Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 6

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

February 6

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 6, 2014.

Henry Pym (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. WJBscribe (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the history of this redirect, perhaps the upcoming Ant-Man film was supposed to be called Henry Pym at some point, but I haven't found any evidence of that, and it seems unlikely anyway. Would anyone search for a Hulk film with Bruce Banner (film), for example? BDD (talk) 20:14, 6 February 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.

Template:Web

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. WJBscribe (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Cite web}}; used in a handful of articles; not descriptive and probably not recognized by tools and bots. Originally a redirect to {{Db-web}}.  Gadget850 talk 17:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you want it retargeted to {{Db-web}}? I see no benefit to deletion. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Created in 2006 as a redirect to {{Db-web}}; changed to redirect to {{Cite web}} in 2009 ("CSD templates should all start with db- to not confuse people"). Doesn't appear that anyone missed it- would it really be a useful redirect to {{Db-web}}? --  Gadget850 talk 18:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Ultra Vires (outside our jurisdiction). This should be at TfD, not at RfD. If you want a really vague template try {{

WP:TFD. It is not a cross namespace redirect or anything, but the discussion belongs at TFD not RFD, in my opinion. Si Trew (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually, the documentation there says to list template redirects at RfD. Only category redirects are treated differently; they're discussed at CfD. --BDD (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where, I couldn't find it. But I believe you. Si Trew (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's the last point in the What not to propose for discussion here section. --BDD (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
{{Citation}} is vague because it is meant to be vague, in the sense that it is not specific, as it is a generic citation template. "Web" is vague in the sense of being ambiguous. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take it back... the thing is {{Citation}} is kinda so vague I think its use is discouraged but I don't think there's a kinda tagging metatemplate to say the use of this template is discouraged (I bet there is somewhere) – but that's another story and my opinion holds no water. Si Trew (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and disambiguate or delete there are too many different web templates on Wikipedia for this to not be confusing. "cite web", "db web", "infobox website", "url", "HTTP", etc -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have changed {{web}} to {{cite web}} in all articles and a few other pages. I haven't bothered with sandbox pages that haven't been edited in years. --  Gadget850 talk 12:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? We haven't reached any consensus yet. Si Trew (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTBROKEN aside, this won't do any harm. It's conceivable but very unlikely that {{cite web}} would ever be renamed. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
We have many tools and bots that perform various tasks on citations. It is not worth updating these to use this underutilized redirect. --  Gadget850 talk 20:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, but essentially the redirect has already been subst (presuming delete) in good faith by you. I imagine cite web is used on, well, at least three or four articles judging by the number of refchecks I do (laughing at my own joke, sorry). I agree it should be subst and delete but other editors might not. Si Trew (talk) 23:06, 7 February 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.

Jawan Singh Solanki

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) 17:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, please. Someone who appears to have a connection to the Solanki caste community keeps reinstating content at the redirect page. I've never been able to find confirmation that the article subject is known as Jawan Singh Solanki and certainly the common name is Jawan Singh. All I can find is mirrors and one or two caste-related websites that have no reliability.

Ascribing a caste relationship in a BLP without self-identification is a breach of our policies (there are some semi-related background notes here). So, what we have here is a redirect using an implausible name that also potentially violates BLP. Retaining the redirect "just in case" is not really an option because it pretty much enshrines the pretty serious violation. Sitush (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* DAB. Jawan Singh exists as a stub to an Indian Mahrana (2 July 1821 - 30 August 1838). One of them must be primary. The politician is a stub but that is fine, lots of things start as stubs. Si Trew (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Thank you for your pingback on my talk page. I looked into this again and became a bit clearer, but I was looking around the articles and trying to be clear to other editors here for their opinion. (I do actually look at articles rather than just decide by what the redirect says.)
What I see is that you reverted a change to Jawan Singh (politician) with this edit at 08:13 on 6 February (UTC) then a couple of hours later come to RfD to ask for a redirect to have something done with it (but don't say what you want done with it, do you want it deleted?). Si Trew (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whom do you mean by "Someone who appears to have a close connection to the Solanski caste"? Do you mean User:Vishwajeet singh solanki who also recently has edited Jawan Singh (politician) (in fact it was you who reverted his edits in the edit link I give above)? I appreciate that you do not (nor I) want to cast aspersions on others but it would help to name the name. Si Trew (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm getting confused between the title wording of
Redirects for Discussion. I've now indicated delete above, although I'm a bit surprised that you couldn't work that out from "Retaining the redirect "just in case" is not really an option because it pretty much enshrines the pretty serious violation." The impetus for coming here was this request but, really, there is nothing untoward going on here other than the existence of an obviously invalid redirect. I've no desire to name names etc because the precise identity is not important. I'm not too happy about being criticised here, btw: it seems a bit pedantic to me. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
If you do
WP:BRD wouldn't the more suitable place be to do that at the page's article talk? Si Trew (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, didn't realise you were online. Yes I put it very badly but it is redirects for discussion', and he usual thing is to bold your opinion. I realise that it is confounding when Twinkle etc says it is redirects for deletion. I actually agree the redirect should be deleted; but with edits changing underfoot it is hard to make an opinion. When I looked at it last night it was a very small stub (but not marked as a stub). Si Trew (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The revision history at
WP:N for that matter, but that is a different thing to argue than from trying to establish whether a redirect is worthwhile keeping, going and so on. I notice the redirect has also been admin protected, but then the fault is at the goings on at its target, it is not the redirect at fault. It is just a normal WP edit battle and the various authors should sort it out between them in good faith. RfD is not the place for it. Si Trew (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
It is easy to form an opinion. Find a source that says that Jawan Singh (politician) is known as "Jawan Singh Solanki" or delete the redirect because it is invalid and caste members keep warring in spite of it. The admin protection is referred to in my diff above and is a direct consequence. I think you are missing the various points here, sorry: although I realise that there are not many regulars with great knowledge of caste-related issues, this really should be a no-brainer. Or perhaps it is that I'm so familiar with those issues that I treating it with contempt? See, for example, user:Sitush/Common#Castelists for some related points. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not when an article changes a lot it isn't. Your version of the article and the one I saw were different things. It is not my place to have to find sources; that should be at the article but isn't right now. The article is unsourced, it is not notable, and so on. I don't know, but I don't tend to edit an article when I have raised it at an XfD until the consensus has been reached; it is not fair on other editors – so I am not going to find sources. It is the person adding content's responsibility to find sources, and I am not going to add content. Si Trew (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do what? I've not edited any Jawan Singh-variant article since I put up this thing for discussion, and nor has anyone else except for the admin protection being placed on the redirect. I feel like I'm losing the plot here. If you want to find a source then feel free to waste your time finding one but you are implying that I am attempting to game the system here and I don't like it. - Sitush (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. I have never had the pleasure to go to India and I know very little about the caste system except it exists and people still fight over it. But if there is a caste war going on then turning it into a Wikipedia edit war only adds to it, doesn't it? The way to resolve it is to ask the editors involved. When I said I am not going to find sources I meant I was not even going to attempt to find sources since I think it is outside the remit of what you are asking for when there is an edit war going on. I am not going to stand here as judge and jury; there are plenty of better editors here than I who can have their opinion if you give them time. The RfD will be open for seven days. I lose a lot of my personal battles here at RfD and some I win, but I edit Wikipedia because I want to make it a bit better a tiny bit better each day. And I am sure you do too. The thing is by chance you and I are online and you are turning one comment into seventeen when it shouldn't be like that. Let the matter rest, here at RfD, and let others get a chance to respond please. And thank you very much for your contributions to Wikipedia, I mean that most sincerely, to make it a better resource and a better place. I hope I do the same on the whole but I know I make mistakes and get things wrong too. Si Trew (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh. Please could you try to be a bit more patronising ... I'm not pulling rank but please go take a look at my history and you'll see that caste issues figure prominently. And please explain what an edit war has to do with this when there are no sources for the point that the caste POV warrior keeps warring to include. If you're not willing to look for sources then there really wasn't much point in you contributing, was there? - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not prepared to continue this barrage. I was polite, you are rude. Si Trew (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between being polite and being patronising. I suppose it is a variation on
WP:DTR and sometimes it irks me. Anyway, apologies for any rudeness but when you don't know what you are talking about and don't want to research it, it is usually best to say nowt. - Sitush (talk) 22:33, 7 February 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.

Wikipedia rederects

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 Look up Wikipedia and Wikipedia:2007 foundraising, no consensus regarding the remaining three unwithdrawn nominations. WJBscribe (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of nonsensical redirects to Wikipedia. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all, I hope you don't mind me numbering these entries for ease of reference. Now then...
  • Delete 1, 2, 5, and 6, weak delete 7 and 8. None of these are particularly helpful. For the first six, searchers are probably looking for something more specific than Wikipedia generally. The last two are more like just implausible search terms. Someone using them probably is looking for Wikipedia, but it doesn't seem likely that people would use those terms before "Wikipedia" alone.
  • Retarget 3 and 4 to
    Wikipedia:Contact us - Donors (where Wikipedia:Donate redirects). From an admittedly quick search, this seems to be the best place to send people seeking information on Wikipedia's finances, and this target should please some editors by avoiding a CNR. It's also plausible that users searching for these terms may be seeking to donate. Yes, there's that "Donate to Wikipedia" link on the sidebar, but I don't know about you, my eyes just glaze over that area. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Since no one else (except me) has voted on those I'll just withdraw them and boldly retarget them myself. If there's any further need for RFD to intervene in those, it would probably be better to handle those as in septate nomination anyway. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8. When searching these, Wikipedia comes up anyway. However, keep 5 (
    Economy of wikipedia), since I've now redirected it to the particular section Wikipedia#Operation. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Good call. Keep #5 with Mikael's retargeting. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
#5 Withdrawn. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:38, 6 February 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.

Don't think feel

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. WJBscribe (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Neil Diamond hit single "Don't Think... Feel" (1976) is substantially more notable in Google Books than the

WP:TWODABS would be possible solutions. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:05, 6 February 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:Ming Bridges

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A separate user page should be created. The redirect was created because User:Huon moved the user page to the Afc namespace. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 09:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BDD and 70,50;

WP:ASTONISH. Si Trew (talk) 17:36, 7 February 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_February_6&oldid=1039434873"