Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 22

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Pre coding → Precoding (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Declined A1 speedy deletion. Has been targeted to numerous things, precoding is a change from CDMA. Not sure of tecnnicalities, and what it should redirect to, if anything. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 19:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems an entirely plausible typo for the present target. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems acceptable as it is. If there's a separate meaning for this term, a disambiguation page can be created, but for now this redirect is fine. Robofish (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pre coding from four years ago, this was to be merged to CDMA (which is now at Code division multiple access). From my review of the history nothing was merged, it was just redirected there, and then eventually to the present target, which makes sense. I don't see any reason to change it, and still less to delete.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've decided that retarget to the DAB at Pre-code, with the appropriate amendments to that page, makes the the most sense for the reasons explained after I commented.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there is already hatnote on Precoding to disambig page Pre-code. We can even change redirect to that dab page. Learns visits aw (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to dab. Alright, I was suggesting this for deletion, but I see that it can be kept to consider a typo. However, the current redirect is flawed as pre-coding is a very general term. If anything, it should redirect to a dab page such as suggested by Learns visits aw. (As a side note, also the article Precoding is a misnomer and should be renamed to Precoding (transmission), as it refers to precoding for an antenna diversity transmission method.) Nageh (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If nobody objects, I will redirect as suggested and retract the RfD. Thanks. Nageh (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - sorry, this RFD will decide on the target, and any action should await the result. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

np. I just want to add that pre-coding is just as general a term as coding, and may refer to a prior step in error correction coding, in source coding, in neural network coding, in diversity transmission coding, etc. HTH. Nageh (talk) 17:32, 23 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 deleted as G7 by Thehelpfulone. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WP Music → Wikipedia:WikiProject Music (links to redirect • history • stats) 

I don't see any reason for this cross-namespace redirect. Svick (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I initially created this as a shortform version of a project talk page template. However, I realised that WikiProject Music doesn't have an assessment scheme. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 20:01, 22 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 no consensus, thus defaulting to status quo. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Pulp Fiction → Pulp fiction (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Re-target to Pulp Fiction (film). Hatnoting the only two other entries of disambiguation concern (the term of origin and soundtrack) at the film article instead is far more reasonable than targeting a full blown disambiguation page, especially considering the fact that the search query or wiki link was explicitly capitalized as such. Bxj (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there are good arguments both ways but on balance I prefer the status quo. Users are not particularly careful about their cases, when searching, (I know I'm not) and I think that having Pulp Fiction and Pulp fiction going in different directions is potentially confusing. I have reworked Pulp fiction to make it more useful as a disambiguation page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm sure what I am proposing has similar precedents. I wouldn't add sub-genres of "pulp fiction" as hatnotes at the film article, but this slightly expands the areas of focus beyond what I originally intended. If consistency did not matter as much, whatever the state of the uppercased article is wouldn't affect those searching or linking the lowercased version, while having the uppercased version be the same as the lowercased version affects people searching or linking the uppercased version. --Bxj (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In regard to a quote of myself: "I'm sure what I am proposing has similar precedents." Examples include: Ghost story vs Ghost Story, Quid Pro Quo vs Quid pro quo... Probably for the majority of conceivable cases, common noun spellings and proper noun spellings results in different destinations for the user if they both mean something that's different. In my opinion this isn't an inconceivable thing to do, so it's not a surprise there are precedents. There is no conceivable confusion in such cases either, and the user can be guided with hatnotes, which nullifies any real issues if we were to resolve the problem that capitalized spelling doesn't redirect to the primary topic. --Bxj (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (Talk) 10:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Bridgeplayer. Also, users are known to leave words out of their searches (something I do myself), so they may be looking for gay male or lesbian pulp fiction instead, in which case sending them to the disambugation page is useful. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. I'm happy with Pulp Fiction and pulp fiction going to different places, and in fact I think they should, as long as the destinations link to each other. I would say a person searching for 'Pulp Fiction' probably means the film and should be redirected there, whereas a person searching for 'pulp fiction' is less clear and should be sent to a disambiguation page. Robofish (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom and Robofish. If someone wants the generic topic, they're probably not capitalizing it like a proper noun, now are they? It would be a different issue if we were asked to target Pulp fiction to Pulp Fiction (film), with the DAB only at Pulp fiction (disambiguation). If someone types an entry in all lowercase, we don't really know what they're after. But if they make the additional typing effort to type the entry as a proper noun, we should respect their wishes and give them the proper noun. A hatnote on Pulp Fiction (film), though, would be a good idea.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. If a searcher goes through the trouble of capitalizing the F, they're probably looking for the proper noun. Gobonobo ^{T C} 11:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bridgeplayer and Andrensath. Suggesting the change reflects a short-sighted view of the term "pulp fiction". Many Wikipedia readers are over the age of 40; those readers grew up understanding the term to refer to publications rather than the film. Those who are not Tarantino fans may be totally confused by redirecting to the film. And as noted above, readers aren't always careful with capitalization. Wikipedia is written for all readers, not just the 40-and-under crowd. This issue was discussed on the film's talk page some time ago and rejected. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep target "Pulp Fiction" as a genre could easily make people think it should be capitalized. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Pulp Fiction to Pulp Fiction (film) per nom and other retarget recommendations. If people capitalize the F in "Fiction", they are probably looking for the film which is capitalized that way rather than the genre which is not. And if they really were looking for the genre rather than the film, we can use a hatnote to direct them to the right place. Such a retarget would also be consistent with WP:PRECISION (note the example there of Red Meat vs. Red meat). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:04, 29 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Backdoor burglar → Rape (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Seems inappropriate --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 09:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I am not an expert in sexual argot but I gather that it can be used, in particular, for male rape. However, it is also apparently a term sometimes used in rugby -here. There are, though, no reliable sources to back up any particular usage and I think that the present redirect is confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we don't need redirects from every slang term for a sexual act, particularly if (as in this case) it doesn't seem a notable one. Robofish (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I note that "turd burglar" is mentioned on British slang, and indeed have heard it often in real life (and it's not a redirect, or indeed anything else). I don't think that counts for anything except perhaps it tends to confirm that we've no need for "redirects from every slang term". Presumably those who use it know what it means; however if there were any confusion with a cat burglar, I note that redirects to Burglary, which doesn't mention it. Oh dear. Si Trew (talk) 14:43, 24 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Fracion → Template:Frac (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Implausible, but older, typo. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not used as a search term; no incoming links to break; redundant. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as for Brigeplayer - need not have the same standard of "plausible" when searching outside of article namespace, and I bet the search engine would serve just as well. Si Trew (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]