March 22
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 22, 2012
Template:Infobox director
- 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 both. Ruslik_Zero 15:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary and unused redirect. We don't need redirects from professions to the main infobox. Check Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_7#Template:Infobox_businessman too. Magioladitis (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We should not divide people to celebrities and non-celebrities. POV redirect. Magioladitis (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no qualms with this suggestion. Adraeus (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Joined similar discussions — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: unneeded cruft making false impression of multiple similar templates editors should be aware of. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I believe some of these, if not most, were previously WP:TFDed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm not sure how these are "POV redirects"; exactly how are they "POV"? The whole point of having a template redirect is to point from a possible title that someone may think to use to the correct template. Template redirects like these are not "cruft", and they aren't creating "false impressions" (whatever that means). Redirects are cheap, and if it helps people find the correct infobox then it accomplishes its purpose. These are redirects someone might actually think to use, and with them pointing to the correct template, they help people find the correct template to use. These should absolutely not be deleted. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Finding proper infoboxes is ridiculously easy, while relying on redirects to such templates forms the bad habits of not checking the documentation of unfamiliar templates. Thus these redirects are harmful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. I created at least one of those above because I couldn't figure out where to find the right one. I did so to help anyone coming after me to be able to more easily find the correct one as they would be redirected to it. I don't see any way in which having template redirects "forms the bad habits of not checking the documentation of unfamiliar templates." Quite the opposite, actually. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per Nihonjoe. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, POV refers to "celebrities". -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is my fault, actually, as I joined the nomination preserving both the comments for the first three and for the last 2 without noting this fact. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Both per Nihonjoe and because they discourage the creation of redundant templates. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to add that I created Template:Infobox Celebrity in 2005. At the time, the infobox was not merely a redirect. Adraeus (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as they discourage users from forking the original template, but would support converting transclusions of the redirects. Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 25 March 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.
- 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 both. Ruslik_Zero 15:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary redirect. The number 2 offers nothing. Magioladitis (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Joined similar discussions — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: particularly unreasonable names; aren't serving any purpose, which would be OK in main namespace but isn't in the others. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Particularly unreasonable names" shows no understanding of the history of these redirects. :) Both of these redirects are the result of earlier TFDs, at which point they were both in use, with the primary names (that is, the ones without the "2") having been deprecated: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 26#Template:Extra album cover; Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 25#Template:Extra chronology. The secondary names were moved to the primary names, but deleting the redirects at the time would have resulted in those still using those templates finding the contents had disappeared. If they are no longer being used by people who expect the templates themselves to reside at these titles, there's no reason to retain the redirects anymore. Their contents were history merged into the current location. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These names are particularly unreasonable regardless the history. And yes, they are orphaned. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then evidently your definition of "unreasonable" differs from mine, as "reason" most definitely was part of their creation as redirects. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant: There is no reason to keep redirects that only add a "2" in their name. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that you just misunderstood me: I find the these names unreasonable generally, including the creation of templates that were subsequently merged. They should have been created under the names that made sense. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:22, 23 March 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.
Peopledom of China
- 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I don't recall anyone calling the ROC this, and the ROC only represents a fraction of the Chinese people. The PRC probably considers itself a "peopledom" as well. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, very rare term. Google only shows 3800 results and almost all of them are from Wikipedia and its mirrors. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 20:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: quirky title, google search shows up only wikipedia-related sources, stats well below the reasonable level. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:44, 23 March 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.
Democratic China
- 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 Democracy in China. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This redirect violates WP:NPOV. In addition, the ROC didn't become democratic until the 80's / 90's. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The former is not actually a valid deletion reason: see WP:RNEUTRAL. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Democratic China" is the equivalent of a redirect named "Better China" or "Best China". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's at all a fairly common form of reference (eg as "Nationalist China" is, or at least was), the neutrality issue wouldn't matter; if it's not really used, neutrality would in principle matter, but we wouldn't want or need the redirect anyway. I'm not sure that it is used at all widely. N-HH talk/edits 19:06, 22 March 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.
Federal Democratic Republic of Taiwan
- 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) 01:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete – The "Federal Democratic Republic of Taiwan" doesn't exist. The redirect was created by Cmm_394 in 2007: [1], [2]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:52, 22 March 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.
Schriften-Service D. Stempel GmbH
- 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #6 as it is a cross-namespace redirect. Tavix | Talk 16:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: not only cross-namespace, but a useless one... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this should be a redlink. Article to Category CNRs are not always bad, as both are reader-facing namespaces, but this redirect is useless. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: as CNR and vague.--Lenticel (talk) 01:25, 30 March 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.
Putat, Tuburan, Cebu, Philippines
- 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COSTLYREDIR -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep redirect, delete WP:COSTLYREDIR. The page goes against policy and is leading to these blatantly wrong nominations. There is no legitimate reason to delete this, in fact, this redirect makes a lot of sense, even if rarely used. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect Dondegroovily meant to say: delete the REDIRECT WP:COSTLYREDIR – for obvious reasons. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect Dondegroovily meant to say: delete the ESSAY Wikipedia:Redirects are costly – for the obvious reasons he expressed in his comment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did mean to delete the essay, but per comments below, perhaps it should be tagged as disputed. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment essay cited as reason for deletion was written by the nominator. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While the new title is arguably in better compliance with the MoS, content existed at the old title for almost a year without confusion or controversy. This redirect is unharmful. WP:COSTLYREDIR cites no policy-based reason for deletion. (I disagree, however, with Donde's call to delete the essay. We don't do that to policy or essay pages. It may be appropriate to tag it as disputed or someday as ((historical)) but we keep even our bad ideas around so that the community can learn from them.) Rossami (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-No valid reason for deletion has been offered. As a side note to the nominator, I think you'll find that appealing to essays when you yourself are their sole author is rarely an effective approach in deletion discussions.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; no valid rationale by nominator, and I can't think of acceptable one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a plausible synonym.--Lenticel (talk) 05:32, 23 March 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.
Flying J (1968-2010)
- 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why should there be a redirect to the page? The article's actual title is also the title of the redirect. There is a choice: either merge the article with Pilot Flying J or delete the redirect. If you vote for #1, type A. If you vote for #2, type B. The discussion will end when 20+ votes are cast. Good luck! Web+TV+3=WebTV3! (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as is, the target article has an "en-dash", not a hyphen, and there is no en-dash on my keyboard, so people will type the hyphen instead. Redirects are cheap, and there is no reason to delete this one. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In addition to Donde's point about the difficulty typing an en-dash, this redirect helps to document the move of content that had existed at the prior title for half a year. The redirect itself has existed for several years. The possibilty of inbound links to that title is real and link rot is a serious problem. The keeping the redirect around helps to mitigate that risk. The redirect is not harmful or confusing to readers so there is no justification to delete it.
Regarding the proposal to merge and redirect everything back to Pilot Flying J, I note that these were all originally one article at the title Flying J. The article was broken apart about the same time that the legal entities split. There may be a credible argument to merge the articles back if the history section of one is robust enough. That is an ordinary-editor debate that should be discussed on the article's Talk page by the editors most familiar with the company and, if they choose to do it, resolved with a merge-and-redirect. There is little value in discussing it here. Rossami (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per all of the above. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as plausible synonym. en dash issue could also be relevant--Lenticel (talk) 01:28, 30 March 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.