Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 23

January 23

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 23, 2014.

Fancruft

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. WJBscribe (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft → Cruft (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

I think this redirect should be deleted and salted, because while it currently redirects to cruft, nowhere in the target article is the word "fancruft" actually used, so I doubt that people typing in fancruft into Wikipedia will be looking for this page. It seems the term fancruft is generally only used on this site and thus should not have a page, or even a redirect, in mainspace at all, just a page in project space, as it already does. Jinkinson talk to me 17:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I doubt that anyone typing in fancruft would be looking for the content of that article.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it conforms to wikt:fancruft and uses found on the internet. WP:NOTDIC we don't have to list every synonym of the topic of an article/section in the article page itself for a redirect to exist, otherwise we would turn every article into dictionary entries to support redirects from synonyms. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this is a very good reason why redirects should have documentation templates like templates do. {{documentation|content=why this redirect exists}} -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not an idea I recall seeing before. To a limited extent the redirect category templates record this, e.g. {{R from misspelling}} is pretty obvious (the bug that prevented these being seen on redirect pages has been fixed in the past week and should be deployed soon). I also often record the reason I created a redirect in the edit summary, but not everybody does (nor can we expect them to). Occasionally, such information is found on the talk pages, or in an old RfD linked from there. A standardised way to record this would be good though. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - An additional template for explaining certain redirects would definitely be a good thing. — Scott • talk 14:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've mocked up a template at DRAFT:Template:Redirect documentation -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Perhaps I am mistaken or things have changed, but doesn't including content on a redirect page stop the automatic redirection? (i.e. one lands at the redirect page, not what it redirects to, even without "&redirect=no".) This would seem to preclude including documentation. Si Trew (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        The redirection will still work so long as the redirect code is placed before all the content. We actually already have a number of templates designed for use on redirects: {{r from misspelling}}, {{r from other capitalisation}}, ect.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        We don't need redirect documentation because redirects can have talk pages. Put your reasoning there. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        You could say the same thing about templates, which was how it used to be kept. It is documentation, and not discussion, so should be as readily accessible as {{R from typo}} is, which is also a form of documentation, but does not appear on the talk page. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, although I don't think it merits salting. — Scott • talk 14:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia slang unhelpful in mainspace. I also don't see a need for salt yet, however. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 70.50.148.122. The content at cruft is clearly what someone search for this term is looking for, even if it is not explicitly used there. Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WJBscribe (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Other sites tend to agree that this is a Wikipedia neologism; the word has no significant book footprint. The article on "cruft" doesn't explain our usage of the word at all: you have to go to Wikipedia:Fancruft to get the real definition. Mangoe (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, points readers to the right concept, and the only alternative is to redirect to Wikipedia:Fancruft. Even if this is deleted, no argument for salting has been put forward, so that should not be done. —Kusma (t·c) 11:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not the right concept! Mangoe (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another alternative could be {{Wiktionary redirect}} plus a hatnote. —Kusma (t·c) 13:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is the possibility of an article on the topic (not a strong link, given low Google Books hits), or it being covered in an article about Wikipedia jargon, or maybe even covered in the article cruft if there are sources which describe the way the words are linked. But none of them are the case at present. It is easy to recreate the redirect when the topic is covered by Wikipedia - until then, the wiktionary page is only a google away, it already being the fifth result for google:fancruft, with this redirect currently sitting as the third result, and WP:Fancruft is the first result. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Vandenberg and Mangoe. Si Trew (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2014 (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.

Nike Total 90 Tracer

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. JohnCD (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Total 90 Tracer → Nike, Inc. (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Although I respect that this was redirected as the result of an AfD, it's still the sort of redirect that's routinely deleted here. The subject isn't mentioned at the target page, and it's nigh-inconceivable that someone searching for "Nike Total 90 Tracer" doesn't know what Nike is, which makes this a condescending redirect. --BDD (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 22:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 08:07, 24 January 2014 (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.

List of libertarians

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 dabify. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of libertarians → List of libertarians in the United States (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Non-region-specific topic redirecting to a region-specific topic. There used to be an article here, but the only sourced entries on the list were people from the U.S., so someone moved it to List of libertarians in the United States. I think this title would be best off as a disambiguation page listing various lists of libertarians by country or continent, but at present the U.S. list seems to be the only one that exists. Alternatively, perhaps retarget to List of libertarian political parties? (List of libertarian organizations also exists, but currently only includes U.S. organisations.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move the target article to this title to encourage an expansion of scope. Tag with {{globalize/US}} if desired. --BDD (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate with all the choices the nom came up with -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate as suggested by the IP above. That seems to be the most practical & inclusive option.--JayJasper (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2014 (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.

Category:Compilation Albums

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 procedural close. Category redirects are discussed at CfD, not RfD. --BDD (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Compilation Albums → Category:Compilation albums (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Serves little purpose since 99.999% of users would the correct capitalization. Moreover, this category pops up in the auto-complete feature of HotCat so ironically, keeping this category may lead to categorization mistakes! Pichpich (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2014 (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:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Zoroastrianism

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. JohnCD (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Zoroastrianism → Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This was never a viable deletion sorting list, as those lists are intentionally broad in order to bring a wide array of voices to the listed discussions. This list was created in 2007 without discussion by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting project as it expected, only had two prods listed on it in 2007, and was put out of service in 2008, so it has an insignificant history. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment aren't these supposed to be bot maintained? There is a WP:WikiProject Zoroastrianism, so conceivably, a list for the project should exist. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject specific lists are managed through the WP:AALERTS automatic system rather than human Delsorting. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article alerts for this project are here - ~10 in 2013. Far below what is appropriate for a delsorting list. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd call it WP:REDLINK if this were mainspace. If there isn't a Zoroastrianism delsort, the redirect is misleading, and it's perfectly logical that the Religion delsort would cover topics on religions not otherwise represented. This isn't a judgment on the overall viability of an active Zoroastrianism delsort, though it seems unlikely. If there's interest in maintaining one, go for it. Right now, this is definitely misleading, and bit cluttery. --BDD (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2014 (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:AF/P

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 keep. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AF/P → Wikipedia:WikiProject Artemis Fowl/Priority (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This WikiProject now uses the shortcut WP:FOWL, after Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009 March 21#Wikipedia:AF → Wikipedia:WikiProject Artemis Fowl. IMO, this redirect should be moved, without a redirect, to WP:FOWL/P. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is entirely harmless and will benefit people who remember the old name and there is no reason to break any of the bookmarks and links that may have arisen since this was created in 2008. Unless you are proposing to repurpose it (I couldn't find anything suitable at WP:AF or WP:AFP), this discussion is entirely without merit. The new shortcut can be created without harming this one. Thryduulf (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sensible target, no suggestions for retargetting or disambiguing have been presented, and no rationale for deletion has been presented. There appears to be nothing to discuss. Wily D 09:59, 24 January 2014 (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.

T:WPAF

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) 00:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T:WPAF → Wikipedia:WikiProject Artemis Fowl/Todo (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This WP:CNR goes to a WikiProject todo page (note the target was at Template:WP Artemis Fowl todo, however I have moved it per the usual special:search/Wikipedia:WikiProject todo naming convention. The WikiProject todo page is transcluded onto the main WikiProject page, which is accessible via the shortcut WP:FOWL (which they adopted after WP:AF was retargeted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 21#Wikipedia:AF → Wikipedia:WikiProject Artemis Fowl. There are occasional spikes in the pageviews of this WP:CNR, which are typically around 10 per month, often much lower. The last substantial edit to the template was by user:Legoktm in August 2012.

This T: template was one of the batch which reached no consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 26. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this doesn't even make sense, the todo list should be a list, not a navbox, that is transcluded by {{todo}}. This template is in Project Space, not Template Space. And this isn't the WikiProject Banner, what would be expected at this location for such a shortcut. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Template:WP Artemis Fowl todo, which is a sensible target. Moving a redirect from a sensible target to a nonsensible target, and then requesting deletion on the basis the target isn't sensible is horrendous gaming of the rules, and is unacceptable. Wily D 10:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@WilyD:, if you did a little analysis before accusing people of doing horrendous things, you would see that special:search/Template:WikiProject to do redirect is full of similar pages that have been moved to project space. In the nom I explained this, pointing to special:search/Wikipedia:WikiProject todo; also see special:search/Wikipedia:WikiProject to do (space added) to see more of the same. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mangled and completely inappropriate. What 70.50 said, basically. — Scott • talk 14:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wrong prefix. No need to support such a thing from mainspace/content space. -DePiep (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2014 (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:AF/N

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 keep. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AF/N → Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Noticeboard (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

WP:AF is used for abuse filter, as per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 21#Wikipedia:AF → Wikipedia:WikiProject Artemis Fowl. The article feedback section of Wikipedia space typically uses WP:AFT as its shortcut. Recommend moving this, without leaving a shortcut, to WP:AFT/N. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as harmless. Creating the new shortcut can be done without breaking any links and hatnotes are perfectly suitable for removing any confusion cause by similar shortcuts but the lack of any evidence of problems since 2009 suggests this isn't necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sensible target, no alternatives have been presented, and no argument has been advanced to support deletion. Wily D 09:57, 24 January 2014 (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:AF/C

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 moved to WP:FOWL/C without leaving a redirect (and links fixed) per result of RfD for WP:AF. The time spent arguing over this could have been spent fixing it. — Scott • talk 13:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AF/C → Wikipedia:WikiProject Artemis Fowl/Collaboration (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This WikiProject uses the shortcut WP:FOWL. IMO this shortcut should be moved to WP:FOWL/C without leaving a redirect. WP:AF is used for the Abuse Filter, as per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 21#Wikipedia:AF → Wikipedia:WikiProject Artemis Fowl, and has several subpage-shortcuts starting with WP:AF, with the exception of WP:AF/N being used for Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Noticeboard. A more suitable target for WP:AF/C might be Wikipedia:Edit filter/Instructions ('C' for Create), which doesnt currently have a shortcut. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as harmless unless you are actually proposing a retarget and not just vaguely handwaving in the direction that retargeting is possible. Deletion of shortcuts in this manner is harmful for no benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - without a suggestion for a new target/disambig, there appears to be nothing to discuss. Wily D 09:56, 24 January 2014 (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:AF/D

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 deleted. This thing makes a dead parrot look sprightly. With no demonstrable use, no evidence of an active owner, and having a shortcut root that has been reallocated, the only thing that this redirect offers is technical debt. Accordingly, to alleviate harm to future users in the form of confusion or maintenance cost (which includes discussions such as this one), out it goes. — Scott • talk 14:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AF/D → Wikipedia:WikiProject Artemis Fowl/Artemis Fowl (series) draft (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

WP:Shortcut to a draft of Artemis Fowl (series), by a semi-active (read: inactive for two years?) WikiProject. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Is it in the way for something? It's not harming anything, just keep it. Legoktm (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Legoktm and my explanations of the harm caused by unnecessary deletions on your other equally odd proposals. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plausible ending point, unless there's some need to disambig? Certainly no argument has been presented to support the idea of deletion, or a potential retarget/disambig. Wily D 09:55, 24 January 2014 (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.