Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 26, 2014.

Kathy Casey-Kirschling[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. It looks like the addition of material on this person didn't stick. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An apparently pointless redirect - the person in the title doesn't seem to be mentioned in the target. She might have been once, but can't be found there new. I've declined a G8 as I didn't think it appropriate, and R2 would be out of the question too. Peridon (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems she was the first US 'baby boomer' but not notable enough for an article - or mention in the BB article either. Is she notable enough for a redirect when there's no explanation when you get there of why you got taken there? Peridon (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. We do not have any coverage of her that I can find (save this redirect's appearance on the Katherine Casey disambig), and we should not pretend that we do. If someone wants to find information about her, we can't help and shouldn't pollute the search results. If this is deleted, the aforementioned dab might be better redirected to one of the other two people mentioned and hatnotes added. Thryduulf (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. This redirect is misleading, as the article doesn't mention her. Boleyn (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi everyone. I originally created this redirect back in 2008. I did so because I saw the name mentioned in an article somewhere and turned to Wikipedia for info. I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other. I will say, however, that I think that this redirect falls under WP:R#KEEP, numbers three and six. (This argument would be stronger if baby boomers mentioned Casey-Kirschling, I admit.) But for me, and perhaps others, these sorts of redirects can be useful. They allow users with nothing but a single word or phrase to go on to at least get a rough idea of what the term is all about. Again, I don't feel strongly, but I think it's a useful redirect. Best, faithless (speak) 01:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added three cites about her in the article. I doubt that we can make a good article out of the refs about her but they might be enough to make a section at the Boomer article though. My entry could use some American touch though since I'm not that familiar with your demographics. --Lenticel (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks OK to me now I'm happy to withdraw the nomination if others agree it's now sorted. Peridon (talk) 13:02, 28 October 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.

Caitlin snow[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) 18:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both are redirects to a specific version of a comic book character. The first is essentially redundant as typing in the name using any capitalization version yields the same result. It also does not currently point directly from use in an article, only from and ANI thread and copy of that thread. This redirect is unneeded and should be deleted. The second is only linked to various Ironman competition articles which list "Caitlin Snow" as a competitor. The redirect as it currently stands results in an incorrect linkage of subjects. Given the ambiguity over which Caitlin Snow a reader could be looking for, this redirect should be moved to either Caitlin Snow (comics) (preferred dabbing based on the Comics WikiProject) or Caitlin Snow (character) (the comic book character has been adapted for use in a television series) and Caitlin Snow reserved for a possible dab page. This would also imply that the links in the 2009-2014 Ironman World Championship and 2010-2014 Ironman 70.3 World Championship pages (11 in total) be changed to pont to Caitlin Snow (athlete). - J Greb (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious keep and disambiguate if necessary. This is what redirects are for. --NE2 14:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • For clarity: I am suggesting Caitlin Snow as it currently is get moved. Caitlin snow is redundant even if moved and should be deleted. Frankly, since the search algorithm here and through places like Google are case insensitive, two essentially identical redirects should never have been created at the same time. - J Greb (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that Caitlin snow is redundant. I don't think there's any need for Caitlin Snow (character), at least not until The Flash tv show runs on longer (as was the case with characters from Smallville). I don't know if every athlete is deserving of recognition per WP:BIO, but I won't argue if the majority want Caitlin Snow to be a disambiguation page that includes a mentioning of the Ironman competitor Caitlin Snow.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be honest I'm looking at (character) based on 1) the situation with Wolverine (character) and 2) at this pint "Caitlin Snow" as far as DC Comics related material covers the comic book character, with 12 appearances which include uses as a background character, and the TV character, with 4 appearances to date most of which are as a core character. (character) is looking down the road.
          As for the athlete it's more a case of something that was in place prior to the redirects. At this point a non-dabbed redirect creates confusion at a minimum. The editors that created the Ironman Championship pages operated on good faith that the competitors could/should justify pages at a later date. I don't see anything here, or inherent in the fictional character at this point, that would point to removing the links and just serving the character. - J Greb (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect can be converted to be a disambiguation page, if you have alternate topics. The TV version already appears as a paragraph in the current target. Conversion to disambiguation does not require deletion. The uncapitalized form caitlin snow should be kept anyways, if the capitalized form is converted to be a disambiguation page, then it can be retargetted to it as a {{R from alternate capitalization}}. If it isn't, then it's working properly. There's nothing stopping you from creating new redirects at Caitlin Snow (character) etc. That the Ironman articles link to the incorrect topic is not a reason to delete the redirect, since the target of the redirect has information about a topic known as "Caitlin Snow". Clearly the error is in the Ironman articles, not the redirect. Just change the Ironman articles to point to some other redlink title (such as with additional parenthetical disambiguation) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Points that were missed:
      • Having multiple pages with the same spelling but alternate capitalizations is unneeded short of encouraging malformed links in an article. The use of the redirects as a search tool relies on search algorithms that are not case sensitive. Having a redundant redirect, even if there is a category for it, is not, in anyway justifiable.
      • Since the links in the Ironman articles predates the redirects, yes, the error is in the redirects. There are multiple potential targets for a search or link to the name. It is wrong to point just to one. It is worse when the chosen target is not among what the redirect already links to. The correction is to either move the redirect to a title that cover just the intended target topic, or to convert the redirect directly into a dab page. Hatnotes in this case are a bad coice since the target is a small section buried with in a large article and the other target lacks an article. Note that this is not deletion but either refinement or re-purposing.
    • -J Greb (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since the Ironman topic does not have coverage on Wikipedia, it is the Ironman article which is in error, as the topic that exists on Wikipedia gets the redirect, not the nonexistant one. Why do we not preemptively disambiguate articles, and those that are are speedily moved, regardless of what redlinks came first pertaining to some other topic? It should be the same here. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for the moment. Once two pages exist, converting to a dab, or replacing the redirects and hat-noting would make sense. Until then, there's nothing to do. WilyD 11:27, 28 October 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.

Strange Tales (pulp magazines)[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) 18:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect results from a good faith move which has now been reversed. There are not two pulp magazines with this title; there's a pulp and a digest, and they now each have their own article. This is not something that could be plausibly entered as a search. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep or disambiguate. That there was a good faith move to this title indicates that this is something that could be plausibly entered as a search. I am unfamiliar with the subject area and wouldn't know the difference between a pulp magazine and a digest. I wouldn't know whether they were covered in one article or two. The only question is whether someone searching this title will be better served by a dab page or by being taken to the article about the singular magazine and following a hatnote or link in the lead to the other if that is what they are wanting. I'm leaning towards the latter, but I'm open to arguments to the contrary. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really have a strong opinion on this; my main concern was to separate the pulp magazine from the digest. For what it's worth, here are my thoughts. I don't think the move indicates that someone could plausibly search using this string; aside from the fact that the parenthesized disambiguation strings are rarely used in searches, to enter that string you'd have to know that at least one of the magazines was a pulp magazine, and to enter the full string including the "s" on the end you'd have to believe there are more than one. Anyone actually entering "Strange Tales (pulp magazine)" to search would surely search for that, and not add the "s". Per WP:2DABS I don't think a dab page is necessary. I think the current hatnotes are good enough; they're short, concise, and accurate. But I'm willing to defer to others who spend more time reviewing redirects than I do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's not 100% clear to me that it's currently directing readers to what they're overwhelmingly likely to be looking for, but it's a pretty good guess, and the other possible targets are all in hatnotes anyways. I don't think I'd object to a disamb per se, but I don't feel like it's necessary. WilyD 11:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a perfectly valid {{R from other disambiguation}}. Steel1943 (talk) 11:54, 28 October 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.

H de Kantzow[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 Sydney de Kantzow. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what this is supposed to mean, certainly not related to the target - TheChampionMan1234 08:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some copy editing to the bio (infobox and refs mainly), more could be added. Si Trew (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After this nomination was made, I created the Sydney H de Kantzow and Sydney H. de Kantzow redirects to the biography (you missed the "n" from the second above, hence the redlink). I didn't create H. de Kantzow but would support it being done if this redirect is not deleted. If sources use Syd de Kantzow (I haven't looked) then that will also make a good redirect and doesn't need to wait on the outcome of this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the typo. Yes, it's not just the ref itself, but the ref gives pics of docs where he has signed as "Syd", and it seems the name he mostly used. I'd wait until we have consensus to retarget, otherwise "Syd" and "Sydney" would point at different targets. Si Trew (talk) 10:29, 28 October 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.

United States of Venezuela[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 overwrite with Si Trew's draft. It could use more attention, sure, but what article couldn't? I've seen much worse. Thanks for seeing to this. --BDD (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausibe search term, there are also many such redirects here - TheChampionMan1234 08:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget. According to our articles, the term was used (interchangeably with others) for both the First Republic of Venezuela and the Second Republic of Venezuela. It gets only a passing mention in the article about the First Republic, with which it is perhaps more associated, and a slightly more prominent mention in the article about the second republic. It is not mentioned in the broader History of Venezuela article, which deals with both of these republics, so I'm not sure what the best target is. I'll ping the WikiProject to get their thoughts. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "EE UU de Venezuela" (for "Estados Unidos de V...") was the inscription on quite a few early Venezuelan stamps. This is a translation of that. According to https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estados_Unidos_de_Venezuela, this was the country's name from 1864 to 1953. I think this should be kept as a plausible search term, but where exactly it should target is another matter. Perhaps the Estados Unidos name should be added to the Venezuela article, which seems to omit it, then this redirect would be validated. Peridon (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My Spanish is only at intermediate level, so I'm not boldly replacing it. I don't think there are too many howlers but some translations such as "interino presidente" -> "interim president" may be better as "deputy president", "acting president" or "vice president" (since the context is how the role of president was achieved); but I think that can be handled with normal editing. Si Trew (talk) 10:29, 2 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.

Some indian facts[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) 18:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term and misleading taregt. - TheChampionMan1234 08:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Outline of India which contains facts about India. I wouldn't have thought that this was a useful search term, but the stats show that that it is actually used by around 15 people a month. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete WP:NOTFAQ ; this title is a "faq"-like title of faq lists -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTFAQ is about article structure, and so completely irrelevant to redirects. If people are looking on Wikipedia for facts about India using this title, and the stats show that people do, why on earth would we not want to take them to our article that contains facts about India? If you have an issue with the content or title of the target, then this is the wrong place to discuss that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If some people enter the title expecting to find a FAQ, they are being mislead, as FAQs are not part of Wikipedia. So the redirect should be deleted -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • People entering this title will be expecting to find "some Indian facts" - i.e. some facts about India. We have a page of facts about India (whether you like that page or not) so let's take them there. If they are actually looking for an FAQ about India then that is not what their search term indicates, and anyway Outline of India is the page we have that is most likely to be useful to them. I would agree that "India FAQ", "Indian FAQ" or "FAQ about India" would be a misleading redirect, but that's not the redirect we're discussing here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That (67.70's) would be an argument for deleting, say, (redlink) India FAQ. This is more like a natural language search, so I would weakly retarget per Thryduulf, although I am leaning to say delete: the world seems to survive without Facts about India and India facts and the "some" would seem superfluous (would we ever have All Indian facts?) Si Trew (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is not Some Indian facts. I guess we should move it there (ideally without creating an R to R.) Si Trew (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Implausible search term. Ivanvector (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the redirect is being regularly used proves either that it is not actually implausible, or that people are finding it by methods other than searching (e.g. on a link on an external website) or both. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been accessed 56 times in the last 90 days, as of my check. If you deduct the 27 hits since this RfD was posted, that's about 2 hits per week. Hardly "regularly used". For comparison, India has been hit 1,905,621 times; Outline of India 30,710 times. Ivanvector (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to this AfD, this was getting between 7 and 20 hits every month. 2-3 of those hits at most are attributable to search engine spiders and other non-human uses, which still leaves at least 5 to 15 human uses every month - that isn't a lot but it is more than zero so we do need to consider those people. Do not confuse "intensive use" and "regular use". Thryduulf (talk) 08:48, 4 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.

Fact sheet on India[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 Outline of India. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term and misleading target - TheChampionMan1234 08:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there is, Wikipedia:Outlines. Interesting project. Anyway, doesn't change my !vote. Ivanvector (talk) 17:57, 3 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_26&oldid=1050183321"