Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 26

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 (non-admin close).B.Wind (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Www.uncyclopedia.org → Uncyclopedia (links to redirect) (stats) 

Completely wrong search target. 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 20:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep standard URL->Wikipedia page redirect. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator seems to have confused a bad or unlikely search term for the utter implausibility that we really should have before deleting a redirect. Croctotheface (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plausible enough as a typo. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 (non-admin close).B.Wind (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unencyclopedia → Uncyclopedia (links to redirect) (stats) 

Completely wrong search target and not official at all. 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 20:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep hare are list of links to that here [1] I had created it in 2005 when I fond a link on a Vote for Deletion page archive to Unencyclopedia that was red I had think that other people will use that word as a link.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 21:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the sort of typo I tend to make, so I assume it is not altogether unlikely that others might also. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plausible error --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator seems to have confused a bad or unlikely search term for the utter implausibility that we really should have before deleting a redirect. Croctotheface (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Entirely plausible. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 (non-admin close).B.Wind (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncapaedia → Uncyclopedia (links to redirect) (stats) 

Extremely implausable search target. Needs to be deleted instantly. 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 19:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and tag with {{R with possibilities}} or something similar. Uncapaedia is the Latin version of Uncyclopedia. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the sort of typo I tend to make, so I assume it is not altogether unlikely that others might also. BTW, why the "instantly"/ Is it in some way exceptionally harmful that isn't obvious to me?. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plausible search term per Zzyzx11. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator seems to have confused a bad or unlikely search term for the utter implausibility that we really should have before deleting a redirect. Croctotheface (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit this page → Wiki (links to redirect) (stats) 

Implausible search target. 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 15:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I created this redirect back in 2005 since that was the only option at the time before creation protection was implemented. As any admin can see on Special:Undelete/Edit_this_page, the page was created a few times and promptly deleted under WP:CSD#G1. As you know, the phrase "edit this page" is the name of the link on almost page of Wikipedia, or any site of the Wikimedia Foundation, which lets people to edit the page they are looking at. So with the publicity of Wikipedia, the other Wikimedia Foundation sites, and wikis in general, it is only natural for vandals so edit/create a page with that phrase, as also seen on the page's history. I also get currently get over 48 million Google hits when I enter that phrase,[2] so I highly doubt it is an implausible search term. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wikipedia:Sandbox -- This gets hundreds of hits a day and should definitely be kept. That said, pointing it to the sandbox seems more appropriate. —mako๛ 19:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd prefer not to have a cross-namespace redirect with that many Google hits to a phrase like that. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt - I really don't think this is an intuitive search term. If it didn't pop up as an autocomplete option in the search box, I doubt it would get many hits at all. And when it DOES pop up with autocomplete, it's misleading to the user - it implies that by pressing go, you'll be able to "edit this page". Now that we're able to salt pages, I see no reason for the page to exist. —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 20:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. This redirect makes no sense, and I can think of no other logical target page. Powers ^T 19:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per Zach. Search box autocompletion does change the dynamic by vastly increasing the visibility of redirects. I wish to append "Edit this page!" to thisnomination. -- ToE^T 22:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit this page! → Wiki (links to redirect) (stats) 
• Delete and salt both. Maybe add a relevant message linking to Wikipedia:Introduction or the sandbox in the deletion or protection log. snigbrook (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt both. I understand how these came exist, but I think it's better they don't exist any more. The autocompletion issue is just potentially far too confusing for new and casual editors. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt both unless the pages can be excluded from the auto-complete or a special message added tot he blank pages there. If so then there should be either a paragraph explaining and linking to Wiki and Help:Editing. Thryduulf (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt both - no point in having it when every non-protected page has a tab with exactly that phrase as an active link. As Jack Horkheimer says, "keep looking up!" 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right → Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (links to redirect) (stats)

Implausible search target3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 15:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the book's cover itself gives some people the impression of it being the entire name of its title. It should be pointed out that nom created the redirect minutes before nomination here by moving the article to its current title. B.Wind (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This gets dozens of hits a day. I also personally thought this was the full title of the book and I'm obviously not alone. This is nowhere near an implausible search target. —mako๛ 19:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the official title of the book, per http://catalog.loc.gov, is Lies: and the lying liars who tell them: a fair and balanced look at the Right. That being said, I think the move that Evosoho made, while controversial, was appropriate - Lies and the lying liars who tell them is the title known to the public. Nonetheless, it is important to keep the full title as a redirect. —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 20:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No compelling reason to delete; "having fewer redirects" is not a good reason, and there are probably article links that still go here. Croctotheface (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - standard full name to common name redirect. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the longer title is how it is referred to in at least one of the reliable sources cited by the article. Thryduulf (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Exploding frogs → Exploding toad
• Exploding frog → Exploding toad(links to redirect) (stats) 

The article (now section of exploding animal that is) is about exploding toads not frogs. 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 14:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I merged the two RfDs for Exploding frog and Exploding frogs. I can't imagine that these would want to be discussed separately. —mako๛ 14:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I really don't understand the nominators rationale for why this should be deleted. The difference between frogs and and toads is a subtle one and lost on most people. In fact, it's discussed near the top of both articles. This seems like a very plausible mistake and I don't see any harm in keeping these redirects around. —mako๛ 14:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as the Wikipedia article for frog (and many other books about frogs) states, many "toads" from various families of amphibians are often called frogs (only family Bufonidae has exclusively "toads"). Whenever there is a fine line, Wikipedia should have the redirect for the readers who do not know the difference as the redirect is that of a likely search item. B.Wind (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: seven minutes before the posting of this nomination, Exploding toad was merged by nom into Exploding animal. Thus this makes both nominated redirects double redirects. I am retargeting both nominated redirects to the same target as Exploding toad: Exploding animal#Exploding toads. B.Wind (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep using toad and frog in nonspecific ways is very common. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep confusing frogs and toads is a very common error, and in this case in irrelevant one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 (non admin close).B.Wind (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Topaz brainstorm → Gnome (desktop environment) (links to redirect) (stats) 

Irrelevant search target to an article that doesnt cover topaz brainstorming. 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 13:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- It's not irrelevant. Topaz is the code name for Gnome 3, covered in the article, and the term "Topaz Brainstorm" is used in a number of communities to train work being done in the design project. That is sending a consistent traffic to the article. Of course, you're right that it was confusing that it was mentioned. I added information on topaz and the the brainstorming article to the section on Gnome 3 in the target article. As such, I think this is now worth keeping. —mako๛ 14:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator seems to have confused a bad or unlikely search term for the utter implausibility that we really should have before deleting a redirect. Croctotheface (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Book infobox → Template:Infobox Book (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete Had only 2 uses (now changed to bypass); thwarts apparent "Infobox Foo" naming convention (which is easily discovered); makes life slightly harder for template-related bots; plain not necessary. Cybercobra (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - word transposition is a likely occurrence, as nom had pointed out. This is a case in which it would be better to keep the redirect and check regularly for its use. "Fixing" the transposition in the transclusions themselves (as they occur) would be far more user-friendly than deleting and having the editor search for the template with the correct form and the correct name. B.Wind (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I tend to agree with User:B.Wind on this. Better to keep this likely error and then fix links to it from people who don't know any better. —mako๛ 19:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plausible error. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep common error, one that I make myself from time to time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw I just wanted to give it a try, but this evidently isn't gonna happen. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Toomanyimages → Template:Too many photos (links to redirect) (stats) 

Slurring the spaces together doesn't exactly make for a useful redirect. Ipatrol (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is a harmless redirect that is actually quite useful in light of having many templates with compressed names throughout the history of Wikipedia. On more than one occasion, I wondered if spaces are not used in template names in general, like {{AmusementParkProject}} and {{articleissues}} (the latter only recently renamed to add a space). B.Wind (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Use of spaces in template names is quite inconsistent, this redirect allows users to avoid having to look up such arcana. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- No harm that I can see and a real possibility that will help people in the the template namespace where naming conventions are far from predictable. —mako๛ 19:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As noted, spacing is quite inconsistent. As such, this helps users find the template they were looking for. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Image overkill → Template:Too many photos (links to redirect) (stats) 

This is a little ridiculous, unused, and unnecessary. Ipatrol (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming you didn't remove a nontrivial number of uses, Delete --Cybercobra (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Silly redirect that doesn't seem to be either used or viewed by anyone and no reason to expect that it would ever gain an audience either. —mako๛ 19:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As creator of that redirect, I approve it's deletion. 84.44.249.90 (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rsd → Saint Andrew (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete (procedural nomination). This page has existed since 2004 as a redirect to the Saint Andrew article. All was peaceful until earlier this month, when a bot kept the article pointing at the article about the saint while there was a move war over that article in which user:Afaprof01 was apparently involved. Yesterday, thirteen days after the moves, the same user then, within the space of two minutes, removed the redirect, requested speedy deletion of the page per WP:CSD#G6 (Housekeeping) and then blanked it. Andrew the Apostle, an article that as far as I can tell contained and contains no content and did not exist prior to it being moved(?) was, one minute later, then move to Rsd. Just over half an hour later, this empty page was nominated for deletion at AfD, and then nominated again five minutes after that, both with the one-word rationale "Nonsense". I stumbled across this when categorising new AfDs to try and work out what this was about. I deleted the duplicate second nomination page and then closed the first AfD with a reason that as user:Afaprof01 was not the original author and there was no apparent discussion anywhere, I would restore the redirect and nominate it for deletion here. And so here we are, I presume that the nomintor would like this deleted per it being "Nonsense", but I have no opinion at all. I will leave a message about this discussion at talk:Saint Andrew as well as the two humans who have edited Rsd Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G6 No need for procedural nominations as per WP:SNOW. Just delete it.--Ipatrol (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. WP:SNOW is actually discouraged as a justification for either a speedy keep or a speedy delete, and the essay wouldn't apply to something that wasn't discussed in an AfD or RfD, anyway. People who wish to check the (very short) AfD session can see it here. B.Wind (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if it weren't discouraged, WP:SNOW would never be appropriate for a situation in which one person wants something deleted and which nobody else has expressed an opinion about. All I've done is move the discussion to the correct forum (as B.Wind notes, nobody expressed an opinion when it was at AfD). I also don't see how G6 applies in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• RetargetDelete Unless it can be explained how "Rsd" is connected to Saint Andrew in an unambiguous, significant way. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Or simply retarget to RSD.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to RSD --- Why isn't this pointing there already? —mako๛ 19:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget. It appears to have been moved from Andrew the Apostle as either a mistake or page move vandalism, but if it was redirected to RSD then it would be useful. snigbrook (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've retargeted it per the above discussion. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I've been asked to comment...my motivation for the original redirect was presumably that "Andrew the Apostle" was a redlink, and "Saint Andrew" already existed, so it seemed logical to point it there. I don't know what's going on with RSD. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:TOMP → Template:Too many photos (links to redirect) (stats) 

Very bad name. Very unclear of what it can be. Magioladitis (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like at least one abbreviation for the template, can you think of a better one?--Ipatrol (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. "TOMP" is bad, but there should be some abbrev available. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vague. {{pix}} and {{tmpix}} are available for use as alternatives, as are {{too many pix}} and {{toomanypix}}. B.Wind (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral -- I think it's complicated and undiscoverable, but I also don't have an idea for something better and respect Ipatrol's desire to have a short abbreviation. I see no problem with keeping this around until someone comes up with something better. —mako๛ 19:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague and frankly confusing. I'd suggest either {{TMP}} or {{TOOMP}} as alternatives, if you'd like to stay within the theme. —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 06:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]