Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 14, 2016.

UYT[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 Time in Uruguay. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any reason this should be redirect to point to UTC−03:00. The article does not use UYT anywhere. I checked the version that was current when the redirect was created it did not use UYT either. -- GB fan 19:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Time in Uruguay; UYT is the time-zone code used for Uruguay, which is, indeed, UTC–03:00. — Gorthian (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that link in the See also section of UTC−03:00. I looked there to see if it was what this redirect was for, but it doesn't use UYT either. If it is the code, the article should be updated with that information. -- GB fan 11:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and tweaked the related article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:22, 15 September 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.

Other Armada[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 01:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear if this redirect is an alternate name for the target article's subject. If not, the redirect is vague and ambiguous due to the use of the word "other". Steel1943 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's only mentioned in a book's title covering the Armada, but there's no evidence it is a nickname for the Armada itself. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unhelpful vagueness. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a great title for the book, but no one else seems to use it that way. — Gorthian (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 01:28, 19 September 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:IAP[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, default to keep. Thanks to all editors for arguing out the merits and drawbacks of redirecting to the current target rather than Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent. On the "retarget" side, it is argued that the proposed new target is more intuitive, that the existing target violates WP:XNR (WP: to Template:), and that this redirect doesn't have any incoming links worth preserving. On the "keep" side, there appears to be a few editors - likely those who use this redirect as a shortcut regularly - arguing for the value of this shortcut, and how the current target is far more prominent than the proposed new target. Weighing up the arguments, I don't think there's sufficient demonstrable harm along the lines of WP:XNR, so in this case of split opinion I'm closing this RfD as stet. Deryck C. 21:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

retarget to Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent, this is a more useful redirect. This may also violate WP:CNR. Prisencolin (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment BDD nominated it for retargetting to that page in 2014 - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Wikipedia:IAP, a discussion that ended in no consensus. I'm leaning towards keeping as it seems to be used to reach the current target based on links. Redirects from project space to template space are very rarely problematic and so that aspect of the nomination is a very weak rationale at best unless someone can identify that this redirect is actually (not just theoretically) harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are quite a lot of links to this redirect, and it's been in use since 2006. BTW, I reformatted the RFD template properly on the redirect page, and informed WP:AUSTRALIA of this discussion. — Gorthian (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing has changed since the last discussion about this in April 2014, except that the redirect has now been in use for over 9 years. Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent remains a little known, stubby essay created almost entirely by a single editor. The only changes to it since the last discussion was that it was nominated for merge with WP:IAR but gained very little interest. The essay does little more than restate what WP:BOLD and WP:IAR do, but in far less words and with far less detail. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orphan (replace with the correct T:IAP which already exists) and then retarget either per nominator or any other suggestion. Some project-space XNRs (e.g. between Wikipedia vs. Help, where there's a potential for confusion between the two namespaces) are helpful, but from Wikipedia to Template is a bridge too far: editors should be competent enough to know that templates are found in the Template namespace.. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Still feel this way. The IP above me put it particularly well. --BDD (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent as above. Valid targets within the namespace in which a title resides should take precedence over targets outside of it in most cases. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except that {{Infobox Australian place}} is a highly visible template used in more than 10,000 articles and ignore all precendents is a hardly known essay. If we were to look at the primary topic, one would win out. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That argument would hold a lot of weight if both titles were of the article namespace where the primary topic guidance is a matter of policy. They aren't, so it doesn't, especially as it is a cross namespace redirect. If they were in the same namespace, I'd agree with you. T:IAP already exists for Template:Infobox Australian place, it doesn't need to have a monopoly on "IAP".— Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's not the namespace doesn't mean the same principles shouldn't apply. T:IAP was created as a result of the last discussion, but it hasn't caught on. WP:IAP is still more well known. Retargeting the redirect would simply be adding advertising for a little known stubby essay, and confusing the editors looking for the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is linked from hundreds of pages, and retargeting would certainly be harmful. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Champion: It seems Plantdrew's comment below might effect your opinion, if you haven't already seen it, as it contradicts your statement. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Godsy: No, this has not changed my vote. To further clarify my vote, WP:Ignore all precedent is currently being discussed at MfD and the current target is long-established and the fact that it is not linked at a lot of pages may be the reason to keep it, a hatnote on the template documentation may be enough. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 11:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: Yes, I had realized that, but that still doesn't change my opinion, as the current target is long established and may break links. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Champion: I just noticed that you did already notice this and acknowledged it. My apologies for the repeat inquiry from you. Steel1943 (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget It's linked from 61 pages, not hundreds. 10 of those are in one editors user space (who has commented here opposing retarget). 23 are to talk page archives. There are some links that clearly intend Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent. I'm not sure what best practice is regarding disambiguating non-article links in archived talk pages, but a little disambiguation work could sort out this very strange usage of a cross-namespace redirect shortcut. Plantdrew (talk)
It doesn't matter how many pages this shortcut links to, it's meant as a shortcut, and not necessarily a link. As for links meant for Ignore all precedent, at least some of these are typos. One I found dates to 2 months before the essay was created. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per my original comment in the 2014 discussion nothing has changed. Gnangarra 07:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orphan and possibly retarget per 58.176.246.42. Plantdrew made the case for a CNR without widespread use, but let me pile on a bit. On Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:IAP, the only two mentions in the Talk: namespace are missellings. Honestly, it looks to me as if AussieLegend tries to defend "their" redirect (in their shoes, I would not have made this nomination with this timing). See [1]: while it is true that WP:IAP is used more than T:IAP, the numbers for both are very low, and much lower than all hits of Template:Infobox_Australian_place. (In fact, it may even be that hits for WP:IAP are driven by readers of AussieLegend's user pages, in particular User:AussieLegend/Australian_place_article_starter.) Retracted, see below. So, while the infobox may be highly visible, it does not follow that a particular redirect to the infobox should be left untouched (I would bet that the bulk of the hits come from mainspace pages that use the infobox).
This being said, I am not sure Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent, a rather obscure essay, is worth redirecting to either - but since it is the only target in the same namespace, why not. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:IAP, the only two mentions in the Talk: namespace are missellings. - You do realise that this redirect is a shortcut don't you? Instead of typing "Template:Infobox Australian place" in the search box to get to the template, an editor only has to type "WP:IAP". Shortcuts don't normally get linked to on talk pages when editors are navigating to the target of the shortcut. They're only on talk pages when somebody decides to mention the target of the redirect. If you look at the pageview statistics you'll see that the shortcut has been used 227 times in the past year, despite only two mentions on talkpages.
it may even be that hits for WP:IAP are driven by readers of AussieLegend's user pages, in particular User:AussieLegend/Australian_place_article_starter - No. Pageview statistics for that page show that it has been accessed only 76 times in the past year. Those statistics do not match the statistics for WP:IAP. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, your "227 hits/year" figure takes into account a big bump after the nomination at RfD (95 hits since 2016-08-27). In reality, it is closer to one hit every two days. But even if it was one per day, that is not exactly grandfathering rights.
The absence of (linked) mention in article talk pages is very relevant. Everything else being equal, grandfathering rights are better supported with project noticeboard and article TP than user or template TP mentions. If your argument is that the WP:IAP shortcut is actually used a lot, just that it is unlinked, none prevents you to keep using this way; it will be confusing for newbies, but that is the case regardless of where the redirect points if the redirect is actually not linked to.
As for the origin of traffic, your argument is a poor one because (1) even if one hit to your UP translated to one hit to the WP:IAP page it would still be a large part (~50%) of the traffic, and (2) one could imagine a user creating multiple pages on Australia keeps your UP open but open and close WP:IAP multiple times. However, I see no clear correlation between hits on those pages, which invalidates my supposition, so I removed that part. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The absence of (linked) mention in article talk pages is very relevant. There is no requirement that redirects starting with "WP" must be linked. That a redirect is not mentioned on a talk page has absolutely no relevance. As I said, it's a shortcut, meant to make it easier for someone to get to the page, nothing more.
Everything else being equal, grandfathering rights are better supported with project noticeboard and article TP than user or template TP mentions. No, pageviews are more relevant. Something can be linked from a talk page but never clicked on, or it can be clicked 1,000 times. What determines how used something is, are the number of times the page has been viewed.
If your argument is that the WP:IAP shortcut is actually used a lot, just that it is unlinked, none prevents you to keep using this way If it was retargeted it would certainly stop it being used. People used looking for the template this way for 10 years would end up at an obscure, totally irrelevant essay.
As for the origin of traffic, your argument is a poor one because (1) even if one hit to your UP translated to one hit to the WP:IAP That is a simplistic assumption, and nothing more. On the userpage that you are talking about, there are 237 links. You can't make any assumptions about any of them because you simply don't have any information at all to support your argument. It may well be that none of the links are clicked, while it may be that all of them are. You just don't know. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am ready to accept an argument that the shortcut is widely used, but rarely linked. But you offered no proof of that whatsoever.
"Everything else being equal" obviously included page views. If a user's talk page has 100 hits per month, and a project noticeboard has 100 hits per month, I say that a mention of a particular redirect on the latter gives better support than on the former to an assertion that it is well-known. A better metric would be how many times that redirect was clicked from those pages and by how many unique visitors, but as you mentioned we do not have that.
While you did not bring up the argument that the redirect is linked from many pages (and hence should be kept), almost any other !keep voter did and I think it is a sensible one. That is why I looked at the "what links here" page. However, it is incompatible with your argument that "we don't care what links, all that matter is the number of times the redirect was hit".
If it was retargeted it would certainly stop it being used. Firstly, that is speculation. If, as you mentioned, it is mostly used as a shortcut and unlinked, I do not see why people would or should change their ways to mention the template by "WP:IAP". Secondly, if we accept your second assertion that People used looking for the template this way for 10 years would end up at an obscure, totally irrelevant essay, it is actually a good thing rather than a problem that it stops being used. Thirdly, the only way people would end up on the essay page from an unlinked mention is if a user unfamiliar with its meaning copy-pastes the shortcut in their browser bar. If such a person exists, then the redirect has already been hit by someone who did not know what the target would be, and surely they were surprised to end up on a template page from a WP: shortcut (the trapdoor problem).
Finally, I retracted my argument about your user page (with some information refuting it, BTW). Still, if I "simply don't have any information at all to support my argument" that the link was clicked from your UP then surely Pageview statistics ... show that [the user page] has been accessed only 76 times in the past year. Those statistics do not match the statistics for WP:IAP. is an equally wrong implication (that the hit numbers demonstrate that WP:IAP is mostly accessed by other means). TigraanClick here to contact me 14:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am ready to accept an argument that the shortcut is widely used, but rarely linked. But you offered no proof of that You do indeed have proof that it is not widely linked. You have pageviews to show that it has been used. Unfortunately we can only go back to last year with those, but you have to include all of the uses of the link since it was first created nearly 10 years ago, 7 of those before the obscure essay was created.
I think it is a sensible one ... it is incompatible with your argument that "we don't care what links, all that matter is the number of times the redirect was hit" If we were talking about something you expected to be linked from talk pages then it might be sensible but this is not a link we expect to be linked from pages so it's largely irrelevant here.
Firstly, that is speculation. No it isn't. If the redirect was retargeted it would certainly stop it be used as a shortcut for Infobox Australian place.
it is actually a good thing rather than a problem that it stops being used How can sending people to an abscure, totally unrelated page be a good thing?
the only way people would end up on the essay page from an unlinked mention is if a user unfamiliar with its meaning copy-pastes the shortcut in their browser bar. No, a user who is used to typing in WP:IAP to get to an infobox via a shortcut that was been in place for 10 years would end up there too.
then surely Pageview statistics ... show that [the user page] has been accessed only 76 times in the past year My user page is really irrelevant to this discussion, despite your attempts to make it relevant. Most of the accesses were probably me, although I do know of at least one other editor who has referenced it. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as the redirect has targeted either its current target or its target's previous title (Template:Infobox Australian Place) for almost 10 years, but weak since it has a small amount of incoming links (less than 100), so replacing them wouldn't be too problematic and shows a possible lack of precedence for using this shortcut. Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Yep, this is a WP:CNR. (Not sure how I missed that.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As was pointed out at the last discussion, WP:CNR really applies to redirects to and from the main namespace. In any case, WP:CNR, which is an essay, gives reasons for both deleting and keeping CNRs. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...And my opinion is that most cross-namespace redirects are misleading to most readers not familiar with the established mechanics of Wikipedia. This is definitely one of those cases since the target page is not a Wikipedia guideline. Steel1943 (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does it mislead readers? Most readers, as opposed to editors, are not going to be looking for guidelines. "WP" is not restricted to guidelines, policies or essays. WP is, for example, also used to link to WikiProjects. Surely that use would be misleading readers too? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Do you mean WikiProject titles, such as all pages that start with "Wikipedia:WikiProject"? There's nothing misleading there since those pages are located in the "Wikipedia:" namespace. Readers and editors alike may need to find volunteers who could answer their questions about certain subjects, and Wikipedia volunteers have established WikiProjects to help gather possible experts in these subjects together to collaborate. I fail to see how this connection is misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You claim that isn't misleading, but you haven't how this redirect is misleading. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already did in a previous comment (but looking back, I should have said "guidelines and WikiProjects".) You changed the subject, so I answered your subject change. Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you didn't. You said most cross-namespace redirects are misleading to most readers not familiar with the established mechanics of Wikipedia. Adding "guidelines and WikiProjects" doesn't explain how CNRs are misleading to readers who, as I said, are not going to be looking for guidelines, or WikiProjects. Most readers will never even look at anything beyond an article. They don't even look at talkpages generally. It's only the very occasional reader who will go past the article itself, and they generally don't immediately start typing redirects. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the last time, as I don't see that anything has changed. The arguments from WP:CNR for removing CNRs don't actually apply in this case, as this redirect is in the Wikipedia namespace and not the main namespace. Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent has only a handful of links, 23 as of now, including 8 from XfD pages; of the remaining 15 links, 10 of them use the perfectly adequate shortcut WP:AIPD that is just one letter longer. - Evad37 [talk] 06:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While CNRs are much worse in the main namespace than backstage, they are still is a poor idea: unexpected trapdoors are bad for editors too. There is no need of guideline (or essay, or...) to see that, really. If you encounter an unknown acronym redirect you would expect the acronym to have something to do with the target; it is the same for the prefix.
I think the retargeting to WP:IAPD is a red herring since it is an obscure essay, but if you accept the "just one letter longer" argument (that the essay does not need the other redirect), then T:IAP is a "perfectly adequate shortcut that is even one letter shorter". TigraanClick here to contact me 11:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on the retargerting because that was in the nomination, and commented on by others above. Unexpected "trap doors" not involving mainspace are much less of problem, by orders of magnitude – even just going by the raw numbers of readers compared to editors, let alone that editors have more clue about what's going on than the average reader. So while, in general, CNRs aren't so good (and I probably wouldn't support new ones from WP-space to template-space), there are reasons for keeping old ones articulated at WP:CNR, the most relevant being that editors find it useful (also if you accept that retargeting to WP:IAPD is a red herring, there's nothing much better to take over the redirect). If editors say they find it useful, then they probably do – the existence of the T: shortcut doesn't really change that, does it? Plus, it seems ironic that a mainspace→template-space redirect would be preferred to a non-mainspace→template-space redirect (anything in a pseudo-space is actually in mainspace) - Evad37 [talk] 00:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I will clarify about the "red herring". I think a CNR is, in itself, actively harmful, even in the backstage areas (though much less than in mainspace, I agree with that). I also think that, if WP:IAP was a redlink, there would be little value to targeting it to an obscure essay; however, as long as none else wants the redirect, the value in linking, albeit small, is positive as soon as someone wants it done. So I see the debate not as much as "should WP:IAP redirect to this page or that page?", but rather as "should WP:IAP redirect to the template page?".
As for the fact that T: is technically in mainspace, Is there any difference for the end user? (Genuinely asking, AFAIK the only ones affected are the coders.) TigraanClick here to contact me 14:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The main difference is that typing T: into the search box brings up suggestions for both articles such as T: The New York Times Style Magazine and t:kort, as well as non-articles such as T:WPBIO (redirect to Template:WikiProject_Biography) and T:DYKT (redirect to Template talk:Did you know). WP:CNR suggests that there may also be issues for re-users ending up with broken redirects. Looking at a similar question for the whole RfD:
  • If the redirect is kept, some editors will be annoyed that a (non-pseudo-space) CNR still exists, but the amount of actual harm (editors following the redirect and being "lost behind the trap door", or even just confused for longer than some seconds) is probably quite small.
  • If the redirect is deleted or retargeted, some editors will be annoyed that a redirect they found useful no longer works, and a few dozen links will need to be changed.
Either way, there's not likely to much difference in terms of helping/hindering the writing of the encyclopedia (the reason where all here). And in either case, adding a {{redirect}} hatnote to the target page may help matters. - Evad37 [talk] 01:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hatnote added to template documentation - Evad37 [talk] 03:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what I wrote on the editors' pages, I informed Gnangarra because his edit history showed he had been away for a few days. He normally watches WP:AWNB but had not responded to the notices there, but I knew he would be interested in this discussion, and assumed he had missed the notice. Evad37 was the editor who addressed CNRs at the last discussion. It seemed appropriate to notify him. Unfortunately there is a long history of Australian editors missing out on relevant discussions - we've had a lot of articles, categories etc disappear because interested editors haven't been informed, so it's common practice to notify editors to ensure everyone has a chance to participate. Sorry for being courteous. It's a sad trait that we Aussies are lumbered with. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need for sarcasm. --BDD (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on grandfathering rights, CNR jurisprudence, etc. It seems probable, or at least plausible, that the outcome of the discussion will depend on the weighting of "it is useful" vs. "CNR are bad generally speaking". For perspective, skimming through the RfD archives by searching for "WP:CNR" and excluding mainspace redirects (but including pseudo-namespace redirects), I found only these cases:
Also of interest can be the page Category:Redirects_to_template_from_non-template_namespace, where the immense majority is either mainspace or T: to Template: redirects, or subpages. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping, Godsy. My opinion hasn't changed in the last two years - retarget per nom. There is no good reason for this CNR to exist.  — Scott • talk 18:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect has existed for nearly 10 years and has prevented the need to type "Template:Infobox Australian place" in order to get to the infobox. That seems a pretty good reason and it has worked well for all this time. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out to you numerous times already, T:IAP also exists and, being shorter, provides an even better way to avoid needing to type "Template:Infobox Australian place". So no, that is not a good reason.  — Scott • talk 09:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware that T:IAP exists, since I was the one who created it. There is no limitation on the number of redirects that a page may have pointing to it, so the fact that T:IAP exists is irrelevant. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More heat than light in there. Collapsed by TigraanClick here to contact me 09:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does not follow: "[Because] there is no [limit] on the number of redirects [to] a page, the fact that [another redirect to it] exists is irrelevant."— Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I said was perfectly valid. Other redirects are completely irrelevant. We're only talking about one. If we were to accept your argument, the the fact that WP:IAPD already redirects to the essay would need to be taken into account, but it is really irrelevant. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another logical error. Just because we are addressing one redirect doesn't mean that it exists in a vacuum.  — Scott • talk 15:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine then. Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent already has an established redirect pointing to it. It therefore doesn't need another. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A non sequitur again and complete cobblers to boot. You've run out of useful things to say.  — Scott • talk 20:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "non sequitur" over and over again doesn't make you right. Nor does calling something cobblers without actually explaining why it's cobblers. It just makes you seem like a robot in a bad '70s Sci-fi movie looking for a shoe shop. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per 58.176.246.42 and Tigraan. -- Tavix (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment after 2 years an admin is going to have to grow some gold plated balls and make a decision, the reality is we have a shortcut thats been in use since 2006 being recommended for retarget to an essay thats being in place since 2013 (only six months before this on going discussion started). The rationale is for the redirect is based on another essay not a guideline nor a policy. I find it hard to see how an argument can be made based on an essay that itself states Currently, the general consensus seems to be that most newly created cross-namespace redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia (project) namespace should be deleted, that very old ones might retain their value for extra-Wikipedia links.. This short cut isnt newly created, and hasnt over 2 years of discussion even gained a general consensus yes consensus can change and inevitably drawn out discussion might lead to an eventual outcome that suits the rationale purely because of attrition, the last rider on that statement is the substantive point that being very old CNR might retain their value to me clearly this discussion has proven that point in that the discussion has been unable to reach the desired consensus in two years, the closure of this isnt going to create any new policy change or precedent umm I mean essay. Gnangarra 09:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    the discussion has been unable to reach the desired consensus in two years Give us a break. The first RfD ran for a week. This one has been running for three weeks. Also, gold plated balls is both unhelpful and sexist. Please refrain from making similar comments.  — Scott • talk 12:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Gnangarra does have a point that some admin will have a difficult close here, even if the formulation was regrettable. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. Pppery 16:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. A shorter shortcut already exists, which serves this exact purpose. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's shorter or not is really irrelevant, and this has been discussed already. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where it was discussed above, there was disagreement on that issue. It's pretty clear that there would be a stronger case for keeping this if it was the most concise redirect to the current target, which it's not. Since there's an alternative that's not a CNR and which is in fact, more efficient, my preference is retargeting. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
T:IAP exists only because I created it after the last discussion. However, it hasn't gained the "popularity" that this redirect has, probably because this one has been in use for 10 years and is far more well known. Most templates, policies and guidelines have multiple redirects pointing to them, all of different lengths. Should we delete all but the shortest? no, of course, because people use something they can remember. For some, that might be WP:OTHERSTUFF, despite the much shorter WP:OCE existing. In short, length is not an issue and, in any case, T:IAP is only a single letter shorter. The fact that editors have been using this shortcut for ten years to point to a template used in 10,000+ articles should, in itself, give cause to keeping it as is, instead of retargeting it to an obscure stubby essay that very few people use and which was only created two years ago. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That the template this points to is used in 10,000+ articles is irrelevant to this discussion.  — Scott • talk 08:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely relevant. It is far more beneficial to point a redirect to a target that is more widely used than to one that is rarely used, and which has no "official" status. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with the logic of AL's argument here (though CNR blah blah), but it cuts both ways: the fact that the target is hugely popular compared to the redirect itself proves that the redirect has not that much traction. However, I disagree with the premise that 10,000 templated articles is an indication of "popularity" - a much better measure would be page views for the template, for instance (4/day here). {{Quote}} probably has a zillion inclusions, but Template talk:Quote has 17 (recently active) page watchers and 55 views/day the last month, which is not that large - of course, templates are fairly arcane. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate the point, since it came up again: "an alternative that's not a CNR" is not accurate. T:IAP is a CNR, from mainspace to templatespace. See above comments from myself and Tigraan on 8–10 September. - Evad37 [talk] 04:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR isnt policy its just an Essay we dont delete based on an essay. Gnangarra 06:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. WP:CNR is indeed an essay, which (IMO) is a valid interpretation of WP:R#DELETE #2 (and #6 but it does not matter here), which is a guideline.
The "only an essay" card only works when there are numerous drive-by !votes of "per WP:X" (assuming X does obviously apply to the case at hand). It is actually an appeal to argument of authority that "whoever wrote this must have carefully considered the issues and there is no need to argue it all over again", which is (usually) valid when quoting a guideline but invalid when quoting an essay. That is not the case here, since CNR quoters have explained why it applies. TigraanClick here to contact me 07:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This redirect is clearly designed to serve editors, not readers - and I can't see any potential to confuse readers. It has significant use by an active Wikiproject, who oppose its retargeting. The alternative target, Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent is a little known essay with little traffic. I don't think projectspace -> templatespace XNRs are particularly problematic. Changing this redirect will most likely just inconvenience those who use it and not assist navigation by others. WJBscribe (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

African stereotypes[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. The rough consensus is that it is unhelpful to redirect "Black" and "African" to the subset "African American". Deryck C. 12:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to my previous nominations of Stereotypes of Arabs et al., these fail WP:BIAS/WP:INUSA. Unfortunately, stereotypes of blacks, Africans, or people of African descent are worldwide, and the topic as a whole is surely notable. Stereotypes of African Americans is just one part of this broader topic. Or two—note that stereotypes of black people are not necessarily stereotypes of Africans, or vice versa. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep all except Stereotypes of Blacks/Africans. These are all very plausible search terms that get the reader to what they are might be looking for. Ideally, a worldwide perspective article, or else a section in the current article, could be created for a better perspective, but these redirects are delivering people to the best article that we currently have. and unambiguously tell us what the reader is looking for. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think readers are looking for African Americans instead of the many, many other groups listed at black people? --BDD (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my argument above was poorly phrased, and has been slightly amended. While the target article is not an exact match for these search terms, it is the closest thing we currently have. I'd love to be able to target these to Black People#Stereotypes, or an article at Stereotypes of black people. Those articles/sections don't exist, and our readers are better served by presenting them with a geographically limited article than none at all in my opinion. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all African stereotypes implies either stereotypes of Africa or stereotypes coming from Africa. The other categories are too general, covering more than just African Americans. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except African stereotypes per WP:RFD#KEEP #4. If memory serves, at one time or another, the article currently titled Stereotypes of African Americans has been at many of these names (or very similar names). — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to be the case, yes. Do previous names justify the massive WP:BIAS entailed in suggesting African Americans represent all black people around the world? --BDD (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily. We normally keep redirects from former names to avoid breaking incoming links and because they are often good search terms, but they are deleted or retargetted if the reasons for doing outweigh those concerns. I haven't looked in detail at these redirects so offer no opinion at the moment on whether these should be kept, retargetted or deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation, since we don't have anything on the topic. African-American ≠ Black people ≠ African people. While it's pretty easy for Americans to mix these terms up, it would be misleading to keep these redirects as-is per WP:WORLDWIDE. -- Tavix (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Couldn't have said it better myself. — Gorthian (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely delete 'African stereotypes' and 'Stereotypes of Blacks/Africans', since the target article treats Africa or Africans only in passing. Possibly delete the others, too, to encourage the creation of a broad concept article or disambiguation page. Category:Anti-black racism contains articles on general as well as region-specific issues, including stereotypes. Cnilep (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:04, 14 September 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.

Why We Want You to be Rich: Two Men – One Message[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 Bibliography of Donald Trump. Note I've just closed the AfD for List of books by or about Donald Trump, resulting in a move to that new title. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are mentioned at the target, people searching would likely be disappointed for they are most likely looking for something more specific. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, the title "List of books by or about Donald Trump" screams for a split. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on that point. Someone here should get that article splitting started. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "by" part is a reasonable WP:SIZESPLIT from Donald Trump. Anyways I nominated the whole thing: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_books_by_or_about_Donald_Trump. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:27, 16 September 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.

Toy Story 5[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 01:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The Toy Story franchise has three films, with a fourth one in production. There is not a fifth film as the redirect implies. -- Tavix (talk) 04:47, 14 September 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.

Ted Snowden[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 01:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence of Edward Snowden using the nickname "Ted." Granted, my search was obscured by his TED talk, but I don't think someone would search for Edward Snowden this way. However, I did find a Tony award-winning Broadway producer with this name (see Wardlaw-Hartridge School#Notable alumni), so I'd like to see WP:REDLINK deletion to encourage article creation. -- Tavix (talk) 02:10, 14 September 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.

Goliath (film)[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) 13:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've found several films named "Goliath" on IMDb, but I'm unsure if any of them are notable. However, it makes no sense to redirect this to a director in which there's no mention of a film of this name. -- Tavix (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and to encourage a redlink should the film be notable. If other minor Goliath films are around with equal notability then this could be redirected to the dab page. But for now, the film isn't even released or moving along in production since its 2011 announcement of Derrickson as the director, so there's nothing to write about. [2] If the film has been released, then you can add dab entries like Goliath, a 2016 film directed by Scott Derrickson. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:11, 14 September 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.

The Side Effect (film)[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) 13:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I can't seem to find a film with this name. -- Tavix (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete another film that hasn't been released but had some traction back in 2012. [3] Although it could be West's pet project, it is not mentioned in West's article as an ongoing effort. WP:FFILM may also apply.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:14, 14 September 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_September_14&oldid=1088108411"