This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 2, 2013.
Christopher Hume
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.
I suggest deletion. Is Hume notable? Possibly, in which case this redirect is deceptive. If he is not notable, then there should be no link at all, no redirect. If he is notable, of what value is a redirection to his current employer? He could quit, be fired. It fools editors who might create a stub about him into thinking he is already covered. If he is notable it would be better to leave this a red-link, IMO. Geo Swan (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is mentioned at the target. People can just build an article from the redirect, so I fail to see your point. Beerest355Talk 17:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WhatLinksHere/Christopher_Hume points to four articles. Two of those articles wikilink to both Hume and the Toronto Star in close proximity. This is deceptive because when readers who see a link to Hume himself, they should be able to expect it will take them to an article about Hume -- not to the article on the Toronto Star -- which they might already have visited.
Weak keep. The nomination seems to sit on the fence with regard to the central issue of notability rather than advance an argument for deletion. I'm inclined to come down on the probably-not-notable side: there are lots of Google and Google News hits but most if not all are for articles he's written rather than independent sources mentioning him. I fail to see how the redirect is "deceptive" or why his not being notable should be a cause for deletion – redirects aren't required to be notable and redirects like these can discourage the creation of articles on non-notable topics. ("Weak keep" because it's possible he might satisfy WP:CREATIVE in a way I've missed.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hume probably is notable. He is highly respected here in Toronto, is invited to be on blue ribbon panels, and to give public lectures. I attended one. Personally I found him somewhat pompous, but he is respected. As a notable person it is better to have a redlink than a redirect which isn't a helpful redirect. Below you see links to lectures he gave, as far away as SFU, books where he was invited to write an introduction, articles where other commentators singled him out for praise or criticism. Columnists who are quoted and commented upon won't be notable. Columnists who have a visibility well beyond the publication they write for probably are. Geo Swan (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Phillip Preville (2007-04-20). "Let's all hate Christopher Hume". Toronto Life. Retrieved 2013-08-05. The film's talking-head highlight, for me, is the Star's Christopher Hume, who gets treated with kid gloves in the film despite being so blissfully blind to his own arrogance that he might as well be wearing Mr. Toronto's eyepatch.((cite news)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Kevin Plummer (2009-09-12). "Historicist: Anonymous Players on the Stage of History". The Torontoist. Retrieved 2013-08-05. Christopher Hume writes in the introduction to William James' Toronto Views (James Lorimer & Company Ltd, Publishers, 1999), but "[t]he city was their only common denominator. It was what brought them—and James—together. It was also what kept them apart."((cite news)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
"Heritage Toronto Launches Building Storeys Photography Exhibit". Urban Toronto. May 4, 2012. Retrieved 2013-08-05. Opening remarks by Heritage Toronto's executive director, Karen Carter, emphasized the role that such an exhibition has in highlighting the unique opportunities that arise when we use artistic methods to express built heritage. Co-curator and well known architectural critic, Christopher Hume, was on hand as well, remarking on the growing struggle we here in Toronto face with transportation and praising the exhibit's potential in drawing attention to the long history of transportation architecture within Toronto.((cite news)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Derek Flack (2011-05-20). "The five ugliest Toronto buildings of the last 10 years". Blog TO. Retrieved 2013-08-05. So Christopher Hume has now finished his list of Toronto's worst buildings constructed in the 21st century, and I suspect his choices are bound to be more controversial than those that made the top five list. In fairness, it's a more difficult task to choose the downright ugly buildings during this period — not because so many recent buildings could be called beautiful, but because there's an increasingly large stable of mediocre residential and commercial developments in this city.((cite news)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Keep until the redirect is BOLDly overwritten with an article. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2013 (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.
Roller gun
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. The redirect appears to be a likely search term. Ruslik_Zero 09:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This title was previously an article deleted at AfD. While the option to redirect came up during the discussion, it was still closed as delete. The redirect isn't very helpful, since it's not mentioned on the target page. BDD (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator - lots of views, most of which were most likely looking for "roller speargun", which is what comes up when you search "roller gun" on Google. (I'm not an expert of spearguns, obviously, so I don't actually know what a "roller gun" is, just that it is a type of speargun.) Ansh666 23:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah, those views are from when Roller gun was an article, and at least some of those views are because the article was at AfD. --BDD (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article was put up July 23. The article has put up consistent 10-30 views per day since its creation. Does stats.grok.se show views of uncreated pages? In any case, I doubt those views were intentional, since the article was about an obscure, likely made up classification of weapons. Ansh666 03:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Delete--RAF910 (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the AfD'd article wasn't about spearguns -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
…the AfD's article doesn't have to have anything to do with this discussion. Ansh666 06:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD'd article indicates that multiple different types of guns are indicated by "roller gun", one of which are not spearguns -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, that was a WP:NEO/WP:MADEUP/WP:SYNTH designation. Nobody calls those "roller guns". It doesn't even exist as an official classification. Ansh666 06:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Likely search term that rocks (and rolls)! Harmless little useful redirect. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 19:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems that much of you reasoning for keeping redirects is that they are "harmless" and interesting as a bonus. Even if a redirect is not "harmful" to Wikipedia in ways that might come quickly to mind, the true harm posed by many redirects is manifested in their inconsistency, which is nonetheless a threat to the overall consistency (and beauty, if you must) of Wikipedia. — |J~Pæst| 20:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats, you linked to a "historical" page (which says "Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear."). Anyhow, how is this inconsistent, anyways? Ansh666 01:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, JPæst, I suppose "interesting" is my own inner opinion and should be taken cum grano salis. The other adjective, "harmless", comes from the top of this page, where we are cautioned to "...consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones." – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 04:14, 13 August 2013 (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.
Developmental delay
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. JohnCD (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect desperately needs a better target. Where to target? Or do we need an article? Ego White Tray (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. It's previous target from five years ago was not synonymous with this term, so it was retargeted to its present article. And of all the articles I read on developmental disorders, this present target is the one that mentions the term "delay", specifically. It is a term that targets childhood disorders that may or may not lead to trouble in adulthood. Works for me. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 20:00, 4 August 2013 (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.
ClueBot
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) 18:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Previous target no longer exists, see no reason at all why Cluebot requires a mainspace redirect Jac16888Talk 17:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if Cluebot were notable, redirecting to the userpage from mainspace is not appropriate. HereToHelp(talk to me) 23:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are lots of shortcuts from mainspace. It's important they be categorized as "unprintworthy", not to delete them. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument makes no sense. The fact there are mainspace > userspace redirects does not automatically justify this one, nor is it in fact correct, if you take a look at Wikipedia:Database reports/Cross-namespace redirects you will see that there is (almost) currently exactly 1 - this one , and I don't even understand what being printworthy or not has to do with the matter.--Jac16888Talk 20:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you and understand your concern. All I said is that there are many shortcuts "from mainspace", not just from mainspace to userspace. There are 632 "P:" mainspace shortcuts to portalspace alone. As for printworthiness, no mainspace shortcuts are suitable for a printed version of Wikipedia and should be thusly categorized. Shortcuts, to include these mainspace ones, are there for a reason – they were created for a reason – and should be kept and made available to contributors per SNOW in the same manner now as in the past. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 02:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, the existence of mainspace>portal redirects is irrelevant, as is whether or not it is printed, and your argument is that it was made for a reason and therefore should be kept, without any comment on what that reason was or it's validity?--Jac16888Talk 17:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. Basically, the nom's rationale opened up whether or not a cross-namespace shortcut is "appropriate". My argument is relevant because it gives hundreds, perhaps thousands of reasons why this shortcut is appropriate. As for a basic lesson in why contributors create shortcuts and their validity, you may read about it here.
Irrelevancy does find a place in the nom's rationale's beginning, "Even if Cluebot were notable,..." Cluebot does not have to be notable because it is not an article in mainspace, it is a bot in userspace. This shortcut was created for the convenience of editors, which is why any shortcut is created. Isn't there validity in that? Joys! – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 20:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read the nomination again. --Jac16888Talk 21:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now it is you who makes no sense. Redirects, even those shortcut redirects in mainspace, are not required to be notable. There are plenty of mainspace shortcuts to other namespaces, which makes this shortcut quite appropriate. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 21:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Mybad – I called the first delete rationale the nom's rationale. Your nominating rationale, that you could see no reason, is hopefully answered by the fact that this is a shortcut and exists for the convenience of editors. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 21:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point completely missed. "does find a place in the nom's rationale's beginning, "Even if Cluebot were notable,...""... that was not the nomination. Cluebot is not notable, and as such does not have an article, and as such should not be redirected to. We do not have redirects for human editors from the mainspace, even those with hundreds of thousands of edits, this is no different to that--Jac16888Talk 21:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of redirects/shortcuts for human editors from mainspace to other namespaces and even to other mainspace articles – ex. T:A, T:DS –. Convenience is its own reward, hence SNOW. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 21:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convenience for editors is not the slightest justification for keeping anything--Jac16888Talk 21:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. — |J~Pæst| 01:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or... Just because one editor does not find a redirect useful does not mean that other editors must not find it useful. One person's trash is another person's treasure. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 11:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The exact same argument could be made about every single article currently at AFD, CSD or Prod--Jac16888Talk 13:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant since this is a discussion about a redirect that others (other than you) may and do find useful (#5). – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 14:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That exact same page says that this should be deleted #6--Jac16888Talk 14:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That #6 may not apply, which will depend on a judgement call by the closer, and I am so glad that decision does not fall to you nor me!-) – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 15:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to your arguments, Paine, why wouldn't you support retargeting the redirect more accurately to User:ClueBot (notUser:ClueBot NG) rather than keeping it as it is? — |J~Pæst| 20:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the top of the user page: "Cluebot is taking a well-deserved, indefinitely long Wikibreak...", so this redirect's present target is the more useful of the two; don't you agree? – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 04:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually; I do not agree. I consider the more accurate, less misleading redirect to be the more useful one. — |J~Pæst| 06:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly retarget to MediaWiki#Tracking edits, the only mainspace article to mention ClueBot, leaving a hatnote. I can't see much justification for mainspace to userspace redirects in general and agree that "there are lots of them" is a bit weak. Alternatively, if a source linking the two can be found, restore the paragraph referring to ClueBot in the ClueNet article, which probably shouldn't have been deleted with the rationale given, and retarget this there. Note that ClueBot NG also points to the same target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2013 (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:Superceded
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.
These are templates, not articles. It's not likely that someone would use a synonym for a template. Ansh666 06:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find your comment very weird. Template redirects are used all the time, How many times is ((cn)) used in articles? That's a template redirect. There are multitudes of examples of synonyms being used. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is "cn" a wikt:synonym of "citation needed"? Granted, templates aren't my usual haunting grounds. Ansh666 06:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No; it is an initialism, and synonymy is not even the issue here. Misspelling is. However, many misspelled redirects to templates do exist, and surprisingly, they are used all of the time! For example, (somewhat ironically) ((R from mispelling)) redirects to ((R from misspelling)) as a common misspelling in itself. "Supercede[d]" is even more common as a typo. — |J~Pæst| 19:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, the "superseded" thing hadn't come up when I said that yet. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Ansh666 02:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IP. There are plenty of such redirects. --BDD (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a misspelling of an alternate name for an obscure template — besides file-maintainers who use the template frequently, who makes use of ((Obsolete))? The file maintainers will know the real template name, so getting rid of this redirect won't hurt them, and people not familiar with it are very very unlikely to use the redirect: they're less likely to know of the template in the first place, they're even less likely to know that "superseded" is an alternate name for it, and it's extremely unlikely that they will know that "superseded" has been misspelled. If this were Template:Superseded (which, BTW, serves a completely different purpose), I might think differently. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very common misspelling of superseded. Wiktionary:supercede tells us that it is the only English word that ends in "sede", while several end in "cede", and that's probably a reason why the misspelling became so common. Retargeting this redirect to ((Superceded)) (oops!) ((Superseded)) is a harmless and useful resolution. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 14:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget it to ((Superseded)) as a useful, common typo, and tag it with ((R from common misspelling)) (shortcut ((R cm))). (I am normally fine with the deletion of misspellings, but in this case, the redirect is potentially very useful due to the commonality of the misspelling in question, and therefore it should be retargeted to the template entitled with the correct spelling.) — |J~Pæst| 19:17, 11 August 2013 (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.
Aaron Jack
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.
Aaron Jack: This page is not being maintained, has broken links and the subject is no longer in elective office. BuffaloBob (talk)
Speedy close this is not a redirect. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. Also deletion is not a substitute for cleanup, and notability is not temporary, so this isn't a candidate for deletion of any sort IMO. Siuenti (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2013 (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.