Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 6

The result of the discussion was delete. Jamie^☆S93 00:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty other redirects of this ilk. Redirects to special pages just don't work. If you type in this title, it dumps you at the redirect instead of redirecting you to the special page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment These are more of test noms really. I noticed the category says "Please note that due to technical restrictions, users will see the redirect page and will have to manually click the redirect link." So why have them if they don't work? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redirects to special pages don't work, so there's no reason to have them. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Luk ^talk (lucasbfr) 14:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Gavia immer. Hi878 (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but only because it is a strange CNR. The technical issue is a complete non-sequitor. –xeno ^talk 15:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was no longer relevant, good idea btw. -- Luk ^talk (lucasbfr) 14:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty other redirects of this ilk. Redirects to special pages just don't work. If you type in this title, it dumps you at the redirect instead of redirecting you to the special page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, now that I have restored the data and removed the redirect, since the redirect doesn't actually work at this time (a problem which I would classify as a bug). I created page Help:About to emulate a function found in many web browsers and other software.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed bugzilla:18701.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in its present form. Jeff G.'s solution is an excellent addition to the project, and as he notes, people will look for this. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Close. No longer a redirect again, and it still has a useful link to Special:Version. Should also link to WP:About, which is one of the few "standard" mediawiki pages (see the page footers). I'll take other ideas to the page itself. --Zigger «º» 05:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been moved because no disambiguation (film) is needed. To keep the search suggestion dropdown clean suggest the redirect be removed. JCutter (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This seems like a reasonable alternate title for the content it points to. I don't think the autosuggestion function is a problem in itself; there are already lots of "Wall Street" redirects that already crowd both titles out if that's all you search on, but only these two "Wall Street 2" items. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, orphaned and very unlikely redirect as it is. -- Luk ^talk (lucasbfr) 14:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no need for disambiguation when there is no other items of that name. Tavix |  Talk  21:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless. Some people may be in the habit of adding (film) in the search box and this will get them where the want to be. –xeno ^talk 21:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as while not strictly necessary, the target directly relates to the term. PaulJones (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was delete William Harris(baseball); keep Dayton Buller and William Harris (baseball), which now point to individual sections in the target article; and no result on the rest, which have been converted back into articles and expanded. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

William Harris (baseball)

William Harris(baseball)

Andrew Johnston (baseball)

Daniel Carte

Ryan Harvey (baseball)

Delete as unhelpful redirects. The minor league player list does not mention them, and the only mention of them at all comes from a template at the bottom of the list. I also feel this should be deleted because the template falsely implies there is an article at this address because of the bluelink there. If this was a redlink, people would know there isn't an article before they clicked on his link. Tavix |  Talk  22:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, logical reasoning. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Luk ^talk (lucasbfr) 14:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In the spirit of WP:SOFIXIT, I've added a section on Dayton Buller to the target article and updated the redirect to point to that section. I'll tackle the others in a few minutes. Just as a side note, the article was changed to a redirect as a result of a no consensus close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dayton Buller.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, I'm fine with deleting William Harris(baseball), as we really don't need one with a space and one without.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also found enough sources on Andrew Johnston (baseball) to turn that one back into an article which should pass WP:GNG.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Daniel Carte.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Ryan Harvey--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Minor league player list SHOULD mention these players... incomplete merge I assume.. someone should fix that.. Though I agree with Fabrictramp about deleting William Harris(baseball) as a duplicate.Spanneraol (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 02:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! set evolution was already deleted twice via AFD with a suggestion to redirect, but I still think that it's an unlikely search term that shouldn't even have been redirected. I suggest that this be deleted and salted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is a protected redirect against creation. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if the content was merged, we ought to keep the history for GFDL purposes. -- Luk ^talk (lucasbfr) 14:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No content was merged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 04:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any evidence that this was merged, and I agree that this is an unlikely search term. Tavix |  Talk  21:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the AfD resulted in a protected redirect to prevent recreation of the article. If you delete it, the article will be recreated (since it has a history of reappearing). So a simple deletion will not do, it will need to be salted. OR you can leave it as is, and no further work will be required to salt the page. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's exactly what I said in the RFD. Delete the redirect and salt the title. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 04:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was keep yet how to keep is dubious. I boldly turned it into a disambiguation as suggested by Centrx at the end of this discussion (redirecting to either Fame or Reputation looked like a loss of information as it is not clear what a reader may want. Probably both...) - Nabla (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See related discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Slow-mo deletion war at Notability (permlink). Redirect was created upon the move, then speedied by Dlohcierekim; so I created it as a disambiguation page as a compromise, which was later deleted by Centrx with the reasoning "implausible redirect/disambiguation page". However at the ANI, Dlohcierekim commented that they gave the original R3 speedy nom only a cursory review, so here we are. –xeno ^talk 17:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:2DAB, disambiguation pages ought to have at least three articles related to the ambiguous term in order to be tenable. Here we have one, notability in Wikipedia, as well as a wiktionary link to the phrase-as-commonly-used. As I see it this leaves us with two alternatives:
  1. Redirect the page to the only article related to the phrase, notability in Wikipedia. In that article, a prominent link to the wiktionary entry, either as a hatnote or a box in the lead section, should be made.
  2. Redirect the page to the wiktionary entry, which ought to be updated to note the Wikipedia-specific use of the term.

I would favour the latter option, given that most English speakers will associate the term with the older sense, rather than the Wikipedia-specific sense, and all that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC implies. Skomorokh 17:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, if Wiktionary will roll with us, on this one, that might not be a bad idea. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However this means that if someone really wants to get to "Notability in Wikipedia" then they have to make two hops, including an off-pedia link after typing "Notability". –xeno ^talk 18:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, that might be getting overly complicated. Looks like support for disambiguation is pretty solid, in the meantime. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why should wiktionary create a separate entry for notability in Wikipedia, a minor usage that is not different enough to warrant a separate definition in a dictionary? —Centrx→talk • 01:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) As I mentioned at ANI, "A redirect or disambig page seems entirely prudent, there, if we're going to keep the Notability in Wikipedia article -- the idea with both, after all, is to get readers where they want to go as quickly and easily as possible". Centrx did mention that it's an unconventional use for either page type; this is true, but my personal belief is that policy and practice are intended to facilitate content, rather than inhibiting it outright. If a redirect is objectionable (and I can see why it is, for some) then the obvious next step, to me, is disambiguation. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would Notability in Wikipedia supersede e.g. Fame? —Centrx→talk • 01:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Luna; I think my disambiguation compromise (i.e. [1]) is the best way to go about this. –xeno ^talk 18:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reason to create a disambiguation page with one article. —Centrx→talk • 01:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• <<ec>> per luna per xeno. I'd prefer a brief article on the word or a disambig with links to wiktionary and notability in Wikipedia. (Perhaps this is a time to grant an exception under IAR?) As that seems untenable, redirect to the Wikipedia article notability in Wikipedia with a link to the wiktionary definition in the article. struck after rereading post ec Dlohcierekim 18:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • thus. Dlohcierekim 18:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is no reason to create a disambiguation page with one article. —Centrx→talk • 01:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support existence of mildly non-standard dab page as above - WP:IAR applies, as the dab page seems to offer the most helpful response to the greatest number of readers. PamD (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR is not a shibboleth. You need to provide actual reasons. This comment is moot. —Centrx→talk • 01:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I would prefer an actual article on non-Wikipedia notability, but until that happens Support Disambiguation page that was there previously and seemed quite reasonable. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation pages are not created for one article only. —Centrx→talk • 01:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is, most people would use the wikipedia article for notability. All secondary links can be put into a hatnote. Tavix |  Talk  22:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would most people use the Wikipedia article for notability, when most readers have no idea that some special notability exists in Wikipedia? —Centrx→talk • 01:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Flesh it out into an actual article. Notice how verifiability redirects to Formal verification? Wikipedia should have an article about notability the concept and it absolutely should not redirect to Notability in Wikipedia (which is about the concept's usage on Wikipedia and coverage and criticism thereof). A hatnote pointing to Notability in Wikipedia or Wikipedia:Notability is fine, in my opinion. --Pixelface (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Make it so! –xeno ^talk 01:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not clear that this an encyclopedic topic. There are already more appropriate articles to redirect to at Fame or Reputation. —Centrx→talk • 01:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave it as a dab page, WP:IAR if we have to. The page should disambiguate between Notability in Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Notability, and wikt:Notability. My issue is that deleting Notability effectively makes the article Notability in Wikipedia undiscoverable. Since that page exists, there has to be a reasonable way for a reader to get to it, be that via a redirect or dab page at Notability. Oren0 (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Wikipedia:Notability is a back-end page to which readers should not be direct. Wiktionary redirects are for pages that get repeatedly re-created illegitimately, and are not reason for creating a new disambiguation page, and Notability in Wikipedia is a tangentially related topic that does not supersede a redirect to e.g. fame. —Centrx→talk • 01:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DAB, we aim to make the life easier for our users, and that allows room for the creation of an article about the concept. It also helps pointing people to the wiktionary entry (it makes no sense having Notability in Wikipedia with a template pointing there). -- Luk ^talk (lucasbfr) 14:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The search page already points to Wiktionary, for all search terms. The creation of articles is always available without creating a filler redirect or disambiguation page. —Centrx→talk • 01:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support disambig page People are going to search for this term, and those that do should be linked to the page Notability in Wikipedia (I'd say Wikipedia:Notability should also be linked as a hatnote). However, some people may also want to know the actual meaning of the word, so a Wiktionary link should be given as well. In theory, this could be expanded to an actual article on the concept of 'notability' - but I doubt that could be done without straying into WP:OR. Robofish (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should they be linked to the Wikipedia notability pages rather than the most likely object of their search, notability or Fame or Prestige or Esteem or Reputation in general? —Centrx→talk • 01:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of reasons or options mentioned above:

• Notability in Wikipedia, invented 2003 and specific to Wikipedia, must be the primary topic for the word "notability", invented 15th century and used everywhere.
• Create a disambiguation page with article, which is self-contradictory and pointless.
• Create a disambiguation page pointing to wiktionary and Wikipedia:Notability. Pointing to Wiktionary does not substantiate a disambiguation page, and Wikipedia:Notability is not an encyclopedia article to disambiguate.

Surprisingly, no one above conceived the better options of:

• Create a disambiguation page with Reputation, Fame, and Notability on Wikipedia.
• Redirect to Reputation or Fame.

—Centrx→talk • 01:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks unuseful as a redirect, no internal links, no useful history. Zigger «º» 08:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• R3 Very unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Huh? Unless I'm missing something, this looks like a WP:SNOW candidate. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion due to offensiveness. This redirect seems to insinuate that WP holds a negative stance against those afflicted with such conditions.  Aar  ►  02:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Offensiveness aside, I find it highly unlikely that anyone typing "artard" into the search box is sincerely looking for the article on mental retardation, rather than just goofing around. Fried Gold (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED. The fact that a redirect exists doesn't mean Wikipedia takes a stance on the appropriateness of the term. Retard redirects there, and that's not a PC term either. The existence of articles about racial slurs doesn't mean we support them, etc. Oren0 (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's different. We can have the article "Nigger", but what we can't do is have that word redirecting to Obama or even really Black people.  Aar  ►  00:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see where you're coming from there, but nigger is itself notable enough for it's own article. Artard isn't. It's common for slang to redirect to another article, schlong redirects to penis for example. The fact that the term is offensive is not a reason to delete it. If we agree that it's a slang term that refers to the mentally retarded, then it should be a redirect to that. Oren0 (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless this was notably commented by reliable sources (doesn't seem so, at first glance)? (Nope, a South Park episode doesn't count) -- Luk ^talk (lucasbfr) 14:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Actual term, people may happen to hear the term and wonder what it refers to (it could happen) and there should be a redirect to the proper article. Tavix |  Talk  21:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if you actually don't know what "artard" means, and hit "Go" to look it up, you get dumped into an article that doesn't even contain the term you looked up. I'm sure most people will piece together that, if the Go button pointed them toward mental retardation, that "artard" is a term for a mentally retarded person, but this seems like a perversely indirect way to answer someone's question. Is this really the desired behavior of the, er, search-and-redirect system? (I know these kinda sound like sarcastic, rhetorical questions, but they're actually sincere; I'm too new to WP:RFD to know the answers.) Fried Gold (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as highly unlikely search term and not mentioned in the target article (as it should not be) - Nabla (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete as unlikely to be a genuine search term for the article Mental retardation, per Fried Gold, or weak retarget to the South Park episode in which the word is used. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the redirect is misleading. It suggests that Alpha is a microprocessor when it is an instruction set architecture. A case can be made for the usefulness of redirects similar to "Alpha microprocessor", which could be interpreted as "a microprocessor that implements the Alpha ISA", but this redirect is portraying Alpha as something which it is not. Rilak (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there are Alpha microprocessors, uP's that implement the Alpha architecture. Since we have redirects from misspellings, this is a similar sort of redirect, since if you're looking for info about uP's based on the Alpha architecture and you know the way that Wikipedia disambiguates articles, it is likely that you would type in "Alpha (microprocessor)", especially if you're not a computer scientist or computer engineer and don't know the proper terminology (ie. "Alpha (instruction set architecture)" or something). 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While the Alpha was technically an architecture, there were physical microprocessors built based upon this architecture. --Allen3 ^talk 21:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I disagree. This isn't a misspelling. It is like redirecting "CPU" to "PC". Just because some people refer to x with y doesn't mean we should. It is also unlikely that a layperson would type this in. If one does not remember or know the full or proper name, they would type in something short such as "Alpha". And doing that takes them to a disambiguation page. Rilak (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep [2] suggests that the phrase "Alpha microprocessor" is in sufficient use and that this is what it typically means --Rumping (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, but "microprocessor" is not in brackets! Rilak (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.