Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 June 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 4

[edit]

Redirects created by a blocked user → various

[edit]
The result of the debate was delete all that are in B.Wind's recreated list. Wizardman 17:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects in the blue box below were created by the now-blocked user:Hashmi, Usman. A number of redirects created by this user have already been nominated for deletion below and in previous pages. The connection between the redirect and the target has often appeared tenuous or speculative. In each case, the redirect was initially created as a redirect, not as the result of a pagemove or a merger.

Had these been created independently, I would be inclined to grant them the benefit of doubt since some could be considered plausible capitalization variants, etc. Given the pattern of this user's edits, my ability to assume good faith became sufficiently strained to request a comprehensive review by the community.

Before we begin a discussion on the specific merits of the redirects, I would like to see if we can get consensus on a few procedural questions.

  1. Should we do anything about these redirects? Is the pattern of editing alone justification to merit investigation?
  2. If we should do something, can and should these redirect be considered en masse? Are the fact-patterns sufficiently similar that we can reach a single conclusion?
  3. If a single decision is not appropriate, is there some other clustering that would be more efficient? Or must these be considered individually?

By the way, none of these redirects have been tagged. I'd like to answer the procedural questions before we start on that step. Rossami (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comments:
    1. let's weed out the good ones first, any commenter that thinks that an item on the list has a reasonable chance to pass a RfD should strike it out of this list, and state the reason there (for example, I ask to take "Also Known As → AKA" out of the discussion for being descriptive of the acronym)
    2. we should use a more loose criteria for this time, since all redirectes were created by the same user, which means that they all have the same bias. If we think that the bias is bad, then we delete them
    3. Ask yourself: do you really want to open a RfD for every one of those redirects? How much editor time will be lost doing that? Is it worth wasting all that time against the benefits lost by simply nuking the whole list?
    -Enric Naval (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, many of the redirects in the list are valid ones (redirecting characters to movies, for example), but there are several groups that should be taken care of without too much fuss:
    "List of..." redirects - delete as premature.
    Redirecting character names to movies or TV programs featuring them - 'keep as appropriate redirects.
    Redirects involving ethnicity - nuke them all without prejudice toward recreation if another editor deems it necessary (there is a similar mess in the categories that he has created, particularly in the category redirects).
    Full name to widely-known name - keep (with the relations to be determined on a case-by-case basis if it's worthwhile - I'm sure we can get rid of "SugerButt" for example).
    Names of other (non-notable) family members - delete as non-notable parents, siblings, children, etc., should not be mentioned at all in the article in the first place.
    Phonetic transcriptions like "Jay Kay Rowling" - delete without prejudice to recreation on an "at need" basis
    Redirects with nicknames in quotation marks inside the name itself - eradicate as redundant as most such Wikilinked appearance will be piped.
    While there are a few lemons and several good ones that don't fit any of these forms, if we "section the territory" as above, about 80-90 percent of these can be weeded out so the more problematic ones (like News, Sport, Music, Movies, Money, Cars, Shopping and more from MSN UK and Oprah Winfrey Presents: Mitch Albom's For One More Day - the last should be retargeted to For One More Day) can be discussed rather than processed like cattle. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You're being very reasonable, and normally that would be great. But there are 521 redirects in the above list! I like the approach recommended by Enric Naval above. Namely, if you like some of the redirects, list them here. There is no reasonable way to deliberate over 521 redirects. I have looked through the list, and I see no redirects that are "must keep". If pressed, I could find 10 or 20 which might be described as helpful. We could each spend six hours winnowing the list and decide that there are (say) 20 great redirects and another 10 possible redirects. Or, we could spend half an hour listing the few we want to keep (in my case, none), then decide to delete the rest. --Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I agree with the nom's suggestion but I listed Brown British because it is an insulting title, without even noticing this discussion and will, for now, leave it for the nom reason, unless this moves quite quickly. I've been watching this editor for many months and made attempts, as far back as January last, [1] to interact with him without success, but all he does, especially for talk page postings is to blank his talk page regularly, which was discussed recently here. Generally a large percentage of his edits have been disruptive to Wikipedia - this list is a good example of that and I have noticed much of his work deleted, usually for non-notability.ww2censor (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While under the proposed "slash off" method above, edit conflicts are inevitable, but certainly we can assume good faith and not remove other people's slash off - if there is a disagreement about potential viability, it should be handled only after we finish whittling away the list. B.Wind (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should use a combination of Enric Naval's "slash" method and the IP's suggestion of breaking this large congregation into bite-sized pieces. The first collection that should be broken off to be processed should be all the ethnic redirects that are either pointless or simply a waste of space (I have tagged about 20 empty categories for deletion in this arena... and there are quite a bit of questionable category redirects and categories with fewer than three articles that were DEFAULTSORTed into them in the first place). Then there could be another set of redirects of "List of..." articles to TV main articles; another set could be redirects of individual movie articles into collections (most notably silent movies), characters into movie articles, and actors into movie articles. There was also also a collection of redirects of person names, many of them redirecting to the article of a more famous relative. Just those "clumps" would take care of about 80% of this list. B.Wind (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good job sorting the list folks. ww2censor (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep Er...reagardless of who created them or why, they are useful, in casew you didn't notice. If I types in "Cuban America" and hit enter I would expect to end up at "Cuban American", with the n. These are clearly good redirects, I've looked at them all, so Keep--Serviam (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There are over 160 American people categories. I could spell "Cuban American" with/without 'n' on each word, with/without hyphen, with/without uppercase 'A'. That's 16 redirects needed, potentially times 160. Surely that's taking the "redirects are cheap" mantra too far? I agree that it doesn't matter who created the redirects. I just think the redirects themselves are pointless (except for the few that others have struck out). --Johnuniq (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition we should nuke all those categories that have fewer than five articles in them. I know of at least 50 that have been speedied as empty over the past month or two, mostly originating from the same editor. Kazakh-Americans who emigrated from Bolivia, anybody? 147.70.242.40 (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Enric Naval above. Over the next few days, any redirect that anyone thinks is worth keeping (or might pass an RFD) should be removed from this list; any remaining by the end of this RFD should then be deleted, without prejudice to recreation if someone considers them useful later. Most of these are bad redirects, but some have potential, so this seems like the best compromise solution (that avoids having to work through 521 separate RFDs). Terraxos (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been moving the more egregious ones to RfD to "reduce the pressure". These have been noted and struck off the list. Right now, it appears that most of the non-crossed ones are judgment calls, rather than clearly one way or the other. I've been bundling those with a common theme (such as "List of..." television episodes redirecting to the series) to help the process. I'll shave some more off the list and onto the RfD from time to time over the next couple of days. B.Wind (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the initiative of reorganizing the above list (using a second template so as to not risk messing up the original), removing the scratched-out entries and putting the rest in thematic blocks of 15-20 possibilities. Most of the remainders might still have some validity, or at least something worth discussing, but I get the impression that we have a few people who would like to have this wrapped up as soon as possible. Should anybody take any individual entries to RfD before someone "pulls the trigger," I'd strongly recommend striking out those entries in the top template and then removing them from the one below. I hope this helps: if it doesn't, I'll gladly remove the "updated" template. B.Wind (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Real Name → Genie (feral child)

[edit]
The result of the debate was speedy-deleted as BLP again. Rossami (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the recent Rfd here and discussions at Talk:Genie (feral child), Genie's real name should be removed from Wikipedia. And if possible, please find a way to prevent this redirect from being recreated again. For An Angel (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The general trend in books and articles about this case is to refer to her as "Genie", in order to protect her privacy. For as long as she is alive, or until her name is generally known (not just found occasionally) we should keep it that way. Wikipedia should not be leading the way in publicizing names that have been kept private for the protection of victims. Ashton1983 (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. BLP concern per Privacy of Names. Speedy deleted less that 6 weeks ago. Suggest courtesy blanking of this request, as occurred last time.--Slp1 (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (speedily if possible). Consensus on the article, in accordance with established Wikipedia practice, is not to make any mention of her real name. For the same reasons, it shouldn't exist as a redirect either. If and when consensus changes on the article, then such a redirect would be appropriate, but creating redirects should not be used as a means of bypassing consensus. Terraxos (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
OUT OF PROCESS. Under no circumstance was this a valid Del.Wjhonson (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three times in two months is two times too many. Perhaps a little salt is needed here. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Booker T. & The M.G.'s → Booker T. & the M.G.s

[edit]
The result of the debate was Move Request. Use WP:RM instead. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official album covers, as well compilations and at least one reference book I have consulted, spell the band's name as Booker T. & The M.G.'s, not as Booker T. & the M.G.s, capitalising the "t" in "The" and adding an apostrophe after the "g". Style guides I have consulted suggest that this is an incorrect use of the apostrophe, but we do not print the Beatles' name as "The Beetles" on the grounds that the band couldn't spell. I wish to delete the redirect and rename the article to reflect the way that the band's name was spelled on the majority of its own releases. Lexo (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Firecrotch → Red hair

[edit]
The result of the debate was retarget. Wizardman 16:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is protected, therefore I am nominating the reidrect in behalf of Terraxos. His arguments are as follows: "It's an offensive or insulting redirect, in that it seems to be intended as a derogatory term for red-headed people. The word isn't actually mentioned on the target page, so the redirect doesn't have much explanatory value. Having searched elsewhere, it is mainly used to refer to Lindsay Lohan - so if this should redirect anywhere, it should redirect to her page. However, as that would raise WP:BLP issues, it would probably be best if it were deleted altogether. Especially since our article on the man who apparently coined the term, Brandon Davis, has been deleted." -- Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have found only one reliable source using the term in any way (via Yahoo search - I stopped after page 15 of the results). According to the entertainment news source TMZ.com, it seems to be a term that is being used in a feud between the "camps" of Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan (needless to say, TMZ.com cannot use this term in their syndicated "Entertainment Tonight"-style program. Because the only definition of the term I could find online was on Urban Dictionary, delete - do not retarget - the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you think of my ability to use Yahoo search or Google search is irrelevant to this discussion, but if you can find another independent, reliable source, you'll demonstrate that your assertion meets WP:V. So... what is your recommendation regarding the disposition of the redirect in question? B.Wind (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Gauss's Law for Gravitational Fields → Gauss' law for gravity

[edit]
The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is unnecessary as it is case-sensitive while another redirect Gauss's law for gravitational fields is not. The redirect is the result of a move of the original article to the case-insensitive spelling, which was then merged with the current target article. The redirect is not currently harmful. – Ikara talk → 18:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because it documents the pagemove of content which was later moved into the target article. Redirects that assist in the tracing of history are helpful. Rossami (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per a university student, perhaps a physics student, may refer to gravity as Gravitational Fields, while a 12 year old who for some reason needs to look this up would use gravity. You also said that the redirect isn't harmful, so I'll use your own words against you, something that isn't harmful shouldn't be deleted on Wikipedia unless discussed by the Wikipedia community. --DA PIE EATER (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No harm done really with this redirect. Redirects should generally be kept, unless a redirect is obviously incorrect. Whether the user is likely to type in that redirect is not that important, as redirects are cheap. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the redirect is not the only one to handle this spelling of the title, merely a specific capitalisation. After its removal, Gauss's law for gravitational fields (separate redirect) would still handle the case of "Gauss's Law for Gravitational Fields". As such the article serves no functional purpose. The case-insensitive redirect also documents the pagemove in its history as the target of the move. – Ikara talk → 01:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is a redirect from a previous name, so it must remain there per the GFDL, even though the content of Gauss's law for gravitational fields was merged with Gauss' law for gravity. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • notice that the redirect we are discussing has no actual history except for making a redirect. I don't think that GFDL requires us to keep that sort of stuff. Deleting this redirect will not delete any useful contributions, since they are all at the properly capitalized redirect --Enric Naval (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_4&oldid=743232650"