Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 28

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

April 28

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 28, 2014.

Google Australia

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. Number 57 10:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of topic in target page

ChampionMan1234 06:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...Since none of the aforementioned redirects are articles, it is doubtful that they ever will be articles: the same seems to be true for
WP:REDLINK applies to this case. Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but would be happy to change my stance based on a different consensus-driven decision/precedent (and also nominate the other redirects I mentioned ... for deletion). Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
"Deceptive" is a good way of putting it too. I just imagine these redirects like reference interviews:
Reader: Excuse me, do you have any information on Google Australia?
Wikipedia: Yes, of course. Here's information on Google.
Reader: Yeah, but all this says about Australia is that Google scanned books there. What else does Google do in Australia?
Wikipedia: [No response.]
Reader: Um, I mean... thanks.
If we're coming up with a typology of problematic redirects, I'd think there are deceptive redirects which aren't necessarily condescending, so perhaps condescending redirects could be thought of as a subset. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@
List of Google hoaxes and easter eggs, Eureka Prizes, Yodel Australia and Androidland. Given that view count of these pages is orders of magnitude higher then of this redirect, I would not count on noticable amount of inbound traffic off-site. So far you are trying to underserve real users to provide questionable benefit to imaginary reader. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I've unlinked these articles to gather off-site stats. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then that content should be covered at the target page, or expanded into its own. It's beside the point of whether the redirect is functional now. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: These 5 pages basicly say that Google did something via its Australian office (training of personnel, financing, fake holiday announcement). They point at Google without misleading anyone. Also note: Google is frequently viewed and frequently edited article; any potential encyclopedic content about Australian office of Google is more likely to land at Google rather at (rather obscure) Google Australia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete per BDD. The aforementioned point above about how this redirect is misleading is rather sound and has more encyclopedic value than keeping several misleading redirects. I'd honestly add the additional redirects I mentioned to this RFD, as well as Google Pakistan and Google pakistan, but I'll leave that for another RFD. Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it is misleading, which is perhaps
WP:RFD#DELETE
#10?
Incidentally, I was thinking yesterday when walking home it would be nice if the search engine would allow one to exclude certain pages (or terms), in particular so that one could exclude a particular redirect so as to see what would come up if it didn't exist. Someone will probably tell me that facility already exists. Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 30 April 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.

Auburn Middle School (Disambiguation)

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. Number 57 10:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for speedy, declined as plausible. With a small 'd' in disambiguation it would at least look like a normal redirect, but capital D doesn't fit naming conventions. It is also not useful - the dab is at Auburn Middle School and no need for

WP:INTDABLINK, which would use a small d anyway. Boleyn (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Boleyn, pardon the very delayed response, but you're assuming "legitimate redirect" means one that would be used (properly) in a wikilink. Many redirects are kept which would not fall under that category. When I say this redirect is legitimate, I mostly mean that it is not misleading or confusing. Any reader using this search term (especially with a case-sensitive method such as a direct URL) will go exactly where he or she intends. Generally, redirects need to be problematic or harmful to be deleted. I just don't see how that's the case here. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I relist this with some hestitation, as an involved editor currently in the minority. Still, if another admin thought there was consensus, it probably would've been closed by now, and of course relisting doesn't mean it has to go another week before closing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Codename Lisa, could you clarify your position? You said the redirect should be deleted because the target page shouldn't exist. If the target article were deleted, the redirect would automatically be deleted as a G8. As long as we do have the target page, do you still think the redirect should be deleted? Or should your vote be seen as conditional? --BDD (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now, why didn't I say all this in the original message? Well, I didn't expect that the deletion of Auburn Middle School would be contested. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do naming conventions apply to redirects? --BDD (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Er... If we don't, why do we have a bot roaming around and changing links like [[ambiguous X]] to [[ambiguous X (disambiguation)|ambiguous X]]? Maybe User:Anomie could kindly shed a light on this. Then again, this first time I wanted to make a disambiguation page, User:FleetCommand warned me not a capitalize the "D" because in his case, the dab page was renamed without leaving a redirect behind. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of redirect doesn't hinder the work of bots like that. I still find this discussion quite bizarre. I can't think of another time that a redirect that differs from an uncontroversial one only by the capitalization of one letter has attracted serious support for deletion at RfD. There are many appeals to naming conventions and the like here, which suggest that we're really not discussing the right question. The relevant ones are: is this redirect harmful? Will it take readers where they want to go? --BDD (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, we don't have a bot that changes [[ambiguous X]] to [[ambiguous X (disambiguation)|ambiguous X]] (or vice versa), and I can't think why one would have been approved to do that. Human users might and probably do do it (see
WP:INTDABLINK. (not watching this page, ping me if further attention is needed) Anomie⚔ 20:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@Anomie: Here is an instance: Special:Diff/564891509/next. (The bot explains: User:RussBot § About the hatnote task.) It appears I have by mistake thought you know a great deal about bots. Sorry about that. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. That does seem to be a valid task since it's strictly limited to certain parameters in certain templates where a bot can know that the link to the disambiguation page was intended. Anomie⚔ 10:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At any rate, I've created an AfD for the target page. I think it's at least worth discussing, and a delete result would resolve this one as well. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 19 May 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.

Thalapathy (2013 film)

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) 16:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No such film exists. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The quirky naming pattern turns this redirect into unlikely search aid, and the usage stats at noise level validate this argument. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:52, 6 May 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.

PortableTor

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) 17:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from misspelling of the name of historical flavor of

Portable Tor. The typo (missing space between the words) doesn't seem plausible, and hit count at noise level suggests that the name is not used off site. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Typos/incorrect spacing terms almost always serve a useful purpose, regardless of traffic levels. Unless the redirect's title is completely misleading (which this one is not), it could be useful to someone. Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:
    Portable Tor exists and has the same target. --NYKevin 02:47, 30 April 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_April_28&oldid=1138579385"