Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 1

November 1
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 1, 2008

Template:uw-blpse*/doc → Template:blpse*/doc
The result of the debate was No consensus (kept). -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Template:uw-blpse3/doc → Template:blpse3/doc
 * Template:uw-blpse4/doc → Template:blpse4/doc

Useless template doc page redirects left over after a page move. Anomie⚔ 21:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep both. Non-trivial (though short) history prior to the move.  These redirects are automatically created by the pagemove process for several good reasons.  The value of the redirect in this case may be small but deletion of the redirect gains the project exactly nothing.  Rossami (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Where exactly is this "non-trivial history"? The only history entries are for the move and for the RFD tag. As far as I know, the main reason for creating the redirect on page move is because in most cases it's likely that something links to the old title or that someone would reasonably key in the old title manually, and thus someone would probably create the redirect by hand anyway; neither is the case here. The value of the redirects are exactly nothing, and they should be deleted for the same reason we have WP:CSD. Anomie⚔ 18:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Unlinked to. Unused. Very unlikely search terms.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Motor language → Mator language
The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC) spelling confusion "Mator language" is a type of language while "motor language"-- if it refers to anything--refers to the process of language, for example, there is a motor theory of language perception. I have an interest in that so I was annoyed that it led to something quite unconnected LittleHow (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Weak delete as potentially confusing. This is a likely typo (usually a reason to keep the redirect), but in this case, the typo changes the meaning (mator vs. motor). B.Wind (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The language's name is spelled both ways. The redirect is logical. The redirect is needed. Here's the first line of the page it links to:  Mator or Motor is a Uralic language belonging to the southern group of the Samoyedic languages.  Clearly 'Motor' is a name of a language. --VictorC (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If we have an article dealing with B.Wind's definition of "Motor language", we could always take one of these options:Make Motor language into a disambiguation page.Use one of the "otheruses" templates, such as redirect, on Mator language.Redirect Motor language to the article using B.Wind's definition, and use the "otheruses" template there to point back to Mator language.See WP:DISAMBIG for more info on making that choice. Anomie⚔ 15:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My "definition" is not relevant here - the word "motor" has multiple meanings in the English language. Replacing motor language with motor (language) would eliminate much confusion as the target article simply bolds "motor" and not "motor language". B.Wind (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there isn't as much of a conflict as appears. For example, "Motor" is a proper name, thus capitalized. But, "motor" is (in the second case) a modifier to the noun "language" which wouldn't necessarily be capitalized. Perhaps? Otherwise, they could be classified: Motor Language (vernacular) or (dialect); and Motor Language (development); to differentiate the two while preserving capitalization. VictorC (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per VictorC's analysis. If there is potential for confusion, it can probably best be solved via a hatnote on the target article.  Rossami (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Pharmacology → WikiProject Pharmacology
The result of the debate was delete.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Cross-namespace redirect Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep Some people may forget to type the entire "Wikipedia: WikiProject Pharmacology". This redirect is an INTENTIONAL cross-namespace redirect if someone types "Wikiproject Pharmacology" instead of "Wikipedia: WikiProject Pharamcology" by accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cssiitcic (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Cross-namespace redirects from article should either help the reader of Wikipedia, or should have clear, unambiguous advantages to the project as a whole. This redirect meets neither of those criteria, it serves only to mask typos in user discussions. IMO, the same applies to all the other redirects listed at Special:PrefixIndex/WikiProject. Anomie⚔ 15:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reasons we kept them all the last time they were discussed. There is no reasonable possibility that a reader looking at that title will expect to find anything except the Wikipedia page.  The accidental omission of the 'Wikipedia:' prefix is a plausible typo.  Rossami (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Projectspace redirects should be discouraged.  MBisanz  talk 17:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per the above this is a bad idea, with the new Google-like Did you mean search function this redirect becomes useless. We have policy for a reason. Article redirects to other namespaces aren't here to make editors lives any easier, just the readers.  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  04:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Choi Jin-sil (disambiguation) → Choi Jin-sil
 <div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the debate was Deleted. This does in fact cause harm. The target is not a redirect page. There is no disambig page for this name and we shouldn't be creating the false appearance of one. Links to disambig pages are commonly used when the specific link target is not clear. Creating redirects like this can cause incorrect linking to occur. If someone links to title (disambiguation), they are specifically looking for a disambig page. The Korean name template is not a disambig template. It is a template to eliminate ambiguity between the proper name and the surname. The template may have been tagged as a disambig at one point, but that is not how it is being used. I'll also fix the template so this doesn't happen again. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Useless redirect to a non-dab page recently created by SmackBot (presumably in error). PC78 (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Not needed. There's only one Choi Jin-Sil, I can't imagine anyone wanting to create a dab. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - does no harm --Rumping (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep because it does no harm and deleting it doesn't gain anything for the project. I am concerned that SmackBot could make this error, though.  I can't find anything in the logs that would indicate why this page was created.  I'll escalate it to Rich for investigation.  Rossami (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rich just clarified that the disambig page was automatically created because the target page carries a disambiguation tag - in this case, Korean name. The creation of a disambig redirect with standard nomenclature would therefore be routine.  It looks like someone needs to clean up either the template or the article before we can fairly discuss the redirect.  Otherwise, the redirect will likely continue to be accidentally created.  Rossami (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Um... Korean name shouldn't be regarded as a disambiguation template, as it doesn't disambiguate anything; it merely identifies the surname in a non-Western name, something that won't be apparent to all (or most) readers. I don't see any cleanup that would be required of either the template or the article. PC78 (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Korean name carries both the Category:Surname disambiguation templates and Category:Korea-related Wikipedia disambiguation tools tags. The category tags were added by user:SMcCandlish who usually knows how these things work quite well.  The usage appears to be consistent with the tagging for other last-name based templates such as Chinese name.  I'm not sure how useful those categories actually are but they are operating as someone intended them to - as disambiguation pages.  Rossami (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps these templates need to be categorized another way, then. I'm not sure what you're on about with disambiguation pages. PC78 (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rossami (talk · contribs). Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Magic acid → Superacid
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the debate was keep. Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Magic acid is a kind of superacid, not the same as superacid. <span class="signature signature_2539476">Liangent (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - not only is magic acid discussed in the target article, the fact that it is a type of superacid makes it a worthwhile search item to be redirected as it is. Keeping the redirect does not preclude the creation of a standalone article on magic acid - in fact, overwriting an unprotected redirect with a cited article is encouraged. B.Wind (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But I think it may make readers confused. (Actually I got confused when I clicked on link "Magic acid" and then I found it was redirected to "superacid".)--<span class="signature signature_2539476">Liangent (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is not the redirect - the problem is that a standalone Magic acid is needed here. Deleting the redirect won't resolve that problem, forcing the editor to go to the search page, which would have "magic acid" point to "superacid" anyway. 66.217.46.109 (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The IP above is right - we ought to have a standalone article on Magic acid, but in the absence of such an article, this is the best way to find what content we have on that topic. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * per Gavia immer (talk · contribs). Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Yakumo (Naruto) → wikia:Naruto:Yakumo Kurama
<span id="Yakumo (Naruto)" > <div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the debate was delete. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Invalid redirect target (non-project page) per RfD debates for Akimichi clan and Hyuga Hiashi. Completing a deletion proposal by JHunterJ. Kusunose 06:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Deletion is fine with me since there's no history in the article (it only existed as a redirect) and there has been more than enough time for a transition period for transwikied material. -- Ned Scott 07:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep this useful redirect is currently being used at Yakumo, especially since it complies with WP:PIPING. I don't see why it should be deleted. Unless something is also going to be done with Kurama (Naruto), Yakumo Kurama and Kurama Yakumo, I fail to see why this one has to be gone. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 12:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per aforementioned RfD discussions above. Redirects outside Wikipedia are discouraged. Admin's comment at the close of the Akimichi clan RfD sums it all up rather nicely. B.Wind (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent that we shouldn't redirect to non-WMF wikis. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per previous discussion that missed this one. We shouldn't privelege such links to non-WMF wikis, and there's a particular problem of avoiding entanglement with Wikia. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete if it cannot redirect to List of Naruto characters --Rumping (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent, although I wonder why soft redirects to Wikia are available in the first place. JuJube (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been able to have such soft redirects for a short period of time when there as actual transwikied content, and the article history had not been fully exported/imported. The idea being that it helps us more than it hurts (prevents recreation, does something with the article while its history is being moved, gives notice to past editors and readers for a short period of time, etc). The "precedent" cited so far is only cases where the redirects only existed as redirects and did not contain anything that needed to be transwikied and had also existed longer than they needed to. -- Ned Scott 02:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per above. IMO, non-WMF redirects should only be used when very necessary, and I don't think that this is the case here. Firebat08 (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It might be appropriate to link to the wikia article as an external link somewhere, but not to use it as a redirect. --Elonka 18:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Common.css → MediaWiki:Common.css
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the debate was delete. A redirect to Mediawiki is inappropriate, as that article does not mention CSS at all. All of the incoming links are on historical pages or talk pages, and I believe general practice is not to worry about those.--Aervanath lives in <b style="color:green;">the Orphanage</b> 07:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Unnecessary redirect to the Mediawiki space, serves no purpose and wouldn't be useful outside the Wikipedia-context.  MBisanz  talk 01:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom. Anomie⚔ 14:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * to MediaWiki - important piece of MediaWiki. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep at least until all 50+ incoming links have been fixed. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 23:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Qingzang railway/Map → Template:Qingzang railway map
<span id="Qingzang railway/Map" > <div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the debate was delete. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Improper CNR to a template, too old to meet a CSD criteria, nothing to retarget to.  MBisanz  talk 00:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Note. Redirect has been retargeted to List of stations on Qingzang railway, a main article with the target template transcluded. B.Wind (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - name of redirect is in violation of WP:NAME, falsely indicating that this is a subarticle/subpage. Qingzang railway map already exists as a redirect to the current target of the nominated redirect (yep, I'm guilty for writing this later one as it was clearly needed). B.Wind (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

ITK (gene)/PBB → Template:PBB/3702
<span id="ITK (gene)/PBB" > <div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was G7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Inappropriate and unlikely CNR to a template, nothing to really retarget to.  MBisanz  talk 00:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I created that page, and I approve its deletion... ;)  I put it there for backward compatibility, but on second look, it's really not necessary...  thanks, AndrewGNF (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Tagged for speedy deletion based on previous comment, db-author. B.Wind (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Errors in the Encyclopedia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia → Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Also:
 * List of Britannica errors → Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia
 * Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica → Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia
 * Errors in the Encyclopaedia Britannica → Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia
 * Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia → Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia

Inappropriate CNR. Yes, we corrected the errors; no we don't need to point the readers at this non-content with a redirect.  MBisanz  talk 00:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom. Anomie⚔ 15:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Navel-gazing in article space should be discouraged. 85.204.164.26 (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * the first three and the rest. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete self-referencing and CNR to boot. I wouldn't mind the deletion of the target, either... but that's a different discussion (Should Brittanica have a section on Wikipedia errors? Should we?). B.Wind (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)