Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 15

March 15
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 15, 2012

U make me sick i make music



 * 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 11:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


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

I can't see a reason for this redirect?  Jay Jay Talk to me 21:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * According to this website, that's the name of a song on the album "Sudden Death" by Blend Mishkin. I can find no connection to the band Soundgarden.  Delete unless someone can show a plausible connection before the RfD expires.  Rossami (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: no indication that the redirect's name is somehow connected with the target, bot-level stats. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:21, 16 March 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.

Duckface



 * 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 until a wiktionary page is created. Ruslik_ Zero 11:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutly wrong redirect. Alofok (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * → Gurn (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Google establishes "duckface" as a "facial expression made by pressing one’s lips together and outward, resulting in a duck-bill like appearance." The creator of that redirect said in 2010 Not quite the same as gurn (and I'm not sure of the ref in gurn being Australian) but it's a very common term. It'll do for the mo.  The gurn article says that it is any "distorted facial expression" which would seem to include a duckface as a subset.  I see no possibility of an encyclopedia article on duckface that would ever rise above the level of a prohibited dictionary definition.  Redirects from a non- or semi-notable topic to a more notable parent topic are routine.  If Wiktionary had a definition page for duckface, I would argue to retarget using wi.  They don't (yet) so I am left with keep as a redirect to a parent concept.  Rossami (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete! Duckface isn't explained in the article gurn. Alofok (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to duckface (and create an entry there). Neither duckface is a topic for encyclopedic coverage, nor good target found. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:55, 16 March 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.

University of southwestern louisiana



 * 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 withdrawn Pontificalibus (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

These two redirect pages make it difficult for users to locate the correct named articles via the search engine. One is an unnecessary lowercase version of the former university name. The other is a non-existent name. They have been causing confusion, especially on Facebook, which is creating inaccurate community pages. Thanks for the consideration. Aaron charles (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * → University of Louisiana at Lafayette (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → University of Louisiana at Lafayette (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Keep both. This is a confirmed former name of the institution with a capitalization variant.  The other is a minor (and entirely plausible) grammatical variant.  Redirects from former names to current names are a help to our readers.  Redirects for capitalization variants are also routine.  While the search engine is now case-insensitive, several other common means that our readers use to navigate the wiki remain case-sensitive.  The grammatical variant is also an aid to readerss and not obviously pointing to an incorrect target.  Tag with unprintworthy if you are concerned about the search engine (though I am not).  The Facebook false pages are, to be blunt, Facebook's problem.  They can easily set their program to ignore redirects.  We can not so easily stop serving our readers.  I note, by the way, that both these redirects have been here for years.  Rossami (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually spoke to tech rep at Facebook today and they cannot reset their redirects. The rep said that the problem would have to be resolved wia Wikipedia. Having exhausted the Facebook route, I am turning here as the only resort. Aaron charles (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am unconvinced. I do believe that a customer service rep would not know how to do that but any developer with the skills to write the code they use to find and recognize our pages as Facebook community page candidates (a non-trivial problem which they obviously have solved since there aren't Facebook pages for concepts like hammer or XfD discussions) can easily add a line of code such that 'if the first characters of content = "#redirect", go to next'.  The Facebook route is not exhausted - or if it is, it is because they are unwilling, not because they are unable.  Rossami (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep if Facebook can't fix their own problems, it's their fault, not Wikipedia's. Wikipedia is WP:NOT Facebook. Wikipedia should not be subservient to Facebook either. 70.24.245.141 (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia already has a "Did you mean" response on its internal search. These variants are redundant. Thanks. Aaron charles (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Request -- could the nominator please explain more fully what is wrong with the current situation? Geo Swan (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rossami's rationale. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * RETRACT It appears that they have now fallen off from Facebook. Perhaps the rep figured something out on their end. Thanks anyway. Aaron charles (talk) 04:10, 17 March 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.

Cherry Street (Toronto)



 * 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 Speedy Delete, G7 by User:Fastily. Lenticel  ( talk ) 00:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


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

This should be a redlink, as per criteria 10 of RFD: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself." Further, this redirect employs a technique I think should be deprecated in article space -- it is a redirection to a subsection heading. I believe that redirections should never be included in categories, as has been done here. Finally, I am sorry to say this redirection gives the appearance of a lapse from WP:POINT. This redirection was created yesterday, around the same time the contributor who created it left a highly uncollegial comment in an afd about a nearby roadway, warning contributors there that I had also been working on a draft in userspace on Cherry Street. Geo Swan (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's simple George. Just for you, I will request a speedy deletion. Please try and escape from your personal Gitmo. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:57, 15 March 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.

Commissioners Street



 * 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 11:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


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

As per the first three of the four arguments I offered at immediately above. Geo Swan (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Vindictive nomination. This industrial street lies entirely within the Port Lands in Toronto and is appropriately redirected. Although it is the main east-west spine road through the industrial area, it is not of sufficient importance to warrant a stand-alone article. It is named for the Harbour Commissioners, who had jurisdiction over this area. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Commissioners Street does lie entirely in the Port Lands, but it is not an appropriate target for a redirect as per criteria 10 of RFD: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself." The redirector is entitled to feel the Commissioners Street "is not of sufficient importance to warrant a stand-alone article."  But I request this discussion be a civil and collegial one, where we all cite relevant wikidocuments.  As with the redirection of Cherry Street (Toronto), created yesterday at almost the same time as this one, this redirect also includes itself in Category:Streets in Toronto.  That is misleading -- and counter-policy.  As with the redirection of Cherry Street (Toronto), this redirect points to Port Lands.  It is a redirection to a subsection heading.  Redirection to subsection headings is heavily used in the Wikipedia: namespace, and, thank goodness, it is lightly used in article space.  The use of this technique is not appropriate in article space, because some of the most important features of wikilinks are not supported by the WMF software.
 * The "what links here" feature is not supported. Other editors won't be informed that a subsection heading they are thinking of removing, or modifying, is pointed to by a link to a subsection heading.  With the plain old links used one the world-wide-web no one can know how many incoming links point to a URL.  With properly constructed wikilinks anyone can determine how many incoming links there are with trivial effort.  Anyone can determine what those incoming wikilinks are, again with trivial effort.  But this only works with properly constructed wikilinks.  Wikilinks to subsection headings sacrifice these huge advantages, for really no counterbalancing advantage.
 * The WMF software makes sure wikilinks continue to point to the right target destination -- even when the name of the destination is modified. This is an enormous advantage over the regular links one sees on the world-wide web.  But, just as above, this only works with properly constructed wikilinks.  When some good faith contributor edits the Port Lands article, and they decide the Port Lands subsection should be renamed Port Lands the redirect will break.  That good faith contributor has no way of knowing that they are breaking wikilinks.
 * The WMF software provides us with a watchlist, another really powerful feature, not properly supported when we use wikilinks to subsection headings within article space. I can add the Port Lands article to my watchlist.  But if I am not interested in the Port Lands in general, if I am only interested in Commissioners Street, I can't add Port Lands to my watchlist, or even Port Lands to my watchlist, so I am only informed of changes related to Commissioners Street.
 * Would it be possible to enhance the WMF software so we can put subsection headings on our watchlist? Would it be possible to enhance the WMF software so when a subsection heading changed wikilinks to that subsection heading were transparently updated, so they continued to work.  Yes, I believe it is possible, but I am afraid it would require a really massive rethinking of the model where each article is actually a file in a traditional filesystem.
 * For the reasons I strongly suggest that use of the technique of wikilinking to subsection headings be deprecated in article space. This is not so much a problem in the Wikipedia: namespace, as the headings are changed bery rarely, and the Wikipedia: space articles are used so heavily that lots of people will notice and fix when the links break.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Commissioners Street would not be viable for an article, ever. Standard practise is to redirect it to a notable and existing topic that could cover it. Categories in redirects are common place, see for example the dozens of secondary highways in northern Ontario that redirect to compilations of several articles (eg. Ontario Highway 652). The rest of the response by Geo Swan is, as has been pointed to him a few times now, something to propose at the village pump, but not the opinion of the community at large. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  21:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Though I don't share the approach of redirecting streets to the districts the lay within, it is indeed an established practice to act this way, so the readers may expect such redirects; thus the redirect should be kept per principle of least astonishment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:55, 18 March 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.