Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 21, 2016.

Joasaph[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 set index-ify. Everyone seems to be in agreement, and it seems obvious, so there's no need to prolong the inevitable. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not the most famous Joasaph. In fact he is almost never referred to by this name. Turn into a DAB page. The Traditionalist (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be bold and retarget them to Joasaph, keeping in mind a recent consensus. If someone disagrees, they can always nominate that spelling. -- Tavix (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2016 (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.

Professional soldier[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 ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since this redirect is mere nonsense. Standing armies in some countries consist of mostly conscripts rather than professional soldiers. RekishiEJ (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that works out. That particular section, besides being unhelpfully short, is talking about differing terms of service and the nature of service for soldiers, rather than detailing differences between people that were drafted versus volunteer forces versus others. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:XY per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Could mean a high-ranking officer who has spent his or her career in the Army, could mean someone who just happens to paid for soldiering rather than say a guerilla, could mean a lot of things. I think it's too vague for us to take it anywhere sensible. Yes, the term is used, of course, but WP:NOTDIC and without context it becomes too vague, I think. Si Trew (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine doing whatever w/the redirect. As the person who created the redirect, I don't remember what I was thinking when I created it. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2016 (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.

Events in 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 keep. There is clear consensus here to keep this redirect, and, in addition, there is consensus to mass-create similar redirects via bot (if it passes a BRFA) (non-admin closure) Omni Flames let's talk about it 06:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to create ~6,000 redirects using my bot account. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SSTbot 1 for details. Since a BAG member asked for consensus to create these redirects, I manually created one of the redirects I was planning to create, and am immediately taking this to RFD to see if such a redirect is appropriate. If there is consensus that such a redirect is useful, I am proceeding with my BRFA. SSTflyer 13:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose. Good grief, i would hope given the recent circumstances with Neelix and other thousands-of-redirects creators that this would be a joke. Bit apparently it isn't. I think it's block-worthy though, if you enact it. Softlavender (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Softlavender, "oppose" is ambiguous. Do you mean "oppose the bot run, and delete this redirect"? It would help if you'd clarify your vote with "delete", or with something else if you don't mean that. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete “I am planning to create ~6,000 redirects using my bot account” Some people do not learn by their mistakes.--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this idea seems helpful and useful. Can we please get past the mass redirect hysteria; this is not the same situation as Neelix's at all. I do appreciate this method of gaining consensus for mass creation, I hope it becomes standard in the future. -- Tavix (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tavix, "support" is ambiguous. Do you mean "support the bot run, and keep this redirect"? It would help if you'd clarify your vote with "keep", or with something else if you don't mean that. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I support the bot run, which would mean keeping the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and support bot run - yeah, looks good. Users looking for "events in 2007" will find what they're looking for at the target. How do you come about to 6,000 of them? Neat way to gauge consensus, although I suppose it might be cleaner to do it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There'll be redirects for events, births and deaths. Subtracting the few redirects that have already been created, you're looking at about 2,000 redirects for each group. I agree that other places would be cleaner, but you'll get the "best" consensus here as you'll get roughly the same people "approving" the redirects ahead of time as you'd get should someone wants them deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (WP:BAG note) - I understand mass redirects can be touchy - feel free to engage any question and answer regarding the bot task at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SSTbot 1. — xaosflux Talk 03:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (because "Support" and "Oppose" are ambiguous here); unless we already have an article about events, births, or deaths in a specific year, one of these redirects will be unquestionably helpful. Nyttend (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I clarified my !vote, others may want to too. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the proposal. I agree, although I am the main one going through the Neelix redirects, that running a bot for making useful redirects is not inherently harmful, and can be useful. I myself keep many Neelix redirects, so yes, we have to see past that hysteria and ask whether this is useful or not? If it has got bot approval, it's listed here, it's not as if anyone is going behind anyone's back. To have redirects for events may or may not be useful, I am not sure and will not argue that, but certainly what we must not do is confuse someone who has taken something to bot process, ask for a specific approval, come here as kinda a second check, someone who has gone through all due diligence to ask the community whether there is consensus to create these, with Neelix who just WP:BOLDly created thousands of what sometimes are bizarre (and sometimes sensible) redirects. The biggest problem with the neelix redirects is ploughing through them because you can't assume that it makes sense or not. So I definitely agree that we must separate this one from the Neelix "hysteria". Bots amend redirects all the time (typically for double redirects for things like {{R from move}}) and they don't always get it right because as an article is improved over time the redirect may or may not make sense any longer) so in principle I have no problem with this. I actually doubt there utility but I think, definitely, we must separate that from the neelix case or we'll all just end up arguing completely different points and get nowhere. I don't even thing neelix created things in bad faith, just was sometimes a bit trigger-happy in a good-faith attempt to improve the encylopaeidia. Si Trew (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Qualification. Consensus was many years ago that we don't link just years like say French Wikipedia does that 2006 and so on is not linked in articles and so on because it's pretty meaningless to do so (you just get a list of everything that ever happened in 2006 like an enormous almanac and consensus at WP:EN is that is not helpful). As far as I understand it this is not what is being proposed here but that specific links are made to specific sections of articles. I have replied farther at the proposal, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/SSTbot_1#SSTbot_1. I have several qualifications basically
  1. I should expect to see WP:RSECT i.e. provide courtesy note at the target, as any human editor should do
  2. I don't think we should create redirects to those years and so on that do not in fact have any information on them, then we do end up adding a kinda load of Neelix redirects
I would imagine that the bot can be tweaked before running so that those two qualifications can be met. If not, we do end up creating a blunderbuss approach where we have thousands of redirects to things we have no information about. Si Trew (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am only saying keep the proposal. Whether the bot run would be useful I don't know, but I believe the proposal is useful. Si Trew (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted at the botrequest, redirects should be created only for years that have Births, Deaths, and Events sections. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and support bot run. This is an appropriate redirect and a likely search term. ~ RobTalk 22:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the obvious caveat that redirects should be created only where a section exists, of course. ~ RobTalk 22:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I have kinda suggested not in any particularly formal way the algorithm for what the bot should do, over at the talk page of the user. I have no problem with it running but as User:BU Rob13 says we will end up in a "neelix" situation of having thousands of redirects to sections that don't exist. In particular I expect to see the WP:RSECT (That is going to be tricky to do!) as a human editor is expected to do, and I expect not to create redirects to nonexistent sections. The proposer is in absolutely completely good faith by bringing it to our attention. It's on hold at the moment, the editor is absolutely completely in good faith, rather than some other bot owners who just whack things off and never respond when you ask them. Si Trew (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment back link for your convenience Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SSTbot 1#Discussion. Si Trew (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the years I am planning to create redirects to, they are all standardized according to the WP:YEARS style guide, and all have "Events", "Births" and "Deaths" sections. (Years in the future don't.) SSTflyer 01:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and Weak support for bot per WP:MEH (new essay btw :)). Don't know if it's hugely helpful, but what's the drawback? Neelix created redirects that were sometimes nonsensical or even offensive, and that's obviously not happening here, so I don't get the comparison. Neelix also didn't bring the matter to the community before mass creating them. I see no reason to object. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Support Bot Run This bot will be a clear net positive for the wiki at the proposed scope. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the specific redirect that we have here up for discussion, while mark me down as neutral about running the thing. I'm most inclined to view it as a problematic idea because of the need to separate out so much wheat from the chaff of what gets created, probably. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, though, and I'm one to go with consensus whatever it is anyways. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2016 (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:AN/D[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 deleted by Bishonen (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Invalid WP redirect; target page is not an administrators' noticeboard or other namespace page. Softlavender (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Traditionally we have a horror of cross-namespace redirects. This would be an awful precedent, as far too many admins would want one to use as a hat rack. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied. An obvious joke, or homage to the hospitality of User:Drmies. I should think the creator expected it to be deleted since it breaks several rules, and I've done so. Bishonen | talk 10:48, 21 May 2016 (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/2016_May_21&oldid=1064384258"