Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 23

November 23
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 23, 2011

Sports venue



 * 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 wrong venue, Requested moves handles moves you can't make yourself. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


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

This redirect has a history that is preventing me from moving another article to its location: "Sport venue" to "Sports venue". Neither phrase is officially defined by major dictionaries, however the latter occurs more frequently in publications and on the internet. In addition, there are over 300 items linking to sports venue as opposed to less than 50 for sport venue. GoneIn60 (talk) 00:12, 24 November 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.

Hand turkey



 * 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 without prejudice to recreation as a stand-alone article. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 21:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


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

The act of drawing a turkey by tracing your hand is mentioned absolutely nowhere in the target, rendering this meaningless. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I agree. That redirect is no longer valid.  I looked through the history of Domestic turkey. The Turkeys in culture section that this redirect used to point to was removed in this edit almost three years ago.  GoneIn60 (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly delete. This does get quite a few hits, so my natural inclination is to retarget it somewhere. Despite extensive searching I've not been able to find any article that would make a suitable alternative target. Thryduulf (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Like Thryduulf, I am reluctant to delete this page and would prefer it to be re-targeted. In light of this, I wrote a short stub at User:France3470/sandbox12 on which we could potentially put here as an alternative to deletion. I think the topic is notable, as a tradition and symbol of the holiday of Thanksgiving and although this is never going to be outstanding encyclopedic content it is still a widespread and popular cultural icon. Another alternative would be to add some content to Wiktionary and make this a soft redirect there. France 3470   ( talk ) 21:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Convert to article, specifically France3470's article (plus a stub tag) D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  00:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or re-target to France 3470  's article or add that information to the Domestic turkey article (or some other relevant article, if there is one, such as Thanksgiving?). Just because something exists or is a term used by the public does not in and of itself mean that it warrants a redirect on Wikipedia. The redirect should only exist if there is relevant content on Wikipedia for it to target to. Having this redirect to Domestic turkey as the article currently stands does no one any good and only serves to confuse people who are wondering what a "hand turkey" is. MsBatfish (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Taking WP:BOLD, I noted that the target article referred exclusively, even in the title, to the Domesticated Turkey not a domestic turkey (which I imagine would be a turkey living in Turkey, or something). Thus I have moved the article there, and thus, Domestic turkey is now also a redirect. Which probably makes some of these double redirects.


 * I am sorry if I have muddied the waters there but I don't think it affects the discussion about the redirect for Hand turkey, only its target. Si Trew (talk) 00:02, 16 December 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.

Hoyt Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line)



 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → Hoyt Street (IRT Eastern Parkway Line) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 *  → Hoyt Street (IRT Eastern Parkway Line) (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 *  → Hoyt Street (IRT Eastern Parkway Line) (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 *  → Hoyt Street (IRT Eastern Parkway Line) (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 *  → Hoyt Street (IRT Eastern Parkway Line) (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete all: This is confusing, the station is not on the Lexington Avenue Line, it is on the Eastern Parkway line and can only be served by trains from the IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line. Trains from the Lexington Avenue Line bypass it on the express tracks through the middle of the station. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 23 November 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.

St Austell, Cornwall, UK



 * 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.  Lenticel  ( talk ) 07:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


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

The redirect is overly and unnecessarily disambiguated, as the target is the primary topic. As such should be deleted. Zangar (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as harmless valid search term. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. This is exactly the sort of redirect we want as search aids. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - harmless;no policy grounds for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:26, 23 November 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.

Azad Kashmir / Pakistan occupied Kashmir



 * 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.  No consensus to delete.  Further, no violation of neutral point of view policy.  Malinaccier  ( talk ) 21:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → Pakistan-administered Kashmir (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Awkward, unneccessary and unusually long redirect. It is redundant since there is already a redirect called Pakistan occupied Kashmir. It also beats me why someone would enter a search query in this unusual manner. Mar4d (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator. TopGun also phrased what I would have meant better than me. Mar4d (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. It used to be an article. Then the article was moved to Azad Kashmir, and this redirect was created. Nearly two years it was redirected, so it no longer has a valid reason to exist. Furthermore, the external linking issue is screwed anyway. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep to maintain the attribution history. It's also getting between 20 and 50 hits a month, well above background noise, so it is apparently proving useful to people. While it isn't in the usual formation of our article titles, neither this nor either of being awkward nor being unusually long are valid reasons to delete (although the first is a reason why it might be ). The target isn't incorrect, and it isn't in the way of anything. So when a redirect has several benefits and no downsides there is only one possible recommendation. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The only reason it's getting these "hits" is because when you type "Azad Kashmir" in the search box, you only get three results in the drop-down list: namely Azad Kashmir, Azad Kashmir Regiment and then this redirect. People most likely click on it out of curiosity rather than genuinely putting it as a search term (just like I did). If there were a lot of articles starting with "Azad Kashmir", this wouldn't even appear in the drop down list and hardly anyone would notice that redirect. And there are better redirects than this which people would more likely use if they want to look up Pakistani Kashmir, such as Pakistan occupied Kashmir, Pakistan-held Kashmir etc. Besides, as TopGun pointed out, "Azad Kashmir" and "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" are not the same thing. Added to this is the fact that the redirect also has a WP:POV and bad taste attached to it. Mar4d (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

--lTopGunl (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: There are more than one reasons why this is completely useless:
 * 1) Too long, no body's going to search for a name that long.
 * 2) The target is not correct (infact it can not be redirected to Azad Kashmir or Pakistan Administered Kashmir both for the reason given below), hence misinforming incase a searcher does find this in search results as a redirect. I added hatnotes for the exact reason of this to the articles Azad Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir so that people wont confuse this. Azad Kashmir is an administrative state under Pakistani sovereignty while Pakistan-administered Kashmir is the total area of Kashmir region controlled by Pakistan which includes Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.
 * 3) The title "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" is already pointing to Pakistan-administered Kashmir and "Indian occupied Kashmir" points to Jammu and Kashmir for the articles to have neutral names. The current lengthy redirect which is inherently useless as a redirect itself seems to be clear promotion of POV.


 * Keep as per Thryduulf. Forgot to look the stats. Really seems used and useful as such. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The information it gives to a reader is factually wrong. Azad Kashmir / Pakistan administered Kashmir gives an implication that they are the same while one is a part of the other. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The redirect doesn't give information. Instead it brings reader to the page where the relation of Pakistan administered Kashmir and Azad Kashmir is explained in lede. Please, stop arguing just to argue. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing for the sake of argument, the title of redirect gives incorrect information and when it leads it to the target it gives that implication too. The fact it is explained other wise in the lead only makes it inconsistent. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RNEUTRAL for an explanation of why the Wikipedia standard is that redirects from incorrect and non-neutral names are often encouraged. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That only explains the POV part, but the factual incorrectness is still not covered by this. Also, as Czarkoff previously stated, this has redirected for nearly two years to serve that purpose. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because it has been redirected for two years doesn't mean, in an of itself, that its purpose is over (which is why R3 is time limited). The facts are that it is still used, and we can't know whether it's people finding it in the search box (although I think marking it with removes it from the drop-down), finding it via google, finding it on external mirrors, finding it in old bookmarks, following links from other websites that haven't been updated or just plain searching for it. While it is still being used there is harm in deleting it. As for the factual inaccuracy part, Wikipedia's job is to educate people, and in cases like this we do so by directing their enquiry about something that is inaccurate to the page explaining the actual situation - see Koala bear (although there are better examples). Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 24 November 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.