Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 January 11

January 11

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 11, 2012

Index (array)

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 (author request). Ruslik_Zero 12:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Index (array) → Array data structure (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Delete An array index is not a type of array, and "array" is not grammatical as a subject/field (contrast e.g. "arrays" or "geometry"), so the disambiguating phrase here is suboptimal. The concept is more naturally referred to as an "array index", an extant redirect that leads to the same target article. "Index (array)" [with the parens] is an unlikely search term. Cybercobra (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G6). It seems to be a side product of this discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cybercobra did great work further improving Index after we finished the edits discussed on the talk page linked above. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis that Cybercobra knows what heis talking about. Tom Pippens (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Nortwest Airways

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 13:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nortwest Airways → Northwest Airlines (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Note: This is a redirect inappropriately deleted as a "speedy" under G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup (This was controversial because I contested it!) and R3: Recently created, implausible redirect: A3: Article has no meaningful, substantive content (explained below)

- The redirect, according to the deletion logs, was created by me in 04:44, 21 August 2010
- On 02:56, 11 January 2012 , User:Mdnavman blanked the page as a way of nominating the article for deletion
- 17:19, 11 January 2012 - User:WilliamJE requested speedy deletion under A3
- 17:29, 11 January 2012 - I revert the edit since the basis of the original speedy was ~~WilliamJE's blanking~~ Mdnavman's blanking
- 17:30, 11 January 2012 - SDPatrolBot forces the replacement of the speedy tag because I was the original author, even though my revision (a redirect) was not the basis of the speedy) - I add an objection and post talk page messages over why the speedy was flawed
- 18:31, 11 January 2012 - RHaworth deleted the article under R3
  - I discuss on his talk page - After I point out the issues (User_talk:RHaworth#Nortwest_Airways), he says he is not in favor of having these pages recreeated, and would vote "delete" in a discussion, but would not object to me recreating the page
- 19:33, 11 January 2012 - William JE again requests a speedy, with the rationale "Page is just in case somebody types Northwest wrong. "
  - Talk page discussion (deleted at) where WilliamHE and I argue over the legitimacy of the discussion (Talk:Nortwest Airways)
- 20:53, 11 January 2012 - User:Fastily deletes it under G6

I am opening this to force the restoration of the redirect talk page (so everybody can see the discussion), and then have a legitimate discussion about the "Nortwest Airways" is a plausible typo of "Northwest Airways" the original name that Northwest Airlines operated under.

I am making this discussion here, now, because the speedy process was inappropriately used.

As for "Keep/Delete":

Keep for reasons I outlined above WhisperToMe (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no doubt. I can't imagine any reason to delete this. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This being nominated for discussion is inane beyond words. Unless Wikipedia wants billions or trillions of redirect pages based on misspellings of articles. The N in Northwest can be easily mistyped as 4 other letters(those around it), The O as either 3 numbers or 6 letters, the r in the same way. Then there is all the potential combinations. The editor responsible for this discussion has repeatedly barraged my talk page even after I told him to stop doing it. And in one case deleted what I wrote on a talk page Lets put this silliness to bed- William 22:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a fairly probable misspelling for native speakers of several languages, which is not the case for most other possible misspelling of the name. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. WilliamJE is exaggerating when he says billions but there are undoubtedly millions of potential "redirects from typos". It is a dangerous precedent to let one in and why has WhisperToMe picked this particular, rather obscure one? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw a user on an aviation forum (Airliners.net) use this very typo. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5132255/
- Since it was just one letter (one "h") I felt it would be plausible that someone would make that error. If there are two or more letters, then it would be a harder case, and IMO one would need to demonstrate that it's still "likely" (say a professional publication making a mistake) for a redirect to be worth it.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As shown below, the typo actually originates from the Delta Air Lines website. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Harmless. Countless other misspellings here redirect to proper spelling. Now, if it had said Northworst (as some of its customers used to call it), that might be controversial. Not so in this case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. 18,000+ views for the correct spelling in the last 30 days, and negligible views for the "typo" until this issue came up. Not so sure about the spelling being harmless. It sounds off-key. Just one character removed from snortwest airways. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the context that I saw, it was being an innocent typo. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please excuse me for butting in here, but the user who posted that was quoting Delta's website, at which the typo persists to today. Goodvac (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - "...established as Nortwest Airways in 1926." Beautiful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't mean to imply that anyone posting here had bad intentions. Rather than further propagate that typo throughout the internet, I just filled out Delta's online contact form so hopefully the delta.com webmaster is notified about it and fixes the mistake. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Kudos. When or if they correct their mistake, the redirect could maybe be removed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Received reply from delta.com Online Customer Support Desk: "...We always appreciate our customers letting us know about things like this, and we have forwarded this on to our delta.com team to correct." Wbm1058 (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: Regarding my point about "professional" companies making typos, I think that if a major company like Delta would make a typo like this, I think it's likely an average user could make a similar typo. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, come on... What are we here for? To server our readers' best interests? No, we're here to serve the interests of the deletionists and the pedantists. >:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as plausible mispelling. Besides, the resulting er... discussion for this redirect has cost more memory than the actual redirect itself.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as plausible misspelling. Changing my vote (strikethrough above). It's been an interesting discussion. When I search Google with the intentional misspelling, it insists on showing results for the correct spelling. Only after clicking on the link that says, "no, I really do want the misspelled results," did I find these: [1] [2] [3] [4] I observe that there is also Nortwestern PG-1. But then if we do keep these, shouldn't we add Nortwest airlines? Wbm1058 (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- However I see that the bar may be set at likely misspellings, not just plausible misspellings, per WP:R:
  - Likely misspellings (for example, Condoleeza Rice redirects to Condoleezza Rice)
- and Condoleeza Rice is getting a lot more traffic than Nortwest Airways (though some of this may be people checking out the example). I'm close to sitting on the fence with this issue. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plausible typo and mostly harmless. Tom Pippens (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worrying after all these years that there are still established users who want to delete redirects that are neither new nor harmful. Rich Farmbrough, 02:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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:Stalking

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 13:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Stalking → Wikipedia:Harassment (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Wikipedia:Harassment long ago removed the term "stalking" or "wikistalking" due to the misleading association with stalking in the real world, which is a serious and sometimes criminal violation of privacy. This redirect needs to be deleted (and probably salted) for the same reason. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: given 6 years of its existence and its previous use I would consider converting it to the soft redirect with the notice about deprecation and its reasons. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect should have been removed years ago - anyone still using it should be told to stop, not given a time limit in which they are free to continue to malign other editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal was suppose to address the historical use of the redirect. It is pretty irritating to see the red links instead of policy references. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the page according to how I see it should be. Comments? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still favour deletion, but this agree with your changes if the redirect is kept. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia:Stalking is specific to Wikipedia, as is anything prefixed with "Wikipedia:" or "WP:". If a reader types WP:Stalking and it's a redlink, what are they supposed to do then? How are they going to necessarily know what they should be typing instead? Let's not show such contempt for our readers by deleting something so obviously useful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a wrong forum for discussing the wording itself. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The wording" is precisely what's prompting the deletion request. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the deletion request is based on the fact that wording was removed form the relevant policy. Thus either four options remain: (1) restore the wording, (2) delete the redirect, (3) preserve redirect for historical matters or (4) retarget it to somewhere else. The options 2-4 should be discussed here, the option 1 - on WT:HA. If You want to go with option 1 should start a thread on WT:HA and wikilink it here so that this discussion will be put on hold until the matter is resolved there. It is a matter of Wikipedia's consistency and thus it should be taken pretty seriously. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the deletion has to do with some editor's paranoia about the word "stalking". Your original alternative, a redirect with explanation, is the right answer. Deletion is the WRONG answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, are you calling me "paranoid"? If not, just who is that personal attack intended for? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Paranoid" in the colloquial sense of "getting all worried over nothing" - as with "due to the misleading association with stalking in the real world". Gimme a freakin' break. WP:Stalking has a specific meaning to wikipedia, and it's referenced all the time at WP:ANI, whether you like that usage or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like being called paranoid and you should know better than to use such words - please strike your comment. There is no specific meaning of "stalking" on Wikipedia. The word was removed from the guideline for good reason. As Czarkoff has suggested, if you want to reopen that discussion, you are welcome to try, but this is about the redirect. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of things I don't like, but I put up with them. And since you made this frivolous, useless request for deletion, you bear the consequences, including criticism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, I have no problem with being criticized, but I do take issue when you suggest I am mentally ill. I'll just bookmark this discussion and come back to it at a later date. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never called you mentally ill. I called your nomination frivolous and useless. That's a reflection on the quality of your judgment, not your mental health. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People, please, keep focused. This is definitely the wrong place to discuss the meaning of the word paranoid. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Controversial yet plausible synonym for the target. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as housekeeping At Some Stage Tom Pippens (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it kill you to put the interests of the readers ahead of the interests of pedantry? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would go for convenience and clarity. I dont feel strongly about the term "stalking" - it is not the most offensive term...but there should be house keeping so that Wikipedia:Foo pages are salted at such stage where Foo is considered a needlessly offensive term. If we have not reached that stage with "stalking" - Fine keep it. Tom Pippens (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hench at Home

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 16:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hench at Home → Michael J. Fox (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

An 2003 ABC pilot that Michael J. Fox co-wrote, that wasn't picked to series. A link really doesn't need to exist now. Quasy Boy 16:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the name exists since 2003 and is mentioned in the target in a helpful way. I just see no reason for removal. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have amended redirect to Michael J. Fox#Producer. Hench at Home is mentioned there. Tom Pippens (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unitesd states

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 16:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unitesd states → United States (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Delete analog to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 7#Unites States, United Stated → United States Toán học (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For some unknown reason this rather probable typo (a quick glance at the US keyboard proves that) was a target of multiple crusades in the past, don't see any new reason that wasn't considered before. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With the improved mediawiki search functionality it is no longer required for anyone searching an article (or for people using the correct URL for smart bookmarks). Toán học (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a typo rather than a misspelling per se. I don't think typos are generally retained (cf. nom's linked discussion). --Cybercobra (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons as for Nortwest Airways - see above. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above, Delta's own website has it misspelled "Nortwest" at one point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why would anyone bother to continue typing in the search box when simply the letter "U" autocompletes "United States" (the first item in the drop-down list). Some might find an "endorsed" misspelling to be unpatriotic. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I forgot that non-US visitors are banned from Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This assumes that people know how to use the autocomplete, can see it, and that the search box is the only way to arrive at that page. Rich Farmbrough, 02:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep If a reader accidently types in Unitesd states, I am sure they would wish to arrive at United states.Tom Pippens (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Tom Pippens. A common typo with a clear target. Absolutely no reason to delete. 124.168.91.7 (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neither new nor harmful.

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.

January 11

Index (array)

Nortwest Airways

Wikipedia:Stalking

Hench at Home

Unitesd states

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.