others. Resolute 18:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to rebel league when that becomes a disambiguation page -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per the above. — Scott • talk 14:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate per above. -DJSasso (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget if rebel league becomes a DAB page, otherwise delete. Si Trew (talk) 13:55, 18 January 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.

Saginaw Valley[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 Saginaw River. --BDD (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This title refers to an entire region, not merely a single university - how should it be retargeted? Ego White Tray (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is until there is a better redirect. It can always be expanded into a stand-alone article about the "entire region" if some editor chooses to create such article. Dolovis (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article-ify create a stub for the region. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Having done the redirect, I agree with the above two comments. Until there's an article, use the redirect. Americasroof (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articlize (articlate?). Here and here are a couple of books to source from, if anyone's up for it. — Scott • talk 14:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it is something that can be turned into an article then a red link is preferred over a redirect. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change redirect to Saginaw River to refer to what the valley refers to; seems more proper and less vague than a redirect to the university, and a "X redirects here, for Y see Z" hatnote can always be added to the River article. Nate • (chatter) 08:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Saginaw River per Mrschimpf. Si Trew (talk) 14:00, 18 January 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.

PlayStation 9[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 16:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "PlayStation 9" does not exist, and probably never will. It is a fictional future object created for a television commercial. It is not mentioned in the target article, nor is it used in any other Wikipedia article. Previous consensus was that "PlayStation 9" was unsuitable as an article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlayStation 9). It is unsuitable as a redirect as well, and should be deleted.  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  06:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the ideal solution would be to add a brief mention of it to a relevant article. PlayStation#Marketing already uses this reference, which covers the "PlayStation 9" campaign, so retargetting to a short section there might make sense. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The consensus of the AfD was to merge, and so it obviously should be mentioned at the target. The redirect is needed at present as the history is where the material to merge is, and it will be needed once the merge has happened to maintain the attribution history. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What Thryduulf said. This should actually be speedy-closed. The AfD result was an overwhelming consensus to merge. I suppose the nominator could start a new AfD if it's that important; this nomination violates both the spirit and the letter of the of the original AfD's result. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:MAD ; even with a new AfD, the merger would preclude deletion and would only result in redirection, due to keeping editor attribution. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 00:23, 13 January 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.

Bedtime Stories (album)[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. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from Bedtime story (disambiguation) to Bedtime Stories (Madonna album). Like in other situations (Let's call them Madonna (Madonna album), Thriller (Michael Jackson album) or Revolver (Beatles album), among other articles) we "can't" create primary subtopics (like Madonna (album), Thriller (album) or Revolver (album)), but these primary subtopics can redirect to articles and not dab pages. The only competence for this subtopic is Bedtime Stories (Darediablo album), and it didn't reach the relevance for the term (like in Hard Candy (Counting Crows album) vs. Hard Candy (Madonna album). So, Madonna's is the primary album and what readers are expecting to be lead (per WP:PTOPIC). © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 05:48, 12 January 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.

Arturo Benedetto Giovanni Guiseppe Pietro Archangelo Alfredo Cartoffoli da Milano[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 16:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Implausible need to keep a misspelled character redirect for the List of The Adventures of Tintin characters. When typing correct name into search box the misspelled name appears also, and both names are too long to tell the difference between the two. Delete the misspelled one as it is too confusing to keep it. The correctly spelled character redirect is (note fourth word is spelled correctly): Arturo Benedetto Giovanni Giuseppe Pietro Archangelo Alfredo Cartoffoli da Milano Prhartcom (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. People search and browse Wikipedia in many different ways, and most of them do not get any search suggestions (even people using the internal search only get suggestions if they have javascript enabled), and the misspelling is a very common one. For people who do get search suggestions it doesn't matter whether they click the redirect or the actual page name, they still arrive at the same place. Deleting the redirect wont bring any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Too confusing to keep"? This actually has the potential to reduce confusion. Common misspellings as redirects help our readers and shouldn't be deleted without demonstrable need. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is specific enough that no one will get confused when clicking on this link. Anyway, some people spell names like this incorrectly; you can't blame them. Epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I have ensured both point to the same place. This may be closed. Prhartcom (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - swapping two characters is a plausible tpyo, especially when your fingers gets tired from typing so muhc. WilyD 09:52, 13 January 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.

Not getting any[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 Speedily deleted. By User:TParis (non-admin closure) © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 05:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This slang term is too confusing and too casual for Wikipedia. Epicgenius (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close looks like the redirect was already red linked--Lenticel (talk) 05:50, 12 January 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_January_12&oldid=1138579607"