Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 17

August 17
Note about quotation-mark containing redirects: I put three on here from CAT:CSD, but at least six more were deleted before I could bring them here as improper speedy deletion candidates.--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox GB school → Template:Infobox UK school
The result of the debate was Kept. This was renamed 2 weeks ago. The redirect serves to help those who knew the template by the old name. When several months have passed, feel free to renominate. At the moment, however, the benefit outweighs the negatives. -- JLaTondre 00:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC) The redirect is redundant, it links to no proper pages and its deletion would prevent users from using the template by accident CR7 (message me) 15:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete: I agree, the redirect causes more confusion than clarification due to its past use, and it should be deleted to prevent editors inadvertently linking to it causing unnecessary redirects. ~ Scribble Monkey 00:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - deletion seems to have been part of the plan all along once the template itself was replaced - see the TFD discussion here. BencherliteTalk 01:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Redirects do no harm. This was recently moved and is likely to be used or searched for. --- RockMFR 03:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per RockMFR's arguments. Rossami (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think redirects in the template namespace need to be subject to a slightly higher standard as they show up on Special:Unusedtemplates. There is clearly an advantage in having people switch to the correct template name and avoid needlessly cluttering that list, which has a knock-on effect on the efficiency of template clean-up work. I can't see a good reason to make life more difficult for those trying to maintain templates just because the redirect is in itself harmless. WjBscribe 20:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The unused template list is of no importance. There's no way to make that list of any use on a project of this size unless the devs increase the maximum size of the list, or they remove redirects from the list. --- RockMFR 21:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox GB school → Template talk:Infobox UK school
The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre 00:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC) The redirect is redundant, it links to no proper pages and its deletion would prevent users from using the template by accident CR7 (message me) 15:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: As for the page to which this refers, this is redundant and seves no useful purpose, and could in fact cause unnecessary confusion. ~ Scribble Monkey 00:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. BencherliteTalk 01:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Close this sub-discussion. With only a few very rare exceptions, Talk pages are kept or deleted based on the decision about the page they support.  The decision on the Talk page should not be independent of the decision immediately above this one.  The fact that it's a redirect does not change the principle.  Rossami (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rossami, there is no discussion on either of the talk pages, this is just cleaning up after the main pages were moved following a successful AfD resulted in the page moving. CR7 (message me) 14:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Abolishing userboxes considered harmful → User:Crotalus horridus/Abolishing userboxes considered harmful
The result of the debate was delete. -- John Reaves 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Delete: No incoming links, no edit history, cross namespace - Nabla 15:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Implies that this userspace page might have some sort of official status that it in fact does not. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy-delete. It's a hold-over from a pagemove into the userspace.  The redirect should have been cleaned up as soon as the move was done.  It appears to have been overlooked in this case.  Rossami (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Pyrophobic → -phob-
The result of the debate was delete WjBscribe 00:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Moved from WP:AFD, see deletion discussion here Nen  yedi  • (Deeds•Talk) 15:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Template:LooneyTunesfilms → Template:Looney Tunes movies
The result of the debate was delete. -- John Reaves 20:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Template redirect without any conceivable use. Has not been used at all in over a year's existence. --MZMcBride 00:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete: no history to preserve, no incoming links, not a useful shortcut. I think "film" is generally preferred over "movie" in article and category names, but I don't think it matters for a template.  Xtifr tälk 13:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"C" battery → C battery (vacuum tubes)
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Reasoning: an implausible typo. Recently nominated for deletion by User:Quoth nevermore under WP:CSD; however, the redirect is ~1.5 years old, not qualifying for 'recent'. Likelihood is that this redirect should point at the same target as C battery, which is List of battery sizes. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 04:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Very incorrect and goes to wrong place. Reywas92 Talk 01:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment See also "A" battery, "a" battery and B battery. FrozenPurpleCube 05:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Campbell Soady Gallery" → Campbell Soady Gallery
The result of the debate was delete. mattbr 08:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Reasoning: an implausible typo. Recently nominated for deletion by User:Quoth nevermore under WP:CSD; however, the redirect is ~1.5 years old, not qualifying for 'recent'. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 04:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Very incorrect and implausable. Reywas92 Talk 01:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not a typo (implausible or otherwise), though it is a mistake.  It's a holdover from a pagemove.  This typically occurs when a new user types "Foo Bar" in our search engine (using quotes to exclude the instances of "Foo" and "Bar" alone).  When nothing is found, the WikiMedia software asks if you want to create a new article but does not strip off the quotes when assigning the default page title.  The new user helpfully starts adding content, not knowing about (or not noticing) the problem with the quotes.  Someone later helpfully moves the page to the correct title and the redirect is automatically created.  Keeping the redirect serves to point the original user to the correct page for all future contributions.  Rossami (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Exactically. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The original creator is going to assume they created the page at the correct title, not at one with quotation marks. The page move means that if they look at their contribs they will be directed to the right page and, similary, use of the search function will lead them to the correct target. We should not keep all redirects from mistaken page creations. This is not a likely search term and does not really aid navigation so should be deleted. WjBscribe 00:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"Cannonball" Richards -> Frank "Cannonball" Richards
The result of the debate was KEEP.  Â¿Exir? Â¡Kamalabadi!  11:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Reasoning: an implausible typo. Recently nominated for deletion by User:Quoth nevermore under WP:CSD; however, the redirect is 1 year old, not qualifying for 'recent'. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 05:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: seems like a reasonable nickname redirect, and a very plausible search target, unless I'm missing something here. People with a widely used nickname often have it appear with or without their first name.  Xtifr ta:lk 13:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The man was billed as Cannonball Richards (with or without the quotation marks) and that is a name people will be searching for. -Psychonaut 16:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Cannonball Richards is indeed among the redirects to Frank "Cannonball" Richards. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Redirects are cheap. --Aarktica 18:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The House of Blessed Mary the Virgin in Oxford commonly called Oriel College, of the Foundation of Edward the Second of famous memory, sometime King of England → Oriel College, Oxford
The result of the debate was KEEP (nomination withdrawn, no deletes) - Nabla 15:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Yes, that really is its formal title - but 99.9% of people will type in "Oriel College" or "Oriel College, Oxford" and find the article rather more quickly. Unnecessary redirect. BencherliteTalk 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not really fussed either way, but I thought that, since it's the official title, there might as well be a redirect - it's not harming anyone. Regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Is "commonly called Oriel College" really part of the official title? The first footnote certainly seems to imply that, but I think it's worth double-checking. The rest of it all sounds plausible enough, but the "commonly called..." part is unusual enough that I'd like to see it verified, to make sure that wasn't just a misplaced interjection in that one source.  If that does indeed turn out to be the official title (and stranger things have happened), then keep, but otherwise, no, just too much.  Surely we have Oxfordites around who can investigate?  Xtifr tälk 22:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This source agrees that that title is correct (the source in question being HM Land Registry setting out what the formal titles are for legal purposes). No, it's not harming anyone, but it's an unused redirect and not one that anyone would ever type in a search box or use as a link in an article. I found only 5 non-Wikipedia google hits, none of which are the college's website. BencherliteTalk 23:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is the correct title, it should be tagged as R from full name (as I have just done). Redirects are cheap, and this has a minor, tiny purpose of documenting the full and correct name, so it's not completely useless, even if it's darn close. :)  Xtifr tälk 02:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, based on above assertions that there exists a correct and official title like this. Since the actual title is this long, I'm even willing to consider keeping one-word-off misspellings of this ridiculously complex name. Because this is the correct one, there's even more reason to keep.  Big Nate 37 (T) 23:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Withdraw nom - persuaded by the responses I got. Will somebody do the honours, please?  BencherliteTalk 23:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

External link → External links
The result of the debate was delete. -- John Reaves 20:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Redirect from article space to Wikipedia namespace Iain99 23:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Retarget to internal link or hyperlink. Probably should apply the same result to external links, which has already been deleted here and recreated. And geez, this page has had some lousy speedy deletions. --- RockMFR 03:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at the inbound links, the usage of this link suggests that we can't retarget to either internal link or hyperlink. It is used in an attempt to differentiate from those concepts.  But the usage doesn't suggest that the editors primarily intended to refer to the Wikipedia page, either.  I would prefer that the redirect get overwritten with actual content.  In the meantime, perhaps a redlink would be more likely to attract the content.  Rossami (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)