Welcome to twinme.com on July 5 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)
Jump to: navigation, search
Skip to Table of Contents. Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page
Shortcut:
WP:RFD
Deletion discussions
Deletion policy

Process – Log – Tools
Guide – Images – Admins

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic redirects. Items sent here usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted by an administrator, kept, or retargeted.

Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing, unprotected redirect with an actual article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold.

Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as a reason to delete a redirect. Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted as well, so it's not a necessary condition either. See When should we delete a redirect?

Old discussions are archived at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log.

Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
  • Review: Provisional draft #2 of the new arbitration policy.
  • Proposal: Proposal to create user-space redirects.
  • Poll: Should WP:NOT#PLOT be reworded, moved, removed, or kept the same?
  • RFC: Is there community support to change the constitutional relationship between ArbCom and Jimmy Wales?
  • Poll: How does the community feel regarding how the civility policy is applied and enforced on Wikipedia?
  • Discussion: Should notability criteria for pornographic actors be rolled back?
  • RFC: Naming guidelines for Macedonia
  • Preliminary (userspace) discussion on Wikipedia governance issues.
  • RFC: Should Wikipedia prevent Google and other search engines from searching User pages?
  • RFC: Should a bot unlink dates?
  • RFC. Outside opinions are solicited on self electing groups.
  • RFC: What is the community's opinion on using {{Italictitle}} to italicise certain articles' titles?
  • RFC: What is the community's view of paid editing?
  • Poll: About the preferred usage names as a result of WP:RFAR/West Bank - Judea and Samaria
  • Discussion: Ordering and general presentation of talk page templates.
  • RFC: Simplifying speedy deletion policy

A new page to keep track of discussions throughout Wikipedia has been created: Wikipedia:Coordination

A new noticeboard has been created: Wikipedia:Content noticeboard

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive • talk • edit • history • watch

Contents

[edit] Before you list a redirect for discussion...

...please familiarize yourself with the following:

[edit] The guiding principles of RfD

  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is cheap since the deletion coding takes up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. In general, there is no harm in deleting problematic redirects that do not contribute to improving the encyclopedia.
  • The default result of any RFD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article. However, for more difficult cases, this page can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another page's talk page don't need to be listed here, as anyone can simply remove the redirect by blanking the page.
  • Try to consider whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader when discussing.

[edit] When should we delete a redirect?

Shortcut:
WP:RFD#HARMFUL

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old, then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles — such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.

Note that there could exist (for example), links to the URL "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorneygate" anywhere on the internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere" for "Attorneygate" -- since those links might "come from" somewhere outside Wikipedia.

Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.

Shortcut:
WP:RFD#DELETE

[edit] Reasons for deleting

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so it should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article.
  4. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Google to love.
  5. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule is the "CAT:" shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space but in practice form their own "pseudo-namespaces".
  6. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist or itself, it can be deleted immediately, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  7. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.
Shortcut:
WP:RFD#KEEP

[edit] Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history. If the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some 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.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms.
  4. You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them.
  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.
  6. The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form, or to some other grammatical form.

[edit] Neutrality of redirects

Note that redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This covers only article titles, which are required to be neutral (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article naming). Perceived lack of neutrality in redirects is therefore not a valid reason for deletion. Non-neutral redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Dalmatian Kristallnacht → Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and redirected to Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be commonly represented outside Wikipedia by non-neutral terms. Such terms cannot be used as Wikipedia article title, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance, the widely used but non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it.

If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may reasonably be nominated for deletion. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources), it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately.

[edit] Closing notes

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

[edit] How to list a redirect for discussion

To list a redirect for discussion, follow this two-step process:

I.
Flag the redirect.

  Enter {{rfd}} above the #REDIRECT on the redirect page you are listing for discussion. Example:

{{rfd}}
#REDIRECT [[Foo]]
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
  • Save the page.
II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For the template in the previous step:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of "RedirectName", put the target article's name in place of "TargetArticle", and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating.
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax:
    • {{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
    • {{subst:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
    • .
    • .
    • .
    • {{subst:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
  • It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the redirect that you are nominating the redirect. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template

    {{subst:RFDNote|RedirectName}}

    may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as:
    Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

Administrator instructions

[edit] Current list

[edit] July 5

[edit] Bartholomew Simpson

Who would search this? I'm pretty sure NOBODY on the face of this planet would be searching for Bartholomew Simpson since Bart Simpson is so popular by the name BART. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 16:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Konarski

The result of the discussion was turned into disambig. Kusma (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Making "Konarski" a redirect to Stanisław Konarski makes it difficult to search for other Konarskis in Wikipedia and there is not a compelling reason for Stanisław to be the prime Konarski. Beirne (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

  • If there are other Konarskis, just turn the page into a disambiguation page. (That can be done without RFD). Kusma (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • OK. I knew I could replace it with a new article but wasn't sure about disambiguation. --Beirne (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] WP:GRAWP

Please kill this, per WP:DENY etc. No need to have this. Redirect shortcuts are for policies, pages and other useful things, however we don't need to honor vandals with them. Are we going to go back to the troll feeding days where {{WOW}} expanded to a Wheels sock tag? Where people had boxes saying that they hate Willy? Triplestop x3 02:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:DENY. Kusma (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, shortcuts such as this are should probably have the WP:LTA prefix, so WP:LTA/GRAWP would be more appropriate. snigbrook (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 4

[edit] Template User JHVW/DrWho

Delete, unnecessary redirect created via moving a misnamed template. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 21:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 4th of july

"4th of July" (capital J) exists and is quite a different page than the target. ospalh (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Las Venturas Airport

Is this necessary? Las Venturas is a fake place, so i doubt someone would be looking for extensive info on a fake airport. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 17:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mick peterson

I cannot see any connection between these two subjects. A Google search shows no connection [1]. meshach (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 3

[edit] Template:Nobot

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Bazj (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirect should be deleted because most bots will not recognize "nobot" they look for "nobots". Thus it could erroneously lead to people using this and unwanted bots still touching the page. –xenotalk 16:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete I wrote a rationale for {{db}} to put on the redirect, but xeno edit conflicted me. So I'll paste it here, it gives useful background:

    {{bots}} and {{nobots}} are part of the voluntary bot exclusion system; in particlar, placing {{nobots}} on a page tells compliant bots that they should not edit that page. This has absolutely nothing to do with the contents of either template, compliant bots just search the page's wikitext for the specific text "{{bots}}" or "{{nobots}}" (or the same with certain parameters as specified in the template documentation). Since "{{nobot}}" (without the "s") is not one of these two special names, bots should and will completely ignore it. But the existence of the redirect can confuse users into thinking it would work, as happened in the case leading to this discussion, so this redirect should be deleted.

    This may fall under G6, or could be interpreted as a "redirect to an invalid target" under G8 since redirecting to that target does not serve the intended purpose. Anomie⚔ 16:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

    FWIW I don't mind this being speedied, but I figured since it's been in place since 2007 there's no big rush. Someone should go through and replace the current usages beforehand though. Y Done –xenotalk 16:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete If it doesn't do what its name implies, and there's nothing on the talk page to explain what it's intended to do, it should be tidied away asap. Bazj (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Template:Wtf

Inappropriate and potentially bitey redirect for {{fact}}. Jafeluv (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 2

[edit] Rsnail

Delete. Apparently Rsnail is the username of an important admin in Club Penguin. This may have been mentioned in the past but it no longer is, the article has matured. Mangojuicetalk 14:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Elisabeth II of Bohemia

Delete. Implausible redirect. Not a ruling monarch, so should not have a numeral. No incoming links from article space. DrKiernan (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  • How about retargetting to the dab page Elisabeth of Bohemia? As the redirect is the result of a move, somebody apparently once thought there was a "Elizabeth II of Bohemia". Kusma (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
They were wrong. There isn't one[2][3]. DrKiernan (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Thanks. Delete, confusing. Kusma (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I've provided google scholar searches above. There are NO scholarly references at all. You are correct that this is Original Research (not to say complete invention). DrKeirnan (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Can Elisabeth I of Bohemia, Anna I of Bohemia, and Świętosława I of Bohemia be deleted together with Elisabeth II of Bohemia or do we need seperate entries for all four identical cases? Surtsicna (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ride (Usher song)

The result of the discussion was Deleted as CSD R3 by Orangemike. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This page was created as a redirect to Confessions (Usher album)#Track listing. The song, "Ride", isn't part of the track listing or any bonus tracks. In fact, it's not mentioned in the article at all—or any other albums by Usher. The chances of someone searching for this term is pretty much zero and serves no purpose as a redirect — Σxplicit 04:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete the redirect serves no purpose and was created by a confused user, at best. JBsupreme (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy-delete WP:CSD#R3 (which might still apply even if it were a song there). DMacks (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] July 1

[edit] 塔什库尔干塔吉克自治县

Per Naming conventions. Gordonrox24 | Talk 14:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep it this is for the Chinese users of English Wikipedia and to provide the Chinese equivalent in English Wikipedia.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The naming conventions you point to describe what to name the article on a given topic. Here, the article is called Tashkurgan Tajik Autonomous County, which is clearly English. Foreign-language redirects are not forbidden; indeed, Nürnberg, delikatessen, Firenze, Franz Josef Strauß and Chomolungma all redirect to the correct English name. Those are all examples listed in the naming convention you point to. Jafeluv (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the term occurs on the article, is the original language name for the subject, and useful considering that the term can be rendered in several different ways in English. 76.66.193.20 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag {{R from alternative language}}. Kusma (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep The naming conventions apply to articles, not redirects. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Proper names in their original language are appropriate and useful. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:O rly?

Delete. {{Fact}} has a lot of useful aliases, but these are unnecessarily pointy and sarcastic. I don't see why anyone would advocate tagging text with "O rly?" tags. Using either {{fact}} directly or one of its many aliases like {{citation needed}} or {{cn}} would be more appropriate. These seem like joke redirects in the first place. Jafeluv (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - A useless, joke redirect. The case could be made that it's contrary to WP:BITE. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Funny, but no real purpose. GlassCobra 19:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:HARMLESS Why so serious? (Disclaimer: I created a couple of 'em, if I remember correctly.) –Juliancolton | Talk 19:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Julian. It's not harming anything, and even if they were to be used in the main article space, their function would serve the same as a regular {{fact}} tag (the functionality of the tag is far more important than the transcluded name). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Likely to be seen as bitey by many. Tags should be objective, especially when disputatious. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jabuary 21

This is an unlikely typo with no incoming links. JIMp talk·cont 08:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Implausible typo, unlikely to be useful. Jafeluv (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As a typo, it is pretty likely, actually... have you bever typed ab b instead of a n? Kusma (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete:This isn't needed. If you type Jabuary into the search bar you will get a "Did you mean January" note.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 14:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Unlikely typo, taken care of by software. GlassCobra 19:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above statements. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Jabuary 20 and Jamuary 21. Tavix |  Talk  23:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 30

[edit] Kingdom of Northern Italy

Delete. A "Kingdom of Northern Italy" never existed. There was a Kingdom of Sardinia, that in 1861 renamed itself Kingdom of Italy, and never went under the name of Kingdom of Northern Italy. Candalua (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Maybe retarget to Kingdom of Italy (Napoleonic)... The clearest reference to "Kingdom of Northern Italy" that I could find is in this book, which refers to the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy (in northern Italy) that existed in the early 1800s. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 16:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Who are you album

Delete. Not useful due to non-standard disambiguation and the fact that the redirect's title is actually longer than target article's title. Who Are You (album) could possibly be a useful redirect, because the parenthetical disambiguator "(album)" is quite common on Wikipedia. (Redirect creator notified using {{RFDNote}}.) –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I went ahead and created the (album) redirect, since you're right, that is a likely search term. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Where are we?

Humorous, but not a useful redirect. No significant page history and 0 views. (Redirect creator notified using {{RFDNote}}.) –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Heh, totally agreed with the nom; got a laugh out of it, but that doesn't mean it should be kept. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete But the person who made should get a barnstar of good humor. :D KMFDM FAN (talk!) 21:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a useful redirect, very few people, if any at all, would likely look that up in search.  Marlith (Talk)  23:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Slayer's Upcoming 10th Album

The result of the discussion was DELETE. Fairly uncontroversial deletion. No pertinent history, it was all moved to the new article title. No point keeping as redirect because it is pretty implausible that anyone would type that in. – B.hotep •talk• 18:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No longer needed. Album has name. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 16:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Slayer 10th Album

The result of the discussion was DELETE. Fairly uncontroversial deletion. No pertinent history, it was all moved to the new article title. No point keeping as redirect because it is pretty implausible that anyone would type that in. – B.hotep •talk• 18:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No longer needed. Album has Name. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 16:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] June 29

[edit] Sinuciderea fecioarelor

Delete. A new editor input an article in Romanian which turned out to be a plot summary of Jeffrey Eugenides' novel The Virgin Suicides, on which we already have an article. I redirected it, but on reflection this is a most unlikely search term on the English Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep, harmless, avoid accidental recreation, and points people from Romanian Wikipedia who change the ro.wikipedia in the URL to en.wikipedia to the right article. Nobody loses if we have this redirect. Kusma (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Normal users of English Wikipedia will not enter this as any form of typo. If this exists on the ro.wikipedia, merely change where it points —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilkins (talk • contribs)

[edit] Wikipedia:Notability (uglyness)

Particularly silly and slightly misleading cross-namespace redirect. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 17:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Which itself is an essay and means nothing. My Wikipedia:Notability (uglyness)/WP:FUGLY was created as a companion to his Wikipedia:Notability (hotness)/WP:HOTTIE. You delete one, you've got to delete them all. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 03:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It's an essay, yes, but it's common sense. You can't lump together anything and make some sort of conditional "you must" statement. We evaluate pages in the nom by their own merits. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, that just simply doesn't apply in this case as they are essentially the same thing substituting one word for another: fugly for hottie. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 17:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. See my !vote below. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Bleh, I have no opinion on this. My redirect has been put up for deletion before by the anti-fun squad, do with the information what you will. GlassCobra 04:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong don't care, both harmless and useless. Kusma (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, doesn't strike me as particularly original, funny or clever - but it's not like anyone's going to use that redirect for anything more useful! I don't see the harm in allowing joke redirects as long as they aren't likely to mislead; and I really can't think of anyone who'd go looking for an actual notability standard for ugly people. ~ mazca talk 09:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and ignore. Really we have more important things that are causing harm that should be deleted. And vandalism editors who need a dose of the anti-fun to curb the degrading of articles. -- Banjeboi 11:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible who cares? Hans Adler 17:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - While I can appreciate the satirical nature of both the "Hotties are always notable" and "Fuglies are not notable" essays, they are not equivalent. To be called a hottie is generally assumed to be complimentary, even if untrue. To be called ugly is generally assumed to be insulting, even if true. I'm not convinced that it reflects well on WP to have a shortcuts linking to an essay which names specific individuals as "ugly", "fugly", or, in the case of Will Ferrell, "fucking ugly, even when au natural". I understand that it is intended to be funny, but so is a good percentage of the vandalism that is added and removed every day. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - ASE seems to have a desire to have redirects into his userspace. All of which have thus far been deleted by consensus. Plus the BLP concerns need to be redacted from the target page.→ ROUX ₪ 18:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • As usual for Roux, the "rest of the story" is left out. These redirects have been around since February 2008 and have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the recent shortcuts I created for my user talk page. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 18:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Can it with the personal attacks. → ROUX ₪ 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I see no personal attack? Only statement of fact. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 21:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete these will never be popular enought o need s shortcut (unecessary shortcut/redirect) If it wouldn't have a place in the project space (Wikipedia:) then it shouldn't require a shortcut. (Ie in comparison to WPCRATSTATS which could quite easily be placed in the project space). ViridaeTalk 22:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep C'mon people, don't we have something better to do with our time than get upset about stuff like this? EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ignore = +harmless –useless +humorous –we_are_not_amused. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Skittlebrau

I believe "skittlebrau" may have been a gag used in the episode of The Simpsons that this points to; however, the article contains no information on anything called "skittlebrau", and it doesn't seem to have any relevance to the episode beyond being a throwaway gag. We don't need redirects for every gag used in every episode of everything, and having one for this gag seems arbitrary. Unscented (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking out the old history of the redirect shows that it was in fact from that episode. [4]. It however does not seem not imporant enough to even mention in the episode's article.--76.66.188.176 (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - if it's not mentioned in the article, no point redirecting to it. JohnCD (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: It is something that I have searched for in the past, and it now serves a purpose of discouraging a separate article for the subject (which, being Simpson cruft, is likely to happen). Harmless.--Remurmur (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, a definite potential search term; and simply redirecting to the episode is useful information - it tells you what episode that half-remembered joke came from. I also agree that having a redirect acts to prevent people creating doomed articles based on a throwaway reference. ~ mazca talk 09:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - we don't need redirects for every single made up word gag from every single Simpsons episode ever. HIghly unlikely search term which is not mentioned in the target article (nor should it be, since it's trivia). "Keep it because otherwise someone will write a crufty article about it" is not a valid reason for keeping and if the idea that someone might write such an article is really that threatening then the word can be salted. It doesn't appear anywhere else on Wikipedia so it's not like someone's going to stumble across any redlinks for it. Otto4711 (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 28

[edit] Country Music Awards

Misleading redirect. There are multiple country music awards shows, and it's very likely that someone might type in "Country Music Awards" when searching for the Academy of Country Music, the CMT awards, or even country Grammys. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete or disambiguation page. This redirect is the result of an old page move that I did. As per the nomination it is misleading with the various articles that exist. Deletion is fine, the Wikipedia search works ok for this item. Or a disambiguation page can be created. I have no preference, but just delete it if this discussion doesn't garner a strong consensus.--Commander Keane (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] United States Census, 2005

These redirects should be deleted (the 2002 and 2004 redirects were deleted without question; other admins are refusing to delete these without RFD). There was no census in 2005, 2006, or 2007, so these redirects should not have been created in the first place.

  • Delete - no such census exists so redirecting is potentially confusing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unlikely search term and potentially confusing for the reader. Jafeluv (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I actually don't understand why these aren't just deleted already. There was no discussion for the 2002 and 2004 articles; I feel like these discussions are a clear waste of time. Timneu22 (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I understood; I just would like all of these to be eliminated asap. Timneu22 (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] United States Census, 2006

These redirects should be deleted (the 2002 and 2004 redirects were deleted without question; other admins are refusing to delete these without RFD). There was no census in 2005, 2006, or 2007, so these redirects should not have been created in the first place.

  • Delete - no such census exists so redirecting is potentially confusing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unlikely search term and potentially confusing for the reader. Jafeluv (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] United States Census, 2007

These redirects should be deleted (the 2002 and 2004 redirects were deleted without question; other admins are refusing to delete these without RFD). There was no census in 2005, 2006, or 2007, so these redirects should not have been created in the first place.

  • Delete - no such census exists so redirecting is potentially confusing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unlikely search term and potentially confusing for the reader. Jafeluv (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rollbacker

Cross-namespace redirect from article to wiki namespace. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - unneeded cross-namespace redirect. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - The alternative is that we have to go through two other sites so that we can find the rollback page. I think that this is necessary because I doubt that people are going to type in the entire page to go directly to it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • What two other sites? From what I can see, this redirect has no incoming links to speak of? Amalthea 00:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, newly created WP:XNR. The target page has plenty of shortcuts like WP:Rollbacker or WP:RBK. Why does it need another one in mainspace with all the ugly side effects, like turning up in searches, AJAX search hints, mainspace statistics, …? Amalthea 00:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep if the only reason for deletion would be that it's a cross-namespace redirect. What would a reader searching for "rollbacker" expect to find? If there's another prominent use of the word that I'm not aware of, the deletion may be appropriate, but I don't think there's consensus to delete all the 2,000+ cross-namespace redirects currently in use just because they go from one namespace to another. Many of them serve a purpose, and if there's no potential confusion with actual article titles, I see no reason to delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I assume a reader might be looking for any of the pages listed at Rollback (disambiguation). Also, I think very few people want to delete all pages in Category:Cross namespace redirects, it's the redirects from the reader-side of Wikipedia (Mainspace, Category, Portal) to the editor-side that are problematic and should be avoided. I don't want to rehash all arguments and counter-arguments from WP:XNR, but I am convinced that in this case, the possible benefits of this highly specialized redirect don't warrant weakening namespace boundaries at all. Amalthea 11:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Okay... If that's what the reader could be looking for, why delete? Why not redirect to rollback or rollback (disambiguation)? Jafeluv (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Fine by me. Rollback already includes a hatnote, properly wrapped in {{selfref}}, which directs people towards WP:Rollback feature. Amalthea 14:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
          • That would be the best option in my opinion. Both readers and editors would find what they were looking for. Jafeluv (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - if the reader is not a Wikipedian, he doesn't need to know about the behind-the-scenes machinery. If he is a Wikipedian wanting to know about this feature, he wouldn't expect to find it in article space, and he has only to type "WP:ROL" in the search box to have "Wikipedia:Rollback feature" appear. JohnCD (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Rollback (disambiguation). Some of the terms there can be converted into a rollbacker verb so this is a plausible redirect. It also links to the Wikipedia feature so the intent of the original editor is fulfilled without being a cross-name space redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Obama Beach

"Obama Beach" isn't mentioned in the target article and thus the redirect is inappropriate ThaddeusB (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, confusing. Or follow Gordon Brown's slip of the tongue and redirect to the more appropriate Omaha Beach. But that's still confusing. Kusma (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, of course. I took the same view as the above posters some weeks ago and prodded it, but the prod was declined for some red tapey reason and I simply couldn't be bothered to bring it here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. JohnCD (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 27

[edit] Articles containing fatwas by Ibn Taymiya

Implausible search term; created as a redirect from a tiny little sub-stub article back in 2005. This redirect doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose at this time; no content was merged. ~ mazca talk 13:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. "Articles containing..." is not a helpful search criterion, and should be discouraged as a wiki self-reference. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Plox

Unlikely search term. Seems to be some kind of slang for 'please' based on google searches, but it's unlikely that anyone would use this redirect for an encyclopedic inquiry. Brianga (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Iain Thersby

I'm uncertain of the relevance of this redirect. Majorly talk 01:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. From a google search it seems that Iain Thersby is or was the ICT coordinator at that school; but he's not notable and not mentioned in the target article. Seems to be the redirect equivalent of a vanity article. ~ mazca talk 13:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 25

[edit] Dried cherry history

Unlikely search term which would now redirect to Dried cherry anyway. Drawn Some (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Retarget to dried cherry. Seems like a harmless enough redirect and might possibly be helpful to someone, as do the rest in this group - suggest taking them all together in one discussion. SpinningSpark 23:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all. These seem like pretty far fetched search terms for someone looking for dried cherry. Someone looking for the history of dried cherries will probably search for "history of dried cherries". Jafeluv (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] History dried cherries

Unlikely search term which would now redirect to Dried cherry anyway. Drawn Some (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dried tart cherries history

Unlikely search term which would now redirect to Dried cherry anyway. Drawn Some (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dried cherries history

Unlikely search term which would now redirect to Dried cherry anyway. Drawn Some (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] History dried tart cherries

Unlikely search term, would now direct to Dried cherry. Drawn Some (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] History of dried tart cherries

Unlikely search term, now would redirect to Dried cherry. Drawn Some (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2 redirects: "Downtown Troy" and "Downtown Hudson"

[edit] Downtown Troy

(created recently as redirect to Central Troy Historic District, then deleted, then recently recreated as redirect to Troy, New York)

[edit] Downtown Hudson

(created recently as redirect to Hudson Historic District (New York), then deleted, then recreated)

Request deletion of these two recently created, for several reasons:

  • 1: The redirects do not aid readers who might be searching for target articles. In the absence of the Downtown Troy redirect, I believe a reader searching on "Downtown Troy" would have found their way immediately to Downtown Troy Historic District Central Troy Historic District, a very nice NRHP HD article. The Downtown Troy redirect was set up at first to direct there but now redirects to Troy, New York, an article which has no section on Downtown Troy and no proper noun use of the phrase. I don't know, but believe the change of redirect target may have been because the HD is named just for the general area it is in, but the HD article does not strive to describe the larger area. I see no evidence that "Downtown Troy" is a commonly used term for any specific area, actually. Thus the existence of the redirect only serves to suggest to the reader that there will be an article or section somewhere about a defined area of that name, and that does not exist. In the case of Downtown Hudson there is also, I believe, no area commonly referred to by that name, and no proper noun coverage in the target article.
  • 2: The redirects were created in the midst of an ongoing discussion about NRHP HD articles and redirects and mergers/split proposals and so on, in Connecticut, see Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut#Extending edit warring to other states. While it may not have been assuming good faith on my part, tt seemed to me that the two here might have been created simply to use in supporting arguments about CT NRHP HDs and town/villages, as if to suggest that it is usual for there to be parallel articles and/or redirects, everywhere, for NRHP HDs of format "Name Historic District" and a neighborhood/village of corresponding "Name" or "Name (Town)". In general I believe it would be unhelpful to go down the entire list of 14,000 U.S. NRHP HDs and create competing articles at "Name" or "Name (town)", in effect relying upon the notability of the NRHP HDs named "Name Historic District" that are in the same general area, but in fact not necessarily entirely overlapping very much in history or geographic area. As a general matter, then, I think it best to call in question the manufacture of piggy-back redirects like this, and in these 2 cases in NYS, to delete them. doncram (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and modify. As the creator of the target articles, I actually think they'd be OK as long as the state was added (i.e., Downtown Troy, New York, Downtown Troy, NY and similarly for Hudson). Troy's downtown is mostly covered by its historic district, and Hudson's actually covers a huge portion of its developed area, much less downtown. Daniel Case (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I am afraid Daniel Case may be being deliberately unclear (perhaps to avoid "taking sides" in a parental-unit-like way, as he works with both Polaron and myself elsewhere?). By "Keep and modify", what Daniel appears to be meaning is not to have the two redirects that were nominated for deletion, but perhaps other redirects from similar names with ", New York", consistent with usual place-naming conventions, could be created, and directed in at least one of the two cases to a different target. So, Daniel, could you please clarify if this understanding is not correct, but in the present discussion I believe Daniel's view is DELETE and then so far there is a consensus of two in that direction. Further, actually, about a redirect from "Downtown Troy, New York", I don't see a natural target for it to redirect to, because there is no section or proper noun usage of "Downtown Troy" in the Troy, New York article, and because the Downtown Troy HD article does not cover the entire downtown area. Also, about a "Downtown Hudson, New York" redirect, Daniel is saying the Downtown Hudson HD article covers a huge other area, so is not an appropriate target. I further don't think it would add value for someone to revise any or all of the four existing articles ("Troy, New York", "Downtown Troy HD", "Hudson, New York", or "Downtown Hudson HD (New York)") just so that they would serve better as redirect targets. So, I am back to: it seems best to just delete the redirects, which are new and unused. doncram (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
To anyone familiar with those cities, those seem like moving the goalpost. Downtown Troy is more or less contiguous with the historic district. And you read too much into my argument with Hudson ... the 45-block grid is downtown, more or less. It doesn't include any significant undeveloped areas save Promenade Park. Per the principle of least astonishment, incorporated in the redirect guideline, someone searching on "Downtown Hudson, New York" would not be at all astonished to end up at the Hudson Historic District article. Likewise with Troy.

Googling on Downtown+Troy+NY, I don't find many hits that would refer to a location outside the historic district. Doing this for Hudson] is a little harder because hits related to New York City come up, but still the ones referring to the Columbia County seat land in that 139-acre section. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: this is, I allow, not always true. I would support the deletion of a "Downtown Monroe, NY" redirect to Village of Monroe Historic District since that district is not at all downtown, rather a more residential area immediately to the east. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and create additional redirects per Daniel Case with the state name. Retarget to city article if it is the case that the historic district is not representative of the downtown area. From reading the historic district articles, I had gathered that these represented the main part of the downtown areas of these cities. Since there were no downtown articles, it seemed to me that you could find out more about the downtown areas from the historic district articles than from the city articles. --Polaron | Talk 16:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as plausible search terms. --NE2 21:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep both in the fashion proposed by Daniel Case. These seem like plausible search terms and plausible destinations for a searcher. --Orlady | Talk 17:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Daniel Case has stated clearly where he thinks the two should redirect to, so I don't really understand a vote to follow the fashion proposed by him. "Likewise with Troy" means what, keep the redirect for "Downtown Troy" in place, which directs to Troy, New York? Or change it to direct to Central Troy Historic District? I still think both of these should best be deleted, as not helpful to readers who would otherwise easily find the candidate articles if they searched on those exact terms, and a bit unhelpful in fact, because each redirect seems to promise an article on exactly the given topic, which does not exist. I guess this is looking like "No consensus to delete", though, with delegation to Daniel Case to choose whichever targets for these redirects that he deems best. doncram (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
My reading was that Daniel Case had suggested that both of these redirects should point to the historic district articles. --Orlady (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
That was my intent, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] various Tolland County, Connecticut NRHP HDs

The 10 redirects to be deleted are various National Register of Historic Places listings in Tolland County, Connecticut NRHP-listed Historic districts (HDs):

[edit] Andover Center Historic District

[edit] Bolton Green Historic District

[edit] Ellington Center Historic District

[edit] Hebron Center Historic District

[edit] Mansfield Center Historic District

[edit] Monroe Center Historic District

General reasons for deleting this redirect have been given. It was stated below by Polaron that this, along with 3 others "have had discussions about why leaving the redirect in place may be better than deletion." The only such discussion is this statement by Polaron "Delete all except Monroe Center and Naugatuck Center, which at least mention and describe the bounds of the historic district,....".

To respond specificly about Monroe Center, it is factually incorrect that the Monroe article describes the bounds of the historic district. What the Monroe article has is a section:

==On the National Register of Historic Places==
* '''Daniel Basset House''' — 1024 Monroe Turnpike (added [[September 23]], [[2002]])
* '''Monroe Center Historic District''' — CT 110 and CT 111 (added [[September 19]], [[1977]])
* '''Stevenson Dam Hydroelectric Plant''' — CT 34 (added [[October 29]], [[2000]])
* '''[[Thomas Hawley House]]''' — 514 Purdy Hill Rd. (added [[May 11]], [[1980]])

I see mention of a location, not a description of bounds. It would be appropriate, in my view, to have the mention of Monroe Center Historic District there, and in the Tolland County NRHP list, appear as a redlink, to indicate to editors that they are free to create an article about the wikipedia-notable topic of the NRHP-listed historic district. I appreciate that no one has gone to change the Monroe article just to "win" this RFD discussion, allowing this to continue to serve as an example of many others like it in the CT NRHP list. Even if it were amended to include bounds and a sentence or few more about the HD, I would still think it best to have redlink to the NRHP HD name, mainly for possible NRHP HD editors and hence future readers, and at no harm to current readers. Certainly at the current state of the Monroe, Connecticut article, I think deleting the redirect is appropriate, even obviously appropriate. Thanks. doncram (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Naugatuck Center Historic District
Note: Naugatuck is not in Tolland County. --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Noted, and I checked the Tolland County NRHP list and find it is not listed there, so there is no error to correct. I meant to include only Tolland County ones in this batch of redirects to delete, but, yes, this one is in New Haven County. The deletion of redirect is still requested. doncram (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Polaron, below, asserts that there is not consensus about this redirect and 3 others, as there has been discussion about them. The only discussion against this redirect which I can find was his statement below that he disagreed because the town article contained mention of the historic district and described its bounds. I replied to his statement explaining why i thought that did not matter, and there was no further discussion. For reference, the only mention in the town article is, in a list of NRHPs in the town, the item of "Naugatuck Center Historic District — Roughly bounded by Fairview Avenue, Hillside Avenue, Terrace Avenue, Water Street and Pleasant View Street (added 30 August 1999)". That is no more information than appears in the New Haven County NRHP list, and in fact the town article's statement of the NRHP listing date is incorrect. The NRHP list-article gives July 30, 1999 as the date, which is correct according to the National Register database which i just checked. Even if there were more information in either place, it would be appropriate in both places to show a redlink to the NRHP HD article name, conveying that an editor can open an article about the HD. doncram (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Glad to know that this location is not an error in NRIS. I agree that the Naugatuck article contains little information about the historic district, but it contains a long section on the history of the town, including the following statement about the town common, which presumably is in the historic district: "The town common features 11 commissions by the renowned New York architecture firm of McKim, Mead and White," it lists some other historic properties that are probably in the historic district, and it has photos of several historic buildings that appear to be in the district. If (as I naively assumed at one time) the NRHP Wikiproject was interested in giving people information about the heritage that is commemorated by National Register listings, that article is more informative than the list-article and would be a worthwhile redirect. However, if there is consensus that the most interesting aspects of National Register listings are their listing dates, metes and bounds, and the names of architectural styles, then I have to agree that this redirect is a dangerous thing that needs to be deleted. --Orlady (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
On this occasion, I can distinguish the sarcasm in your comments, but I think it is misdirected. Perhaps you should criticise the Naugatuck, Connecticut article and remove the list of NRHP listing dates and bounds of districts from that article; i agree that the metes-and-bounds-and-listing date information there is excessive. It seems appropriate to keep it in the NRHP list-articles though. And it would seem appropriate to describe the bounds of a legal historic district in an article about it, so really i don't see where your sarcasm is appropriate, if directed towards me. I will not accept responsibility for what is in this and other CT town articles, which are largely unsourced.
By the way it is speculation (not that you asserting otherwise) that the town common and various specific buildings mentioned in the Naugatuck article are included in the historic district. It is probably a good guess that they are included, but in too-numerous-to-list other cases in Connecticut alone, editors' speculation of what must be included in a historic district has proven incorrect. The request is to delete these 10 redirects, and then later about 300 others, and to clear the way for development of NRHP HD articles. I would hope these would develop eventually like Daniel Case's nice articles such as Central Troy Historic District, which do indeed include listing dates and "metes and bounds".
It happens that in CT there has been a history of edit warring by one editor when any other editor started an NRHP HD article at an NRHP HD name that the one editor had redirected to a town article. Orlady, I don't believe you are as familiar with the previous history of such edit warring, but I believe you have seen some recent edit warring on a slightly higher level (involving at least some discussion of sources and facts), so you should give me some credence that, before, plenty of edit warring happened and was at an even lower level. I was affected, and one other editor has volunteered in this discussion that he/she was affected, and I believe there were others affected. I believe the edit-warring-editor has revised his practices, and at least would not now edit war in every such case. This initiative to delete these redirects is to partly to clear the air and clarify that separate articles on these wikipedia-notable NRHP HDs in fact will be allowed.
Anyhow, Orlady's sarcasm notwithstanding, she does not seem to disagree with the deletion of the redirect. doncram (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"but in too-numerous-to-list other cases in Connecticut alone, editors' speculation of what must be included in a historic district has proven incorrect" -- can you name even one such case where it was "proven incorrect" as to what is in the historic district? --Polaron | Talk 03:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Somers Historic District

[edit] Tolland Green Historic District

[edit] Willington Common Historic District

[edit] about Tolland County, CT NRHP HDs as a group

Request deletion of a first batch of 10 redirects of NRHP historic district (HD) names. Consensus in discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut#Moving forward, cleanup tasks and other sections on that Talk page is that these redirects are unhelpful and should be deleted. All were created in June 2008, have no useful edit history, and are unhelpful because a) they suggest, in the National Register of Historic Places listings in Tolland County, Connecticut list-article, that an article on the given NRHP HD is available. Each redirects instead to a town or CDP or village article that has no mention of the NRHP. And they are unhelpful because b) they suggest that the town article is the place to develop the NRHP HD material, such as adding NRHP infoboxes, while in fact in all cases it would be better to create a separate NRHP HD article, at least unless and until a very substantial overlap of all history and geographic area is established, which could theoretically justify a merger proposal later. However the future merger is extremely unlikely, and it is better in short term and almost certainly also in long term to have a separate article. I believe this is a fair representation of consensus view.

This is the first batch of 10 out of perhaps 300 redirect deletions needed. Each redirect has been edited to include a custom template, linking to the discussion at wt:List of RHPs in CT. The original creator of all of these redirects is participating in the discussion there and I consider this to be adequate notification. doncram (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've participated in the talk somewhat, but it's gone so fast that I can't keep up, so no vote from me. Please understand that "CDP" is census-designated place. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all except Monroe Center and Naugatuck Center, which at least mention and describe the bounds of the historic district, and Mansfield Center, which is a village where merging is appropriate. --Polaron | Talk 16:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Polaron, thanks for agreeing about 7 of the 10 cases, reducing the scale of the problem. I am trying to make a solution for about 300 redirect cases. I think the deletion-of-redirect is appropriate for the Monroe Center and Naugatuck Center cases too, where only the existence of a NRHP HD is mentioned in the town/village article, within a list of other NRHPs that are included in the town/village. Just like the same information (the name and the bounds of the HDs) is included in the NRHP list-article, National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut. In the absence of the redirect, a wikipedia reader searching on the exact phrase "Monroe Center Historic District" would do fine in finding their way to either the list-article or to the town article. And the redlink in the list-article, and the mention in the town article (which itself could be converted to a redlink), convey properly that the NRHP HD is a wikipedia-notable topic which an editor can start an article for. If a redirect is in place, that would tend to suggest incorrectly at the NRHP list-article that there is an article on the topic already. And it would tend to suggest incorrectly to someone who clicks on it there that it is intended for NRHP HD coverage to be developed within the Town/Village article, while in fact I would prefer to welcome a new article. Seriously, isn't it okay to delete these 2 redirects? Thanks for pointing out that those town/village articles mention the NRHP HDs, but I don't understand from your statement any reason why you would oppose deleting those redirects. I believe your opinion is also that separate NRHP HD articles can/should be created for these two, eventually, by any editor. doncram (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
About the Mansfield Center HD case, which is now a redirect to Mansfield Center, Connecticut article about a CDP, there is no coverage, not even any mention, of the Mansfield Center HD in the CDP article. Polaron, I understand from your statement here that you think, based on your own knowledge or upon sources you have which are not in the article, that ultimately it will be better to have one merged article covering the CDP and the NRHP HD. Can we please deal with that as a merger proposal later, but for now allow deletion of the redirect? If the redirect is deleted, it will show as a redlink and clarify at the NRHP list-article that there is no coverage of the NRHP HD yet, and allow for anyone to create an NRHP HD article, and to start adding pictures and descriptions of contributing properties and so on. This does not preclude a later merger with the CDP article, which can/should be handled by a regular merger proposal, which should be non-contentious later, when information about the bounds of the two areas and other information has been developed. I guess there are 20-50 cases like this in CT, which I would like to treat in the same way right now, by deleting the redirects and allowing for NRHP HD articles to be developed gradually. Polaron, since this does not preclude the ultimate merger of two Mansfield Center articles, is this not okay? It is what I have been proposing, and I think there is general consensus for it, in the RFC discussion at wt:List of RHPs in CT. I just think it is premature in this case and 20-50 similar others, to prejudge the merger decision. I would appreciate very much if you could agree to this approach. doncram (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Mansfield Center is first and foremost a place. It happens that the Census Bureau treats it as a CDP, where it counted 973 people in 2000, and somebody (probably the Town of Mansfield, which is the legal local government) submitted an application to list it as a National Register historic district. There also may be a state or local historic district designation. I see two options for article coverage:
(1) Create three separate and distinct articles: One general article about the place; a second article about the demographic data for the CDP; and a third article about the National Register historic district, including its metes and bounds and the buildings that are included in it.
(2) Create a single article about the place that includes information about the historic district designation and the demographic data. Redirect Mansfield Center Historic District to point to that single article.
I prefer option 2, as I find option 1 to rather silly. --Orlady (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is silly to allow an NRHP HD article to be developed, even though it may eventually be merged into a CDP article later. There would be no harm done, and I think it would just advance the development of CT NRHP information in wikipedia sooner, to show a redlink and thereby to encourage anyone to start a fully sourced, focused article on the NRHP HD, without burden of relating it to a CDP that may or may not prove to be very similar in geographic area and shared history.
My proposal was to delete the redirect as an "obvious"-type decision for now, as there was no information in the CDP article to which it redirected, and no common information developed yet that would help make any decision about the likely best ultimate article to hold NRHP HD information. This is a representative example for perhaps many more (10 to 30?) very similar redirect cases in CT. The proposal overall is to delete all the similar redirect cases, and to signal and allow for NRHP HD articles to be developed, where information could be developed about the "metes and bounds and buildings". And then later informed merger proposals could be considered and resolved more easily. Note that it has been conceded or shown that many of the 300 or so redirects set up in June 2008 were to articles that are not the appropriate final article name. I don't want to debate each of the cases like this Mansfield Center HD one, requiring us to do research about the specifics, now. I would be happy to withdraw this one part of the RFD request, i.e. not to delete the Mansfield Center HD redirect, and to discuss that separately as an exception item, if we could otherwise agree to just delete the redirect in cases like this (where there is no information available to inform a guess whether the redirect will be the best final decision later). doncram (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Amended to also keep Tolland Green as there is some discussion of the historic district in the article after all (per [5]). --Polaron | Talk 01:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
That discussion is Orlady's comment: "Here is one thought: ....Tolland, Connecticut does have some information about Tolland Green Historic District, which makes the current redirect more useful than no information at all (or could be the basis for a stub article). --Orlady (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)". And the information in the Tolland, CT town article is an informal passage about the town's green, which provides no description of the boundaries or importance of the NRHP HD which may include that green.
Does the presence of some informal, unsourced information in a town article about something that might be included in a NRHP HD article justify derailing a general solution to the RFC issue(s)? We could delete the info in the town article, but I would rather not get into that. Or we could start the Tolland Green H D article, but I would argue against including the unsourced passage from the town article, and my wish is to delete about 300 redirects, not to start 300 stub articles. Editors should be encouraged to get the NRHP application and other reliable sources, before starting a stub article. Deleting the redirect here, too, would appropriately signify to future editors that they can create the NRHP HD article, if they have sources. This isn't even a case where it is likely that a new HD article should be merged with an existing town article: from its name, I think it is highly unlikely that Tolland Green HD has substantially the same boundaries as Tolland, Connecticut. So I am back to wanting to delete the redirect here, too.
Further about what serves wikipedia readers, note that searching on "Tolland Green" now yields, for its first 4 hits:
# Tolland Green Historic District
redirect Tolland, Connecticut.
67 B (3 words) - 08:56, 25 June 2009
# Tolland, Connecticut (redirect from Tolland Green Historic District)
Tolland is a town in Tolland County , Connecticut , United States . ... The Green's features include an old-fashioned penny candy and ...
10 KB (1253 words) - 23:37, 5 June 2009
# National Register of Historic Places listings in Tolland County, Connecticut
List of Registered Historic Places in Tolland County, Connecticut ... 42 | Tolland Green Historic District 100px link off | 1997 | 8 | 1 ...
16 KB (1172 words) - 14:30, 13 June 2009
# Tolland, Massachusetts
Tolland is a town in Hampden County , Massachusetts , United States . ... It has been replaced with a picnic on the town green. ...
6 KB (728 words) - 18:52, 16 June 2009
If the first hit, the Tolland Green H D redirect itself, was deleted, I believe the Tolland, Connecticut article that is the 2nd hit would still appear near the top of the wikipedia search, again at about the same level as the Tolland, Massachusetts article, which also mentions a town green. I think that would be fine. And then also a search on "Tolland Green Historic District" would probably yield the county NRHP list-article, which includes more specifically about the HD, namely a short description of its boundaries, than any other article, so that would be best for a reader interested in the HD per se, too. If anywhere, the redirect for Tolland Green HD should go to the NRHP list-article, but that would be a circular redirect for readers browsing the NRHP list-article. I reiterate, deleting this redirect appears the correct thing to do. doncram (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid that I am too dense to grasp the point you are trying to make in discussing WP search results.
It appears to me that Tolland, Connecticut includes plenty of information about the historic district in the center of town. (Specifically, it says "Tolland Green is the informal center of the community, and a national historic district. The Green's features include an old-fashioned penny candy and antiques store known to locals as the 'Red and White'; the town's original 19th century town hall, now an arts center; the 'Old Tolland Jail' museum; the 'Tolland Inn' bed and breakfast; and the Hicks-Stearns Museum, a restored Victorian house. The architectural styles on display, including the white steeples of several churches, are reminiscent of a picture-postcard New England scene." There are also several images of the district.) A person encountering a link to Tolland Green Historic District in an NRHP list would get far more benefit from that article than from a redlink, which is what they would see if the redirect were deleted. --Orlady (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to consider this one as type 1 in the RFC proposal: "1: Simple redirect ones with no NRHP content--Of the HDs that are redirected, it looks like 75% or so redirect to town or CDP articles that have no mention of the NRHP HD, have no NRHP categories added, no NRHP template, no NRHP infobox." I feel the Tolland article should not be seen as covering the NRHP HD already. It does not mention the NRHP HD by name and refers only to a "national historic district". Further, the Tolland article is not even the NRHP HD article location desired by anyone. Polaron and you I think would agree that it is not the right location to add "metes and bounds" and detailed description of each NRHP contributing property. So i feel it does a disservice to would-be CT NRHP article developers, to suggest by the redirect that the NRHP HD information must be added only to the Tolland article. It is better to suggest by a redlink in the NRHP list-article that a separate article can be created. Readers interested in the Tolland Green can easily find those couple sentences in the Tolland article now if they search on "Tolland Green". And, if orderly development of CT NRHP articles is supported, in part by deleting this redirect and many others, there will sooner be an actual Tolland Green HD article with plenty more information.
If you want to say this one does not meet the criteria laid out for type 1 in the RFC proposal, because there is mention of a "national historic district", then this one kicks into the type 2 grouping in the RFC proposal, for which, to settle matters, a stub NRHP article at Tolland Green HD must now be created (by the proposal). In the stub article, I will argue against unsourced statements being included, so actually a reader interested in Tolland Green may be less well served for a time, but ultimately there will be better info available. I would prefer to delete the redlink and be done with this one for now, but if you want to draw the line between Type 1 and Type 2 differently for this one i don't want to argue. Your choice. doncram (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Is the consensus then Yes, delete all 10 redirects? There has not been no question raised for 6 of the redirects, and in my view questions about why the other 4 should be redirected have been answered. The important thing here is to get a decent consenus, to apply to 300 or so other cases too, not to decide just these 10 cases. doncram (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

To summarize, no there is not a consensus to delete all 10. Six have had no objections (Andover Center, Bolton Green, Ellington Center, Hebron Center, Somers, Willington Common). The other four have had discussions about why leaving the redirect in place may be better than deletion. --Polaron | Talk 21:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Consensus is a matter of some judgment, but there having been some discussion does not mean a consensus of reasoned opinion is not apparent. Also, consensus in wikipedia is not the same as unanimous(sp?) voting. I have stated reasons why all 10 should be redirected. Pointing out that there has been some discussion, or a statement on the level of "I disagree" without reasons should not be allowed to derail reasonable, well-supported arguments for deletion of all of these redirects. I hope/expect a closing administrator will consider the quality of arguments given in the general and specific discussion of these redirects. doncram (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Which if the reasons for deleting a redirect are these supposedly under? As long as the target mentions the topic being redirected, there is no valid reason to delete the redirect. If you're unhappy with that, create the article or fix the text in the current target to make the redirect topic more obvious. --Polaron | Talk 03:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Out of the given list of reasons for redirects, reasons 7, 2, 4, 6 roughly apply. Reason #7, that "the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created." In none of these 10 cases and many others, is the NRHP HD a plausible typo for the town article to which it has been redirected. Reason #2, that the redirect causes confusion, is also paramount. These redirects have been used in the past by the creating editor to confuse and obfuscate others, and to serve in edit warring battles, for reasons I cannot understand or explain, to fight against the creation of wikipedia articles on the topics of the NRHP HDs. In the context, the confusion is the communication of message that an article will not be allowed at the NRHP HD name, which is dead wrong to convey because the NRHP HD is wikipedia notable in fact. Reason #4, that the redirect makes no sense, also applies in most cases. Also, the spirit of Reason #6, that "If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist or itself, it can be deleted immediately" is also applicable.
However, the given list of reasons for redirect don't fit precisely, because they are written in terms of describing when redirects to actual articles are justified. The 300 redirects in questions are, instead, redirects away from valid wikipedia articles to other articles. They are not reasonable synonyms for those articles. The redirects only reflect the general impression by one editor that it is possible that the target article, a town article, could be the correct place in wikipedia to cover the topic of the NRHP HD, while in fact the NRHP HD name is the naturally correct place to cover it. If a redirect was to be made for these NRHP HD names, the best redirect target for all, when the article has not yet been created, would be the corresponding county or state NRHP list-article. At the NRHP list-article, however, the best use of NRHP HD name is to show as a redlink. Really the redirects are of negative value.
I note that Polaron has started marching through another state NRHP list to set up such lousy redirects as well, escalating this discussion. At this point, I find his actions to be deliberately disrupting wikipedia, specifically the orderly process for NRHP article creation, given discussion in process here and in the RFC that is still open on this topic. doncram (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not uncommon for topics that are not yet currently developed enough to have a stand-alone article to be merged to an article on a larger topic where the smaller topic can be discussed. That is one of the uses of redirects. Are you proposing to undo all such cases throughout Wikipedia where a more specific but not yet developed topic redirects to a larger topic? If you really do believe these redirects are implausible typos, why didn't you speedy delete them under that criterion? #6 obviously doesn't apply so I don't know what you're going on about here. #4 is meant for nonsensical redirects, i.e. unrelated topics. #2 is the reason why the 6 that don't mention the district can be deleted as the targets do not mention the topic but they don't apply to the other 4. --Polaron | Talk 13:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of ways to skin a cat

Neither the humour nor the cat article covers cat skinning or mentions this adage. The redirects seem pointless and should be deleted. The article used to exist but is now in userspace at User:MartinHarper/cat skinning. SpinningSpark 07:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Those should probably have been deleted under R2 when the page was userified, instead of redirecting. Jafeluv (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The redirects have no useful value. --Orlady (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Retarget Both to Skinning.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:He Merry Thoughts

The result of the discussion was speedy-deleted as CSD R3. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Mistake made in move. Unlikely one will use this as a search term for The Merry Thoughts. NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 00:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs