Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 22, 2014.

Caledon By-Pass[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect redirect. Caledon, Ontario is and never was on Highway 6, and does not have a bypass. Caledonia, Ontario, is the town in question, and has a redirect at Caledonia Bypass Floydian τ ¢ 23:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and tag as incorrect name with {{R from incorrect name}}. The names are similar and likely to be confused. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EWT - I even read this as "Caledonia By-Pass" at first. I think {{R from misspelling}} would be a better tag though. Thryduulf (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible mistake. Seems very likely to be what a reader means if the enter Caledon By-Pass. WilyD 09:53, 24 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.

Barclays edit-a-thon[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) 00:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved article to the Wikipedia namespace. Redirects to Wikipedia namespace do not qualify for CSD R2, so taking to RfD. Probably an unnecessary redirect. Safiel (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but not speedily. This page was only created yesterday and is referring to a forthcoming structured training event where experienced Wikipedians will be on hand to explain namespaces, etc. therefore my rationale for recommending the keeping at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 15#Living paths does not apply. I do not support speedy deletion other than at the page creator's request though. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promoting a non-notable real world events using mainspace. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An XNR from mainspace without proper prefix. Confusiong for any reader who is lead outside of content space. -DePiep (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf. This might actually become a good example about how to work with namespaces during the training.--Lenticel (talk) 04:17, 25 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.

User:Restrictions on cell phone use by US drivers[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 delete per WP:CSD#G6. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't foresee someone ever wanting to use this as a username, it certainly qualifies as an implausible search term. This was created by a move error, and the article only remained here for a minute, so there shouldn't be any history or external links we risk breaking by deleting. BDD (talk) 20:35, 22 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.

Don't bite the newbies[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) 22:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 30 Courcelles 00:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re-delete, this redirect was deleted in August 2006. If it was controversial to delete then, it would have been noticed and brought to the community to review before now. There are hundreds of these CNRs deleted over the years. There is an ongoing RFC at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC: On the controversy of the pseudo-namespace shortcuts which is discussing cross-namespace redirects; if there is consensus at that RFC that CNRs are appropriate, we can revisit the old deletions. This redirect receives only a few hits per month. If we update the incoming links, that number will drop further. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Project space jargon. Mainspace should serve readers, editors looking for information behind the mainspace should look behind mainspace, not in it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. This is a commonly used phrase outside of Wikipedia too [1] so there it is not an implausible search term. Some content about this at Etiquette (technology)#Netiquette would probably be appropriate (I'm about to suggest this on the talk page there). Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any benefit to deleting this redirect, and I don't understand why anyone would object to a reasonable cross-namespace redirect. Keep.—S Marshall T/C 23:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just found Don't bite the newcomer, which redirects to the same location. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both redirects (the nom's and JV's) to the target found by Thryduulf, and slap documentation on the redirect to indicate why it exists. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, along with Don't bite the newcomer, per John and SmokeyJoe. Shouldn't be in mainspace search results. — Scott • talk 11:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletefor beung an XNR from mainspace without proper or any prefix. The problem is, S MArshall, that this leads readers outside of content space (to the WP engine room). This is confusing to say the least, and nobody is there to help that misguided reader out. -DePiep (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as harmless. I do appreciate JV's and others' desire to delete CNRs and on the whole I am with them. But in the absence of a better target in article namespace I see no harm for the XNR. Personally for myself I often type in a page to look at a WP or MOS page and just hope the search engine will pick it up. I realise that, as any other editor, I am in the unusual position of the engineer of rather liking to see the engine under the bonnet, and that quite rightly we must always keep in mind the mythical reader who comes only to drive and not to play with the spark plugs. But since every page has a temptation on it enticing readers to edit it themselves, I see no great harm in redirects that flip the lid. Most browsers have a "back" button. But I do also see that one doesn't want the lid to be flipped when one is cruising at seventy miles per hour. If these had a better target in article space I would say retarget without hesitation; as it is I see no harm in it staying, as a search term. However I would be tempted to change any internal incoming links to point at the target at the redirect. Si Trew (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't like that this is heading for no consensus territory, which few of us want. I'm absolutely fine with the retargeting suggestion in principle, but not before the phrase is mentioned at that page. Until it is, I'd rather have this red. If someone can add something before this discussion closes, I'll be happy to make it official and change my vote. --BDD (talk) 00:23, 31 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.

GROHL, DAVID ERIC[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. The creation of the lowercased version of this redirect made the delete votes stronger, but there's still no indication that this form will cause any real harm. --BDD (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a new redirect (one without the ALL CAPS) should be created. This is a person's name, after all, and this redirect could mislead anyone searching into thinking that they have entered the wrong search term before they finish searching. Hoops gza (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created Grohl, David Eric as the nominator asked. I don't see a problem with the all-caps redirect, except that it could be tagged with {{R from other capitalisation}}. —rybec 09:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Alternate capitalisation redirects and redirects from "Surname, Firstname" to "Firstname Sirname" titles are explicitly encouraged. Redirects that combine the two are not as useful, but that is still no reason to delete them. Tagging per Rybec will mark it as unprintworthy, which is all that needs to happen. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I used wrong markup; I meant it to show as {{R from other capitalisation|long name|modification}}. —rybec 19:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I saw in the edit window and what I was encouraging. I hadn't twigged it was displaying differently in the view! For future reference I think you want {{tlx}} not {{tl}} when showing parameters. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, no argument has been presented to motivate deletion. WilyD 10:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searching for lastname, firstname is... vaguely... plausible. As Rybec has created a redirect in that format that's correctly-cased, there's no need for this. We don't need to maintain a ghost world of redirects that look like something out of a 1950s library card index. — Scott • talk 16:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this redirect adds a useless entry to the search results. Without this redirect, the reader will see search results that lead them to the right page. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re John Vandenberg, the only people who see the search suggestions are those people with javascript enabled who use the internal search engine. This is only one of the many ways to navigate Wikipedia, some of which are case sensitive, and one of the reasons we keep redirects from other capitalisations. Deletion would be harmful for no benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is a potential harm in deleting this redirect, but no harm in keeping it. Unless there's some other guy named David Grohl. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible synonym.--Lenticel (talk) 04:18, 25 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.

Delaware Breakwater West End Light[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 withdrawn (non-admin closure) Mangoe (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete This appears to have resulted from a mistake on the USCG Delaware lights page. These pages are far from infallible, and charts and light lists show that there were three lights on this breakwater: the west and east end lights, and the front range light between them (see for instance the 1907 light list). The west end light was just a lantern on a post, and given the materials I've found so far it's unlikely that it will ever get its own article; however, if someone else can find the material then it would in any case be written up separately. For now it needs to be a red link. Mangoe (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]

  • Keep or retarget. The existence of this on the Delaware lights page means it is a likely search term, and so we should direct people to where the content is. If all it merits is a note that it is a lantern on a post that was incorrectly called a lighthouse then we should retarget it to where we say that, which would seem to be either the present target or the Delaware Breakwater article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • withdrawing On further research it appears that the old front light was also sometimes called the West End Light. Part of the problem also is that the coordinates in the article are wildly inaccurate. I've done some cleanup which should I hope eliminate some of the confusion. Mangoe (talk) 23:06, 22 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.

Sonic lost world 2[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) 00:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax redirect about a nonexistent video game. It was originally created as a hoax article by User:LOLFaker101, then subsequently redirected by User:MrX, who, based on his edit summaries, seems to be unaware that the article's original content is false. This redirect serves no use as "Sonic lost world 2" has never existed, and probably never will exist. satellizer (talk - contributions) 10:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as a hoax. leaving redirects like this around makes Wikipedia look silly[2]. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:51, 25 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.

Special Pages[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) 00:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR which as a long history of being deleted in the alternative capitalisation and non-plural form special page. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find anything else this could possibly refer to. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not about special pages in phone books. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being an XNR from mainspace without any or proper prefix. Confusing of polluting mainspace. -DePiep (talk) 14:34, 24 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.

Research director[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) 00:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current target is one of many organisations employing people whose job title is "research director". See, for example, this article mentioning a research director for the U.S. House Rules Committee. In 2008 and 2009 the target was ghostwriter, but that doesn't seem much better. Could perhaps point to researcher, but I get the sense a research director is something slightly different. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Target to researcher until an article is written. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or dab maybe). Highly dependent on proprietary organizational schemes that are very varied in their attributions and unlikely to have been surveyed by some secondary sources. (Did a quick Google Books search and nothing useful came up.) I don't see plausible content that isn't going to be a long list of positions based on WP:PRIMARY sources, which isn't what articles should normally contain. Also, the term director of research is more common, but as you can see, it's a red link. One biz book [3] does define the latter as the person "plans, executes and controls the firm's research function." But obviously there are other defs [4] (which confesses that there isn't much literature on the topic) doesn't quite give a def, but lists what it see as desirable traits in a director of research. It's a bit cringe-worthy to add something like that to any wiki article, as it's basically a sort of advice/self-help book. I should add that the first book uses director in the sense of director (business), while the latter is basically talking about a principal investigator. Maybe a dab can be mustered. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete target is definitely the wrong place to point this. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:00, 22 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.

Wikipedia article rescue squadron[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) 00:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR to a WikiProject created in September 2011, not following typical naming conventions, and not targeted at reader or newbies. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How likely is it that Wikipedia readers may be looking for information on the Wikipedia article rescue squadron? Has it been covered in reliable independent sources? A cross namespace redirect does seem problematic, perhaps there is a better alternative if in fact the subject is something readers may be looking for or have read about elsewhere. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and to answer Candleabracadabra's question, almost never, since I suspect most readers don't even know it exists. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - straightforwardly sends readers/editors to what they're looking for. No argument has been presented to support deletion. WilyD 09:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contamination of mainspace search with inappropriate project navel-gazing. — Scott • talk 14:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. CNR from mainspace without proper or any prefix, so this is confusing for readers who correctly (think they) live in contentspace only. readers who are actually looking for the target page, WilyD, shopuldbe advised / should learn to look in non-content space. One of the reasons for the existence of namespaces is to separate content from the engine. -DePiep (talk) 17:07, 28 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.

Mulan[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 Hua Mulan. Note that there are many incoming links that will need to be fixed. So it goes. While the naming issue has been discussed before, at Talk:Mulan (disambiguation)#Requested move, a specific move of Mulan (disambiguation) to Mulan may still be worth pursuing. --BDD (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a brief, evenly divided discussion on what to do with Mulan here. The only consensus was, "Mulan" definitely shouldn't take you straight to the Disney movie. So where should it take you? Should it be the location of the disambiguation page, or a redirect to the article on the historical figure/legend/character Hua Mulan? Red Slash 01:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Hua Mulan. This is the encyclopedic WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and also serves as a good WP:CONCEPTDAB for the other uses, including the Disney film and character. As someone said at the RM, this is similar to Robin Hood, where the main article is also a concept dab for related articles.--Cúchullain t/c 03:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hua Mulan per Cúchullain, a hatnote to the Disney movie wouldn't hurt as well.---Lenticel (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mulan (Disney character), as I've pointed out in the other discussion, Hua Mulan is not just Mulan, just like Robin Hood cannot be titled just Robin. While Robin by itself most commonly refers to a bird, Mulan by itself means magnolia in Chinese. It's true, English wikipedia needs not be concerned with Chinese usages, but it's irrefutable to me that most users, Chinese or otherwise, searching for just "Mulan" are looking for the Disney character — who is based on Hua Mulan, true, but has her own page and a completely different identity. Timmyshin (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with disambiguation page or retarget to Hua Mulan; my first choice is disambiguation. In any case, it cannot be pointed to the Disney character, since the Disney movie and Disney character and Disney Mulan franchise would be about equally likely between the Disney topics if you exclude all non-Disney topics. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation page should be moved to the plain title. The move discussion (and the one here) did not show a clear primary target, so disambiguation is the default. —Kusma (t·c) 17:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some combination of articles on the legendary figure of Mulan and her various incarnations are far and away the primary topic of the term "Mulan". Hua Mulan covers all of those, including the Disney film and character; it's already the WP:CONCEPTDAB for the topic.--Cúchullain t/c 14:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Too many possibilities, particularly since the movie and movie character have separate articles. It also seems likely that searches for the movie or movie character are more common. Mangoe (talk) 18:14, 23 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 it[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) 00:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Not it" is no longer mentioned in the dibs article. It doesn't look like there are any plausible sources for this redirect besides Urban Dictionary. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was mentioned in the article(2005-2010 in a section called "No Dibs", which has also been removed from the text. Delete John Vandenberg (chat) 12:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per John Vandenberg. Si Trew (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JV. — Scott • talk 14:45, 27 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_22&oldid=1138579641"