Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 18

August 18
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 18, 2011

Crimes against humanity.



 * 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. Whilst there is debate on whether this meets any of the RfD keep criteria, arguments have not demonstrated that this meets any of the deletion criteria in the first place. Additionally, the argument of "It does no harm" is perfectly valid for redirects. --Taelus (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * → Crime against humanity (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Typo redirect apparently based on a misunderstanding of how to use wikimarkup. Someone had been using links like  crimes against humanity.  instead of ''' crimes against humanity. ''' and evidently felt that a redirect was necessary. I've corrected all the articles that linked to it. the trailing period. causa sui (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a likely search term, no significant history to preserve. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep But it doesn't do harm either. I'm not really sure where "not a likely search term" became a reason to delete. -- Σ talk contribs  01:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and retarget to Crimes against humanity - WP:R3 is deliberately worded "Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers,". The reason is that long-established redirects are likely to have been picked up by mirrors and external sites and deletion may break their links. Not only is there no speedy criterion for 'non-recently created' there is no core deletion criterion for 'implausible typos' either. Though the internal links have been fixed there is no way to know how many external sites link here. Finally, deletion takes more server resource than keeping. Hence, since it is harmless, we keep. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. The only way links could break in this situation is if somehow the mirror suddenly updated the deleted redirect, but failed to update articles changed almost a week ago. This is impossible since mirrors that are run in accordance with Wikipedia rules update through periodical data dumps from Wikimedia servers. There are remote loading mirrors which could suffer from this problem, but they operate against Wikipedia policies and they are likely to contain a lot of similarly broken content anyway. Rymatz (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unlikely search term because of the period, and the redirect might provoke more incorrect linking by new users. I can't see a reason how can linking to this redirect from a properly-written article be the best solution. Rymatz (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - sorry, being an "Unlikely search term" is not a valid deletion reason nor is speculative future misuse. For deletion both a WP:RFD reason must apply with no reason from WP:RFD being applicable. As I explain, above, deletion could cause real harm. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I countered your keep argument above. As for WP:RFD recommendations, one could argue that this is a misnomer against WP:MOS, but as always there is the catch-22 in WP:RFD argument 5 which basically seems to be a WP:NOHARM argument in its core. Rymatz (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a WP:NOHARM argument. That essay applies to articles; for redirects 'harmless' is a valid and powerful argument. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Halloween: Trick or Treat



 * 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 per below consensus. --Taelus (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * → Trick & (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Seems to have no correlation to Trick 'r Treat (e.g., title when distributed internationally).  Sottolacqua  (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Trick-or-treating; plausible search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom. Dengero (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Unicorn Primary School



 * 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 closed - this has now been converted to an article so it is outwith the scope of RfD. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * → Unicorn Primary Unicorn.co.uk (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

The redirect(article) which named doesn't exists at all RohG?? &middot; &#32; 16:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Micronesia/People



 * 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 Withdrawn. Rennell435 (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * → Demographics of the Federated States of Micronesia (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete. Implausible, weird and possibly harmful formatting. Rennell435 (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:R point 4. This is pages dates from 2001 when this was the standard naming and the given it's age, this is almost certainly going to have links from similarly old external mirrors and bookmarks (it gets around 10 hits/month so this isn't entirely theoretical). It also contains attribution history that we need to maintain per the GFDL. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - redirects are cheap and when, as here, it is used and is harmless then we default to keep. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

About babies



 * 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 No Consensus, defaulting to keep. There is no consensus to delete here. Technically, the arguments relevant to current policy are correct, but from this and other past RfDs it is obvious that there is disagreement over keeping redirects such as this. Consider creating an RfC to debate redirect policy if you strongly want pages like this deleted. --Taelus (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * → Infant (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Created today. Not so implausible as to qualify for Speedy Deletion. Does not appear to be potentially useful as a redirect. Safiel (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - possibly useful; harmless. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but where is the usefulness of it? IMO it's patent nonsense.Divide et Impera (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, please see WP:R point 5. The fact that the redirect was created means that someone thought it was useful. I agree that it is an odd formulation but it is not patent nonsense; what it is about is clear. Redirects are cheap; it takes more server resource to delete than to keep, and potentially useful even if to only a handful of users. Consequently we default to 'keep'. We only delete when the redirect is in some way harmful which this one is not. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's strange that the account's first contribution is such a redirect. Very enigmatic, but I see your point in server resource. Cheers! Divide et Impera (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I redirected it instead of speedying it. -- Σ talk contribs  00:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete unlikely search term Secret account 23:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - sorry but that is not a valid deletion reason; we only delete if the redirect is in some way harmful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it is WP:REDIRECT number 5, this redirect is borderline nonsense. Secret account 00:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to appear argumentative, but I think there is some misunderstanding here. WP:REDIRECT number 5 is when a subject redirects to an entirely different subject. In the example in that criterion, an apple is not an orange. However, Baby does redirect to Infant. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: If this is kept as "not harmful" then someone should run a bot to create About X redirects for all articles titles X that do not begin with the word About. Then run it again to create About "X" redirects for all titles that do begin with the word About. 66.81.248.141 (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Feel free to create any of those redirects that you think are helpful to the project, but doing so en mass would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Additionally, the mass creation of redirects by bots has been suggested many times and they very rarely get consensus (the only one I can think of off the top of my head that did was redirects from US postal abbreviations, e.g. Boise, ID → Boise, Idaho). It is perfectly logical to discourage the creation of redirects while at the same time keeping those that are created. Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. While it can be associated with the infant article, it's a random phrase and not likely to be targeted by well-formed links in other articles. I can't see how keeping this would be any different than keeping a redirect of "fast car" to car or "I love kittens" to cat. Rymatz (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - sorry but we do not want links to redirects "well-formed links" or otherwise. Redirects are search terms and someone may well use this. Since it is harmless we keep - we only delete redirects that are in some way harmful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, not a random p - hrase, one quite likely to be typed by someone who wants to learn "about babies" or needs information "about babies" or who wants to write an essay called "about babies". AboutBabies9011 (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Note: The writer of the preceding message has made a whopping 0 edits outside this topic. -- Σ <font color="#036">talk <sub style="margin-left:-3.2ex"><font color="#036">contribs  01:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - does not seem to meet any of the criteria for deletion.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 15:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)