Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 28: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Westfield Elementary: I shall not likely be around for the AfD, then
Vizcarra (talk | contribs)
10,395 edits
→‎Santorum: Change back
Line 112: Line 112:
*'''Change''' as the purpose of redirects and dab pages is to serve the ''reader'', not some politician's desires. To that end, the [[Obama]] direct mentioned above might also be turned into a dab page like [[Clinton]] or [[Bush]], if that's an additional concern. There is no BLP issue at play here. - [[User:Dravecky|Dravecky]] ([[User talk:Dravecky|talk]]) 03:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Change''' as the purpose of redirects and dab pages is to serve the ''reader'', not some politician's desires. To that end, the [[Obama]] direct mentioned above might also be turned into a dab page like [[Clinton]] or [[Bush]], if that's an additional concern. There is no BLP issue at play here. - [[User:Dravecky|Dravecky]] ([[User talk:Dravecky|talk]]) 03:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose change''', mainly per Rlendog's argument that "[[Obama]]" links to the president's page and not a disambiguation page. Also, there is a hatnote at the top of the [[Rick Santorum]] article which reads "'Santorum' redirects here. For other uses, see [[Santorum (disambiguation)]]," so it will not be too difficult to find other "Santorum" pages if the reader didn't intend to read the former senator's article. --[[User:Sgt. R.K. Blue|Sgt. R.K. Blue]] ([[User talk:Sgt. R.K. Blue|talk]]) 06:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose change''', mainly per Rlendog's argument that "[[Obama]]" links to the president's page and not a disambiguation page. Also, there is a hatnote at the top of the [[Rick Santorum]] article which reads "'Santorum' redirects here. For other uses, see [[Santorum (disambiguation)]]," so it will not be too difficult to find other "Santorum" pages if the reader didn't intend to read the former senator's article. --[[User:Sgt. R.K. Blue|Sgt. R.K. Blue]] ([[User talk:Sgt. R.K. Blue|talk]]) 06:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Change back''' As a candidate Rick Santorum is at the bottom. The neologism has been more popular than this politician's last name and will most likely be after the candidate for his party is chosen. --[[User:Vizcarra|Vizcarra]] ([[User talk:Vizcarra|talk]]) 07:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


====<span id="Lebel and Berthier Rifles">Lebel and Berthier Rifles</span>====
====<span id="Lebel and Berthier Rifles">Lebel and Berthier Rifles</span>====

Revision as of 07:00, 29 July 2011

July 28

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 28, 2011

John Berry (musician)

Delete misleading redirect. Orphaned in articles name space. According to John Berry dab page, the lemma should be reserved for an other musician (violinist). FordPrefect42 (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that, but I have no intention to do so, as I have got no information about that man. If anybody wants to try, here is where to start investigating. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - to be fair, the dab page entry for the violinist was only added within the last couple of days so it has hardly had time to become established. What happened here was that the John Berry (singer) article was created at John Berry (musician) and a redirect was left when the page was moved in October 2008. It is, I agree, misleading since the singer doesn't play any instrument and a red link looks the correct solution per WP:REDLINK. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. An article about the Barcus-Barry cofounder might of course also be called John Berry (violinist). But in that case, the redirect should also be deleted or converted into a dab page, as we then have two articles about musicians of that name, but there is already a dab page. - BTW: John Berry (singer) says he also plays acoustic guitar. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese/Help

Cross name space redirect. —Farix (t | c) 22:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English WP is not Japanese WP, and this does not belong here. Neither the one below, "Nihongo", which is Japanese for 'Japanese. Both shoud go. Si Trew (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nihongo/Help

Cross name space redirect. —Farix (t | c) 22:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)#[reply]

Go, as discussed above, unhelpful redirect. Si Trew (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Manga cover fur/doc

Documentation redirect - No incoming links... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is there really a need to delete redirects that were created as part of an ill-advised page move? Also, as stated at the top of WP:RfD, redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. I also don't see how the deletion rational meets any of the criteria for deleting redirects. —Farix (t | c) 22:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bottom line as I see it is that this is a useless redirect however you slice it. It's a documentation subpage for a template that was also recently moved. The redirect for the template itself has value. This one, however, is pointless to keep around. The fact that we're already expended this much effort discussing a pointless redirect kind of amazes me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Poster fur/doc

Documentation redirect - No incoming links? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Poster fur/sandbox

Redirect to sandbox... No incoming links Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 G7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vgboxart fur/doc

Documentation redirect - No incoming links (and usages of vgboxart fur should be migrated anyway)... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Video game cover fur/doc

Documentation redirect, Template redirected - No incoming links? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Video cover fur/doc

Redirect for template documentation - Nothing incoming here. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 G7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Icon fur/doc

Redirect no longer needed as nothing links here directly now Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Icon fur

Redirect is no longer needed as nothing now links here directly. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum

Change "Santorum" back to disambiguation page (Santorum (disambiguation)). Campaign for "santorum" neologism gets close to the hits that Rick Santorum does...AND we don't know how many people typed in "Santorum" looking for the sexual term as opposed to the person. Also Google results put the sex term first. CTJF83 12:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, can you provide reasons, instead of a link to a 2 year old discussion. CTJF83 13:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7 June 2011 is not two years ago. See Talk:Santorum#Expanded rationale. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well since you originally didn't link to a thread, I looked at the wrong post. CTJF83 13:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well scanning that thread, it looks like you just took it upon yourself to change the redirect, because you didn't like it. BLP would only possibly come in to affect if I was proposing Santorum redirect to Campaign for "santorum" neologism, which I'm clearly not. Clearly a disambiguation page is the most neutral thing to link to, and rick's page would be at the top of said dab page....so your argument is pretty invalid. CTJF83 13:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Floquenbeam won't explain his argument, I'll put forth my interpretation of his argument, and Floquenbeam, you can correct me if I'm wrong. WP:BLP trumps all other policies, guidelines, and pillars of Wikipedia. WP:BLP overrules Wikipedia's duty to be an encyclopedia and to serve its readers. WP:BLP precludes anything that can be construed to harm a living person or his/her political, religious, or social interests, even at articles that are not biographies of that person, extending to all disambiguation pages, templates, and categories that link to a biography. Quigley (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, "BLP would only possibly come in to affect if I was proposing Santorum redirect to Campaign for "santorum" neologism, which I'm clearly not." CTJF83 13:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. But then again, I don't feel really strongly about the issue, whereas some users will burst into tears at the thought of this change happening. Floquenbeam, if you have a conflict of interest relating to the Santorum 2012 campaign, please declare it. Quigley (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change. This disambiguation page was stable until the unilateral actions of Floquenbeam, which promote an article that is clearly not the primary topic at the expense of other articles readers frequently seek out. Quigley (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change. It became extraordinarily clear in the underlying discussion on the contentious neologism that the supposed "term" had negligible use outside the partisan campaigning. The handling here parallels the handling of "Lewinsky", and is quite appropriate and enjoys consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change per Hullabaloo and Floquenbeam. BLP and prominence issues at play here. Dreadstar ☥ 21:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change per Hullabaloo and Floquenbeam. And or the same reasons we don't have "Obama" as a disambiguation page with links to Barack Obama, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, Presidency of Barack Obama, etc. Nor does it link to the "Obama (disambiguation) page which actually has notable "Obamas" not related to Barack. All the links in Santorum (disambiguation) are related to Rick Santorum and are appropriately addressed through links within the Rick Santorum article. Rlendog (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change. A presidential candidate is much more notable than any of the others. Google searches don't give us much useful information, given that there was a concerted and successful campaign to make the slang term prominent in search results. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change Outside of the USA, a former senator with presidential ambitions is not very notable, whereas the google-bomb campaign is. In addition, it is a family name, and is not owned by the former senator.93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that all the "Santorums" listed in the disambiguation page are related to this not very notable former senator, including the google-bomb campaign. Rlendog (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • To support the above, "Who's Winning: Savage. Google and its algorithm have spoken. Santorum even admits that his "children cannot Google their father's name"--which means that Savage has had enough support to keep his viral prank running for eight years, from 2003 to the present. While a lot of what Savage says strays into questionable and crass territory, people find its sense of humor and rally behind that. Santorum, on the other hand, is having a hard enough time convincing people in his own party to like him. He is barely getting by--both in votes and dollars--which, if he plans to make a serious run in 2012, is a little more troublesome than his current "Google Problem."" http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/07/santorums-children-cant-google-his-name-savage-keeps-going/40462/ 93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. The prank has gotten a lot of mileage and Santorum's presidential campaign seems to be floundering. But by your logic, when Santorum's children type their last name into Wikipedia, they will get the article about this prank along with the article about their father. Which then gets back to the BLP concerns. If anyone wants to get to the article about the prank - which is a prank related to the person - they can type Santorum, go to the the Rick Santorum article, and get to the article about the prank through the link there. Rlendog (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current redirect. If you search reliable sources, such as those found using Google News [1], instead of gutter blogs, it's clear this is the primary meaning. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change as the purpose of redirects and dab pages is to serve the reader, not some politician's desires. To that end, the Obama direct mentioned above might also be turned into a dab page like Clinton or Bush, if that's an additional concern. There is no BLP issue at play here. - Dravecky (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change, mainly per Rlendog's argument that "Obama" links to the president's page and not a disambiguation page. Also, there is a hatnote at the top of the Rick Santorum article which reads "'Santorum' redirects here. For other uses, see Santorum (disambiguation)," so it will not be too difficult to find other "Santorum" pages if the reader didn't intend to read the former senator's article. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change back As a candidate Rick Santorum is at the bottom. The neologism has been more popular than this politician's last name and will most likely be after the candidate for his party is chosen. --Vizcarra (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lebel and Berthier Rifles

Misspelling of Lebel and Bertheir Rifles, a redirect which was itself deleted. I only saw it in the deletion log after the discussion on other one was closed. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Elementary School

There are many Westfield Elementary Schools, probably at least as notable as the one in Porterville, California. It seems unlikely someone from outside the Porterville area, searching on Westfield Elementary School, would be looking for this particular one. Peter Chastain (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to disambiguation page - the problem with deletion is that, as sure as eggs are eggs, pretty soon someone is going to come along and write an article for another 'Westfield Elementary School' and we are back to square one. Most elementary schools tend to be non-notable and they generally get merged into their school district. Such a DMB would, since we currently only have one actual article, therefore mostly point to the entries in the various district pages. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Elementary

I have renamed the target to Westfield Elementary School (Porterville, California) but prefer not to have redirects from Westfield Elementary School, because there are many schools with that name, and notability for this particular school has not been established. Peter Chastain (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree, it should actually go DEL Under WP:SCHOOL, but of course while this discussion is open I won't take BOLD and do that myself, but I think it should. I Also have a sticky space bar that is getting right on my ahem so please excuse my typos. Si Trew (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_28&oldid=441997820"