Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 22

September 22

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 22, 2011

Memorial Plaza, New York

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 Retarget to Category:Monuments and memorials in New York. Ruslik_Zero 19:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I originally turned this article into a redirect because the discussed subject already had an actual page at National September 11 Memorial & Museum. However, there are numerous memorial plazas in the city of New York, and while this one might be the best known at the moment it doesn't really make sense to have it redirect here over any other. I can't say the search string "Memorial Plaza, New York" is particularly likely, so unless someone wants to make a disambiguation page it seems like it would make more sense to delete this.

Note that the user who created this also created Memorial plaza as a redirect to the 9/11 memorial. That certainly didn't make sense to me, so I redirected it to memorial, but I'd certainly be open to other options on that one too. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's a ridiculous amount more potential other targets for this than I originally thought, since this encompasses not just the city of New York but the whole state.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yaksar its up to you. I think redirecting it is the for the best but where.. hmm?--BabbaQ (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I agree with you that a redirect is usually better than outright deletion, but in this case I can't think of one logical article that this would redirect to. In theory we could have a list article of memorial plazas in the state of NY (or just memorials), but if that isn't actually created then deletion, at least for now, is probably best. But I'm certainly open to any suggestions.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that an outright deletion is the best. As an article exist. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Category:Monuments and memorials in New York. Occasionally a x-namespace redirect to a category is the right thing to do, and this seems one of those times when it would positively help readers. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There may be many memorial plazas in New York City but I'll bet the vast majority of people who end up on this redirect want the 9/11 memorial. Although it's only one poor data point, I lived in NYC for some years and had never heard of any of the others. Having a hatnote at the top of the article with a link the category of other memorials in NYC (as uncommon as that is) seems like it might be a decent choic. —mako๛ 20:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But see, we can't just have a vague name that could mean many things redirect to one when there are other notable options. For example, I think we could say that the Statue of Liberty is without a doubt the most famous statue in the NY area, but we certainly couldn't have Statue, NY redirect there just because it is what people know best.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yaksar here that deleting the name/article outright is the best way.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this case though, this is the actual name of the plaza as well as a description of what it is. If there were other less well known statues named "Statue of Liberty", we should redirect from that term to the most popular one and provide an easy way (e.g., a hatnote) for the small proportion of people redirected there in error to find the particular statue that they were looking for. —mako๛ 15:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not the name of the actual plaza. The site's name is the "National September 11 Memorial and Museum," and it does have a plaza, but the closest I can see to it being referred to as "Memorial Plaza, New York" is when it's referred to as "the Memorial's plaza". Indeed, sites like the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Plaza or Warsaw Ghetto Memorial Plaza actually come closer to it in name.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the category per user:Bridgeplayer. In the absence of a clear primary topic or a disambiguation page the category is the best target. A link to the current target in the category description might be apropriate, but that's something for editors there to discuss. As the category namespace is as equally reader-facing as the article namespace this would be not a problematic CNR. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator -- If it's actually an acceptable thing to do, the category redirect is fine by me.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:08, 27 September 2011 (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.

Sunda Scops Ow

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. Ruslik_Zero 19:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a typo, which is not a credible page name Snowman (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Looks like a typo. It should have been speedied with a WP:CSD#G6 as soon as the page was moved and right after it was created. —mako๛ 20:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - effectively unused typo (no hits above the background noise); leftover artefact from move. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2011 (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.

Galina Fokinā

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. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove because odd and false transliteration. The macron is not known in transliterations of cyrillic names; I saw it in Greek, Hindi or Hepburn romanizations. See also Romanization of Russian. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's me 17:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep to maintain the edit history following this recent (1 month old) page move. No reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a good reason to delete it: it is incorrect. We can have Māriā Shārāpovā; would you vote it as keep? We can use WP:HISTMERGE if you feel that those edits should be merged but I don't think it is necessary.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's me 20:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per WP:CHEAP. The worst thing that happen here is that people won't use it. —mako๛ 19:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a cheap essay and not a policy. It should not be used, this is true.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's me 20:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CHEAP is indeed an essay but it's still a good description of the reason I don't see the problem with keeping this redirect around. —mako๛ 20:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as a first step, before deletion can be considered, would be the fixing of the incoming links since it would be inappropriate to delete a redirect that would leave red links.Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2011 (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.

Big Bang Theory (season 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 Keep. Ruslik_Zero 19:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The shows title includes the article "the". Delete for uniformity. Carl Francis (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the hits show that this is a plausible and well-used search term. Redirects are simply search aids; it is the job of the target article to clarify the correct name. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are 30+ hits a day on this redirect. The redirect is helping people and is more than pulling its weight. The lack of the definite article is a great reason to not make this the name of the article, but a poor reason to get ride of the redirect that clearly helping people find the information they want. —mako๛ 15:02, 22 September 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_22&oldid=1136083426"