Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 10

VT510 → VT100
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 02:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC) The two terminals are only remotely related, and the VT510 is not mentioned in VT100. Oneiros 22:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. There is a Template:Video terminals in which this is one of the entries. The same template has red links for all the other terminals that we don't have information for. It is more logical that this one, too, be a red link.  The alternative is to redirect everything to VT100, which would make them all blue, but be silly. EdJohnston 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( ταlκ )  21:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per argument by EdJohnston. Digwuren 12:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Sth → Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox talk heading)
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 02:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Originally nominated by at WP:TfD (see Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 29) as "unneeded redirect". More appropriately discussed here, hence this procedural nomination. Mike Peel 05:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Original nominator VectorPotential gave no reason to delete this. His entire entry was 'Unneeded redirect to ...'. Redirects are cheap, fixing the Wikipedia Sandbox is something that has to be done often, and the full name of the target template is long.  EdJohnston 16:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Changed my vote to Delete, given the explanation. EdJohnston 17:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this and sbx below. The reason the template has "Please leave this line alone" in the name is for editors to see this when changing the markup on a sandbox page. These shortcuts circumvent this feature.  Big Nate 37 (T) 16:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Sbx → Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 02:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Originally nominated by at WP:TfD (see Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 29) as "unneeded redirect". More appropriately discussed here, hence this procedural nomination. Mike Peel 05:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Per BigNate37's comment on Sth. (I erased the comment I had left here). EdJohnston 17:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ōda-juku → Ōta-juku
The result of the debate was Deleted (db-author). -- JLaTondre 11:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC) I mistranslated the name when originally starting the article. "Ōda-juku" is incorrect and is not an alternative spelling. Douggers 04:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

18 Jan 2008 redirects → Cloverfield
  The result of the debate was keep both. I understand the distinction between the two redirects, but I find it insufficient grounds to delete one and keep the other.

I like The Random Editor's suggestion to add a dablink at the top of the article, saying, "If you were looking for the date etc." I will do so, and of course anyone is free to remove it.

Non-admin closure of a clear consensus. Shalom Hello 02:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1/18/08 → Cloverfield
 * 1-18-08 → Cloverfield

The date a movie is tentatively scheduled to open should not redirect to the movie's entry in WIkipedia 69.177.230.230 05:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both of the above per the nominator's reasoning. There's not much else to be said. -- Gavia immer (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: When looking for info about this movie, all that is given about the movie are those numbers.  Apple trailers also refers to it by these numbers.--Patrick 13:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Apple's trailer page for Paramount films has it labeled as 1-18-08. If I saw that and wanted to know more, I would certainly search by that term as there is no other title provided. -- JLaTondre 14:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per JLaTondre. --- RockMFR 16:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarifying - keep 1-18-08, delete 1/18/08. --- RockMFR 22:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. See Apple Quicktime trailer title. That's how it's being promoted.  I'm surprised this is even an issue.   --George100 17:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. -143.43.204.35 19:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, every movie is promoted with an opening date. Thats how people know when to go watch it.  1-18-08 is a future date in history, not the name of a movie.  Dates on Wikipedia should point to nothing but events that happen on that day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.177.230.230 (talk • contribs).
 * While every movie is promoted with an opening date, not every movie is promoted with the opening date as the working title. In this case, 1-18-08 is being used as a title as well as a release date. Also, 1-18-08 is not a standard Wikipedia date format & we would not have a date article (or redirect) there so no conflict exists with the events that happen on that day. -- JLaTondre 18:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1-18-08 IS NOT a "working title". No title for the movie is given and the only "working title" comfirmed is Cloverfield.  This is simply the date the movie is scheduled to open. No other scheduled opening dates point to movie articles on Wikipedia and niether should this. -- 69.177.230.230 18:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please look at the two links that have been provided. In both cases, where every other film has a title listed, this film has the text 1-18-08. This is the only information provided. Any person looking at the trailer and wanting additional information has only 1-18-08 to go by and would assume it is the title. While it's not a "working title" by the official definition, it is being used in place of a title. Cloverfield is not being used in the trailer. -- JLaTondre 19:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

1/18/08 and 1-18-08 discussions merged together.  Big Nate 37 (T) 19:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the two redirects should be treated the same. I specifically only put my keep opinion under 1-18-08 as that is the form being used on the movie trailer. 1/18/08 is not being used and that one seems to me to be more problematic. While I don't object to it being kept, I'd personally delete it. -- JLaTondre 19:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * keep the redirect from 1-18-08 (and delete the 1/18etc. version), this is the only way how I found the (to my knowledge not confirmed) name "Cloverfield". I don't expect anyone who comes here from the Apple movie trailers page (like me) to find that movie under anything else than its name there: 1-18-08. This of course can be deleted once it is known what the real title will be. Hardern 20:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * keep for the same reasons as above, the trailer's only name is 1-18-08 and how people will search for the movie. Corma 22:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. At the moment, '1-18-08' is how the film is being marketed. It is only through this term that I discovered the actual 'Cloverfield' article. It is a very useful redirect at the moment. Cnwb 23:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep 1-18-08 only. I don't know about the others, but 1-18-08 is the only info I have to go on about the films title, it is used in a manner that suggests that it is the title of the film. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, I was one who made that redirect. I made it because many websites such as apple.com and other notable sites are not calling this movie "Cloverfield", but are actually referring to it by the release date. With nothing else to go on, someone who just saw the trailer would probably either type in the release date or JJ Abrams and hope to find some info. Redirecting this date to the Cloverfield article is best until the actual name of the movie goes public. ShadowUltra 01:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete, we don't create articles on individual dates; we create articles on events. Use the working title of the film. Wikipedia is not a viral marketing platform. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 01:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Two comments. First, the film does not appear to have a known working title. (IMDB calls it "Untitled J.J. Abrams Project", but no one would ever type that in.) Second, I fail to see how having that redirect makes Wikipedia a viral marketing platform: if anything, it points to information that the curious would otherwise have to hunt down at hype pages or discuss, and just presents them in a sober fashion. If anything, this is detrimental to the idea of viral marketing. I believe these points invalidate your argument.217.234.220.235 12:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, because that is the way that the movie is being advertised. I didn't even know that the movie had another name.  I just searched for 1-18-08 because that was all I noticed on the preview.  If we remove the redirect we are going to have a lot of lost users.  --Cooleymd 03:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, I just saw the trailer and when I wanted to learn more I came to Wikipedia and typed in 1-18-08. I expect this will be a common reaction. ColonialMx 13:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. So long as 1-18-08 is typed in the search box or enclosed by square brackets, I don't think this will trip up any WikiMedia software or any bots. We only have to watch out for human editors who may believe that it violates WP:MOS and try to fix it, thus breaking the redirect. EdJohnston 18:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per mutiple aboves. I don't know what else to say, except adding to the top of the article Cloverfield, if you were looking for the date go to January 18, to avoid confusion. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( ταlκ )  21:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'd bookmarked the Apple trailer, thought it looked cool, wanted to know more, figured Wikipedia would know. Only name information I had was "1-18-08", and then I saw this. Keep! - Palfrey 21:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep 1-18-08, and delete 1/18/08. As others have stated above, "1-18-08" is what the movie is being marketed as, and this name does not conflict with Wikipedia's naming standards for dates, so this shouldn't even be an issue. ~Inkington 02:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point can we restore the redirect? Or at least put a note on the page letting users know that 1-18-08 likly refers to an upcomming untitled movie currently refered to as Cloverfield. --Cooleymd 17:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

For additional comments, mistakenly placed at Talk:1-18-08, see Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 10. 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Kepp. The is the only thing that the film is officially called by. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 20:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - if that's all Apple's trailer site is calling it, that's what people will be looking for. That's how I got here, in fact. 66.67.49.68 23:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all per above. Laïka  23:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) → History of Estonia
The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 02:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC) This is a useless redirect. The title is unlikely to ever be typed in manually, and no article links at this redirect. It has only been created to push the WP:POV of Estonia's non-continuity. Digwuren 17:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As explained below, the redirect is harmful by being confusing. Digwuren 12:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: if Estonia was non-continuous (from what I'm skimming in the articles we have, it was), then that POV happens to be the NPOV. Also, consider that having no incoming links is not a reason for deletion. It should probably be kept as it prevents the creation of an article on the Republic of Estonia. Although, maybe it should be retargeted to Estonia, History of Estonia, or History of Estonia. It depends on what part of what article has the most information about Estonia and its status as a republic during the time frame.  Big Nate 37 (T) 19:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No incoming links alone wouldn't be a reason; however, no incoming links with low likelihood of such links being created combined with extremely low likelihood of such a title being manually entered make a pretty good reason for deletion. Digwuren 22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is not only a redirect, but also marked with R with possibilities. In fact, we could have Republic of Estonia (disambiguation) disambiguating between
 * the first republic (1918-1940)
 * the Republic of Estonia (1990-1991) (well, you seem to have already deleted the article)
 * the Estonian Government in Exile, which considered the 1990-1991 republic a part of the "illegal Soviet occupation"
 * the present state, born (or reborn) sometime between 1991 and 1992
 * the theory of Estonian legal continuity that maintains that three of the above are in fact one and the same, and no other Estonia ever existed.
 * Of course we cannot leave out the Estonian SSR, as this entity too claimed to be a republic.


 * Your argumet, that the redirect has no backlinks, is most likely true only because you (or your collaborators) have just deleted the references. If this is the case, it would make this RfD an act of bad faith. I have not checked your edit history, as I try to stay away from any articles or topics you might be involved in. -- Petri Krohn 02:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Looking back at my watchlist I see that you have in fact deleted a backlink two minutes before you nominated this redirect for RfD. This makes your statement on the "low likelihood of such links being created" an outright lie. As it is now clear to me, that you are acting in bad faith, I must change my recommendation to speedy keep. -- Petri Krohn 02:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I need to point out that you were the one to create the deletable redirect, and you were the one -- and the only one -- trying to push its way into articles. So, on the topic of likelihood, you were saying...? Digwuren 12:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. Edit warring to remove content under discussion   is an extreme sign of bad faith, and should earn an immediate block or ban from Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn 10:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * P.P.P.S. User:Digwuren has been removing the R with possibilities template from the redirect, and now edit warring over it. This is disruptive editing and yet another indication of bad faith in the nomination. -- Petri Krohn 11:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete:The tag R with possibilities clearly flags the intention to use this redirect as basis for a future POV-fork to Republic of Estonia (the continuity of which btw is recognised by everyone and his dog as the same as the pre-war republic) by eventually creating a series of articles outlined by Petri Krohn above. Petri has long been pushing this barrow for quite some time now, which is basically an exercise in WP:OR and WP:SYN as he cannot even provide one single reliable source to support his tired claims. Martintg 05:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: references are not necessary for a redirect, so long as that redirect's title is in the target article. Since this is more or less mentioned in a few articles, it should remain as a redirect. If and when an article has unsourced information, it should be sourced and if this is not possible it should be removed. Much easier said than done, but the disagreement should not spill over into otherwise legitimate redirects. If this isn't NPOV, remove the non-neutral POV from the articles and then bring this back to RfD. Hopefully that can happen without dispute resolution, but in light of the situation you describe it may be necessary.  Big Nate 37 (T) 13:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) could hardly be a WP:POVFORK of Republic of Estonia, as there is no such article! Republic of Estonia is a redirect to Estonia, which by the way also covers the Estonian SSR. -- Petri Krohn 12:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right. And saying 'filibuster' doesn't make filibuster, either.  Have you tried passing that off to your grandmother's cat? Digwuren 12:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Martintg meant that Petri Krohn is unable to source the POV on which he bases the necessity for such a redirect, not that the redirect itself is unsourced. Furthermore, your criterion is not fulfilled in this case: the article History of Estonia never mentions the phrase "Republic of Estonia (1918-1940)".  This is for a good reason: such a concept is unreal; it only exists in the mind of Petri Krohn. Digwuren 14:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is obviously hotly disputed (see above discussion if you want to dispute this statement). It's best to redirect it to somewhere central, neutral, and generic, so that edits related to the disputed matter are in a visible place, and to discourage placing forked content at the title of the current redirect. I have no opinion (and don't care to have one, for the purposes of my argument) about which of the disputed opinions is correct. -- Gavia immer (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't follow the nominator's claim that this is part of a POV of non-continuity of Estonia. There is an article French Third Republic that, in my view, does not imply the non-continuity of France. If 'Third Republic' were not such a well-known phrase that article could just as easily have been titled French Republic (1870-1940). For an example of a neutral occurrence of the phrase 'Republic of Estonia (1918-1940)' look at the second line of Template:Estonia Presidents.
 * When official Estonia decides to increment the republic number every time they change the constitution, as the French do, then we can indeed name it thus. Anything else in un-encyclopedic. Thanks for highlighting the problem with the template, it will be fixed shortly. Martintg 04:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The redirect in question isn't an incremental republic numbering system, like some software major revision number. It's a period of time. When Estonia becomes frozen in time, we should stop referring to its history chronologically. Another thing you may wish to consider is whether this redirect fits any of the reasons we would delete a redirect, because there are reasons for keeping redirects around that are un-encyclopedic. If this title is from a non-neutral point of view, isn't it better to have this redirect than to tempt an editor to create a POV version at this title?  Big Nate 37 (T) 04:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The existence of this redirect, and its usage in articles, implies that there's a completed (for Petri Krohn: совершенный) concept: a Republic of Estonia that existed during the specified years, and then ceased existing. This is not the case, but because this is not to Petri Krohn's liking, he's undertaken a campaign to push his alternative history into Wikipedia as though it was fact.  A shared delusion is true, right? Digwuren 14:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it is being used as an indirect redirect. The only examples where this is used,here and here, it is thus: Republic of Estonia -> Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) -> History of Estonia#Independence. What is the point, why not directly link it thus: Republic of Estonia -> History of Estonia#Independence if the context requires it: Republic of Estonia. As mentioned above, the low likelihood of such links being created combined with extremely low likelihood of such a title being manually entered makes this a good candidate for deletion. Martintg 05:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Double-redirecting is undersirable; any time you see it you should make both redirects point at the same real article. However, deletion should have nothing to do with that matter. Also, take care not to be too liberal with links (what you have there is fine), if you're not sure what I mean check out WP:PIPE. As far as "low likelihood of such links being created... [and] etremely low likelihood of such a title being manually entered...", neither of those are reasons to delete a redirect. Look at WP:RFD, then under the avoid deleting such redirects if line, see #2 and the Dubya example. Even if the title is incorrect, it serves a purpose.  Big Nate 37 (T) 06:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the point you are making, but this redirect causes confusion since it redirects somebody expecting to be taken to Republic of Estonia to section in History of Estonia. I understand the need to slice history chronologically, I would approve of a redirect such as History of Estonia(1918-1940) -> History of Estonia#Independence, but Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) -> History of Estonia#Independence would be confusing and constitutes an embedded easter egg in my view. Martintg 02:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the way you explain it isn't the only way to look at it, but I now understand where you're coming from. It's a question of the precedence of republic status v. historical date range. Should that combination go to the "history of" article or match the "republic of" redirect and point at Estonia? I'm not sure. I'm beginning to think most of the controversy with this redirect is not caused by its existence; some is caused by the target and most is probably caused by the way it is being used. To that end, the nomination to delete probably polarized opposition to it, hence the keeps and no retarget votes. The lack of assumption of good faith regarding the use of this redirect (be it deserved or not) is probably not helping, either.  Big Nate 37 (T) 19:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think understanding someone is intending to promote a particular viewpoint is an assumption of bad faith. There is not even an assumption of an intention to promote a particular viewpoint, in fact Petri articulates that intention above. Martintg 23:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bad faith's relevance aside, I need to (once again) point out that assumption is a concept applicable in absence of evidence. In Petri Krohn's case, there is no longer such absence; there's considerable evidence to assess his faith's goodness with regards to topics involving Estonia.  Having seen Martintg observing Petri Krohn's behaviour, I believe he's fully informed regarding such evidence, and thus, capable of making a conclusion. Digwuren 14:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good way to put it. I suppose that's a more accurate way to state what I meant when I referenced a deserved assumption of bad faith (which in retrospect is totally awkward). Semantics aside, my observation is still valid; I'll strike out the dubious wording.  Big Nate 37 (T) 16:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It might not hurt to notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Estonia of this debate. EdJohnston 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ .  Big Nate 37 (T) 19:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep we've seen this general topic before at XfDs.. Keeping the redirect is the NPOVDGG (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CREATEBOT → Creating a bot
The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. ~  Wi ki  her mit  22:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Long redirect. The page redirects to Wikipedia:Creating a bot'. Maybe WP:MAKEBOT? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikihermit (talk • contribs).
 * Comment: I created the redirect. All I can say is: I use the redirect; it's useful for me and easy to type. If WP:MAKEBOT is easier to type for you, feel free to create it and use it. Remember, redirects are cheap :) Grace notes T § 22:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks fine to me. --- RockMFR 22:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looking at WP:RFD, this meets none of the deletion criteria and it meets the avoid deleting criterion #5. We have a reason to keep it, and length doesn't affect validity of redirects. Consider that WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. redirects to No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man.  Big Nate 37 (T) 22:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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