Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 10, 2009

Malk[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Not currently used, and per Mazca, it's not obviously the correct destination.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. This redirect has no relevance to anyone who is unfamiliar with the episode. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I might be mistaken and would have to defer to someone with more Simpsons knowledge, but isn't the Malk gag used in more than one episode? If not, I'd say to delete, but it could otherwise function as a useful redirect to the main series. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 05:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (add mention to target article) or retarget to Milk (r from mispelling). –xenotalk 22:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while this gag does appear in the episode it's a rather obscure one. Per Google, the word "Malk" has various other meanings (including a first name, a last name, a vineyard, and the four-letter stock code for an investment company), so I feel it might be generally unhelpful to have a redirect to a Simpsons episode that doesn't mention it. ~ mazca talk 10:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Purple Monkey Dishwasher[edit]

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. This redirect has no relevance to anyone who is unfamiliar with the episode. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also - Purple monkey dishwasher

Not mentioned in target article. This redirect has no relevance to anyone who is unfamiliar with the episode. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The redirect is useless unless you already know what you're looking for, and in that case you don't need it! We do not need to become a listing of every single one-liner joke that's out there - otherwise, about 25% of this Wiki would be redirects to Rodney Dangerfield. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 05:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - harmless, useful to someone looking for the episode but can't remember the name. –xenotalk 22:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    N.B. I've merged these two discussions and deleted a (now redundant) comment from Amorymeltzer. –xenotalk 22:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless redirect; per Xeno this is potentially helpful even without a mention. Given that someone using this redirect is unlikely to be searching for anything else, I see no reason it needs deleting. ~ mazca talk 10:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

various Litchfield County, CT, redirects[edit]

The result of the discussion was :


This is a 4th batch of Connecticut NRHP Historic Districts (HDs), for which I propose deleting the redirect from NRHP name, to facilitate orderly article creation at the red-links that will then appear in the county-wide list article National Register of Historic Places listings in Litchfield County, Connecticut. Previous batches of similar NRHP HD redirects were: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 17#various Middlesex County, CT, redirects, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 13#various New Haven County, CT, redirects, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 25#various Tolland County, Connecticut NRHP HDs. As Aervanath noted in closing the similar Tolland County batch "While certain of the target articles contain information about the history of the town, and some contain a small list of sites of historical interest, none actually discuss the historic district as such. Per WP:Red link, "red links help Wikipedia grow", as they encourage people to build articles to fill the gap, whereas redirects do not."

Redirects proposed to be deleted:

Oppose deletion. This is a reasonable search term and a good redirect, as the Torrington article is a good place for someone looking for Downtown Torrington to find the information they seek. --Orlady (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, Torrington includes four NRHP-listed historic districts, plus a number of other NRHP-listed places, each wikipedia notable. The town article is not the place for them to be developed. All four listed there should show as red-links, instead, to encourage article creation. Also I am sure someone searching for "Downtown Torrington" if it exists as a meaningful neighborhood besides being the chosen name for a NRHP HD would easily find the Torrington article, without having the NRHP HD name be a redirect to there. So, I reiterate, the redirect should be deleted. doncram (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article Torrington, Connecticut contains extensive information about downtown Torrington, including the location of the historic district. The redirect provides meaningful information on the topic, whereas a redlink would be a dead end. --Orlady (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you miss the point of what a redlink is. Having a redlink accomplishes something: it conveys that a wikipedia user is welcome to start an article on the topic. The "extensive information" you refer to in the Torrington article is primarily the list entry for it, amidst a list of other NRHP HDs and other NRHPs (probably all copied from the county NRHP list): "Downtown Torrington Historic District — Roughly bounded by Church and Alvord Sts., Center Cemetery, Willow St., E. Main St., Litchfield St., and Prospect St. (added 1988)". That is the public domain location information from the NRIS database which also appears at National Register of Historic Places listings in Litchfield County, Connecticut: "34 / Downtown Torrington Historic District / December 22, 1988 / Roughly bounded by Church and Alvord Sts., Center Cemetery, Willow St., E. Main St., Litchfield St., and Prospect St. 41°48′7″N 73°7′17″W ". Note the NRHP list-article also includes clickable coordinates for the location. I don't want to go down a road of sarcasm, but it would seem just as useful, or better, to change the redirect to point to the Litchfield County list-article. To be clear, it would be silly to replace all the red-links in the county-wide list to point right back to the list article they appear in. Or to a different nonsensical extreme, why not set up redirects for all 60,000 or so NRHP redlinks, nationwide, pointing each NRHP-listed house, historic district, etc., to the town/city they are located in? Of course, that would not be helpful: it would "trick" readers of the NRHP list-articles temporarily, to think that there are articles on the NRHP topics when in fact there are not. A sensible "goal", actually, is to have red-links showing in both the Litchfield County list-article and in the Torrington article, for this HD and for every other NRHP listing in Torrington.
Orlady, you are an experienced editor and a smart person. And, I think you basically want to work to build the wikipedia. So, I don't really know how to interpret what you really mean, when you state opposition to a straightforward small change/improvement like this. It kinda seems like you might be opposing for some other reason, as if you are just trying to throw a wrench into a working process. Could you just drop it? Or, if you explain some reason that I can understand, I will be happy enough to try to respond. Honestly, though, I don't understand what your objection is. The redirect is of negative value. The wikipedia would be better without it. Anyhow, I suggest that a closing administrator should look at the quality of argument here, and at this point I think consensus should be that this redirect should be deleted like all the others. doncram (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change destination to Falls Village, Connecticut. Falls Village, (not the mythical "Falls Village District") is a distinct village that deserves a distinct article. --Orlady (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, Falls Village, Connecticut redirects to Canaan, Connecticut. This RFD proposal is about facilitating article creation for the NRHP HD Falls Village District, which as you know from your experience with many other NRHP articles is a well-defined legal area where certain Federal tax incentives apply, and the district has a corresponding extensive NRHP application document which will describe it. The NRHP HD is wikipedia-notable. Your suggesting that the district is "mythical" seems unhelpful. I reiterate proposal to delete the redirect so that the NRHP list-article for the county shows a redlink (and the same redlink can be included in the Canaan article). doncram (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the village of Falls Village needs to have an article separate from the town of Canaan, and the title of the NRHP nomination form can continue to be a redirect to the village article. --Orlady (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I take it you have private information that leads you to believe that the unincorporated village, the CDP, and the NRHP HD are substantially the same. My experience with other similar situations (and I believe your experience also) is that similarly named CDPs, villages, and NRHP HDs are often substantially different in geographical area and in history and appropriate focus of articles. But to refocus our attention on developing the wikipedia, I hereby strike my request that the redirect be deleted, and I have started a stub article on the NRHP HD. I will put in a request for a copy of the NRHP HD application document. Please feel free to develop a separate article on the village and make a merger proposal at some later time, after you and I have both acquired some sources and hence some real information can be brought to bear on the decision whether to merge or not. I don't think it is useful to continue discussion now about whether two non-existent articles should be merged, in total absence of shareable sources. I will also note this as an open issue at Talk:List of RHPs in CT#Litchfield County HDs. Thanks. doncram (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, there are multiple HDs in Sharon, none yet mentioned at the Sharon article, where redlinks should be added. doncram (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

doncram (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Perfect article[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete - a cross-namespace redirect out of article space with no compelling reason for existence. ~ mazca talk 18:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect that is mainly in use on user talk pages and a few article reviews.  [ mad pierrot ]  20:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I sure as hell can't find any reason to keep it (a cross namespace redirect). There aren't any incoming links worth mentioning, and it appears to have only been used in an attempt to avoid typing "Wikipedia:" in links. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unneeded x-namespace Redirect. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

African Studies Bulletin (0568-1537)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. It was a valid form of disambiguation; but now that a better method of distinguishing the two publications has been decided upon, this is simply a highly unlikely search term. ~ mazca talk 18:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No clue what the numbers between parentheses were for, but I moved the page to a location that does without them. The redirect left behind doesn't seem to have a real purpose.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. 0568-1537 is the ISSN of this periodical, as described in its infobox. It appears to have been used to disambiguate this publication from the currently redlinked African Studies Bulletin (0024-0249) as appears in List of African studies journals A-E. According to WorldCat, the former is a publication of the African Studies Association, the Hoover Institution, and Boston University, while the later is a publication of Leeds. Have you consulted User:Walkurax who created this article today to ask if he plans to create the corresponding one. Presumably, African Studies Bulletin would become the dab. (What is the procedure for moving it back? Can you do so with the redirect in place, or do you need to speedy it?) -- Thinking of England (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the redirect left behind after a move hasn't been edited, you can just move back the page. Otherwise, you can tag it {{db-move}}. But as there is no article yet on the other publication, I think such a move is premature. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the journal's website ([1]) I decided to create Leeds African Studies Bulletin for the journal with the ISSN 0024-0249. I also addedd a cross reference in each record. So in this case I didn't need to add an ISSN for disambiguation purposes. (in others well, f.e. African philosophy). Thanks! --Walkurax (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ultimate Super Star[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete Ultimate Super Star, keep Ultimate Star. The latter appears sourced and generally used; the the former seems to be an extension of it without widespread use. ~ mazca talk 18:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in violation of WP:NPOV, with no reliable sourcing that I can find. Amalthea 11:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are sources for "Ultimate Star". Amalthea 15:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Equador, Rio Grande de Norte[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. As the discussion below reveals, the status of this redirect is based on the balance of two criteria for RfD: this is a plausible misspelling; but the plausible misspelling is easily revealed by the search function. Overall, it seems the weight of arguments here is in favour of its removal so as to reveal misspellings of this name in articles. ~ mazca talk 10:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion of this remnant of a move made to correct the spelling of the Brazilian state in the article title. The two incoming article-space links have already been corrected. A redirect from an alternate spelling was not intended and is not desired. Thinking of England (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Portuguese do = Spanish del, sometimes (not often) abbreviated as de. Plausible typo either way. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anyone familiar with Spanish could easily assume (as I did) "de" to be the correct article, especially if they only read or heard the name of the place once. Although I will admit the comma makes it less likely as a search term. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Delete following comments below, especially Victor's desire for deletion and the excellent points made about the eventual renaming of the target stub. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is only one use of the misspelling "Rio Grande de Norte" in all of Wikipedia, and that is in the title of this redirect to a stub of an article on a minor town in that state, notable only for its southern-most location. Were de/do misspelling redirects desirable, and in this case I feel they do more harm than good, then one to Rio Grande do Norte would make more sense. (Please, anyone reading this, don't be pointy and create one without this discussion running full course.) Certain misspelling redirects can do much more harm than good, and one of those harms, particularly evident in this case, is allowing reinforcement of the misspelling via blue-link. Since February, the Ecuador article has started with

    "Equador" redirects here. For the city in Brazil, see Equador, Rio Grande de Norte.

    subtly miseducating everyone who's read that article. If a novice editor, more familiar with Spanish than Portuguese, changes it back to "de", this redirect will keep the link blue and it might go another six months unrecognized; without this redirect, the resulting redlink would flag other editors to the problem. Doesn't this disadvantage vastly outweigh the minuscule advantage of the search box "go" taking a mistyping user directly to this page instead of to a search results page requiring one more click to reach the desired destination? -- Thinking of England (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then that should be corrected to the Portuguese spelling, since the city is in Brazil (already done). -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I fixed it at the time of the move, but the point is that the misspelling stood at the very top of the Ecuador article for six months. Inevitably, that article will be visited by some novice editor having a passing familiarity with Spanish but none of Portuguese who will "fix" it back to de without verifying that their target is a redirect. A resulting redlink in the hatnote would flag the problem to any experienced editor, but if we keep this nominated redirect then the reassuring blue link could persist for another six months or more, subtly miseducating everyone who visits the Ecuador article. -- Thinking of England (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That was an unforgivable typo for a Brazilian like me, I feel ashamed now...=P anyway, I think there's little chance for a person to try searching for Rio Grande de Norte. I mean, the person will most likely just type Equador, expecting at least a disambiguation page. The person is then taken to the country's article, and there's a highly visible mini-desambiguation on top of the page. Provided the typo is corrected there, I don't think there's a need for this redirect, even though there's a similarity between do and del, there's little (if any) chance for a Spanish-speaking person to search for the city. Victão Lopes I hear you... 22:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Shouldn't the target article be moved to Equador, with a dab hatnote linking to Ecuador? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a very interesting question (entirely separate, of course, from the call to delete the nominated redirect). Here we have a redirect acting as a redirect from misspelling, targeting an article with a hatnote that in turn links to an article associated with the original spelling. The only way this can possibly be justified is for Ecuador to be so much more prominent an article than Equador, Rio Grande do Norte that it is assumed the vast majority of those viewing Equador are doing so mistakenly, and that the convenience given by taking them directly to Ecuador outweighs both the inconvenience to those seeking the Brazilian town and the loss of opportunity to reinforce the correct spelling of the country (not to mention any intangible wrongness of such a redirect). I am not aware of any policy addressing this, but I am quite certain that I've seen other, similar redirects (although I haven't been able to locate any other examples right now). Statistics for the four full months since the creation of the misspelled article on the Brazilian town show:
Ecuador has been viewed 133902 times per month, 200903–200907.
Equador has been viewed 2799 times per month, 200903–200907.
Equador,_Rio_Grande_de_Norte has been viewed 337 times per month, 200903–200907.
Unfortunately, we don't know how many of the 337 first attempted Equador, intending to find the article on the Brazilian town.
Our four options are:
  1. Keep Equador → Ecuador
  2. Retarget Equador → Equador,_Rio_Grande_de_Norte , with a dab hatnote linking to Ecuador
  3. Move Equador,_Rio_Grande_de_Norte to Equador, with a dab hatnote linking to Ecuador
  4. Make Equador a dab page, along the lines of:
-- Thinking of England (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—a very plausible typo or misunderstanding for someone who speaks neither Spanish nor Portuguese. Not sure how many such people would visit the article, but it doesn't hurt to have a redirect for them. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It certainly is a plausible typo or misunderstanding, but the search tool will catch it (as with this "Go" with an equivalent misspelling of Natal, Rio Grande do Norte), it potentially does hurt to have this particular redirect (via blue link reinforcement of a likely false-correction as described above, precisely because it is a likely misunderstanding), and the creator (Victão), who did not intend it as a redirect from misspelling and who has recommended "Delete", could have requested a speedy G7 (Author requests deletion) had I not jumped the gun and made the move myself. -- Thinking of England (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The particular case isn't particular important to me personally, but it is a bigger issue of having vs. not having redirects from misspellings. A while ago the search tool wasn't quite as good, and didn't catch this stuff, so obvious misspelling had to be redirected. Today, as you say, it is not necessary. Therefore, if the discussion hinges on my comment, then I will not object to delete the redirect. However, there must be a centralized discussion about whether we should have redirects from typos at all. I hope you have time to start such a discussion, and if you could inform me if you started. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 21:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pleased to hear of your interest in such a discussion as there are several issues with the general subject that I've not found addressed in the WP: pages. I'm traveling for the next few days, but I'll put some thoughts together on my talk page and contact you within a week to see where we should take it from there. In the mean time, I think this particular case can be judged on its own merits. -- Thinking of England (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Thinking of England's comments above. Deletion would more likely than not lead into recreation by well-meaning editors who don't see this discussion, while disambiguation is a constructive step that actually improves Wikipedia by making the actual meanings/spellings available to a reader/editor who is not proficient in Portuguese, Spanish, or Dutch. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The preceding comment appears to conflate two issues -- the deletion request for Equador, Rio Grande de Norte and the future of Equador. The latter is not being considered for deletion, and whichever of the four options is chosen, disambiguation in one form or another will be retained. Conversely, the deletion candidate, Equador, Rio Grande de Norte, is not a subject for redirection. There is little chance that a well-meaning editor will recreate a misspelled article on this relatively obscure town (notable for its geographic extremity in Rio Grande do Norte), although "miscorrecting" the spelling of a link to this article (particularly in the Ecuador hatnote) is fairly likely, and is a good motivation for deletion of the nominated redirect. Finally, as mentioned above, the search tool will find the correct article if given what is arguably a reasonably likely misspelling of a rather unlikely search term. -- Thinking of England (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a likely typo per WP:RFD#KEEP. I find the amount of writing in discussion utterly amazing in light of the difference being a single letter ("e" vs. "o"). Keep in mind that most users of the English Wikipedia know neither Spanish nor Portuguese, thus making this highly likely for "de" to be entered in the search window instead of "do". While the latter is the correct variant, the former is a possible (and I would even say likely) search term by someone who does not truly know the actual name. B.Wind (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you refer to WP:RFD#KEEP #3 "They aid searches on certain terms." In this case the search tool will detect the misspelling for you, however yes, keeping the redirect will save one additional mouse click to reach the page when typing this exact misspelled phrase, comma and all. The cost of a keep is described in WP:RFD#KEEP #2 as "extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links", in this case from a prominent hatnote in Equador, likely to be "miscorrected" by a well meaning editor. This cost may be slight, but it is to be weighed against the benefit which is minuscule. -- Thinking of England (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

(s)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete, unlikely to be used to access its current target. No particular prejudice agaisnt creating a disambiguation page if someone feels the need, but I don't see it as particularly useful and there's no consensus to do so here. ~ mazca talk 18:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, (s) can mean many other things than just plural. I would suggest the creation of an article detailing the use of (s) in place of the redirect. Jo9100 (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no need to delete a redirect before an article can be written. Anyone interested in writing the article suggested by the nominator is able to edit the current redirect and replace it with article text. A disambiguation page may also be useful if articles already exist for several different meanings for this name. Until one of these occur however we should keep the current redirect. --Allen3 talk 21:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a stretch. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What are the other things (s) could mean? I have a hard time rationalizing (s) meaning plural - horse doesn't become horse(s). It's only used as a poor grammatical trick to imply vagueness in number i.e. "Tell your brother(s) I said 'Hi!'" I can think of no real reason anyone would search for (s). ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 15:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation. Actually, I've seen (s) been used in official court documents meaning 'signature'. Jo9100 (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What would it disambiguate? Link to plural and signature? That hardly seems viable. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_10&oldid=1144720818"