Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 25

April 25
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 25, 2014.

Manuel Mayorson
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 2%23Manuel Mayorson

Matthew Gaudreau



 * 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. Something needs to happen here, so I'm performing an WP:INVOLVED close, and I think "any reasonable administrator" would call delete here. Contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


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

Delete as an unnecessary redirect. Matthew is simply the non-notable brother of Johnny, and certainly is not a plausible search target for the notable sibling. The fact that Matthew also plays hockey does not make this redirect any more appropriate than one for their parents - Jane Gaudreau and Guy Gaudreau - would be. In fact, it would only create confusion if the younger Gaudreau were to ever gain notability of his own. Resolute 22:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as R from relative. If he never becomes more notable, this is fine; I qualify my vote because it seems likely the younger brother could become notable as well at some point. Should that happen, I would be in agreement that the redirect should be deleted. --BDD (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how the existence of a template that applies an administrative category counts as a keep rationale. In fact, following this argument to a logical conclusion would validate creating redirects for every non-notable family member of a BLP. Resolute 23:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean only to say that it's not unusual to redirect a person to a notable relative of theirs (i.e., we wouldn't have such a category if such redirects were necessarily a bad idea). That doesn't mean any such relative should be a redirect—probably only those that would be plausible search terms. You know more about hockey than I do, but I would think a Boston College hockey player has at least enough exposure to meet that threshold. --BDD (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is something of a logical disconnect here then. Nobody looking for Johnny Gaudreau is going to search "Matthew Gaudreau", and I don't think that a single sentence stating that Matthew exists qualifies as warranting a redirect.  Otherwise, we come back to the problem of a simple mention of a BLP's parents and other siblings also warranting such redirects.  This is really only a case of creating a redirect simply because one can - or because one wants the ego hit of being the "creator" of an article should the younger brother ever actually become notable.  It's digital litter. Resolute 05:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice he was mentioned at Boston College Eagles men's ice hockey, though note that the spelling there is with one T: Mathew Gaudreau (I'm not sure which is correct). So I would say weak retarget there, but maybe a weak delete too, given that there are two logical places for this to point. --BDD (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Assuming it is the same person, Matthew Gaudreau has a bio at hockeydb.com. It says he was born in Carneys Point, New Jersey on 5 December 1994. Maybe it is WP:NHOCKEY, I don't know as I don't follow that sport and it is not big on this side of the pond. Maybe take it to WP:WikiProject Ice Hockey? Si Trew (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are literally thousands of completely non-notable players on Hockeydb. It is a great site that has stats for most players who have played junior hockey or above.  But no, simply playing college hockey doesn't pass NHOCKEY (if it did, he'd warrant an article rather than a redirect).  And I am more than happy to ask for input from my fellow WP Hockey members. Resolute 14:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Resolute sums it up as good as I could. -DJSasso (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as a useful redirect. The individual above is discussed in the article and there is no more appropriate place for the link to point. The redirect can always be expanded in the event that  “Matthew Gaudreau” achieves the notability required for a stand-alone article. Dolovis (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that there is no more appropriate place to link at this point is the reason it should be left as a red link. Red links are preferable for subjects that may become notable in the future as it signals to editors that the article may need creating in the future, when you redirect it to a random page then you obscure the fact that the article may need creating which is undesirable. -DJSasso (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL. Resolute 14:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, usefulness is explicitly mentioned as a reason to keep a redirect. See WP:RFD #5. WP:AADD is more geared towards AfD, though some of its points are generalizable. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I know. Of course, I don't find it useful, and I don't find Dolovis' claim that it is to be persuasive relative to the fact that it is simply not a plausible search term. That is ultimately the disconnect here. Resolute 16:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As Resolute says that is assuming you think its a useful redirect, throwing in a line saying the person has a sibling and then linking that siblings name to the article is simply not useful for a redirect. It is potentially more harmful than helpful thus it should be a redlink. -DJSasso (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm with Resolute on this one. It is not useful, and perhaps harmful, to link one person's name to another person's biography. I am not sure if WP:BLP comes into play but let's say for argument I was notable and Simon Trew was my biography, to redirect Verner von Lebensraum to me would be in a sense a BLP violation because it connotes on to me something that I am not. I realise that is exaggerated but only in degree, not in kind. Si Trew (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * delete Even if the article mentions him it isn't going to say enough to make it worth trying to trap someone's search for this brother. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2014 (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.

Leader of Government Business
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 28%23Leader of Government Business

Template:R&B



 * 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. Something needs to happen here, so I'm performing an WP:INVOLVED close, and I think "any reasonable administrator" would call no consensus here. Contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Template:R&B → Template:WikiProject R& (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Why is not at RFD? writes Jax 0677. Well, be careful what you wish for. This shortcut, which nobody else is using, should be named starting with "WP" for consistency with other WikiProject template shortcuts. As the template in question already has the correctly-titled shortcuts WPRB and WPRNB, this shortcut would be far more appropriate if retargeted to rhythm and blues. —  Scott  •  talk  00:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:REDLINK content uses should trump in-Wikipedia pipeworking ; Wikiprojects are indicated using "WP" or "WPP" and this uses neither. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * keep. The only question here is whether people looking for or transcluding template:R&B are expecting to find the WikiProject template or the article space template, as "R&B" can in no way be described as an uncommon or misleading abbreviation for "rhythm and blues" and no relevant arguments for deletion have been presented (despite repeated attempts to claim otherwise, there is no consensus that all redirects to WikiProject templates (as distinct from the templates themselves) must start with "WP"). What links here shows that this template is actively used to transclude the WikiProject template, and there is no evidence presented that people are attempting to use this for any other purpose (and I shall preemptively remind people that the burden of evidence is always on those who wish to change the status quo, and that handwaving about the possibility of confusion is not evidence of anything). Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's hard to imagine more of a textbook example of a straw man argument than what you just wrote. —  Scott  •  talk  13:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is consensus to shortcut WP-templates with "WP". It is called common sense, and SOP. In shortcuts and project abbreviations, we don't cover typo's & malforms. Why would one ever want to learn, remember or research illogic or incorrect shortcut exceptions? -DePiep (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The small number of existing links to this shortcut can be easily fixed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Thryduulf. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to retargetting this to Rhythm and blues but that would break quite a few links and (as Thryduulf noted at R&b) would create confusion where none presently exists, so maintaining the current target seems better. Sideways713 (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your comment about "breaking links" makes no sense. Links to what? This is a template shortcut. Also, if this is retargeted, existing transclusions will be fixed first. Given that it's been used a paltry 39 times, doing that with AutoWikiBrowser would take all of two minutes. —  Scott  •  talk  14:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Links to the WikiProject banner, obviously. Yes, fixing that will be a very, very minor discomfort... but since no deletion criteria are met here, I can't see any benefit from deleting the redirect that would outweigh even that. Sideways713 (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When you say "links to", do you actually mean "transclusions of"? —  Scott  •  talk  17:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yes and no. The transclusions will be broken; what we'll get instead is redlinks. I could be swayed by the argument that banner template redirects should use a conventional format starting with "WP" if someone actually told me where this has been agreed to; Banner standardisation mentions nothing of the like, and explicitly notes there are many template redirects that are not of this type. Similarly, the discussions that led to banner standardisation never suggested deleting redirects that were not of this type; far from it, the consensus was that keeping old non-standard banner names (not starting with "WP" or "WikiProject") as redirects was a good thing. Sideways713 (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "The transclusions will be broken" - I guess you didn't read directly above where I said "if this is retargeted, existing transclusions will be fixed first". —  Scott  •  talk  13:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course I read that. I even specifically stated that you were right that fixing them wouldn't be much of a discomfort. So I guess you're not going to tell us where it was agreed that all banner redirects should start with WP? Sideways713 (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Unwritten convention. Approximately 90% of banner redirects in use begin with "WikiProject" or "WP" - see my statistical report, which I discuss at the new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Shortcut. —  Scott  •  talk  14:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I noted there, the 90% number is way too high. By your statistics, there are 2115 redirects of this type that do start with "WP" and 1147 that don't start with either "WP" or "WikiProject"; to me that suggests starting these redirects with "WP" may be conventional, but not to the exclusion of everything else. But let's see what comes of the discussion at WT:SHORTCUT. Sideways713 (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WikiProject banner templates should use the conventional "WPXXX" format (in this case WPRB and WPRNB), to indicate that they refer to project space. They should not usurp titles which can be used for non-project purposes.
 * Keep Could be a WikiProject tag or a navbox. I would've preferred the latter, but since it's already established and used, I don't think a change is worthwhile. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So we should keep it because Wikipedia wikiprojects are more important that Wikipedia content? -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * re BDD: "could be X or Y" shows that it is not a helpful name. Leaves editors to reseach its intention. There is no need for that. -DePiep (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wrong name, no reason to keep a WP template without the "WP" prefix. Nobody is helped with this one: not the editor who uses it (why would one ever want to remember a malformed abbreviation?), and not the editor after that who has to research what this actually means when seeing this code, talkpage, es, .... That editor is you and me. -DePiep (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "No reason to keep a WP template without the "WP" prefix"... and why would that be? We have no end of such redirects (Film redirects to WikiProject Film, Beer redirects to WikiProject Beer, Cats redirects to WikiProject Cats, Novel redirects to WikiProject Novels)... and that's because it was agreed in the original banner standardization discussion that keeping those redirects was a good thing. Sideways713 (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Otherstuffexists is no good argument. Because that same reason can be turned into: that should go too. So I reply: these others should go too for being without "WP" prefix (in another TfD).
 * And here is why: Every editor should be able to see that the template is WP-space-oriented, not mainspace. Keeping this name would give other editors the unavoidable unchosen burden to learn/research that this is not a mainspace template. That is all editors who see, read, encounter this template name. That burden is not needed. -DePiep (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The point here is not OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The point is that you (and other editors) are claiming there's a general consensus to delete such redirects when that's never been the case; if you want to build such a consensus, fine, but don't claim one already exists without citing anything that would support that claim. The banner standardisation essay specifically states that such redirects should be kept unless and until someone converts them to navigational templates. Sideways713 (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an essay, not a guideline or policy. Also, you're misrepresenting what it says. It's not an instruction, it's a comment on the status quo (using the phrase "unless and until" which presumably somebody thought looked intellectual, but isn't). What you're claiming would use the word should (or even must, in the style of an IETF RfC), not "would". —  Scott  •  talk  14:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 *  Strong Keep  - "R&B" is shorthand for "Rhythm and Blues". This RfD is extremely similar to the 2013 RfD about Template:Cop and the 2014 RfD about Template:wprk, which I am incorporating by reference for the sake of brevity.  There are several templates like this, such as Tb which is not about tuburculosis, pot which is not about cannabis, hat which is not about headwear, etc.  WP:R does not apply as this is not an article space redirect.  WP:R does not apply as confusion is less likely to occur in other name spaces.
 * 1) Per WP:R, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
 * 2) The redirect was created over two years ago, so IMO the time has passed for changing the redirect without significant confusion.  Alleged confusion is not very plausible at all.  So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete.
 * 3) "There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R.  Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended.  We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture.  Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
 * 4) "One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools.  So you have no use for it.  That it's being used on [talk pages] is good enough, and there is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use.  Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
 * 5) "Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace.  That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it [confused].  There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as  or  or whatever as useful shorthand for editors." --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your link "R is cheap" says in bold: "Redirects [...] use very little bandwidth". That may be true in general (like common misspellings in mainspace to mainspace: keep keep keep) and technically. But let me explain again: this one is *not cheap* to editors. Because I and every other editor must do research the find the true background (=WP) of this template. That is using my mental bandwidth. No bad and malformed abbreviations/shortcuts. Not needed, not wanted. This is an example of a really cheap one: Template:WPR&B. -DePiep (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 *  Reply  - The same can be said for cop. Besides, it is not difficult to type "Template:R&B" into the search box, or to use "Preview" or "Undo" (WP:IDLI). --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per BrownHairedGirl, or retarget to rhythm and blues per nom. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 *  Comment  - If one does not use the redirect themselves, it will not take up mental bandwidth. If the redirect with all capital letters points to one location, why would we want the redirect with all small letters to potentially point to something else?  If we delete this, then will we need to delete songs and albums as well?  Also, as of late, I have refrained from creating WikiProject redirects, and I plan to comply with the decision to be made at Wikipedia_talk:Shortcut. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to start up the discussion to delete songs and albums. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 01:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep for the reasons as given by Thryduulf and Jax 0677. Dolovis (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2014 (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.