Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 25

[edit]

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

Moscow Metro template redirects

[edit]
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. --BDD (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, previously I had tagged similar redirects for speedy deletion; some admins deleted them, some declined to do so... In short:

  • These are redirects from page moves, not aliasing;
  • These are redirects either to templates or to template talk pages, so there is no chance that they will ever be needed for navigation or searching (those that may be needed, like Template:Butovskaya Line → Template:Butovskaya Line RDT, I did not include into this nomination);
  • They have no incoming links, even from some maintenance pages (checked);
  • They have no relevant edit histories (those that do, I did not include).

-- YLSS (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. Are you serious in claiming that all of them have no incoming links? Some of these are nine years old: surely they've been used in numerous old revisions of pages. You're attempting to create linkrot with no benefit to the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Links from old revisions will certainly lead to a notice that this page has been renamed to some-such title, so no link rot will occur. Benefit to Wikipedia: no need to maintain double-triple redirects and so on, clean edit history, clean WhatLinksHere, and generally, keeping the things neat & simple, leaving no garbage behind you. Moreover: for older revisions it may actually be better to show a red link in place of a template than to show the current version that is totally out of sync with that revision (at least for such things as route diagrams). YLSS (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, links from old revisions will display a broken template; a page that calls Template:Kol'tsevaya Line will be just like a page that calls Template:nbgnorubgoudbrhordh. Please note that several bots fix double redirects; no human input is needed in this context. You're trying to create gibberish in numerous pages; it's horrid net citizenship, and there's a reason that speedy criterion R3 does not permit the deletion of redirects created by pagemoves. Read WP:RFD#KEEP line 4. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      That's precisely what I'm saying, for RDTs it's better to show a red link than an out-of-synced version. And where does WP:RFD#KEEP line 4 speak of old revisions? It doesn't. And if we're starting to accuse each other, then I can say that "horrid net citizenship" is polluting the system with such junk. BTW, your comments only concern redirect to templates, while the majority of those that I listed are redirect to template talk pages. YLSS (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      In what way will they be out of sync? If an old revision links to a template that is now redirected it transcludes the template at the redirect target. Old revisions are important because people are encouraged to link to specific revisions when referencing Wikipedia articles. Good net citizenship is all about not breaking things unnecessarily - far better to have redirects that are only occasionally needed than for them to not be there when they are needed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      "In what way will they be out of sync": cf., for example, 2008 revision and current revision. Concurrent versions of the article would be based on the same schemes. YLSS (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nyttend. No reason to break old revisions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2014 (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.

User:Victorsmesq

[edit]
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 User:Victorsmesq deleted by Anthony Bradbury; User:Humphrybert 'converted to soft redirect. Humphrybert, if you ever see this and object to this result, please let me know. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor seems to have created an article on his user page and then moved it to namespace - which created this inappropriate redirect. PamD 16:17, 25 November 2014 (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.

🎈 release

[edit]
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 burst. BencherliteTalk 23:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as if this is a commonly used method of searching for this, or that people will learn or understand anything from it. Redirecting a single "character" to the word may be acceptable, but redirecting every phrase it appears in as well is serious overkill. Fram (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2014 (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.

National Anthem Act

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#National Anthem Act

Alyssa Funke

[edit]
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. The suggestion for salting sounds premature to me, but feel free to request this at WP:RPP or let me know if there are attempts to recreate it. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently redirects to a school article where there appears to be a some support (here and here) and a generally silent consensus that the material is not appropriate under the "controversies" section after it was removed and remained absent over a five month period. Addition of material on this subject appears to be in violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and the subject herself does not appear to be notable beyond a single event that is her suicide. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, this is also a fully-protected article due to prior concerns with its creation with regard to the recently deceased. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if there were a list of bullying incidents that would be the proper target, if it covered the incident. As it is, it seems to point to the wrong location, as the bullying did not occur at the high school, or while the bullies/bullied were attending there, but after they graduated in locations that are unrelated to the high school. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the only connexion to the high school appears to be that all individuals were alumni thereof. Why would this be considered bullying, anyway? The term tends to be used for activities by children, not adults aged 19 years. Nyttend (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt, regrettably. The recent AfD is somewhat uninformative. It seems that we can't reliably establish a link between this young woman's suicide and the high school, so it's not really appropriate to redirect there. Retargeting to Cyberbullying#Harmful effects or similar wouldn't be particularly informative to readers searching for info on this woman, and it's perhaps a WP:BDP issue for us to indirectly sum up her life as having been a victim of this. Since the redirect is protected now it would make sense to block future creation as well: her unfortunate death has had no lasting notable impacts (by our encyclopedic standards) thus any future article would be very likely to fail WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Ivanvector (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector and Nyttend above. I asked JethroBT to create this due to the difficulties posed by the redirect's protection. John from Idegon (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying: John asked Jethro to create the Rfd, not the redirect itself. (Correct me if I'm wrong!) Ivanvector (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct; John and I had a substantive discussion about this topic here as John was looking for a second opinion on the matter. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:35, 29 November 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_25&oldid=1141906229"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

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

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy