< January 3
January 5 >

January 4

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 4, 2012

Boycott of bnp paribas open by venus and serena williams

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. Per Fyunck(click)—the target article does not exist anymore. Ruslik_Zero 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G6 - Speedy deletion tag was removed on it. This is not a likely alternative capitalization. Has no useful history worth keeping. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you want everyone using this approach at accessing Wikipedia to abandon their established practice to remove this redirect? Really? Hope you've already worked out the way you are going to identify and persuade all the people having this smart bookmark, because until you're done with it this redirect is still useful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to add redirects to Wikipedia for all possible casings people might be using instead of pointing the people to the correct URL for smart bookmarks? Really? Hope you've already worked out the way you are going to identify all the millions of redirects and wrote a bot adding all of them, because without that using the wrong bookmark URL for smart bookmarks is not very useful. Seriously, why do you want to implement and additional search functionality through redirects instead of telling people to use the existing search interface for their smart bookmarks? And it is not only capitalization, Boycott of bnp paribas open by serena and venus williams (changing the order of the names) is another example: Using your wrong URL for the smart bookmark search gives a non article error message, while using the correct search URL for the smart bookmark gives a search page listing the correct page among the results. You can never make it for people using the wrong URL for their smart bookmark as good as for people using the correct URL, and I'm going back to my previous question to you: Can you double-check that my suggestion works for you, and if it does, look for a good place to document that in Wikipedia? Thank Toán học (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, the useful redirects are kept, and this one is useful as explained above (and below), so I don't see a reason for continuing this discussion. BTW, the link you've spotted should also be redirected to the article and tagged with ((R from alternative name)) and ((R from alternative capitalization)). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For how many different orders of the words and capitalizations do you want to create redirects for this relatively obscure topic alone instead of documenting the correct URL for smart bookmarks? With the correct URL all that works automatically and for all articles. Toán học (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep focused. We are not discussing the operation principles (though search link is no-go for this purpose anyway). The bookmark "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%s" is preloaded on a whole lot of browsers, so deleting redirects from improper capitalization will damage users' experience. Period. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Toán học actually makes a very good point. With longer titles like this one you are going to need a lot of redirects for alternative capitalizations and alternative names, if you are to satisfy those who use smart bookmarks. Apart from alternative capitalizations, you can have "Serena and Venus Williams" vs "Venus and Serena Williams" , but "Williams sisters" is also a very common alternative name for them, hence the article Williams sisters. If you going to have also lower cap redirects then this already makes for 6 variations. But that's not the only problem. BNP Paribas Open is itself a redirect page going to Indian Wells Masters (project tennis prefers non-sponsor names, so this is how it should be). If we use both names also in lower cap variations then we get again 4 possibilities for the name of the tournament. Four multiplied by six becomes 24 different redirects you will need to satisy the users of smart bookmarks. So you would need Boycott of the Indian Wells Masters by the Williams sisters and Boycott of the indian wells masters by serena and venus williams and 22 other variations of equally plausible alternative names and capitalizations. Never mind that our smart bookmarks users may as well be typing something like Williams sisters' boycott of the Indian Wells Masters, and the number of permutations expands even more.
We can also question the use of this name because it throws a negative light on a sponsor's name (BNP Paribas), people who read this title may think that the Williams sister boycott BNP Paribas. In fact, before 2008 this tournament was called Pacific Life Open. BNP Paribas was not the sponsor of this event when this infamous incident occured. So a redirect with this title is also factually misleading. I see a lot of Keep votes here, but I invite these editors to reconsider their vote based on the fact that the tournament was not called "BNP Paribas Open" at the time of this incident, and we are to avoid sponsor names anyway. If we follow Czarkoff's argument based on the needs of the users of smart bookmarks, then we will need at least 24 equally plausible redirect pages for this article. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is it all relevant here? There is a guideline (WP:R), which specifically lists the reasons for deletion. Which one applies here? None. The guideline also lists specific reasons when deleting is inappropriate, with this redirect qualifying for reason 5. Nothing to doubt or make points about. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The title of this redirect is potentially offensive or abusive to BNP Paribas (especially considering that they were not the sponsor of this event at the time of the incident). That is clearly among the good reasons to delete. It is just not factually accurate, this incident didn't happen at the BNP Paribas Open. If some redirect is deemed necessary to be kept then it will have to be renamed. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is it offensive or abusing? It is fairly neutral in its wording. The fact that someone boycotts something can't be regarded as offensive or abusive. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2012 (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.

Yeshuv Ya'ad

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 Speedy delete. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was a case of me mixing up my Hebrew, mistaking "yeshuv" for "moshav". "Yeshuv" is not a correct word for describing Ya'ad, so the redirect may lead to confusion. InverseHypercube 01:40, 4 January 2012 (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.

St. helena striped earwig

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. Lenticel (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found the name "St. Helena Striped Earwig" at http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ch2m-nitu/sthelene.htm, a Japanese site. I have not seen this anywhere else (except websites that used the Saint Helena earwig article as a source). This leads me to think that it was a translation error, and that having a redirect is misleading and unnecessary. InverseHypercube 03:39, 4 January 2012 (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.
More