Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 1

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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:" → Help:Reverting (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Annoying little thing, with no purpose. 1 link! mono 23:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia - the present target is an obvious nonsense but this redirect gets a steady supply of hits so it is a foreseeable typo. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• REtarget to Wikipedia:Quotations - as it uses a quote, so it should redirect to WP:QUOTE. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, always appears as first result in several search suggestion, but it's ambigious and should thus be deleted to get out of these suggestions. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It was a mistake (long story), but it is linked to from thousands of edit summaries in context. Akirn (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - confusing and unhelpful. I don't see why this redirects where it does, and I don't think it would be useful to someone who typed it. Robofish (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Full story here. It's stupid but useful unless you want to break a ton of links, and totally harmless. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in light of the above. As we cannot fix edit summaries, and there is no consensus over either deleting or retargetting here, it should be a priority to ensure that these edit summary links still function. I would recommend adding a hat note to the current target, pointing to WP:Quotations though, just in case. --Taelus (Talk) 08:02, 10 June 2010 (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 Delete The arguments by the greater number of those favoring deletion are more compelling - a madeup word is one thing, but until Randall makes a new comic this won't stand. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Malamanteaux --> Xkcd

In order to end the wheel war here, nominating it for RfD. It was previously kept as part of the RfD on Malamanteau, however the rationale for deleting it now is that whilst Malamanteau was kept, Malamanteaux is a fictional, made-up plural. Then again, the entire word is made up, so goodness knows what to do with it. However, using the arguments which kept Malamanteau, the xkcd comic is the reliable source to show it's usage. Malamanteaux has no such source, as it was seemingly made up during the heated debate over Malamanteau and created as a duplicate article, which was then redirected. At least, that's what seems to be going on to me, more feedback is welcome. I am listing this purely so that we can resolve the discussion and stop the delete-restore-delete wheel war before it actually takes off fully. Thanks, --Taelus (Talk) 19:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relevant previous RfD is here: [[1]]. I will inform both the admins who have performed deletion and restoration actions on the page of this listing. --Taelus (Talk) 19:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted there is no reason for this to exist. It is not mentioned in xkcd, or in any articles referencing xkcd, so nobody would actually search for it.  Grue  19:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep firstly redirects are cheap, they shouldn't be deleted unless there is some pressing reason to do so. The target article xkcd is the only reasonable target of a search for this term, so redirecting the reader there is a good idea. It's not true that nobody is going to search for this, it got 1937 searches in May, and was still getting between 2 and 8 hits per day after the RfD closed (and I can't believe all those were editors looking to improve/maintain it). In addition it's not unreasonable to redirect plural search terms to the same target as the singular. By contrast there is no requirement that a redirect term appear in sources, and WP:N doesn't apply.

Regarding the original deletion/restoration, since this is as good a place to summarise as any: The redirect was recreated by User:A3 nm, after being deleted by Grue. A3 posted something to the effect that the redirect shouldn't have been deleted because it had passed RfD. I saw this recreation on my watchlist, assumed (incorrectly) that Grue hadn't been aware of this at the time of the deletion, and restored the history of the redirect in case it was needed for attribution reasons or other information. I don't consider this wheel warring. Further discussion is at User_talk:Hut_8.5#Malamanteaux and User_talk:Grue#Malamanteaux. Hut 8.5 20:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To give my point of view: I think I recreated the redirect two times, mentioning the RfD each time. The comments in the deletion log seemed to show that the admins who deleted it hadn't noticed that this redirect was also to be kept. --a3_nm (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nothing has changed since the last RfD. Redirects are cheap, this one isn't confusing and could conceivably be a search term. I see no reason to delete it. --a3_nm (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is confusing. Why would it redirect to xkcd article? xkcd never mentions "malamanteaux", it seems to be somebody else's invention.  Grue  21:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I agree with this. xkcd itself, the website, doesn't mention the word Malamanteaux, so goodness knows why this is a plausible search term. The term simply doesn't exist, the plural was made up during the previous RfD. It redirects to an article for a website which doesn't ever mention the term, because it's a made up plural which is not notable, for a made up word which became notable. I'm not really sure what more there is to say here. Wikipedia shouldn't make a word notable by creating it itself. The page Malamanteaux was created as an article to bypass page protection of Malamanteau. This plural could easily be anything. Malamanteaua, Malamanteaub, Malamanteauc, all the way to Malamanteauz. Why keep this made-up plural? Whilst arguments of "If this exists, so should these" should be avoided, I think my example illustrates why this made-up plural is so illogical. --Taelus (Talk) 21:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of those plurals aren't valid if you apply the normal rules of English grammar. Some words of French origin add -x to produce the plural. The term is derived from portmanteau, so the plural would (according to Wiktionary) have to be either malamanteaus or malamanteaux. Notability isn't a criterion for creating or deleting redirects, and people are actually searching for this as I noted above. Nobody is going to be confused by the lack of mention of malamanteaux in xkcd, because the singular is discussed. We wouldn't delete metres if the metre article didn't use that word. Hut 8.5 22:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Consensus seems to be (urgh) that "malamanteau" passes WP:MADEUP because it's actually seen some real-world coverage (even if it was just another xkcd breaching experiment jumped on by inclusionists trying to make a point). On the other hand, the plural form really is WP:MADEUP because it is literally the creation of a Wikipedia editor jumping on the bandwagon. "Redirects are cheap" is bogus here; there must be at least some grounds to warrant the creating of a redirect before there is justification for keeping it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ChrisCunningham above - even if there is some reason to keep Malamanteau, there is no good reason to keep this made-up (presumed) plural, which wasn't even mentioned in the comic. Not a plausible search term in any case. Robofish (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2010 (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 speedy keep. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Blockquote → Template:Quote (links to redirect • history • stats) 

delete Clunky name, ambiguous and confusing. Confuses with <blockquote></blockquote>, where this template does much more than this html tag 174.3.121.27 (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - widely used; deletion would cause much work for no real benefit. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we're not supposed to use HTML. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The replacements that the nominator 174.3.121.27 has already been going about doing have resulted in citations following the quote being displaced a line (see this edit, for instance). If you can't fix formatting glitches like that first, you shouldn't make the replacement. --Hegvald (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you sure? It looks to me like he's just replacing one redirect with another redirect, both of which go to the same template, {{quote}}. There should be no difference in appearance. I've seen some of these changes on my watchlist and not noticed any difference in how the quote appears in the article. Was {{"}} not a redirect to {{quote}} when he was doing it? It looks to me like it has always been. The displacement of the [12] downward seems to be due to his adding a | in the middle, the reason for which I don't know. —Soap— 13:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You may be right about the insertion of | being the reason for the displacement of the footnote. I didn't notice that. Either way I am not sure why this redirect would need to be deleted, as it is easy to remember to use "blockquote" to insert one. Usability and all that... --Hegvald (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep—disruptive nomination, and no valid reason for deletion provided. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 09:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per "WTF?" TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 10:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do not believe the name is either ambiguous or confusing. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2010 (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 Kept. Nominator removed all article uses prior to nominating. This is not appropriate behavior as it doesn't allow us to easily see how widely used it actually was. As such, I'm closing this as keep. The redirect is not causing any harm. After a decent amount of time has passed (I'd recommend several months), its actual use can be evaluated. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:PQuote → Template:Quote (links to redirect • history • stats) 

delete : not likely to be used; orphaned on article space.174.3.121.27 (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - redundant; not used; this was redirected over three years ago. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The above comments are incorrect. The template is in use on several articles. It looks like 174.3.121.27 orphaned it prior to nominating (which is not really kosher) but was reverted in a number of cases. If deleted, those will need to be fixed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2010 (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 Kept. Nominator removed all article uses prior to nominating. This is not appropriate behavior as it doesn't allow us to easily see how widely used it actually was. As such, I'm closing this as keep. The redirect is not causing any harm. After a decent amount of time has passed (I'd recommend several months), its actual use can be evaluated. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Long quotation → Template:Quote (links to redirect • history • stats) 

deletion: not likely to be used; orphaned on article space174.3.121.27 (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - redundant; redirected over 2 years ago. I have fixed occurrences. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The above comments are incorrect. The template is in use on one article. It looks like 174.3.121.27 orphaned it prior to nominating (which is not really kosher) but was reverted. If deleted, that will need to be fixed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]