Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 3, 2017.

Charles Boynton (American football)[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) 16:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing anything in the target article to suggest that the subject was known as "Charles". Probably delete both. bd2412 T 23:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

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.

Cambridge Scholars Publishing[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. NeilN talk to me 13:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that this "independent academic publisher" (see http://www.cambridgescholars.com/t/AboutUs) has any connection with the University of Cambridge other than using the word "Cambridge". To make it a bluelink redirecting to the university is misleading. PamD 17:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's connected to the university in that their writers are all lecturers and researchers from there. However, that not a tight enough link for a redirect, so delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oiyarbepsy: Where did you find that information? On their website I can find no such statement, and they even say "However, we will always consider a proposal submitted by a non-academic specialist, ...". Looking at their books, authors include "Doctoral Fellow at the University of Hyderabad" [1]. PamD 23:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pam, the About link you provided above states, "Founded by former lecturers and researchers from the University of Cambridge, we publish original academic work across a wide range of subjects in four key areas: Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS); Health Sciences (HS); Physical Sciences (PS); and Life Sciences (LS)." Since Cambridge Scholars Publishing was founded by former lecturers and researchers from the University of Cambridge, why shouldn't it redirect to the University of Cambridge article? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is a very loose connection, the target doesn't, and shouldn't, contain any information about the publishers. – Uanfala (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uanfala, given that Cambridge Scholars Publishing doesn't have the connection to the university that Cambridge University Press does, I understand your point. Maybe there will be a day that it will be appropriate to mention Cambridge Scholars Publishing in the University of Cambridge article. After all, it does currently have a "Notable alumni and academics" section. Either way, I don't feel strongly about the redirect. It simply made sense to me at the time that I created it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading. – Uanfala (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yulia Romero, regarding this and other places you've linked "Cambridge Scholars Publishing," I'm just letting you know here that it will be deleted. So you might want to stop linking it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whether or not the publisher is behaving unethically and being misleading is a broader question that, I suppose, has its own, separate discussion. For the time being, the important thing is: they're only loosely connected, and thus the redirect ought to be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2017 (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.

Template:Ficha de libro[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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish. Wikisaurus (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I created this template and many like it because editors copy and paste articles from foreign-language Wikipedias. Rather than create an unhelpful redlink, this template and the templates like it create a skeleton of an infobox and (typically) place the page in an error category (e.g. "Infobox person using unknown parameters") that brings it to the attention of gnome editors who can translate or substitute the template. Foreign-language translation templates are useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, as the parameters in Spanish template are Spanish, not English, so it would only create an error. Wikisaurus (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      As I explained above, deleting the redirect would cause an unhelpful redlink for editors whose first language may not be English. Keeping the redirect causes a minimal template to appear, along with a helpful error category and an error message in Preview mode that leads editors to an explanation of how to fix the problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the spirit of WP:FORRED. This is not the Spanish Wikipedia; the redirect would possibly be searched and useful there. Steel1943 (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • FORRED is an essay about articles, not helpful template redirects. WP:R#DELETE lays out common reasons to delete a redirect; none of them apply here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The above comment sounds like a good example of Wikilawyering; I said "in the spirit of WP:FORRED" since the likelihood of this redirect being used on the English Wikipedia is quite unlikely and even unhelpful for someone trying to find this template on the Spanish Wikipedia. The argument you present has been superseded by the existence of Wikipedia:Wikidata; before Wikidata existing, I could see a rationale for this redirect existing, but not anymore. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I indicated above, I created these templates, and templates like them, because they were being used on en.WP and were listed at Special:WantedTemplates. (See also templates in the {{citar web}} family, which are more sophisticated because they are copied and pasted even more often, and templates like Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Légifrance, which I created because it was being copied and pasted from fr.WP.) How do you propose to assist editors who copy and paste templates from WP in one language to another? – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have essentially presented an "apples to oranges" argument. Template:Légifrance is a template, not a redirect. In fact, it seems that template has affinity to the language which it is in ... which is perfectly acceptable. However, these redirects' targets, Template:Infobox library, Template:Infobox university, Template:Infobox actor, and Template:Infobox scientist have no affinity and are not exclusive to the Spanish language. If an editor needs to find the the proper template to use on a foreign-language Wikipedias, that's what Wikidata is for. Steel1943 (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • To expect regular human editors to somehow use Wikidata at this point in its early development is unrealistic at best. These redirects do their job well as bare-bones translation templates for normal humans. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I WP:BOLDly merged these four discussions together as they were all the same. Steel1943 (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not convinced that a template displaying an error will be materially more helpful than a red one here. Any metadata that could be helpful in English will be there either way. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2017 (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.

Kristine Butler[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) 16:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. She is mentioned at List_of_San_Francisco_Ballet_2016_repertory#Corps_de_Ballet and List_of_San_Francisco_Ballet_2017_repertory#Changes_from_2016_season mentions her move. I would either retarget to the 2017 page which gives more information though deletion per WP:XY might be preferable since the search result would return both pages. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable. News searches point to people in other states with the same name [2] [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. This individual doesn't seem particularly notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2017 (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.

Infobox website[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect to non-reader content. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Means nothing outside Wikipedia. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ditto with what Oiyarbepsy said.DinoD123 (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2017 (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.

Template:2017 CONCACAF League bracket[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 move without redirect to 2017 CONCACAF League bracket and retarget to 2017 CONCACAF League#Bracket. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect seems not related, so I think it should be deleted. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2017 (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.

Wikipedia:SOFIXIT[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 withdrawn. Despite Tony's somewhat reluctant striking, I convinced him on IRC that it's unlikely that the redirect itself will be deleted, and we really just need to trout people who use it incorrectly. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Okay, so before I get raked over the coals.... I have never seen this redirect used as a synonym for "Be bold!" - it is always used as the lowercase "so fix it", i.e. "quit complaining and do it yourself". I think that this redirect needs to be either deleted, or retargeted to something better that more fully encapsulates the idea of "if you have time to complain you should just do it yourself." Primefac (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete please god yes. Currently this is only ever used to mean "You're a deletionist, your policy based arguments aren't valid. Here is a snarky redirect that has nothing to do with what you are talking about. Look at how passive aggressive I can be." Its current usage goes against all the principles in the civility policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see this used frequently to mean "be bold and fix it/edit it yourself". I clicked on "What links here" and clicked on a page at random. In literally the first page I clicked on, Talk:Robert A. Heinlein, this redirect was linked in "go for it" at the end of this statement: right now it says he won Hugos for four novels but doesn't even say which ones... go for it.. The nominator, whom I respect greatly, may never have seen it used this way, but I have. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well colour me surprised. I'll be honest, I didn't see the two previous discussions on the subject, and I probably should have checked the usage (rather than just relying on my own experiences). I still think that its usage is (more often than not) used incorrectly, but I think I've changed from a hard-line "delete/retarget" to "weak delete" (I was chatting with Tony on IRC and he still wants the deletion to go through, so I won't formally withdraw). Primefac (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there are valid uses for it. In the project space discussions I have seen it used is in, though, it is normally only used as a passive-aggressive way to avoid responding to actual policy points, and I get the distinct impression most people don't know where it actually points to. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it should be redirected to a (new?) section on the "be bold" page called "fix it yourself", with a quick note saying something like "If you notice an unambiguous problem, sometimes the best course of action is to be bold and fix it yourself rather than bringing it to someone's attention. In the time it takes to write about it, you could instead improve the encyclopedia." – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have boldly added a SOFIXIT section to the page. We'll see if I get reverted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful redirect that pretty much represents what Be Bold is all about, and frankly the reason Wikipedia is successful, in my opinion. I do like Jonesey95's idea of adding a section, but that doesn't change that it's a keep. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck my delete. I still think this is mainly used to prevent actual discussion in policy debates and probably should be deleted, but I don't want to prevent Primefac from withdrawing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_December_3&oldid=1088107696"