Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 27

December 27
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 27, 2012

Australian head of state



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * → Australian head of state dispute (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Nominated the redirect for deletion, because it's being used to promote the target article. Also, there's no Canadian head of state, British head of state, New Zealand head of state etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep  A useful and practical redirect. This was the old title of the target article. There is a dispute over the identity of the Australian head of state, and the target article provides the various views and arguments without promoting either Queen or Governor-General. Perhaps there should be similar articles (and redirects) describing the similar moves away from monarchy in Canada, New Zealand and so on. But that's a matter for monarchists and Canadians such as GoodDay, I guess. As an Australian, I'll stick to what I know. --Pete (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not sure I fully understand the nominator's objection, but as far as I can see, redirects are cheap and this seems like a reasonable search term that would be useful as long as the target article exists, especially since it was the prior title of the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Skyring has been promoting the 'dispute' throughout Wikipedia (example:Head of state) for years & so this redirect is just apart of that agenda. Redirects shouldn't be used for PoV pushing. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The redirect is clearly a useful search term, and is pointing at the article that describes the contemporary situation where there is no agreement about who holds the position, and I would support articles/redirects for the other terms listed. If you believe that another editor has been engaging in inappropriate behaviour then you should discuss it with them and get other opinions as part of the dispute resolution process. RfD is not part of that process, and whether the redirect is being used inappropriately is irrelevant to it's usefulness as any page can be misused. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems like the the best place to direct it. I've no doubt it's useful to readers.  No argument has been presented for deletion.  Wily D  08:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Would retargeting it to Government of Australia solve the issue? The most important thing to consider is what topic the readers are likely to be looking for. If a reader types in Australian head of state surely they're more likely looking for a basic description of the role of head of state in Australia, not the political debate surrounding it. That section contains a hatnote to that article if they want to go that way, but the current target seems a bit unexpected to me. Osiris (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I support Osiris' suggestion. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I actually think Australian Head of State should be the main article and Australian head of state dispute should be the redirect (or deleted) --Surturz (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2013 (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.

14. amendment



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


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

There is no article named 1. amendment, 2. amendment, 3. amendment, 4. amendment, 5. amendment, 6. amendment, 7. amendment, 8. amendment, 9. amendment, 10. amendment, 11. amendment, 12. amendment, 13. amendment, or 15. amendment, so suffice it to say 14. amendment is a typo and only has traffic from the search box suggest result when the user types "14 amendment" the suggest list result generates misleading traffic where this redirect should not exist due to implausible typo, which can be easily determined with logical analysis. Second nomination. JBrown23 (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per my extensive reasoning when this was last discussed in September at Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 9. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment You used traffic analysis to determine its worth, however as I mentioned, it has not been removed from the auto-suggest, which generates misleading traffic. I find it strange that you would list all ten reasons why a redirect may be deleted when I already gave my reasoning, which already best matches reason 8. Longer is not better. Misleading traffic from auto-suggest invalidates your reasoning for keep.--JBrown23 (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there is a bug at present that means the removal from autosuggest is not happening (I've reported this in several places). It matters not why the redirect is getting traffic, as it is not possible to know where hits are coming from, all that matters is that it is getting uses. The length is irrelevant - if people use it they use it. Whether longer is or is not better is a value judgement that is equally irrelevant. Finally, because redirects are so cheap, it needs to be established that keeping a redirect is harmful before it is deleted, I see no evidence that it is doing any harm at all. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason for deletion. Viable entry, since some things are formatted in such a manner in the world at large. WP:CHEAP -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know of such a formatting in the anglophone world. Could you please elaborate? --JBrown23 (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We do not cater to the "anglophone world". We present topics of global notability, written in English, for global consumption. -- My 76 Strat  (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harmless. bd2412  T 02:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - plausible typo. No rationale has been presented for deletion. Wily D  08:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment the rationale given is that it is a typo, and implausible since there is no reason or custom to type a dot as seen in the article. --JBrown23 (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a typo and it's not implausible. It's so far from either that such rationales are nonsequiters, and thus, no rationale at all. Wily D  07:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Implausible typo, and a style that is used in the real world. As noted, we have no similarly named redirects, and no one has appeared to ever need them, or they would exist. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep this is not an implausible typo, it is a plausible search term, redirects are cheep, and we want to connect readers to our content regardless of how they might rationalize their search approach. An implausible typo would be something like FFFourteenth Amendment or fOURTEENTH aMENDMENT for example. Heck I'd even say create one for 14 Amendment and 14th Amendment to cover those possible search attempts. -- My 76 Strat  (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2012 (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.

Erick (TX)



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


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

Erick, Oklahoma is not in Texas. This was created to turn an erroneous link in Interstate 40 in Texas blue, but is nonsense. Erick is the second town (the first is Texola, pop 36) after leaving the lone star state. K7L (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. --JBrown23 (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2012 (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.

"Eliza Allen Houston"



 * 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 18:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


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

Unlikely search term, because it would require the user to actually double type the quotation marks, as in ""Eliza Allen Houston"" in order to search for the exact phrase. Additionally, the proper search term already exists: see Eliza Allen Houston. Senator2029 “let's talk”  10:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - plausible, if unlikely, search term. No argument has been advanced for deletion. Wily D  14:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not the sort of thing to encourage, but harmless, and cheap. Anyone more familiar with Google searches might instinctively use quotation marks. bd2412  T 02:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely implausible, per nominator (we shouldn't need to cater for misguided souls who insist on wrapping search queries in double double quotes). — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There is  no reason to keep redirects where the difference from the target is surrounding quotation marks--if it makes any sense at all it would make equal sense to do it with all multi word phrases, including all personal names.  DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, implausible search term per nom. Siuenti (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2013 (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.

Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (Mauritius)



 * 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 - see Requested moves. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * → Minister of Finance of Mauritius (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (Mauritius), to move the page Minister of Finance of Mauritius to Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (Mauritius), to comply with the original name of the Ministry Kingroyos (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the instructions at the top of the page, if you are unable to complete a move due to a redirect you need to go to Requested moves rather than here. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2012 (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.

Template:Other people1



 * 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 18:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Unused redirect. A TfD some time ago was between delete or redirect due to some transclusions. I suggest that we delete it now (or redirect it to Other people). Magioladitis (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * → Template:Other people3 (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * note: earlier TfD: -DePiep (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * REtarget to Other people, first in a series, so a 1 being in existence is assumed to be usable.-- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. It was disapproved earlier (2 years ago) becouse it was "in use". Well, today no more. Also the number "1" is not significant. It would not lead or mislead any editor. (it is not a meaningful prospectove redirect). -22:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * retarget per 65.92.180.225. No benefit in deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What series? Does the number have any significance? What assumption do we rely on? -DePiep (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The series is "Other people1", "Other people2", etc. It matters not whether the number has any significance, only that people expect it to be there. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not likely. Editors do not just type a number, they look for a specific hatnote. -DePiep (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2013 (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.

The Man with the Bag (Song)



 * 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 18:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


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

Delete the article "The Man with the bag (Song). I created this on 27 Dec 12, but it's unnecessary given that a page titled "The Man with the Bag (Christmas Song)" also exists.  We don't need both. EdJF (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - both are plausible search terms, if people thought to create both, other people will undoubtably use both. Ergo, we need both. Wily D  15:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a plausible search term per Wily D and is doing no harm (it's not in the way of other content, it's not misleading, it's not an attack page, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2012
 * Delete, the article The Man with the Bag provides disambiguation for the term + there is a second redirect page called The Man with the Bag (Christmas Song) that does the same thing as this redirect (they should both be deleted!) + the actual name of the song (Everybody's Waitin' For) The Man with the Bag already exists = too much confusion.Vortex4id (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirects exist to help people find the content they are looking for, and both the nominated redirect and the extra one you note do exactly that, there is no scope for confusion here - if you don't search for or follow a link to one of these redirects then you don't know they exist. The disambiguation page does exactly what disambiguation pages are designed to do - explaining that the search term is ambiguous and linking to the articles the reader is likely to be interested in. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2012 (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.