Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 April 17

April 17
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 17, 2011

Bom's ass



 * 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 speedy delete.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 18:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


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

The redirect has been around since 2005, but I can't figure out any reason for its existence that doesn't invoke vandalism. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. I concur - this appears to be a long-overlooked act of vandalism.  The anon's other contributions support that hypothesis.  Rossami (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:COPPA



 * 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. Seems misleading. Ruslik_ Zero 17:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * → Protecting children& (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Per Wikipedia talk:Protecting children's privacy, it is inappropriate to suggest that the essay at the current target is related to the United States' Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. It would be less inappropriate to target it at Child protection (the relevant policy page), but that too is not related to the Act (it would also add to the already confusing history of rejected essays, policy proposals, etc.). It is getting uses, so pointing the redirect somewhere might be useful if an appropriate target can be found (although I can't think of one, I can easily believe that one might exist) Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the editor is asking for discussion about where the redirect should point and not suggesting that the redirect be deleted. Especially since the editor has not formulated a single alternative, it is possible that talk page discussion (augmented by an RfC if this would e helpful) might be the better way to go, since RfD is built around discussions that last a week and end in a GO/NOGO decision (I think). A suggestion I might make would be to change the page from a redirect to an actual short page which summarizes (in a couple of sentences) what the COPPA is and then offers links to Child protection, Protecting children's privacy, and perhaps other internal pages as well, and also to the article Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Herostratus (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC) As further background, I think that Wikipedia's response to COPPA has been somewhat complicated by the fact that discussions bring out a strong "COPPA is evil and we should resist it" contingent, making consensus on a reasonable unified stance difficult to achieve. The page I'm suggesting -- which might be named Wikipedia stance regarding COPPA or something -- should say this, I guess, although how it should be put would perhaps be a somewhat delicate matter. Herostratus (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect - I am advocating deletion if no suitable target is found within the week. Furthermore, unlike AfD, RfD is redirects for discussion, which includes discussions of retargetting as well as deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, can we have this discussion not under the gun of a deadline? I'm willing to contribute to working up a better target, but I'm not sure we can get it done this week. This is the first I'd heard that there's a problem here. Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I nominated it for deletion when I became aware of it because I believe it inappropriate (and thus potentially harmful) to have this redirect in its current state. If an appropriate page is subsequently written that would not be inappropriate then it can be recreated. Leaving something inappropriate around because at some unspecified future point it might cease to be inappropriate is not a good plan. So no, I am not going to withdraw this nomination (Chris Cunningham's recommendation to delete would probably prevent me from doing so if I did want to). Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * While Thryduulf might not have been specifically advocating for its deletion, I am. No matter where it's targeted, the shortcut in question carries inappropriate connotations of legal compliance which the suggested targets do not carry. We have plenty of more appropriate redirects for this purpose and don't need to find a good place for this one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's response to COPPA, and users' opinions of it (which are far more varied and more widely held than the pejorative "dinosaurs" label you (Herostratus) ascribe implies) are completely irrelevant to this discussion. We do not to my knowledge have any page that gives Wikipedia's (or the Wikimedia Foundation's) official legal response to this act. Whether we should or should not comply with the act; whether we should have a page explaining why we do or do not, and/or whether our current policy in the area is good, bad or otherwise are also not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep in that case. Obviously it makes no sense to have the redirect just go nowhere, especially if as you say it's in use. It'd be quite odd to just delete a redirect that is in use, wouldn't it? If the number of people typing or clicking on "WP:COPPA" is not at or near zero, what is the advantage of presenting those people with a "page does not exist" message as opposed to at least something? Where it should go -- to a different target, or to another target to be created -- is something that can be hashed out in discussion, I guess. (PS do not understand "dinosaurs" reference, cannot find string "dinosaurs" anywhere in this discussion.) Herostratus (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not unusual to delete redirects that are in use if they are misleading and have no non-misleading alternative target. This is exactly the situation with this redirect - it implies that we have a page detailing our compliance with the act when we don't. The current target is particularly wrong because it is one user's essay that evolved from a rejected policy proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The redirect as it stands is inappropriate; the target does not address COPPA or compliance with that act. Because this is a topic with possible legal implications for Wikimedia, it is especially important to be clear. I can't think of a proper target and I think that until one is created (and vetted by our legal counsel) that this redirect should stay red. Danger (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

United States Women's Amateur



 * 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 Keep. Ruslik_ Zero 17:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * → United States Women& (links to redirect • [ history] • )

This could be amateur anything and I think this is a very confusing redirect. There is no reason to assume that the reader is looking fro Amateur golf. It could be amateur Hockey, bowling, Basketweaving or anything else. Kumioko (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. That is the colloquial name for it - the "Golf Championship" is omitted in normal usage.  No objection to overwriting with disambiguation content if other appropriate topics are found but a google search on the exact phrase "United States Women's Amateur" turned up nothing in the first five pages of hits that referred to anything else.  Rossami (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, willing to take Rossami's word for it re usage and Google results. If desired and appropriate, recast as a disambig page rather than deleting. Herostratus (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Future Films



 * 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 Future Film (a previous target) and add a hatnote there. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * → Future Films (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Was originally part of a double redirect - WP:FFILM ==> Future Films ==> Wikipedia: Future Films. I have eliminated the double redirect and there's no need any more for this redirect. Doesn't seem to qualify for CSD under R2. NellieBly (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Revert to the version which redirected to Future Film, the Finnish video distribution company. This preserves the history of the various pagemoves and serves as a pluralization variant.  The redirect to the Wikipedia page is plausible but takes second place to article content.  Rossami (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Revert per Rossami and add a hatnote at Future Film that points to the Wikipedia page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the headaches. WP:Future Films (with the 'S') is an essay and Future Film (no 'S') is a Finnish film company. I did not know that creating a redirect to the essay would screw up a redirect to a company. Darn that "s". A revert and hatnote would serve quite well, thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)