Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 April 19

April 19
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 19, 2011

By2/redirects



 * 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 Deleted. TJRC sums it up well. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * → By2 (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Unused, implausible, looks like it was created as part of a maintenance effort as a side effect of a page-move and is just leftover dross. TJRC (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment doesn't this qualify as a housekeeping speedy delete? 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * keep, this has editing history going back to 2006 that seem to document several page moves and other actions. Given all this it clearly doesn't qualify as a housekeeping speedy delete. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The only substantive history is that it once contained a sentence fragment that served as an article about a film, which was eventualy deleted for lack of notablity. . I don't think this qualifies as  "a potentially useful page history" per WP:RFD. TJRC (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean other than the continuous history of being a redirect since 2006, complete with editors updating targets as the target page moved and categorising the redirect? Why are these elements of history less valid than article text? Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because a record of changes to Wikipedia content is required as a matter of compliance with the GFDL and CCA-SA. A record of technical changes not affecting content, or of content that is no longer on Wikipedia, is not. TJRC (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That last is an arguable point. From the point of view of the encyclopedia, a good-faith change to a page title is a content change no less significant than a change to the wording of a page's section header.  It's unlikely that we would be sued for failure to comply with GFDL but if the redirect is unharmful and cheap, why take even that minimal risk?  Furthermore, redirects may be targets of inbound links and our policy on redirects explicitly says that linkrot is a problem that we should work to avoid. Regarding content that is no longer on Wikipedia, old history has a way of coming back at us.  Pages get moved and then years later moved back.  Content removed, then consensus changes and it is restored.  Or perhaps recreated.  I am uncomfortable with the position that our GFDL obligations are permanently expunged just because a piece of content is removed from a page.  Rossami (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course they are. When an article is deleted, all of its history is deleted.  The attribution requirements associated with a work are only associated with use of the work.  When the work ceases to be used, the duty to attribute is no longer applicable.  Otherwise, it would always be a violation of the license to delete anything. Every redirect would be deemed not deletable, because it once pointed somewhere and has an edit history. TJRC (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

ABC radio



 * 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 ABC Radio.   Skomorokh   11:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * → Citadel Media (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete: if this redirect did not exist, users entering ABC radio would automatically go to ABC Radio, which is the proper disambiguation page for Australian Broadcasting Corporation and its subsidiaries; Citadel Media; and others. At minimum, this should redirect to ABC Radio, but it would be better if it didn't exist at all, because why redirect to the page it would go to anyway if it didn't exist? —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Retarget to ABC Radio as a standard . We have such redirects because they aid linking (internally and externally) and help users who use case sensitive search methods (of which there are several). Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Revert to the version targetting ABC Radio. Deletion is inappropriate because, as Thryduulf notes, redirects do far more than merely support the search engine.  Rossami (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate redirect to ABC Radio. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget/revert per others. The status quo doesn't make sense.. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)