Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 June 16

June 16
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 16, 2012

Microsoft connect



 * 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 to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


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

Hi. The target of this redirect provides no information about its subject, "Microsoft Connect", which is a website run by Microsoft Corporation. I advise deleting it. Best regards. Codename Lisa (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... This title was an article about a not-especially-notable Microsoft product website.  Early drafts were poorly written and it was speedy-deleted four times on the day of creation.  In my opinion, those speedy-deletions were largely inappropriate because they were too rapidly and too aggressively applied.  (Except the copyvio-version.  That had to go.)  The creator's poor english appears to have been a primary justification rather than the inherent suitability of the topic.  Regardless, the page creation and re-creation continued until finally user:SarekOfVulcan turned the title into a redirect.  While the reverts continued, they appear to have been more controllable after the overwrite.  Redirects from a non-notable or semi-notable product to a more notable parent entity are routine.  And while it is usual for a redirect to actually be mentioned on the target page, it is not required. Given the page's troubled history, I am inclined to keep the redirect as is.  This preempts further attempts to recreate the deleted content (and while the early drafts may be objectionable, it is not yet proven that the topic itself fails to meet our inclusion criteria, so SALTing is inappropriate).  Keeping the redirect also keeps the Talk page alive so that we can try to have a conversation with the article creator to determine if and when the topic does meet our inclusion criteria and preserves the pagehistory in case pieces are then useful. In the meantime, the redirect is doing no harm.  Rossami (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Rossami I investigated a little to check your statements and I am afraid what I see in the article history does not justify your rationale for keeping the redirect. Contrary to what you said, the dispute did not stop with SarekOfVulcan's turning the article into a redirect; instead, a fierce revert war took place that only concluded when User:Google6666 received an indefinite block. Another reason to dismiss your rationale is the fact that anyone willing to re-create the article will probably create a Microsoft Connect instead. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that the disputed editing stopped completely. But compared to the disputes in the deleted history, the fight since SarekOfVulcan's decision has been tame.  Rossami (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Well, I see three reverts before and three reverts after that point. So, I don't see anything tamer. Anyway, the troublemaker is blocked. If he decide to evade block, a redirect will not stop him. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Were you able to review the deleted history? I see an additional 15 reverts or so - arguably more if you include the four speedy-deletions in the count.  The fact that the user has been blocked helps a lot but as a general rule, a redirect is still easier to watchlist and protect than a blank title.  Rossami (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. An uncreated page is equally easy to watchlist. (You did know that, right?) But most importantly, a redirect must only exist when it helps bona fide readers reach authentic information, not to serve as an illegitimate alternative to salting. Our first priority is our bona fide readership who should not be lead astray. If you believe there is genuine risk, then please be bold and salt the page. Otherwise, please don't resort to half-measures that are already proven ineffective. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "easy to watchlist" - Yes and no. It used to be impossible to watchlist a blank title and it still doesn't present the same on a watchlist but you are correct that it is now possible.  To your other point, however, our Protection Policy explicitly tells us to limit page protection to the minimum extent necessary to protect the project.  Protection is inherently anti-wiki.  It creates a section of the encyclopedia at odds with our motto (The encyclopedia that anyone can edit).  Salting a page is overkill were a non-harmful redirect will do.  Also, your statement that "a redirect must only exist ..." is not strictly true.  Aid to navigation is one important function of redirects but not the only one.  The relevant question to the debate here is whether the redirect is harmful.  I still don't see any harm in this case.  Redirects from non-notable products to a more notable parent article are routine.  How is this different?  Rossami (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello again.
 * So, basically, to summarize your message, you don't see harm in this redirect. How about our readership being led astray? They search a sprawling article for the topic with no result, wasting their time. As for what you call "routine", a prevalent mistake, in my humble opinion, is different from a community consensus. So other stuff exist is not a good reason.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 17:28, 23 June 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.

Bob Bradley (composer/producer)



 * 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) 21:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


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

I don't think anybody is going to search for "composer / producer" with the slash and such, but this should be discussed. Till 06:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This redirect is the artifact of a recent pagemove.  The article existed at that title for almost 6 years before the move.  The potential for link rot is high.  The redirect is not harmful or confusing and is not in the way of any other content.  While not the ideal title for the article (hence the move), redirects are cheap.  There is some small benefit to keeping it and none for deleting it.  Rossami (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rossami and WP:CHEAP. Nothing is gained from deleting it and retaining it does no harm.  James ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 10:28pm • 12:28, 16 June 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.

Wikipedia:HAPPYPLACE



 * 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 to delete.  Note:  There is a plausible argument to retarget.  That is an ordinary-editor decision which should probably be discussed further on the redirect's Talk page.  Rossami (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


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

Bad Joke. Delete per WP:ANISUCKS and WP:Sarcasm is really helpful. Totally unused except in RFD. MichaelSchumacherMercedes (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I think it's a pretty good joke, personally. Also, how on earth can you claim it is sarcasm? For many editors, WP:ANI is their happy place. I don't think it's sarcasm. It's ironic, sure, but I'm not using it to express contempt for ANI. I genuinely think ANI is a truly wonderful and magical place. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. No clear connection to the target page. There are many project space pages that some number of editors define as their "happy place," rendering the correct target of such a redirect highly ambiguous. Dcoetzee 08:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - As much as the joke is funny, it is hardly used and is completely unrelated to the target page.  James ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 10:19pm • 12:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per creator - David Gerard (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Hi. So far, my understanding of the Wikipedia policy pages is that redirects are tools that are only meant to make life easier for readers by providing them with a shortcut or an alternate route to their destination. Therefore, in my humble opinion, this redirect, which does not do the latter, is not useful and should be deleted. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a correctly formatted redirect, in the WP: pseudo-namespace that is shorter (14 vs 48 characters) than the target so by any definition it is a shortcut. As the title is different to the target, it does provide an alternative route to the target - indeed as no two pages may share the same title (due to software restrictions) all redirects do this and cannot not do. Whether it is useful or not (and two people above have said they find it so (which per WP:R point 5 is a reason keep a redirect), it does serve the purposes you say it doesn't (and they are not the only reasons redirects exist). Keep or Retarget (somewhere like Department of fun may make sense) as there is no reason to delete it - it isn't offensive or otherwise harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, Thryduulf. I'm sorry, but I am a human and I cannot help but fail to see this redirect as an arbitrary strings of well-formatted characters! To me, this redirect reads "Happy Place" which is very offensive, very hurtful and completely irrelevant to its target. Therefore, feel free to vote keep if you so wish, but please do so at your own expense! Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Though I endorse you, don't punish other editors just because they have opinions at XFD. 218.22.21.3 (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, 218.22.21.3. I have no punishing power in Wikipedia. But if one day, I gained such power, I will bear your statement in mind. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:17, 28 June 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.

Cmt1a



 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * → Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Erroneous capitalisation in the title. If ever, then it should read CMT1A. Still, I see no reason why of ~45 subtypes of CMT (Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease) - which go CMT1A, CMT1B, CMT1C, CMT2A1 etc., etc. - only CMT1A is to have a separate redirect entry. Propose to delete.  kashmiri 00:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Erroneous capitalization.   --Benefros (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Capitalization variants are routine and are an encouraged use of redirects.  Remember that not all of the mechanisms by which our readers navigate the wiki are case-insensitive.  The redirect has a clear connection to the target article, is not obviously harmful or confusing and is not in the way of other content.  There is a slightly better argument that this particular subtype is obscure and doesn't "deserve" a redirect and I certainly would not recommend the creation of more in this pattern.  But once the redirect has been created, there is no benefit to deleting it.  Redirects really are that cheap.  Rossami (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Erroneous capitalisation is helpful and per WP:R: "The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form, or to some other grammatical form."  James ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 10:26pm • 12:26, 16 June 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.