Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 11, 2014.

List of Arubans[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. I've restored the list at Aruba and updated this link to Aruba#Notable people. If the matter needs to be discussed further, it should be done at Talk:Aruba. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally an article that was merged with Aruba since it was unsourced and only had 12 entries. However, another user recently removed this from the Aruba article, citing it as unreferenced trivia. Because of that, this redirect should be deleted unless that list is restored. There is no reason to have a separate article unless substantially more notable people from Aruba can be found. 69.118.139.245 (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment given that Category:Aruban people by occupation has over 20 individual people in it's subcategories I think that a referenced list is entirely possible and possibly desirable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I would not object to restoring the list, either as its own article or part of the main Aruba article if a lot more people who are from there can be added with proper citations. Personally, I don't get why the editor who removed the list called it "Trivia" when there are similar lists all over Wikipedia. 69.118.139.245 (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's something that needs to be discussed on the article talk page, possibly advertised at a relevant WikiProject talk, rather than here. I'm tempted to close this discussion without prejudice until that discussion has concluded. Thoughts? Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 12 November 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.

Sarbajit Roy[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 procedural close as a duplicate nomination, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 10#Sarbajit Roy. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable individual who is associated with a group calling itself 'India Against Corruption' which is not clearly the same 'India Against Corruption' which we have an article about ([1]) --Mdann52talk to me! 11:26, 11 November 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.

Battle of Mogadishu (2007)[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 Battle of Mogadishu. JohnCD (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Battle of Mogadishu (disambiguation page) ; this has variously pointed to Battle of Mogadishu (March–April 2007), Battle of Mogadishu, Battle of Mogadishu (November 2007). Most of the incoming links are referring to the springtime battle, not the autumn one. As this is ambiguous, it should be repointed to the disambiguation page. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per 67.70 Si Trew (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - two (2007) battles, I see no reason to believe readers are universally searching for one. WilyD 16:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 05:17, 12 November 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:Jollibean[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. I have no objections to the user recreating this as a soft redirect if desired. --BDD (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main user page should not be redirected to other articles; This redirect exist due to a page move. HYH.124 (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Legal Aid Bureau
  • Delete this user used their userpage as a sandbox, instead of creating a sandbox subpage, so the leftover redirect is highly inappropriate. Someone arriving on the userpage would get redirected, and those could then click on talk to try to leave the user a message, meaning the message ends up on the wrong talk page, so is a harmful redirect. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to a soft redirect. That eliminates all the problems of a redirect while maintaining the link the user is apparently happy with. We should not be deleting pages when there is a non-deletion option available that does the same job, doubly so for user pages the user has not requested be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's comment: We should either clear the page or delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 6#User:Ming Bridges. HYH.124 (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:User pagesThis user has not been active on their account since the creation of the 2 articles, which is going on to 3 years in March, even then they only edited for a day after the initial creation and one edit 2 weeks later, and have not been seen again.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:16, 17 November 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.

Titus O'Neil and Darren Young[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) 19:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect of members of a wrestling tag team - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Keep - unambiguously directs readers to what they're looking for. The claim that it's implausible someone will search for a duo by their real names rather than the duo's name is so laughably silly I'm not sure how one could hope to address it. WilyD 11:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps by thinking of Titus O'Neil And Darren Young, Titus O'Neill And Darren Young, Titus O Neil and Daren Young, Titus O'Neil, Daren Young or Darren Young, Daren Yong or Darren Yong, by doing a bit of research WP:BEFORE. Si Trew (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a misplaced sentence fragment. WilyD 16:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Si Trew is trying to say that the non-existence of other redirects (most of which is are misspellings) demonstrates the implausibility of this one. Unfortunately if that is the case it is both incorrect and time to re-read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Keep per WilyD, searching using the names of members of a duo to find information about that duo is completely logical. Just because it might not be the method you personally would choose does not impact what others do. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am saying likely search targets are for the individual performers which are blue links. The "and" is the weak fulcrum. Si Trew (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The individuals are likely search targets, yes. However that does not, in theory or practice, mean that the two as a duo is not also a likely search target. WP:OTHERSTUFF is as I suspected the relevant page to read. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would behoove you to look at the article, then. People will search for duos as duos. Peanut butter and jelly goes somewhere because people search for the duo, even though Peanut butter and Jelly each have their own articles as well. Peanut butter and Lorentz transformations goes nowhere because they're not a duo (yet). WilyD 10:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Titus O'Neil And Darren Young doesn't exist, nor does Titus O'Neil & Darren Young. They would seem equally likely search terms (incorrect or not). I'm swaying towards Wily's argument (and if it goes that way I think we should make those Rs) but then swaying back. I know what WP:ARTICLETITLE says. It would be lovely if we had stats for redlinks, people trying to find and not being able to, and what happens then? A search page: which would suggest we could have saved them the bother by bringing up the search page in the first place. Si Trew (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Serious, re-read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because other plausible redirects don't (yet) exist does not mean that this plausible one should not (if this is kept then I will likely create those as well). What happens if people try and visit a page that doesn't exist depends on several things, principally what method they use and whether they are logged in or not, whether the title was previously deleted may have impacted too but I'm not 100% sure on that one. I went through all this a couple of years back, from memory the possible results were:
  • Search results / search engine failed to find anything / search engine broke
  • Invitation to search
  • Invitation to create a page
  • Edit window to start creating a page

WP:TOPRED is the only place I know of that reliable statistics for page visits to non-existent pages are recorded; and even then I don't know whether someone not visiting the URL of that page (e.g. only viewing search results) is recorded or not. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is generally incomplete, and thus the non-existence of an article or redirect is a bad argument that we shouldn't have that article or redirect. My usual thinking is that redirects are not usually worth creating systematically, but better created on the fly when I search for a term and am not redirected, but further searching reveals an article exists, or when you find inexperienced users creating duplicate article(s) are locations because they're unaware of redirects. WilyD 11:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the redlinks I provided above show that inexperienced readers do not just create redirects on the fly. Surely, our task is to help people find the information they want. Had I, with my "reader" hat on, created those redirects, would Thryduulf say "Now they are created, they cannot be deleted"? Si Trew (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Our job is indeed to help people find the content they are looking for, and if a redirect has been created by a human then in most cases that indicates that someone was using that term to find the target (that's why I create most of the redirects that I do, e.g. Philae (lander) → Philae (spacecraft)). So if the target is correct and unambiguously referred to by the redirect title it is normally best to leave them as they are. "Now they are created, they cannot be deleted" is not an accurate representation of my view, which is more correctly rendered as "Now they are created, they should not be deleted without a good reason". The existence or non-existence of other redirects is rarely a good reason, and as explained above it is not in this case, but I do not talk in absolutes. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 14 November 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.

Pokulus[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. JohnCD (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. This is a redirect from a very implausible typo of "Polokus" (a character in the game). No pages link to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBD123 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. There seems no better target: the last few days I have been thinking would "Poke-U-Less" or "Polka? Us?" or "Populus" be good targets (no!). That rare-flowering plant the "Pocculus" doesn't exist either. Si Trew (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. My Google search didn't show viable targets either.--Lenticel (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the closest I've turned up in searches is "Pokulous" which is apparently the name of a non-notable poker website, and "pukulous" which has a definition in Urban Dictionary (the perfect example of an unreliable source, but would be a dictionary definition anyway) and which might also mean something in Finnish (although Google translate doesn't help). None of those though present any useful targets on the English Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think this is a plausible typo and no other legitimate targets have been found.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 22:37, 18 November 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.

Fernando Ruiz[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. At a glance, none of the incoming links refer to anyone on that dab, so they're probably appropriately red. --BDD (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect makes Fernando Ruiz pointing to the dab page Fernando Ruiz de Castro, but needless to say not all Fernando Ruiz's are called like that. So now there are about a dozen internal Fernando Ruiz links pointing to that dab page. Redirect should be deleted so those links become red again until someone wants to create a dab page for the various Fernando Ruiz entries required. Midas02 (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commment. Which dozen internal links? Can you list them (or fix them?) Si Trew (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Special:WhatLinksHere/Fernando_Ruiz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midas02 (talk • contribs)
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_November_11&oldid=1050183547"