Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 May 15

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

May 15

Anti-Pokemon → Pokémon

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 22:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect makes no sense whatsoever.

TheBlazikenMaster 22:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Because I thought maybe someone would disagree.
TheBlazikenMaster 15:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Very well. That process might have saved some time, though. No worries. --Aarktica 14:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Prod is only for articles. It doesn't apply to redirects. -- JLaTondre 17:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect is left over from a trivial addition which was removed. Article and Talk should be deleted Adam McCormick 05:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

University High School (Los Angeles, California)

The result of the debate was keep, redirects are dirt cheap. Deleting this one would do more harm than good. The article used the shorter title for almost two years. It would be outlandish to assume that nobody has bookmarked or linked to the URL from other sites. Deleting this would break those links as well as ones found in old versions of our own pages. — CharlotteWebb 22:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools), once a school is moved to the correct namespace and a disambig page is created, redirects are deleted if not necessary for some particular reason. Moving this article created 7 redirects (8 once I archived another peer review), and when there are a LOT of articles that are similarly named, and more that are created regularly, that's a problem. There may only be one "University High School" in a place called "Los Angeles" in the world. But we don't know that there is, and we don't know that that will remain true. And given that there's no real need for these redirects, it's easier and safer not to have them. The bulk of schools that do have similar or the same names, use a variety of techniques to make their article names unique (see the Uni High disambig page for a smattering of examples), and keeping redirects just because the page was there doesn't seem like a good idea. Anyone who searches for "University High School (Los Angeles)" will get both the diambig page as a result and the article page, and either one will get them to the article. Miss Mondegreen talk  22:06, May 15 2007 22:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirect - We often keep redirects from similar spellings and conventions - Heck, we make a point of keeping redirects of misspellings and of names in other languages. By the way, even if there are multiple cities by the name of Los Angeles (we have a
    Los Angeles Subdivision, Texas, but I'm not sure if it counts, and also there are no schools in that area), we only have one important one. Also, if the information does change, we can easily update to reflect this. WhisperToMe 21:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • However, avoid deleting such redirects if:
    • # They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
    • Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.

Some people like to use "Los Angeles" as parameters while others like to use "Los Angeles, California" as parameters.

WhisperToMe 01:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said before--the first isn't applicable here. (city) isn't even the most common parameter used, and there are so many common parameters used that choosing to have redirects for alternate parameters in case someone creates an article at that namespace without bothering to search for an article doesn't make sense. One, it's way to many redirects, and two, people generally check to see if an article exists, especially when creating it at a namespace with a parameter.
Because of the nature of naming school articles, and the particularities that have required the creation of the naming convention guidelines, there are real reasons NOT to have this redirect.
If you can provide a reason that this might have use, then that's fine. But so far you've just provided blanket reasons that specifically don't apply in this case, and some go to the reasoning of which this redirect shouldn't exist.
In school articles, a paramter generally exists anyway, and so editors have to check the exact name of the article and pipe links, so I just don't see an argument for this and usage.
And, yes, people like to use all sorts of parameters. Sometimes they prefer to use cities, sometimes states, sometimes countries, sometimes multiple paramters. And there are multiple formattings as well. Within the realm of school articles, this leads to immense confusion and a lot of duplicate article creation that takes a while for people to not. That's why the idea of naming conventions has been revisted multiple times (when there was no active guideline, the idea was raised once a month with wikischools). Again, I urge you to take any particular issue you have about the guidelines themselves to that page.
Here, the issue is that if people don't link correctly, it will be a redlink and they'll fix it. It's a article with parameter anyway, so it has to be checked and piped anyway--this redirect doesn't save anything, and except for editors familiar with the page no one will know what parameters it uses or used before, as there are so many that can be used. What is the purpose therefore of this redirect? For the people who have edited the page and remember the old name and don't want to type the extra word or don't remember to? Who is this redirect for? Why would you find this useful? Miss Mondegreen talk  08:34, May 18 2007
MOVE/MERGE Okay, so as I see it, this is one person who doesn't fully understand the problem and is looking at this from a very narrow perspective. We've taken several weeks to put together this guideline and have had input from throughout the project. We have set up this guideline for the specific reason of removing the vast number ambiguos redirects in favor of a strong guideline that can be used to find ANY school, ANYWHERE in the world without the excessive use of redirects. I don't think that a person who is up enough on the guideline to look for "University High School" with "(Los Angeles)" won't think of adding "(Los Angeles, California)". The argument is frivolous and not particularly valuable. Adam McCormick 00:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wouldn't knowledge of the guideline be irrelevant? The only way putting in "University High School" with "Los Angeles" could be a problem is if they attempt to go directly there instead of searching for the school. Even if they did the former--which I can't imagine people doing (assuming that they know where an article would be located when there is clearly an array of places it could be), wouldn't they attempt to search for the page, as non-existant pages direct wikipedians to, before creating the page or any other such nonsense?
And searching would yeild the article and disambig page as the top two results, probably followed by the alumni page and then other uni schools. Miss Mondegreen talk  02:30, May 19 2007
All I'm trying to say is that anyone who would think to type in "University High School (Los Angeles)" would also think to try "University High School (Los Angeles, California)" and thus the redirect is superfluous Adam McCormick 05:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. But even if they didn't, typing the former would yeild them the latter anyway (using the search function, not going directly to an article space), so they wouldn't even need to try again. We're just making different arguments about why it's unnecessary. Miss Mondegreen talk  06:40, May 19 2007
"All I'm trying to say is that anyone who would think to type in "University High School (Los Angeles)" would also think to try "University High School (Los Angeles, California)" and thus the redirect is superfluous " - Uhm, there are people who would link to the former, and say, hey, there is no article - and create a new article! Redirects are NOT to be pared down like articles: they are wonderful in numbers, and help point people in the right direction. If anything they enforce conventions. Oh, Adam, do you think the kid who just signed up for his account and now bears the power to create articles is going to know about your new article standards? Of course not. MOS standards should never be used to delete redirects. I.E., we do not use
Wikipedia:MOS-JA to delete redirects of names in wrong orders or of different romanizations. We never think "There is nobody who will spell it as Suzuki Ichiro, so that redirect is not correct." There are SPECIFIC guidelines for deleting redirects, and that is the case for a reason. WhisperToMe 19:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh Whisper, do you think that "the kid who just signed up for his account and now bears the power to create articles" is going to look for "University High School" or "University High School (Los Angeles)" I personally didn't figure that particular convention out unti I'd been here a month and long before I started to edit articles. Adam McCormick 22:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Prajwal kulkarni → Umran Inan

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 22:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally listed on AfD

Arkyan • (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Redirects to Kven people

The result of the debate was Keep 1,2 and 5; delete the rest. -- John Reaves (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Quen → Kven people
  2. Kveens → Kven people
  3. Kveen → Kven people
  4. Cwen people → Kven people
  5. Kveen people → Kven people
  6. Cwen → Kven people
  7. Qven → Kven people
  8. Kwen → Kven people
  9. Qwen → Kven people
  10. Kvenek → Kven people
  11. Kveenit → Kven people

Article created during sock puppet war Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kven). Likely that spelling may never have been used outside Wikipedia.Labongo 16:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:This was originally several separate nominations [1]. I have refactored it for ease of discussion. Gavia immer (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the "Kveen" redirects (1, 2, and 5); the Kven article lists "Kveeni" as the Kven language term for Kvens, and these may be searched on as attempts to anglicize that term. The other terms do not seem to be used on the web at least (or used on one lone page somewhere); I say delete these since they are unlikely to be searched for. Gavia immer (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for refactoring the list. I missed two other strange spellings when creating the list: Kvenek and Kveenit. Perhaps these could also be added?Labongo 13:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added them above. Gavia immer (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that also Kven has been marked for deletion. IMO, that is a standard term and should retain its current redirect to Kven people or become an ambiguation page (Kven people, Kvenland, Kven language). --Drieakko 15:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Labongo just reverted the marking. All fine! --Drieakko 15:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I thought I was adding the rfd template to the protected redirect
Quen. Labongo 15:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_15&oldid=1138574901"