Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 4, 2014.

Florida State Road 769[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) 17:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, along with buddies State Road 769 (Florida), SR 769 (FL), State Road 835 (Florida), and SR 835. As detailed on Talk:Former State Roads in Florida#SR 769 and referenced in List of county roads in Hendry County, Florida, these state roads have never existed (the county roads with those numbers instead had different state road numbers). NE2 23:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. NE2 has done the homework and put it up for discussion at the article's talk page with no responses (which doesn't surprise me these days nobody seems to look at an article's talk page). Unless someone says to the contrary oh yes there were, then all of them should be deleted as misleading. Si Trew (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I posted that about an hour before listing the redirect here. --NE2 10:09, 5 March 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.

Kent Thameside Fastrack[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 Fastrack (bus). --BDD (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect - Anyone would search for either Arriva Kent Thameside or Fastrack to view the Fastrack (bus) article,
Thanks, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or retarget. This is an R to a DAB (although not marked as such), and a somewhat unlikely search term, but if it is to stay then it would be better to retarget it to Fastrack (bus) rather than have it target a DAB, since as Davey2010 implies, if someone does search this term surely that is where they want to go. Si Trew (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. This unambiguously refers to one topic and so should point there. I haven't investigated, but I would not be surprised if the current target was made into a disambig after the creation of this redirect. Regardless, there is no benefit to deleting this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 5 March 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.

Katharine Cook Briggs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 17#Katharine Cook Briggs

87th Academy Awards[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) 17:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect for now. UBStalk 20:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are detailed articles for the 86th Academy Awards, the 85th Academy Awards and so on, the ones that have actually happened. This was created on 4 April 2010, so it seems a bit premature and a bit kinda WP:CRYSTAL to assume that these will actually even take place (who knows? Remember Lehmann Brothers?). There are also redirects for 88th Academy Awards, 89th Academy Awards, 90th Academy Awards, all of which were created on the same day 4 April 2010 at around 07:30 UTC by the same user, User:Birdienest81, and all of which redirect to the same target Academy Awards and should be deleted by the same token. But that seems to be where it stops (there is no 91st Academy Awards or 92nd Academy Awards). I include the user's name not to point the finger but just to attract attention by that user if they want to contribute to this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I suspect now or soon is the time to encourage the creation of the 87th awards. Beyond that, the more or less same reasoning applies - we're very probably going to want to create 88th, 89th, etc. before they're useful redirects. WilyD 10:34, 5 March 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.

Gaucho pants[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. Though I'm involved, it's almost been a month, consensus is unanimous, and the backlog is horrendous. --BDD (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target page. Gaucho itself has one mention of the pants (trousers) traditionally worn by gauchos, but "Gaucho pants" usually refers to the modern fashion. BDD (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one incoming link, which refers to 70's style. I have no objection to deleting this, although in retrospect it seems to me that all kinds of pants should redirect to Trousers unless they have their own article. bd2412 T 18:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment. They're not really trousers/pants though are they, they are overtrousers like American Cowboys wore (or at least in films they wore) I forget the word.. Slips? That's not right. If they are not trousers it is misleading to redirect them to trousers. I wish I could remember the word. Si Trew (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chaps? The modern fashion marketed as "Gaucho pants" are worn as typical pants, i.e., nothing beneath but underwear (if that). --BDD (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah thank you that is the word I was think of.... it never begins with S when you can't find it does it (or P or whatever) that is exacly what I was thinking of. I suppose then it should go R to trousers. Si Trew (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was just wondering if there were an article for going commando. Apparently there is. But then if this is just this season's fashion style and is not mentioned at the target then it it should go delete. Wikipedia is not Vogue and these fashions change with the wind, I imagine a better editor than me could find a policy on that but unless there is any useful content it should go Delete. We are not in the rag trade. Si Trew (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

T. L. Handy Middle School[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 5#2014 April 5#T. L. Handy Middle School

Niagrara Falls (Greg Hawkes 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion of this redirect, which is an "implausible typo" that was created and then fixed with a page move in November 2006 -- see the edit history for the redirect. After the initial misspelling and fix, the article was renamed to not include "Greg Hawkes", but that's not important now. The point is that "Niagara Falls" was initially misspelled "Niagrara Falls", which as I said is an implausible typo (unlike, for example, Niagra Falls, which is a plausible or common misspelling and therefore a useful redirect, but for the waterfall, not the album, if you follow me). Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - plausible typo. Nominator seems to be confusing "plausible" with "likely". WilyD 08:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:RFD#KEEP says that one reason for not deleting a redirect is that it's "redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling". But "Niagrara Falls" is not a frequent misspelling. Maybe I should have said "frequent" instead of "plausible" in my nomination. It's plausible that someone would misspell the term as "Niagrara", and in fact someone did do so, which is why the redirect exists. But unlike "Niagra Falls" it's not a frequent misspelling. Otherwise wouldn't we end up keeping all redirects, like this one, that are accidental misspellings? My understanding is that we only want to keep the frequent ones. — Mudwater (Talk) 09:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Err, those directions are not super clear, but as a good rule of thumb, if a term is going to be typed into the search box from time to time, it's best to keep the redirect so the readers are sent to the article they're looking for, rather than being given a needlessly cold response, unless there's some benefit to deleting the redirect (which doesn't seem to be the case here), in which case you'd have to weigh the two against each other. In this case
Pros of keeping:
  1. The occasional reader who makes a typo gets sent to the article they're looking for.
Pros of deleting:
And so it makes sense to keep. WilyD 10:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cons of keeping: search results are cluttered up with junk leftover from a trivial problem that was fixed a long time ago. WilyD's personal interpretation of "plausible typo" dilutes it beyond the utility of its original intention into a mandate for retaining an unlimited collection of garbage. — Scott • talk 13:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it's a plausibel typo - see touch typing, which results in typos of this nature a hundred million times a day. Given that Niagara is pronouced "Ny-A-Gra", this typo is even more likely to occur because a brain typing 'g' is already thinking 'r'. That's why, of course, the term shows up a hundred thousand times in a Google search - as far as I can see every time referring to Niagra falls - because the typo is so exceedingly plausible. WilyD 18:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I put in a picture of a real typewriter (my old aunt's which I have here and have cleaned up) at touch typing and Remington Rand, so some good has come of it: but I couldn't get my hands in it while holding the camera at the same time. Si Trew (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a plausible typo. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does no harm, and may have incoming links. Redirects are cheap, and providing this is not actully harming the search engine finding other albums called "Niagara falls" etc, Keep by default. Si Trew (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mudwater, the move you requested on the target article's talk page was correct. I've carried it out and updated this request accordingly. It's now a pretty straightforward typo. Does the move of the target page affect Scott's or Malik Shabazz's opinion? --BDD (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. Sideways713 (talk) 17:04, 17 March 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_March_4&oldid=1138579762"