Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 23

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 retarget to

Webserver directory index. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Windex.php → Main Page  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could refer to

]

• Retarget to
  Webserver directory index because that is what it actually refers to. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Retarget per Tavix. --
  computer 23:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Retarget per the others. That was its target when I created it; someone else later retargeted it to the Main Page. Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to
  Webserver directory index per Tavix. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Leave as is -- this is a common (if incorrect) attempt at linking to the
  JesseW, the juggling janitor
  05:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment if it is retargetted, a hatnote can be added to indicate the front page -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2015 (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.

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 article created. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Volkswagen emissions violations  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

Highly misleading to equate a "defeat device" with the

]

• Weak proposal to create article per nom. --
  computer 23:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Agreed, there's extensive sources to create an article, dating to 1972 at least. I will do it myself if I can find a free hour; I have the source material in front of me. But until then this redirect unfairly equates defeat devices with VW, when in fact virtually every car sold in the US has at one time or another had the EPA sanction them for using defeat devices. The VW scandal is the most elaborate, deliberate, and widespread violation in history, but it's only one of many such incidents. Until I or someone does write an article, the redirect violates NPOV, so we should delete it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are many devices out there designed to defeat various things, such as a blue box meant to defeat long distance charges, a Game Genie meant to defeat videogames, a USB key with malware meant to defeat computer security, etc ad infinitum -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As stated above, the general concept of having a device made to defeat something or however you word it is a very broad one without a clear target. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Create article. This is a specific
  hamartiology) even though it probably wouldn't be a blue link otherwise. However the EPA was prohibiting defeat devices and calling them that before VW's emissions ever violated so the redirect cannot stay. If another meaning of defeat device ever becomes notable enough then a hatnote or a disambiguation page can be made. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Withdrawn I've gone ahead and created the article, so this is moot now. Thanks for your time; I wouldn't have started all this if I'd been able to predict when I could get around to writing the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2015 (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.

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. [Additional comments.] SpinningSpark 13:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This shortcut has been used for arguments everywhere outside deletion discussions. Now that "

]

• Retarget per nom.
  computer 12:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - the problem with retargeting this is it's been around for 8 years and is very commonly used; retargeting will break numerous discussions. There is a see also note at the current target which addresses the situation just fine. If consensus is to retarget, then a bot should be made to pipe all of the existing links to the current target first. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, many links in "Wikipedia:" namespace are in deletion discussions, while many links in "Talk:" namespace refer to non-deletion discussions. I checked "links" log. George Ho (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As did I. The Talk: space discussions are also about deleting stuff, and the shortcut is in context in those threads. Unless there are some I didn't see where someone used the shortcut in a situation which wasn't about deletion, but we can't control people not checking that their shortcuts make sense. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three samples: Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#"Heavy metal album", Talk:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom/Archive 2#Infobox, and Talk:BBC America. --George Ho (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a non sequitur by a wikilawyering editor - it wouldn't matter what shortcut they used, their point was invalid. The other two are about removing material, and in context with the current target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many more samples would help you be convinced? What about

Talk:Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones#Reception, and Talk:Tagalog language#Requested move 25 July 2015? --George Ho (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, all references to the "arguments to avoid" thoroughly stated at the current target: that what exists elsewhere in Wikipedia is not in and of itself a valid argument supporting or opposing any position. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current target discusses what not to do in AFDs. I don't know whether you are confused or not, but I don't think these samples are in context with the essay. George Ho (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia trends more towards being yet another safe, boring website which rehashes a cherry-picked list of other websites, and away from being an encyclopedia which reflects notable topics verified by reliable sources, it would be nice if someone would write WP:OTHERSOURCESEXIST. Unfortunately, that would involve having to teach people how to do research without Google and the like, not to mention having to teach heavily active editors that AGF also applies in this case and that automatically dismissing something because it can't be Googled isn't healthy in the long term. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Ivanvector. Whether or not those discussions actually reflect the current target is not really relevant - the editors that used the shortcut at least intended it to, and so changing the redirect can change the meaning of most if not all of those discussions. There is no need to change an 8 year old redirect to avoid typing the 8 extra characters in
  WP:other stuff exists. If you must have a shortcut in all caps that you can use to yell about an essay, take WP:OTHER STUFF. ^Avic_ennasis @ 05:59, 6 Tishrei 5776 / 05:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per the others. When we have an old redirect that's commonly been used in project discussions, we should be profoundly reluctant to change it; even if you go around and change all the current links, it will still result in incorrect links in past revisions of pages. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Will harm archived discussions that link to that page, most people who are unaware of this discussion would probably still be looking for the original target. There is essentially no opposition in this. -
  ChampionMan1234 23:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep per above, As it's been used for a hell of a long time I believe re-redirecting it would be a disaster especially for archived pages, Personally I feel it should be left as it is. –Davey2010^Talk 04:58, 26 September 2015 (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.

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. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Untied Airline → United Airlines  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Too many typos, too implausible,

]

• Delete - I just don't see this redirect as being that helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comment.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and CoffeeWithMarkets. --
  computer 00:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep target to
  R from typo}} just two typos, a transposition error and a truncation -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete too many typos to be a plausible synonym --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's misspelled that way in the real world, so would be plausible, as it results in multiple pages of Google results for this particular spelling referring to United Airlines specifically. And they are misspellings, not sarcastic spellings.[1][2][3] Even news sources misspell it that way [4][5] -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2015 (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.