Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 10

January 10
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 10, 2011

Christoph Harbsmeier



 * 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 Snow keep. Mhiji 18:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * → Thesaurus Linguae Sericae (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Not mentioned in the article. Geschichte (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep from the second sentence of the target article, "The project was conceived by Christoph Harbsmeier, its chief editor...". That looks like a mention and a reason for the redirect to me. Thryduulf (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How did I miss that? Hmm... Geschichte (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Individual is mentioned and has been for some time, so there is no reason to suspect disruptive editing. --MegaSloth (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

English public school slang



 * 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 all. Ruslik_ Zero 20:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → Public school (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Public school (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Public school (links to redirect • [ history] • )

There's no sensible article to redirect it to - I could point it to Independent school (United Kingdom), but there's nothing on slang in that article (similarly 2 other variants of the article title). ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * comment. This is a very old page, indeed it was nominated for deletion in 2003 but I can't find any record of that discussion. Content was then merged to Public school (UK) (I'm guessing as a result of the VfD) which was moved to Independent school (United Kingdom) in 2005. Public School (UK) was changed from a redirect to an article in May 2010 and now contains pretty much the same list of slang as the redirect under discussion originally did, equally unsourced. I'm not sure what to do with the redirect, but lists of slang are more something for a Wiktionary glossary than an encyclopaedia article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've now found the deletion discussion here. Things were conducted a little differently back then and it's only from the edit summary of the following edit that you can determine that the outcome was indeed to merge. My first thought is that we should preserve the redirect for edit history purposes, but it doesn't appear at first glance that any of the content that was merged has survived to the present day, so I don't know what the legal position is. In any case the title is as the nom points out misleading, as there is no current list of slang. What has happened previously in these cases is that the page is moved to a non-misleading title so that the edit history remains, I think in some cases it's been moved to a talk page of the relevant article (so Talk:Independent school (United Kingdom)/List of English public school slang perhaps) with a link given from the main talk page to wherever it is moved, but I'm a couple of years out of date on current practice in this regard and I'm not immediately sure where to look to update my knowledge. Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I hadn't even come across the Public School (UK), it's not linked from public school and looks at first glance like it should be merged into Independent school (United Kingdom). It would also be a better target for the redirects above than anything I knew about when I first raised the issue. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with Thryduulf - keep for history. Yes, the creation of the redirect was an important part of (and sometimes the only way of) documenting the merger of content.  The merged content may no longer be in the live version of the article but it remains in history and may exist in mirror sites.  There is some academic debate about whether GFDL applies in situations like this but I believe that we should be conservative in copyright matters.  The history behind the redirect should be kept.  Note: Nothing stops anyone from repointing the redirect to a better target if one can be found.  I have no opinion on the proper current target.  But the pagehistory should be kept.  Rossami (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apology ~ i just redirected two of these to Independent school (United Kingdom) without realising that they were under discussion; my carelessness, fully. Cheers, LindsayHello
 * I agree with Rossami; keep for the history, should anyone find it possible to create a useful wikticle or, more likely, a relevant section in the probable place. Cheers, LindsayHello 09:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

2030 FIFA World Cup



 * 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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * → FIFA World Cup (links to redirect • [ history] • )

proposal of deletion. Full Crystal ball redirect (who knows what will happen then; even if we think this it is logic that we have a world cup then), with no history of similar redirects (no 2024 FIFA World Cup etc). No specific info on this worldcup in the target article... L.tak (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MADEUP. There might not even be a FIFA World Cup in 2030... Mhiji 02:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic)/Articles needing Arabic Script



 * 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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

CNR that receives low page view statistics. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  04:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Category:Articles needing Arabic script (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * Question Why is a redirect from Wikipedia space to Category space a problem? Do note that this page has a significant edit history. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnecessary CNR - hardly used. Mhiji 14:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, neither "unnecessary" nor "hardly used" are reasons to delete a redirect. They are reasons why we wouldn't normally keep a redirect that has other problems, but as with simply being CNR, that is not a reason in itself to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is. Again, there are several reasons we shouldn't have CNRs. CNRs are OK in some circumstances, but we shouldn't have them unless they are really necessary. What benefit do we have from having this redirect? It's not a shortcut (it's actually longer). It's not linked to from any where. It's not at all useful. If we did want a link from Naming conventions (Arabic) to the category, just link to it from that page directly (which is unnecessary since the page is only "retained for historical reference" anyway. There's no need for a subpage. Mhiji 20:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As you say yourself "CNRs are OK in some circumstances" which proves that being a CNR is not a reason to delete in and of itself. This isn't linked anywhere internally, but still 5-6 people a month seem to find it useful suggesting that there are links to it from outside Wikipedia. CNRs from the article namespace to project namespaces are one thing, as the article namespace is for readers and the project namespace is for editors. However, this is a redirect out of the Wikipedia namespace, so to have got here you must be an editor so you will be familiar with the difference between the Wikipedia and Category namespaces. I agree that we should delete CNRs when they are harmful, but I don't see a reason to delete them when they are not. The only reason you have offered for why this might be harmful is that it's a CNR, but you haven't explained why a redirect from he Wikipedia to Category namespaces is harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I said CNRs are OK in some circumstances - these circumstances are very few and far between. For example, I wouldn't suggest we delete CAT:SD because it is used so much, it's unlikely to refer to an article and lots of users find it useful as a shortcut. We should only have CNRs if they are really necessary. As an editor, (and I'm perfectly aware of the various namespaces) when browsing WP: namespace (or any other) I don't want to click a link and then suddenly find myself in category namespace, just the same as I wouldn't want to suddenly find myself in Book: space or Template talk: space or User: space etc. without clicking on a link to that. And users shouldn't have to double check which namespace they are in after they click a link. And we shouldn't assume everyone in the WP: space are experienced editors - if I was a new user I'd find this very confusing. If I click on a link, I expect to go to where it says on the link (or possibly somewhere similar if it's been moved or whatever) - I wouldn't expect (or want) to be transported to a completely different part of the site. I'm sure you'll agree, we should never link to this redirect, it's much better to link to the category directly. Also it's not useful as a search term in the search box. As I've described below, a handful of page visits doesn't show that this redirect is useful. So what possible benefit do we have by keeping this? You haven't provided any reason to keep. Mhiji 05:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per by above comments. This is not harmful and a few people apparently find it useful, so I see no reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because it is visited 5 times a month doesn't mean 5 people use it a month. I suspect the majority of visits are either by accident or by editors browsing lists of CNRs (I wouldn't be surprised if I visited it last month). Again, what possible benefit do we have from having this redirect? If you can't provide any even possible benefit to keeping it, it should go. Don't be ridiculous - why would anyone link to this page off wiki?! Plus Google doesn't seem to think that there is... Small numbers of visits like this doesn't show that people find it useful - it's more likely they've come across it accidently. When redirects have just a handful of hits per month, that's no reason to keep them because "a few people apparently find it useful" - you don't know that. It's more likely that they came across it accidently and so actually find it unuseful. If someone came forward and said "I use it" that would be different. Mhiji 05:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The proper question is "What benefit do we get from deleting the redirect".  Unless there is clear potential for confusion or ambiguity or the redirect is directly harmful or malicious, the project gets nothing from deleting a redirect.  We get no server space back, nothing runs smoother, nobody's workload goes down, ...  Cross-namespace redirects may sometimes be inappropriate but often are useful.  In this case, the redirect's pagehistory documents work that was done before the creation of the category (and about the same time as the introduction of the Category function into the MediaWiki software if I remember correctly).  Rossami (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Church of Latter-Day Saints))



 * 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 and histmerge one revision to the target page. Ruslik_ Zero 20:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Unusual redirect receiving low stats. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  04:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * → Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * Delete This was the result of a page move in 2003, presumably because the double closing parenthesis is a typo. 2003 is long enough ago that it's not needed any longer imho. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnecessary. Should have previously been R3'd really. Mhiji 14:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What is now R3 was not a speedy-deletion criterion until long after 2003. Thryduulf (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I realise... what I mean is it should have been deleted previously for the reason which is described here. Sorry if I confused you at all. Mhiji 05:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The pagehistory does more than just document the correction of an unnecessary parenthesis.  It is part of the pagetitle trail through several different names.  More importantly, this is the only trail left of those old names.  These pagemoves were made before the MediaWiki software was changed to automatically document pagemoves in the moved page's history.  Rossami (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: Would documenting that trail (the titles, movers, and anything else relevant) on the talk page of the current article satisfy legal or other requirements for preservation of history? Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, transcribing that documentation into the talk page would meet all the requirements of GFDL that I know about. The question is why we would bother.  It's extra work to get the same result as just leaving the redirect in place.  Unless a redirect is malicious or harmful, they really are that cheap.  Rossami (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As Rossami objected to my deletion on my talk page (diff), I've undeleted it and un-archived this discussion. – Athaenara  ✉  15:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Very old redirect that's not hurting anything. The older the redirect, the greater the chances of causing confusion by deletion.  Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * History merge the necessary revision(s) documenting the pagemove, then delete. I do not think that we should forever preserve pages which exist for reasons as trivial (not meant in a legal sense) as a typo. Perhaps even a history merge is not needed, and it would be sufficient to perform a dummy edit with the following edit summary:

-- Black Falcon (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Ukridge (novel)



 * 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 19:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Obscure synonym for target article that receives low page hits. See also Talk:Ukridge_(novel for a similar reasoning. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  03:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC) The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination.  Please do not modify it.
 * → Ukridge (short stories) (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * Keep, doesn't seem at all obscure to me. We have more articles about novels than about short stories, and so (novel) is a far more frequent disambiguator. It doesn't look like it conflicts with anything and helps a few people find what they are looking for, so I see no reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The book is not a novel, and does not even look like one. Clearly the creator of this article thought it was, but it seems extremely unlikely that many people will think it is. In addition, anyone typing "Ukridge" into the search box will find a link to the article will come up before they get as far as typing in "(novel)", so they will still find the article. The only way this redirect is likely to be of any use to anyone is if someone types "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukridge (novel)" into the navigation window of their browser, and how likely is that, for a novel which doesn't exist? In answer to Thryduulf, yes, "(novel)" is a far more frequent disambiguator, but so what? In this case it is not a correct or relevant disambiguator. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I frequently navigate to Wikipedia articles by typing wp article (disambiguator) into my url bar ("wp" is a keyword for the Wikipedia search), or if I'm using other computers I will type the url out in full. If I'm looking for a book that I've heard of but don't know much about (a very likely reason to be reading the article) then the disamiguators that would seem most likely to me would be (book) and (novel). Even if it isn't a novel, that's what I'm likely to search for if I don't know it isn't one. This redirect seems useful per reasons to keep 2, 3 and 5 - we even have for situations like this. If you're worried about it appearing in the search results drop down box then it is possible to prevent it being shown - I confess to not knowing how, but I believe that being in  does the job (and the incorrect disambiguation template categorises there). Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep because it helps to document the pagemove. Note:  I do not believe that either title is entirely appropriate.  This is neither about a novel nor about a short story.  Rather, it is a collection of related short stories republished as a compliation.  Such a compilation would be racked with the novels in most bookstores and would be plausibly called a novel by a casual reader.  Perhap "Ukridge (book)" would have been the better title but to me that's a trivial distinction.  And regardless of the ideal title, nothing about the redirect creates confusion for future readers.  Redirects are not endorsements of a particular pagetitle.  Rossami (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

WP;FPC



 * 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Low traffic + cross-namespace. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  02:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Featured picture candidates (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * Delete per nom. Mhiji 03:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as an implausible redirect. Clearly, it was created by accident.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  10:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per McLerristarr. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP; SAY (with a space) is being discussed in another RFD but I also found WP;AN. This is a common typo that happens when you don't push the shift key down hard enough or for long enough when typing WP:ANYTHING. I wonder if it would be possible to make a script/greasmonkey/firefox extension or gadget to deal with this? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It probably is possible (although I'm no programmer) but I'm not sure how desirable it would be. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and others



 * 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 speedily deleted under CSD G7 (author request) by Prodego. Non-admin closure by :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  03:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * → 2011 Tucson shooting (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Part of Move war not a plausible redirect. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

John Knightley



 * 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 Re-targeted to  Emma. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Implausible redirect; "John" is not "George". :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  07:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ xplicit  00:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * → George Knightley (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * Redirect John Knightley to Emma or somewhere else relevant. John Knightley is apparently George Knightley's brother.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  04:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Redirect to Emma. He's hardly mentioned in the George Knightley article, but there's a paragraph about him in the Emma article. Mhiji 23:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * From the article's history, it appears that the article incorrectly identified the notable character (George) as John both in the text and the pagetitle. The redirect was automatically created when the page was moved during the cleanup.  As such, it should be kept for history.  As to the best current target, redirects from a non-notable person to a notable family member are routine but in this case, both are fictional.  Since the target page does not explicitly discuss the more minor character (John), a retargetting to the fictional work's main page is more appropriate.  (No opinion on section-linking.)  Rossami (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)