Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 August 13

August 13
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 13, 2010

Template:Doc discussion



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was delete all. Jafeluv (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * → Template:Documentation subpage (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Template:Documentation subpage (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Template:Documentation subpage (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Template:Documentation subpage (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Template:Documentation subpage (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Template:Documentation subpage (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Template:Documentation subpage (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Template:Documentation subpage (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Template:Documentation subpage (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Template:Documentation subpage (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Template:Documentation subpage (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Template:Documentation subpage (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Template:Documentation subpage (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Also included in this nomination (just to keep everything together):
 *  → Template:Documentation subpage/doc (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 *  → Template:Documentation subpage/sandbox (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 *  → Template:Documentation subpage/doc (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 *  → Template:Documentation subpage/doc (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Not included in this nomination (per request):
 * → Template:Documentation subpage (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete - these redirects are a nightmare for anyone wanting to reuse Wikipedia's templates on other wikis, especially considering reusing a single template can often require copying upwards of a dozen pages, even without redirects such as these. In addition, most of them are unused (and many have no incoming links whatsoever), making them utterly pointless (they aren't even obvious search terms).

Note that if they are deleted, they must first be replaced to avoid breaking documentation subpages; this has the added benefit of simplifying the code at the top of many such pages, since  (or whatever variant is being used on a given page) can be replaced with the far simpler and cleaner. I would also suggest noting that they targeted Template:Documentation subpage in the deletion rationale, to make it easier for anyone coming in from an external wiki to find the correct template. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Dinoguy point is strong. Also, deleting all those redirects will add uniformity. --Bachinchi (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: IMHO, it shows a lack of competence when the rfd notice appears on every documentation page that transcludes the redirect being discussed as is the case with Template doc page. Not that I'm always that competent myself. I tried moving it inside a noinclude block but it didn't work. – droll  &#91;chat&#93;  00:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was fully aware of the repercussions to adding rfd to the redirects, and gave it quite a bit of thought, but in the end I decided it was more important to advertise the discussion than to not break transclusions, for two reasons: First, while most of these redirects are largely or entirely unused, at least two of them still see wide use (on over 500 pages), which means there's likely to be a number of people who would be angry if the redirects were suddenly bypassed and deleted because of a discussion they knew nothing about; second, by intentionally breaking the redirects, it would encourage users to take a closer look at the template documentation - in many cases where these redirects are used, the documentation itself may need some work, and there are likely to also be a number of cases where the actual *template* would benefit from some attention. Therefore (and to reiterate one of my points), I would much rather people get mad at me for breaking stuff *now*, while the discussion is still underway, than for instigating a wholesale removal and deletion of these redirects later via a discussion they never or heard about. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 00:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you consider using substitution. I seems like this falls under the category of non-controversial maintenance. I did not mean to imply that your action was taken without thoughtful reflection. I do think that there should be a procedure in place to handle this sort of thing without the banners. To be honest, it bothers me when I see maintenance banners everywhere. So my comment might be a bit misdirected. – droll  &#91;chat&#93;  05:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Substitution generally would not be appropriate in this situation - by far the majority of the uses needing to be updated are something like, whereas the current, recommended use is simply  . There is simply no way to substitute the former and end up with the latter; it requires a search-and-replace. And you would certainly think this would be non-controversial (you would be every kind of right to think so), but the fact of the matter is that there is quite a bit of history behind at least some of these redirects, and changes far more trivial and (what should have been) non-controversial than this have resulted in significant amounts of drama and even arbitration. 「 ダイノ ガイ  千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete I've cleaned up the majority of these redirects. A few are transcluded by user pages and I'm not sure how to handle those. I requested that most be deleted under db-g6 but my request was denied. – droll  &#91;chat&#93;  17:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, because this deletion discussion was already underway - your speedy requests could be seen as forcing the issue (even if that's not what you were trying to do). These redirects have already existed for years; there's no particular rush to get them deleted now. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Oligarhy



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Kept. There is no consensus for deletion. While it may not be a common misspelling, it does get some usage per the stats so neither argument really trumps. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * → Oligarchy (links to redirect • [ history] • )

I propose that this redirect should be deleted in accordance with WP:REDIRECT #8 (If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name...), 3 (The redirect is offensive or abusive...) and 2 (The redirect might cause confusion...). It i a misspelling of Oligarchy which alone would not warrant a redirect. There are POV and BLP concerns as well, surprisingly. Glenn Beck (which his was redirected to at one point) misspelled the term so it is reasonable to assume that the redirect was created just to poke fun at him. Cptnono (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see no POV or BLP concerns; note also WP:RNEUTRAL. Whatever the original motivation of the creator may have been, and I have alerted him as the best way of finding out, this is a plausible typo now directed to the correct, and POV/BLP neutral, target. It regularly gets hits which adds to its plausibility and shows that it is used. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So are we doing redirects for misspelling of words? If so then it makes sense but I was under the impression that we don't. And if we are doing a redirect because of a minor news item, do we then have to include it in the Oligarchy article whee it current directs? I doubt there is sufficient reasoning to include anything on this at the Beck article.Cptnono (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Plausible typos are perfectly acceptable, and we have plenty of examples of what are termed 'Redirects from misspelings' - see Category:Redirects from misspellings. We don't delete established redirects, unless they are harmful, because once they are established, deletion breaks links in external sites for no benefit. Whether this 'word' should be included in either the Oligarchy or Beck articles is a matter for the editors of those pages and outwith this discussion; it is also a question that is independent of the existence of the redirect and on which I have no view. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirects from misspellings calls for "redirects that are common enough misspellings to be useful to readers". Phonetically it is not even close unlike many at those listed at Wikipedia:Redirects from misspellings. It wouldn't have bene mocked if it was a common misspelling. "Oligarkey" or "Olligarchy" are surely more common misspellings and there are no redirects for them.  "Oligarhy" only has a few hits a day if that. Spikes on the chart are more than likely due to discussion at the Glenn Beck article talk page and request for speedy deletion(see different stats at ).  shows no incoming links from the mainspace. That alone is not enough to remove it but there certainly is no harm in removing it on this end. I don't no what external sites are linking in but we don't need to be bound by that as you suggest.Cptnono (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I honestly see no reason to keep this. It's not a common misspelling and just because a famous person accidentally left out the c doesn't make it noteworthy.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Noteworthy/notability apply to articles not redirects. We do not need a reason to keep. The default is to keep; established redirects are kept unless they are positively harmful and this one is not. Redirects are cheap and deletion takes more server load than keeping them. Even if  we need a reason to keep, the fact that it is used, even only occasionally, is reason enough. There is no benefit in deletion so we leave it be. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't see any reason to keep this either. It's not a common misspelling. Agree with Wikiposter and Cptnono  Morphh   (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – Any word can be mistyped by omission of one letter; for consistency we should add them all and end up with an infinite number of redirects. This one is no more likely than any other, and it's recent inclusion served no encyclopedic purpose. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a common error, and the underlying political BS is a reason to omit it rather than to keep it. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deletion offers no benefit (other than some very tenuous BLP concerns), keeping offers the benefit that some people at least will be lead to the right article, and that no links are broken. Ucucha 11:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But by re-directing the article someone may assume that it is an acceptable alternate spelling, which it is not. Sandeylife (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Biological shield



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Kept & made more specific. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * → Radiation protection (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete because the term does not appear in the target article. "Biological shield" is a term frequently heard as the functional description of one particular part of Chernobyl type nuclear reactors, but I presume that such a function does exist in other types of nuclear reactors. However, the term does not appear in the target article, so the redirect is unhelpful. Theoprakt (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep and refine target to Radiation protection where it is now mentioned. This is the correct generic term for radiation protection intended to protect humans and is used throughout the literature. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Therapeutic abortion



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was retarget to Abortion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * → Indirect abortion (links to redirect • [ history] • )

'Therapeutic abortion' is a term that, in my opinion, would most often refer to a termination of pregnancy performed to solve a medical condition (as opposed to elective abortion, which is done for reasons that are social/economic, etc). The existing target refers to Catholic doctrine that allow abortions in limited circumstances, which I think is an unnecessarily narrow target. Note that elective abortion redirects to abortion. Richard Cavell (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Retarget to Abortion - Send the user to the page that best described what they typed in. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I wish the abortion article made clear the difference between elective and therapeutic abortion, but getting involved in that article is not for the faint-hearted. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)