Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 11

November 11

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 11, 2013.

Brianna Harris

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 speedily deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) per the R3 criterion. Note that the page creator has been blocked by Rjd0060 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for apparently compromising her account. (non-admin closure) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 09:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. No obvious connection. The creator has made a bunch of random redirects to this high school (Hannah Proctor, Taylor Anders, and Olivia Schmitmeyer) that make no sense. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete (WP:CSD#R3) Just some kid making up redirect pages for the names of all her school chums. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep these people go to this school so it's logical. You guys are trying to delete good redirects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christine Cherney (talk • contribs) 22:40, 11 November 2013
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.

Anya Thomas

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 speedily deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) per the R3 criterion. Note that the page creator has been blocked by Rjd0060 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for apparently compromising her account. (non-admin closure) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 09:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. No obvious connection. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:25, 11 November 2013 (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.

The Amityville Horror (disambiguation)

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. WJBscribe (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This redirect was left behind after the page was moved to List of Amityville Horror media but subsequently deleted by JHunterJ since the target was no longer a dab page. Per WP:BRD I restored it and attempted to discuss the issue with JHunterJ, but Bkonrad deleted it again with the same rationale. I believe that List of Amityville Horror media will function as a dab despite not technically fitting WP:D, and that deleting it with thus serve as a detriment to readers. BDD (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The target is a list article, not a non-article disambiguation page. It is an orphan. How would deleting hinder the readers exactly? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the default for redirects is to keep and we only consider deletion if they are in some way harmful - WP:RFD#DELETE and WP:RFD#HARMFUL. In this case I cannot see any harm and do see positive benefits. The fact that the target is not technically a dab does not actually matter. Someone looking for one of a number of articles with 'Amityville Horror' in the title will find what they are seeking at the target. Also searches are far more likely to start 'The Amityville Horror ...' than 'List of Amityville Horror ...'. Since this title has been around for over 4 years WP:RFD#KEEP point 4 applies. Point 5 is also applicable. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The target is not a disambiguation page and the redirect is a mistake. The purpose of a redirect from a page with "(disambiguation)" in the title to a disambiguation page is to allow for intentional links to the disambiguation page. As this is not a disambiguation page, no pages should ever link through the "(disambiguation)" redirect. older ≠ wiser 20:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christine Cherney (talk • contribs) 22:41, 11 November 2013
  • Keep What harm keeping it? None...it is not going to make schoolboys titter. What harm deleting it? It breaks the audit trail making a retrospective nonsense of old discussions such as this. As JHunterJ believes historical warnings are relevant to content discussion, I think it is relevant to note that JHunterJ and older ≠ wiser (Bkonrad) have only today received warnings for edit warring in tandem. The more links like this that are deleted the harder it is to follow consensus building process and the easier it is for small buddy groups to hijack content - to the detriment of the reader. Tommy Pinball (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing relevant here is your stalking my edits, not the concerted effort to deal with your earlier disruption to the detriment of the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The use of words stalking and wikistalking was abandoned in the policy as the result of discussion. Classic example of a page currently inactive but retained for historical reference. Tommy Pinball (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sends te reader to what they're looking for, fixes any new wikilinks that will be created. Redlinking would encourage article creation, something that would lead to unnecessary duplication. No argument has been presented for deletion. WilyD 09:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the page has existed under this title for over four years, it is possible that deletion may break a link to it somewhere, and no harm whatsoever is done by keeping it. Those two considerations would be sufficient reasons to keep the redirect even if it were not for the fact that the page clearly serves the function of a disambiguation page, even if it is not formatted as one. The links that The Whispering Wind has given above give clear reasons why deletion is inappropriate. It is slightly disturbing to find two administrators both so out of touch with accepted practice in this area that they have made this inappropriate deletion, more than just slightly disturbing that one of them did so after the first deletion had been questioned and reverted by another administrator, and very disturbing that in doing so that administrator cited speedy deletion criterion G6, which is "Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup". How can anyone claim that an action is "non-controversial" after it has been reverted? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Accepted practice in this area is to delete redirects of the form "XXX (disambiguation)" that do not target disambiguation pages. I'm not out of touch with that. No need to assume incompetence. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Technically the target is a set index rather then a disambig, but so what? Set indexes are extremely similar to disambigs, and fulfill a extremely similar role, and the line between them is quite burley and technical. Set indexes and some lists and some lists should be concerned the equivalent of disambigs for the purpose of "(disambiguation)" redirects. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Emmette Hernandez Coleman: Can you clarify your comments please. The purpose for a redirect with "(disambiguation)" is solely for indicating intentional links to a disambiguation page. A very important difference of a set index article, and one of the reasons why set index articles exist, is that unlike disambiguation pages, it is OK to link to a set index article. So how is it that this redirect intended for disambiguation pages is appropriate for a set index article? older ≠ wiser 22:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? You've never typed in Foo (disambiguation) when you weren't sure whether or not Foo would be a disambiguation page? I know I have. This is a useful navigational aid, pure and simple. --BDD (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to get to a disambiguation page. Set index pages were explicitly created because they are not disambiguation pages and incoming links are OK for such pages. If the distinction is actually meaningless, then lets do away with the notion of set indexes. older ≠ wiser 01:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction is not meaningless, just relativity minor, especially from the viewpoint of a reader who looks up "Foo (disambiguation)". This is a bit of an oversimplification, but a set index article is basically a disambig who's entries as (WP:SIA says) "share a common characteristic in addition to the similarity of name". So just because the entries have something in common other then just the name, we shouldn't have a navagation aid?
I don't think a reader's going to think "I want to see the Foo disambig page. The Foo's have something in common other then just the name? In that case I don't want to see that foo page". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases, a SIA is in addition to, not in place of a disambiguation page. Here we have a rather contrived situation in which a disambiguation page is unnecessary. If we are discarding the convention that redirects with "(disambiguation)" in the title are meant for creating intentional links to a disambiguation page, then we should just say so. That is the ONLY reason these redirects were created, at least initially. Now it appears that some EDITORS (I very much doubt that most READERS would recognize such gnomish details) have found the redirects to be convenient for finding any sort of page that might have some passing similarity to a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 02:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think there are readers familiar enough to know that we have disambiguation pages, and that they often end with (disambiguation)? Yes, they're designed as navigational aids, but you don't think any readers have ever intentionally sought out a disambiguation page? --BDD (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they are intentionally seeking a disambiguation page for the ambiguous title "The Amityville Horror", let's give them a disambiguation page at The Amityville Horror (disambiguation) (with just what they're looking for: the topics that are ambiguous with the title) and link to the media list set index article (which includes topics that aren't actually ambiguous with "The Amityville Horror" in the dab page's See also. (I offer this as an actual, serious solution to meet the issues raised here, not as a rhetorical point.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be just a duplicate of List of Amityville Horror media with slightly different formating (eligible for A10 speedy deletion). Weather or not you call it a set index or a disambig, the Amityville Horror entries "share a common characteristic in addition to the similarity of name", so it seems to me that a "disambig" would be a second set index. Besides, wouldn't it be impractical to do create another disambig every time a disambig is converted into a set index? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, you're right that some entries aren't actually ambiguous with "The Amityville Horror". Still, it seems it be far too much a duplicate (possibly A10 worthy). Besides Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation) and Mexican Empire (disambiguation) would have the same entries as the List of kingdoms of Italy and Mexican Empire SIAs, so that solution wouldn't work in most cases anyway. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec) No, it would have the few entries that are actually ambiguous with "The Amityville Horror". The rest of your questions are beside the point; I'm not suggesting we do it for every disambig. I am suggesting that redirecting "(disambiguation)" redirects to non-disambiguation pages is needless; if the reasons given here for the disambiguation title to remain in existence, those are the reasons for the non-article disambiguation page to remain in existence. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would be a good idea. It would divide maintenance across two pages that would be almost identical (aside from the dab having less entries), and that would lickly cause one or both of them to eventually become out of date. Besides the "dab" entries still would "share a common characteristic in addition to the similarity of name" even if the scope was narrower, so it would still still be a set index. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Besides there's a larger issue here: what to do with "(disambiguation)" redirects when the page is reclassified as something other then a dab (especially when the "(disambiguation)" redirect is the former title). G6 requires it be non-controversial it would seem that deleting "(disambiguation)" redirects to former dab pages and/or set indexes is not non-controversial. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dividing the maintenance isn't an issue. The pages wouldn't be almost identical, and in any event the encyclopedia is set up for the readers, not the editors, and as I pointed out, the reasons for keeping the redirect are actually reasons for keeping the (now orphan) disambiguation page. This discussion is the first indication I've ever seen that deleting such redirects might be controversial. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Normally, we delete these on sight, because they are an unnecessary navigational aid. There are nearly 5,000 set indices on ships alone, such as the USS Constellation and HMS Mediator, and despite the similarities between these pages and disambiguation pages, we do not have "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects for them. I think that having such a link creates the misleading impression that the topics listed on the page are truly ambiguous (i.e. unrelated), which is a trend that we should avoid. bd2412 T 20:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I stumbled on a webpage (see the paragraph that starts "In Nepal") that links to Communist Party of Nepal (disambiguation), a redirect to, and the former title of List of communist parties in Nepal. Deleting these redirects because a page is no longer technically a disambig risks breaking external links. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2013 (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.

Kayla Dunphy

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 Delete. WP:CSD#R3: a totally impalusible redirect. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No obvious connection. Google failed to turn up any relevant hits. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:49, 11 November 2013 (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.

Shwetha Sekar

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. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a page Divergent (novel) that does not even mention it and have no connection with the person whatsoever.--Jockzain (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:RFD#DELETE point 5. Likewise I can't source a connection. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - probably does have a connection you guys just have to look harder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christine Cherney (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete There is no mention of Shwetha Sekar, and my searches, like those of the above editors, have failed to find any connection whatever. In fact, I am inclined towards speedy deletion, but I will give the creator of the redirect (or anyone else) a chance to provide a justification if there is one. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2013 (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.

Phenol–chloroform extraction

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) 17:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Phenol–chloroform extraction(PC) has been moved to Acid guanidinium thiocyanate-phenol-chloroform extraction(AGPC) because the contents was mostly specialized to AGPC method and inadequate as an explanation of generic PC. This was repeatedly pointed out in the Talk page for these 2 years. I believe keeping this redirect resulted from a page move is harmful on the points above mentioned. Mzaki (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The reason given by the nominator justifies moving the article, but it does not justify deleting the redirect. If there is no article on phenol–chloroform extraction in general, but there is an article covering some aspect of phenol–chloroform extraction, then someone searching for the topic can at least find something about it via this redirect, as opposed to finding nothing. The article has existed under its original title for over seven years, so it is by no means unlikely that one or more people have links to it, and removing the redirect would inconvenience them, as well as people searching for the topic, without actually helping anyone. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:RFD#KEEP point 4 as having being around for over 7 years. Point 5 applies since this was the original title. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2013 (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/2013_November_11&oldid=1138579120"