Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 February 13

February 13
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 13, 2011

Ridicule (Death Note episode)



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → List of Death Note episodes (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete - no mention of an episode of this name. History of redirect page suggests (unsourced) that it was episode 33, now called "Scorn". PamD (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Interstngly enough the entry was at ridicule for some time until one day before the English episode premiered. Based on that it may be possible that this was the English translation of the original Japanese title   changed after the official dud title was released though I am not skilled enough in the language to know that. Then again it may be a mistranslation I just don't know. The Japanese name is listed at "Chōshō" (嘲笑) if that helps.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment FWIW various online dictionaries translate the Japanese as "scorn", "sneer" and/or "ridicule", suggesting that "ridicule" most probably was an unofficial translation - I don't speak the language at all though so cannot verify this hypothesis. I also have no opinion at present on whether the redirect is useful or not. Thryduulf (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Provincial highway



 * 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 State highway. Ruslik_ Zero 15:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


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

Current destination is the generic Highway page, however at least when I use the link, I am intending to use it like I do with state highway. Provincial highways I feel are analogous with state highways, its just a different name because of different sub-national breakdowns. I originally opened this under the wrong forum so moving here  Admr Boltz  16:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what you're requesting here, please. Are you wanting to delete "Provincial highway", overwrite it with an article, retarget it to State highway or some other action? Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He wants to change the redirect target so it goes to state highway instead of highway. I support this, knowing that doesn the road we have to update state highway to include information on the provincial highways. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not want to delete, I just want to change the target of Provincial highway to State highway instead of just highway.


 * Retarget to Numbered highways in Canada instead. I can just see Canadians all up in arms about how a 'province' is not a 'state'. -- &oelig; &trade; 18:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * State highway should target that page in a Canada section. Canada is not the only jurisdiction in the world with provinces, and Canadians are not special (as much as they will gather in groups to make you think otherwise on WikiPedia; no other group on the site would broadcast a simple redirection retargeting across every.single.relevant noticeboard). State highway explains the concept of highways maintained by a jurisdiction and given numbers; only ONE article on wikipedia needs to explain this. Numbered highways in Canada is a list of numbered highways in Canada. No need to create another freeway / motorway situation for us to struggle to remedy down the road. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  18:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the Numbered highways in Canada article is a list, not an actual article on a system, like state highway is. --  Admr Boltz  18:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Uhm, the Canada section in State highway already links to Numbered highways in Canada anyway. There's no other content there. -- &oelig; &trade; 20:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It needs to be updated, clearly, but thats the best place for general information on provincial-level systems. The hatnote to the list then allows readers to look into the specific numbers in each province, and eventually down to the individual highway articles themselves, or the provincial list of highway numbers. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  21:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Numbered highways in Canada 117Avenue (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain your reasoning for differing with the proposal. As I mentioned, Canada isn't the only place in the world with provinces. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  22:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * State highway would be more global, but there aren't any other countries with provincial highways listed. Are there any other province highway articles? A hatnote could be added to Numbered highways in Canada. 117Avenue (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Retarget to State highway. Canada is not the only country in the world with provinces. Logically it only follows that provincial highways exist in several jurisdictions. The proper target is an article that explains without preference to any one nationality the concept of a state highway system. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  22:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A retarget to an article about provincial-level highway networks would be appropriate, but State highway is currently about networks called "State Highway", whether they are at national or subnational level, where a set index with separate articles for each country would be better. There would have to be something similar to Highway systems by country but for a subnational level - no article currently exists. Peter E. James (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The title and the content are two separate concerns. A state highway and provincial highway article would cover the same concept, with a different list of countries below that explanation. State highway should be adjusted so it works for any sub-national highway network. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  00:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * State is ambiguous, and the New Zealand State Highway network is at national level. Peter E. James (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Redirect to state highway per nom with the proviso that the new target be clarified to encompass "provincial highway" in its lead.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Cite web



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 15:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → Template:Cite web (links to redirect • [ history] • )

I suggest that the page is retargeted to Web cite and not to some inwiki template. This idea was suggested in the previous RfD. It seems to be a disagreement on that. Magioladitis (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, said it best in the previous RfD, "Retarget to WebCite with a further hattnote. This deals with the X-namespace aspect, avoids redlinks, it's plausible someone looking for WebCite might reverse the words - i.e. covers all bases.". Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Makes sense. I think anyone looking for a citation template is familiar enough with Wikipedia to know that it's not in mainspace. Unless it's being used as a shortcut (as mentioned in the previous RfD), and the usage seem to imply that it very well could be. I suppose we'll have to see how many users show up here wondering why their oft-used shortcut is suddenly up for deletion.. if they don't show up to oppose, we can probably safely assume that readers are genuinely typing in "Cite web" in the search box, probably looking for WebCite, but could also be simply misspelling "site" as in "web site". --  &oelig; &trade; 18:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is not that anyone is confused. The point is that we want efficiency to get to a very commonly used template, when the proposed alternative has nothing to do with "cite web".--Metallurgist (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - As in (i) CfD 2008 April 8, (ii) CfD 2008 October 29, and (iii) CfD 2010 September 27, this oft-used shortcut still very useful and redirects currently do not interfere with article content so no driving need to delete or re-target in face of opposition. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, the improper uses meant to redirect to the template should be corrected accordingly, not used as a basis for continuing a bad habit. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  22:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support with hatnote to the template.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 07:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I oppose the proposed retargetting given the current state of that page. Web cite is, itself, a redirect to WebCite (capitalized and run together) which is a proprietary service about website archiving.  Their service is supportive of the concept of scholarly citations but has nothing to do with the format, layout or data elements to be included in a proper citation.  A retargetting to the more general concept of internet citations might be appropriate (if hatnoted) but as far as I know, no such article exists.  In the meantime, the redirect is creating no confusion that I can see and remains in active use. The argument that editors should know better ignores the fact that 1) they don't and 2) they (we) are all volunteers.  If the redirect makes their lives easier, then we should leave it alone until and unless it creates actual and demonstrable harm to the encyclopedia.  Rossami (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea that we may end up one day yo mix wikipedia terms with real life terms. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Strongly Oppose. Template:Cite book, Template:Cite news, Template:Cite journal and Template:Cite web were specifically exempted from cross-namespace rules in more than one deletion dicussion, in wonderful examples of WP:IAR and . These are used constantly (over 100 times a day for Cite web, similar page views for the others), and help with one of Wikipedia's biggest problems; lack of citations. Just now I discovered this debate while using the redirect, and I strongly urge that the nomination be withdrawn. The closing admin should be aware that the consensus for many years has been to keep these.  Abductive  (reasoning) 02:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above.TR 15:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, but only if there is internal consistency. All such redirects should be removed (cite journal, cite book, etc), and hatnotes should appear on all "cite x" articles, directing editors to the appropriate templates. Either way, though, this should be applied consistently. Wilford Nusser (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose Concur with above opposition and: There is no logic in redirecting it to a completely different thing. People typing "cite web" want to go to the template. My browser is set up so that I type something, such as "spider monkey" and it goes to that page on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I cant do this with templates because mozilla thinks I want to use "Template" as a protocol (like http). So being able to type cite web is very useful. But regardless of that, it is useful for everyone to have a commonly used template accessible by typing 8 keys instead of 17. And again, there is absolutely no relation between "cite web" and "webcite". By this logic, we should have website also redirect to webcite.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)