January 4

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 4, 2014.

Report to the Commissioner of Baseball of an Independent Investigation into the Illegal Use of Steroids and Other Performance Enhancing Substances by Players in Major League Baseball

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) 00:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Report to the Commissioner of Baseball of an Independent Investigation into the Illegal Use of Steroids and Other Performance Enhancing Substances by Players in Major League Baseball → Mitchell Report (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Absurdly implausible redirect. No one will in a million years link to this title, nor use it as a search term. Delete. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 23:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I love green eyes. Biases left at the door, however, this is the report's official title and it would be improper not to have the redirect there just in case. Keep.--Laun chba ller 23:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep and tag as ((R from official name)). This is the formal name of the report and so it is a useful redirect for people who come across it and want to see information about it (and stats show that people do use this redirect) - making people guess whether the article is at the official or unofficial title is a Bad Thing, so redirects like this should be (and normally are) encouraged. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the official name of the report.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the use though? It will never ever ever ever ever be used as a link or a search term. The only reason I found it was out of simple idle wondering if someone had taken it upon themselves to create it. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 06:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- While it is unlikely to be used as an internal link, it is possible, and as I said in my earlier comment this is a likely search term (via copy & paste, probably) for someone who sees the official title without the shorter name present (I have no idea how likely that is) or who sees both and guesses that information about it will be at the official title (not at all unlikely). We have no reason to make it more difficult for people to find the article, we don't want a duplicate article (which is a possibility if someone arrives at that title without being taken to the existing one), and it's not harmless in the slightest. Redirects are cheap so there needs to be a good reason to delete them, and this meets none of the criteria at WP:R#DELETE while meeting more than one of the common reasons to keep redirects at WP:R#KEEP. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - anybody who enters the term is definitely looking for that article, so they should be sent there. It's a plausible search term (especially if someone, say, copy-pastes it from another context; discovers it, wonder's what it's about; if they're unfamiliar with it, they might only know the official name. Alternatively, I could imagine wanting to wikilink to the official name, especially in a BLP-type dispute where you're trying to be careful & rigourous. Since no argument has been presented to motivate deletion, it is a pretty clear case. Wily D 09:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it is the official name of the document, it is a valid search term. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No policy-based reason to delete has been offered. In fact, the nominator even admits to using this as a search-term, albeit in idle curiosity. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:06, 9 January 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.

!vote

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

!vote → Wikipedia:Glossary (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This WP:CNR is in the set of first 'pages' on Wikipedia, owing to starting with a '!'. It is in the first page of Special:AllPages. As a result, and due to A bug in archiving, it is displayed alongside other mainspace pages all over the place, such as at Template talk:PD-CAGov, since at least March 2012. This redirect was created by HappyUR (talk · contribs) in August 2009, who contributed 71 edits between April and September 2009. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or retarget. "!vote" is something that people will see all over Wikipedia and so this title shouldn't be a redlink - we don't want an article on it - and the Wikipedia:Glossary is a page targetted primarily at those unfamiliar with Wikipedia jargon such as new editors and those who want to learn a bit more before transitioning from reader to editor. An alternative to the CNR though would be to add a sentence about the use of ! as negation in Wikipedia jargon to the article about the character, probably either at Exclamation mark#Computers or Exclamation mark#Internet culture. The former already talks about ! being used as "not equal to" in programming languages (and the origin of the Wikipedia use) but the latter is probably the best semantic fit. I did consider the Negation article, but that is a very technical article and so would not elucidate the average person looking for the meaning. If it is retargetted then I strongly recommend a self-referential hanote along the lines of ((selfref|!vote redirects here. For explanation of its use on Wikipedia see [[Wikipedia:Glossary]])). Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The places where readers/newbies will see !vote is at WP:AFD. AFDs are littered with all imaginable jargon, including some that was invented last week. The solution isnt to create CNR for them all - we should add a link to the Glossary into the AFD header (and any other reader-facing discussion page). Problem solved. ;-) btw, I have left a note at Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#!vote. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CNR that is not useful. Beerest 2 talk 20:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I personally believe that most cross-namespace redirects from Wikipedia-specific terms are harmless, but in this particular instance, the determent outweighs the benefit. —David Levy 21:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tag it with ((R to project)) and retarget to Wikipedia:Glossary#.21.24.40, the section that defines the term. Being among the first results of Special:AllPages seems arbitrary and somewhat open-ended as a reason for deletion: if the pages among the first results are deleted, then other pages will take their places. —rybec 22:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And those pages needn't be cross-namespace redirects, let alone cross-namespace redirects of extremely limited utility. —David Levy 22:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New items will be added over time to Special:AllPages , and occasionally one will drop of the listed, but that doesnt stop it being the first page of the alphabetical index of our project. It does attract a lot of casual browsers as a result of that fact alone. It should be well curated - a list of interesting pages (mostly redirects) that we can justify. (ideally all of the index is well curated...) To that end I have also left notes at Talk:At sign, Talk:Bang Bus, Talk:Russell Peters that they have an incoming redirect which isnt mentioned in the prose. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete XNR, WP:NOTDIC; if this is necessary, it should be called WP:!VOTE, but it isn't, because that points elsewhere. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A ProjectSpace neologism [1] not seen in mainspace, or the real world, does not belong in mainspace or pseudomainspace. Readers should not be exposed to projectspace jargon. People interested in project space jargon should search projectspace, to find Wikipedia:Glossary etc. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or retarget, per John Vandenberg, as well as the fact that "!vote" implies "NOTAVOTE", a falsehood perpetuated by the community. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether a comment described as "!Vote" is or is not a vote (sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, sometimes it's not clear) is not relevant to whether "!Vote" is a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's true. I was basically agreeing with John, while noting my own personal disgust for the "we don't vote" lie. I have no objection to a retarget if you think you've found a good one. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:23, 9 January 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.

Eamon McAdam

The result of the discussion was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eamon McAdam → List of New York Islanders draft picks (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Delete per my rationale at the Victor Rask RfD. Specifically, "Eamon McAdam" is an implausible search term for "List of New York islanders draft picks", as well as the lack of a clear target. Why this list, and not 2013 NHL Entry Draft, 2013–14 New York Islanders season or 2012 World Junior A Challenge? Reso lute 21:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - No WP:RFD#DELETE; mentioned at target. Dolovis (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to 2013–14_New_York_Islanders_season#Draft_picks. I agree with Rybec below that this is a better target. Dolovis (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to 2013–14_New_York_Islanders_season#Draft_picks which is about the current season, hence more likely to be what people are looking for, and which has a prominent link to the present target List of New York Islanders draft picks. —rybec 23:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. The search term is implausible; people looking for a draft pick list aren't going to type in this name in preference to the name of the team. One of many, many implausible redirects the creator has thrown up, a number of which have been deleted in recent days. Ravenswing 07:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing and Resolute. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Implausible search term, as reasoned above. — Scott • talk 20:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:REDLINK. It is better to not have a redirect when the search results would be more informative. In this case, there are many articles which refer to this person; they should not be obscured by a redirect which goes to only one of them. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:15, 19 January 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.

Yan-Pavel Laplante

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yan-Pavel Laplante → Canada men's national under-18 ice hockey team (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Delete per my rationale at the Victor Rask RfD. Specifically, "Yan-Pavel Laplante" is an implausible search term for "Canada men's national under-18 ice hockey team". The existence of this redirect would only confuse the reader, particularly given his name will be removed when once Canada plays its next U18 tournament. Also, there is no clear target for such a redirect, as 2013 NHL Entry Draft and 2013–14 Phoenix Coyotes season would be no worse. Reso lute 21:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to 2013 NHL Entry Draft. Dolovis (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That would not resolve either core concern with this redirect. It would remain an implausible search term, and it still lacks a clear target. Reso lute 21:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of Phoenix Coyotes draft picks. Better target. Dolovis (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That still doesn't resolve either issue. The fact that even you can't find a proper target shows how inappropriate these redirects arel. Reso lute 21:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. The search term is implausible. One of many, many implausible redirects the creator has thrown up, a number of which have been deleted in recent days, and that he's just fishing for a redirect people will swallow is staggering. What's his motive here? Ravenswing 07:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a plausible search term for where it is located and there is no plausible target for the redirect. His motive Ravenswing is that he gets to have the first edit on the article should it ever be created. He is fishing for prestige. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 8 January 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.

MEDRS

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS → Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Cross-namespace redirect. Laun chba ller 21:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete XNR -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cross-namespace redirects should not exist without exceptional need. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As said above, and adding that this merits no mainspace usage diffusion or exception. We are not to support any thinkable shortcut redirect imaginable, at the cost of mainspace health at that. -DePiep (talk) 15:10, 9 January 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.

Tig ol' bitties

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tig ol' bitties → Breast (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Not Urban Dictionary. — Confession0791 ^talk 19:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obscure synonym. The top hits that I found seems to be about a song and Oprah's comments about the term.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Redirects are cheap, and this one isn't causing any problems. That said, with no mention of the term at the target-article, it doesn't seem to have any useful purpose. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:31, 9 January 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.

Manual of style register

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of style register → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

WP:CNR created in March 2010, with less than 10 pageviews per month. Previously listed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_9#Manual_of_style_register. While the target is undeniably useful content, it describes itself as "a work in progress, a working draft of a supplement to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style." It mostly contains links into MOS discussions, and empty sections for areas to be written. It target has a shortcut WP:MOSR, and MOS:R is also free. Putting 'WP:manual of style register' into our search box automatically offers the target page as the only option. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: undocumented shortcut with no incoming links, which received only 31 requests in the past 90 days and only saves three keystrokes as compared to typing "WP:Manual of Style/Register" —rybec 23:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete XNR, and very long, so doesn't serve as a shortcut anyways. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:51, 10 January 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.

BLP:Primary

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP:Primary → Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Non-standard WP:Shortcut prefix created in August 2012. The targeted page section already has shorter shortcut WP:PRIMARY; the target page has WP:BLP, and there is a selfref at the top of BLP. The stats consistently show this redirects receives 20 or less pageviews per month since creation, except for the last two months when there has been a lot of people reviewing the Wikipedia:Database reports/Cross-namespace redirects. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must've created the redirect in response to an error, perhaps in an edit summary. I don't see any harm in the redirect, but if those of you with greater activity and experience in redirects decide it is harmful and wish to remove it, I'm fine with that. Sorry for any inconvenience or trouble I caused with it. Happy New Year. Nightscream (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redirects from articlespace to projectspace are generally strongly discouraged and there is no consensus for BLP: as a pseudo-namespace. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete XNR -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP: is not a common prefix for these situations. The "harm" creator mentioned above, is that it pollutes mainspace with an uncommon and unrecognised non-namespace. -DePiep (talk) 15:13, 9 January 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:MP

The result of the discussion was retarget. --BDD (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:MP → Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

WT:MP and T:MP both go to Talk:Main Page; both were created by user:LFaraone in July 2007 and April 2008 respectively. WP:Main Page also goes to Main Page.(see history)

Most of the redirects prefixed with WP:MP take the user to something related to the main page. A few are meetup pages, a few are WikiProjects, and a few are one-off redirects without a naming theme.

'WP:MP' was originally created in 2005 to point to Wikipedia:Million pool by user:Denelson83. In September 2012 user:AGK redirected it to Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy when that policy was launched, with edit summary "taking over redirect - original target is long since deprecated, and shortcut is not used nor advertised on any current page".

People using this shortcut are assuming it points to something about the Main page. e.g. here in 2011 by User:Tony1; here in 2012 by user:Kevin McE and this and that in 2012 by user:Deborahjay; here, December 2013 by user:Soham.

I am not sure what this use by User:Awadewit in 2007 was intended to mean, as it was pointing to the Million pool at that time. My best guess is 'merge page', at Wikipedia:Merging. Based on the context, I believe this was an attempt to refer to 'meat puppet'.

For a trip down memory lane, see Wikipedia talk:Community portal/Archive 1#Problems with dual mainpage system. In short, there used to be two main pages: one for readers and another for editors - the latter is now at Wikipedia:Community portal. In 2007 there was a discussion at Talk:Main_Page/Archive_111#Wikipedia:Main_Page where user:Nil Einne mentions 'WP:MP', but may have been referring to 'Wikipedia:Main Page'. @Carcharoth:, who was also active in that discussion. Nil Einne also mentions 'WP:MP' at Wikipedia_talk:BLP/3RR#BLP_vio_removal_and_3rr. At Talk:Main_Page/Archive_61#Namespace we see a discussion by User:Bigbluefish and User:Gurch about this redirect, suggesting it could point to the main page. Final reference I can find is at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_58#Russian_beauty_queen, where User:Materialscientist uses 'WP MP' to refer to the main page.

I can not find any use of WP:MP as referring to mediation policy. I suggest that WP:MP should redirect to Main Page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm in both cases when I said WP:MP, I was thinking of the main page. Although I wasn't really thinking of the shortcut per se. In the second instance I was intending to suggest that I consider Main Page should be at Wikipedia:Main Page. In the first instance, I'm pretty sure I was doing something similar. I actually meant to say that Wikipedia:Main Page was redirecting to Main Page but used the shortened name for both. In retrospect, using the shorted name in both cases may have been more confusing then necessary but I do that ;-) Nil Einne (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

retarget per nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as a redirect to Main Page. Only intuitive assumption, and consistent with linked talk page. Even a former chairman of the Mediation committee is unlikely to assume that the letters 'MP' most naturally refer to Mediation Committee Policy. Kevin McE (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per John. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted WP:MP to target Million Pool again. I was sorry to hear my repurposing of the shortcut has caused problems. At the time, I was sure the shortcut was entirely unused; but apparently, it was still in people's minds, or I was mistaken at the time. I also support retargetting WP:MP as proposed. AGK [•] 14:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that the change was particularly harmful, as the most common assumption is that the shortcut leads to the main page (not the million pool page or the Mediation Committee policy page). —David Levy 20:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Main Page. As discussed above, users naturally assume that it points there. —David Levy 20:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Indeed. — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 16:48, 6 January 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.