Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 4

Mainspace
The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 03:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * → Wikipedia:Namespace (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Unneeded redirect to project space from article space. Suggest deletion. Draftydoor (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC) This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 4, 2010 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Why not db-r2? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, it cannot be speedied using R2 because that does not include redirects to the project space. --Taelus (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is just the sort of term I might look up (if I did not already know what the "mainspace" is). Actual words that redirect across the namespace are valid redirects. Plus, this received 118 pageviews in December. — the Man in Question (in question)  19:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A good point. Struck my delete !vote, and tagged the redirect with . However, I am unsure on keeping it as I personally see the potential for users to cross name-spaces without intending to a little odd, as you can configure your own search options in an advanced search to check both namespaces. Thus having this redirect seems to over-ride the users option to opt out of such project namespace results. I do see the benefit both ways of course, and its benefit to new users, thus I am unsure where to come down. But hey, it isn't a vote anyway, so I hope my opinion is of use. --Taelus (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've no trouble with the term, but not sure it should redirect here, and not particularly because it is a cross-namespace redirect. My more basic problem is that it is used to describe "main" namespaces other than the Wikipedia one, too, for example in computer programming it may be used quite a lot, albeit as jargon/shorthand for "the main namespace", "the global namespace" or whatever. I also have a nagging doubt that sometimes it is used erroneously as a tongue-twister of "namespace" itself (i.e. "manespace") but that may apply less to the written than the spoken word. Just put those thoughts here for your edification and rumination. Si Trew (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And if it were decided to change its target, I'd recommend that a link to the WP article be included there as a hatnote. Si Trew (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Mainspace can mean a lot of different things per google books. Very bad WP:ARS. Pcap ping  02:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is so widely used, then it should be a disambiguation. — the Man in Question (in question)  02:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plausible search term. If it points to the wrong location, retarget it or create a dab page. Jafeluv (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye, Mr Chips (Better Off Ted Episode)
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 03:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * → Goodbye, Mr. Chips (Better Off Ted) (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Procedural nomination. Redirect was proposed for deletion with rationale:

"Unnecessary redirect (single user created both pages then did a copy-paste move) (this was the original; content is now at the correct spelling --- Because of auto-searching, users typing it into the search box will see two episodes differing by only a period; unnecessary confusion"

--Taelus (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom. As a side note, the creator of the redirect has created a number of episode pages that, if they survive the inevitable AfD(s), will need to be moved. The target of this redirect is one such case. The correct article should actually be Goodbye, Mr. Chips (Better Off Ted episode) --AussieLegend (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Grammatically, yes. But it is standard procedure to omit "episode" altogether in television series' episode names. — the Man in Question (in question)  19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is actually pretty close to a speedy. Ged  UK  14:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. A redirect that omits a period is a very good redirect, since some English speakers summarily don't use periods. However, the inclusion and capitalization of the word "Episode" casts the redirect's worth into question. — the Man in Question (in question)  19:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm sorry to all who think these pages are crap, I am a new editor to Wikipedia, still getting the handling of it. I am also a big fan of Better Off Ted, I thought that, like family guy, this show deserved it's own pages. So I started making them.Skuzbucket (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha, well, this is not a discussion of an actual article, but of a redirect. — the Man in Question (in question)  03:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Christchurch Town Hall (decrepit)
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * → Christchurch Town Hall of the Performing Arts (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Procedural nomination- a Prod was placed on the talk page of this redirect.

Prod reasoning was: "page resulting from a move to make room for a new page, but this didn't work, as a new redirect created itself - see Talk:Christchurch_Town_Hall"

Prod was placed by Schwede66. Myself, I can't see how this redirect accomplishes anything. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment: I would say, let the merge discussion reach its conclusion, then sweep any detritus redirects up as speedy housekeeping or CSD R2. I would generally delete this as R2 now, bar for the discussion. Ged  UK  16:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, "decrepit" implies an unnecessary judgment about the condition of the building. And is it even decrepit anyway?  Sounds like it's in perfectly good condition, making this a completely needless redirect.   Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 04:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

American Broadcasting Corporation
The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * → American Broadcasting Company (links to redirect • [ history] • )

So far as I'm aware, ABC is never known as American Broadcasting Corporation, but is American Broadcasting Company. Anyone who wikilinks to American Broadcasting Corporation will have done it wrong... seems like a bad redirect! Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - Agree with the nominator. This was used on today's featured article, 2000 Sugar Bowl, which should have been caught immediately.  If it can be accidently used on a featured article, who knows how many articles this is mistakenly used on.  Requesting deletion and someone (probably a bot) to go through and correct the pages this is used on to American Broadcasting Company. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 07:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Redirects don't exist solely for in-article linking. They also are intended to redirect users who enter plausible mistakes into the search box. I suspect that if you polled Americans, well over half would think that the "C" stood for Corporation, not Company. I can very well see someone typing this into the search box. Edit to add: this redirect is getting almost 900 hits a month. --NellieBly (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the thing - this would be perpetuating wrong thinking. There is no such thing as the American Broadcasting Corporation. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually most Americans barely know who is President (no, really), I doubt they even know what the "A" stands for in ABC to be honest....and this is an American saying this. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 08:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a likely search term, and therefore a useful redirect. --NellieBly (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep this is a very likely search term. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, the Wikipedia search results would show up American Broadcasting Company. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Since it is the British Broadcasting Corporation and Australian Broadcasting Corporation, seems a plausible search term. Si Trew (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But also would be the wrong term, if used as a wikilink. Wikipedia search results would quickly show what they were looking for. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, plausible search term which seems to recieve traffic. Also a plausible mistake for non-Americans, as pointed out by User:SimonTrew. --Taelus (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But at the same time, if you didn't have the redirect and you searched for American Broadcasting Corporation, it would quickly show that such an article doesn't exist, but would show American Broadcasting Company, which they could click on. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirects are not just for search engine terms. Don't forget that inbound external links use them. Deleting this redirect would break them all, with no real benefit, thus it would be a net loss to the end users of the encyclopedia. --Taelus (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I realise that this isn't going to be deleted, but you do realise that as we have on control of external websites this isn't really a valid objection? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, very plausible search term for non-US (and maybe US too) users. I didn't know it was Company and not Corporation, and SimonTrew has expressed the very thought that went through my head. Ged  UK  14:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely a plausible misnomer. The fact that it was linked through on the Main Page just supports this. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's actually a very good reason why it shouldn't be used. Perpetuating an inaccuracy on the main page is not something I would have thought we want to encourage! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we should absolutely avoid using misnomers on the Main Page. However, that's an issue for Main Page content editors, not for others who might have this misconception and benefit from being shown the correct information. The fact that the normal review of Main Page content missed this is evidence that many people have such a misconception. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree somewhat with Tbsdy's point, i.e. that it may encourage incorrect use in other articles. But then, one might consider that to be true of a large proportion of redirects, depending on how strictly one defines "incorrect". On balance, on this one, I think it is worth keeping. Without the redirect, an editor might be surprised (or astonished) that there is no such link to this company in Wikipedia, and so I imagine it would likely be recreated. After all, "Corporation" and "Company" mean, in this context, much the same thing, and in many places on Wikipedia (e.g. the names of publishers in citation fields) such "suffixes" on company names are routinely omitted. I am not of course suggesting that "Company" here does not form part of the organisation's proper name, merely highlighting that it is not a very strong part of its name, i.e. that American and Broadcasting are much stronger terms than Company, and as such it is not that important if somone writes Corporation instead of Company— if an editor had written "Australian Broadcasting Company" for example, instead of "American", that would have made the meaning very different. That is, the error makes the name incorrect, but does not make the redirect incorrect in that it goes to the place one would expect. It's expected of editors that they check links for correctness (WP:TESTLINK), and I don't see how removing this redirect (and presumably attempting to prevent its probable recreation) will encourage those who don't. So, while I understand Tbsdy's point and have some sympathy with it, I think removing this redirect does more harm than good. I'm glad, as stated below, a bot will be asked to clear up existing instances. Si Trew (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep—perfectly plausible misconception. ╟─TreasuryTag► Tellers' wands ─╢ 16:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe I just searched that a few days ago. 856 pageviews in December is plenty enough to keep. — the Man in Question (in question)  19:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure why 856 page views is a good reason to keep - a search would show the correct article and also show that such an article does not exist. The 856 page views, incidentally, probably have occured because it was being used on the main page. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't knowing anything about the main page linking, but it was getting 687 views as far back as January 2008. Furthermore, I'm not sure how 856 pageviews isn't a good enough reason to keep a redirect that targets the proper subject. — the Man in Question (in question)  22:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Not established anywhere that it's not a plausible search term. Corporation/Company are used interchangeably and inaccurately by many. -- IP69.226.103.13   |   Talk about me.   02:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep plausible search term, per Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, British Broadcasting Corporation. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment there's now a bot request to fix all articles containing incorrect name redirects, see Bot_requests Josh Parris 05:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's good. Si Trew (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It has never been used by ABC itself (they use "American Broadcasting Company" and "American Broadcasting Companies, Inc." for their legal names of various divisions), but there's cause in this case to believe it's a plausible redirect that redirects unfamiliar users thinking "C" stands for "Corporation" to the right place. Nothing wrong with this redirect at all; note that the NBC redirect National Broadcasting Corporation also has the same misnomered name but had 330 hits in December alone. Whether it was posted on the main page or not, it still went to ABC eventually.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plausible erroneous search term; it even shows up in books published by university presses. The purpose of redirects such as these is to help people find articles even if they don't know the correct name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as a plausible redirect. Wikilink correction will need to be done (and should be done) as errors of this nature are spotted by astute editors. Tckma (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Supertall
The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 03:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * → List of tallest_buildings and structures in the world (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Proposed deletion. Rationale: "Supertall" is merely a gramatically incorrect combination of two adjectives and does not have meaning beyond "super" and "tall". Even if used in media and press releases of skyscrapers it does not make it encyclopedic. The redirect is unnecessary. Wikipedia articles should not use the term unless it was a quote from public media or affiliated spokesperson/architect for the skyscraper. Reference to the List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_the_world can be made within any skyscraper article when desired, rather than using this non-standard term. Generally if it's a term you don't think would be in Encyclopedia Britannica and also not a culturally significant slang term, then it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Also, if it's only a term, it can just go to Wiktionary. "Supertall" is not found in any of the dictionary sources in Dictionary.com, which includes many reputatable dictionaries including American Heritage. Mistakefinder (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. There have been many discussions regarding the use of the term "supertall" before, and it appears the general consensus was its use in articles should be continued. I agree that this redirect is useless and if linked at all in any articles, there should probably be an article explaining what the term means. However, I'm not sure how an entire article on a word that doesn't exist would go down... -- timsdad  (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the word does not exist how did you manage to use it? Ipso facto, the word exists. The only trouble is how to define it encylopaedically (i.e. beyond a dictionary definition.) In part, this very article does so (I haven't evidence, but I think that "supertall" currently is applied only to buildings and not, say, catwalk models, at least not seriously.) Si Trew (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If there was a consensus to continue using supertall, why would you delete this redirect?--Crossmr (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as admitted, its used in the media, since it is used in the media it stands to reason that people might search for it and should be redirected to the proper article. Just because it isn't in Britannica doesn't mean it shouldn't be here. Britannica doesn't have 9000 articles on pokemon either. There isn't an article on supertall that is why its a redirect, so send it to wiktionary would be pointless, we're here to discuss a redirect, not an article. Its valid as a search term and if quoted or used in other articles, it may be linked.--Crossmr (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep "supertall" is used to describe buildings, and this is the likely target for such a search term. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per 76.66.197.17 and Crossmr. Of course the word exists, whether or not a particular dictionary or reference admits it. The problem is only one of definition as I imagine its use may well spread beyond its description of buildings, but if that becomes common, so what, we change the redirect at that time. It seems a perfectly apt place to redirect it, and as stated if there is no wiktionary entry for it, it seems pointless making one here simply for it to be copied. I seem to remember in something I have read, it was defined quite precisely as being over a certain height (250 metres maybe?) but no doubt that kind of definition would vary significantly in different sources. Si Trew (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, "supertall model" gets (for me) 20 results from Google. Si Trew (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think the subject deserves it's own article, and we should replace the redirect. Supertall is a technical term, as in Template:Supertall_skyscrapers and Skyscraper. I've seen it quite often, in a variety of source, more commonly as a substantive than a gramatically incorrect adjective. It is just a technical term to do with architecture, urbanism, engineering. Also, I disagree with the logic of deleting a redirect because we should write an article. Until such a time, a redirect gives readers a vague idea of what the term refers to. 83.146.11.30 (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry wasn't logged in.Hrcolyer (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. The term did have its own article, but that was made into a redirect as a result of this AfD.  Deleting this redirect might discourage its continued use in articles.  However, it is currently linked in 512 mainspace articles.   Astronaut (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment: With skyscrapers now in excess of 600 metres in height, we should probably begin to discontinue use of the term and begin to classify them as "300 metres or taller" or "600 metres or taller" or something. 300 metres is hardly tall anymore, let alone "supertall". If we delete the redirect then people will obviously be hesitant to add redlinks and we might see the use of the term disappear from the encyclopedia. -- timsdad  (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)