Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 8

September 8

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 8, 2014.

Template:1966 NBA Draft/Ken Wilburn

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. DrKiernan (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

better to move the history to userspace or draftspace, without the redirect. Frietjes (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Improper cross-namespace redirect to the user space. In all honesty, I thought that this redirect could qualify for some sort of speedy deletion criterion, but I was wrong. Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2014 (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.

Redirects to STAR (interbank network)

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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. After the point made by Rfc1394, and the vote before them that sounds more like a "keep" vote than a "delete" vote, it's clear that these redirects are useful, and will most likely never have articles. Best leave everything as is. (However, I think that the disambiguator "(ATM Network)" is a bit ambiguous, but that's a discussion for another day.) Steel1943 (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:REDLINK. These redirects' subjects aren't explained in enough detail to warrant redirection to this page. Best to delete these redirects to promote article creation. (Note: Some of these redirects have several incoming links, but most, if not all, links are due to them being linked on the transcluded template {{Interbank networks}}. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. I created one of these links, but only because the others existed. STAR interbank network obviously took over and absorbed a lot of small networks as it developed that are unlikely to be noteworthy in their own right and are unlikely to become so in the future. These should be mentioned in the STAR history section but apart from that I agree that the redirects can be deleted. Sargdub (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Oppose - I vehemently disagree. All of these links are for now defunct ATM networks which were eaten by Star System and subsequently vaporized by the Death Star (pun intentional). Deleting these links to Star System, the surviving network, will not cause people to create articles for those now-defunct Automatic Teller Machine networks, it will simply leave nothing. For example, there is an article here on Southern California Rapid Transit District, the local bus company that served the City of Los Angeles, California from 1964 to the late 1980s. The only reason that article exists is because I was there in the 1970s and early 1980s and entered the information (as well as material from supporting websites) because I cared and was passionate about it. I strongly doubt there would be any passion to write about any of these now-defunct ATM networks and deleting the redirects loses important information, since at best these would mostly be tiny stub articles and the full information about any of them could be included in the main article about Star System.
Deleting these links will not encourage article creation, with these networks now long dead - I think MOST, for one, has been gone since before 2000 - all we will get is a deleted redirect and nothing to replace it. If the original subject has been gone for nearly 15 years and no one has done anything to write an article about it, destroying the redirect is unlikely to encourage that condition of no existing article on the subject to change.
Further, if these redirects are deleted, then in the future someone might come here, look for the MOST network (the one for my area, the Washington, D.C. metro area) find nothing, and thus presume there never was a MOST, (or MAC) network, and someone mentioning it was mistaken or lying,
Back in the 1980s, shortly after the aborted rescue attempt to retrieve the hostages being held at the American Embassy in Teheran, Iran, Bob Hppe told a joke about the failure, saying "That's what we get for letting Chrysler build our helicopters." The joke bombed, and probably caused Hope to drop it from his records. Since the joke is not popularized on the Internet and doesn't show up in a search, there are people who don't believe me when I mention how Bob Hope told that joke on a TV special.
This is why I think it's extremely important these redirects stay; if they're not here, a good source of history will be lost and many may subseqently believe erroneously that these now defunct ATM networks never existed, because there's no reference to them in Wikipedia. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, partly per Rfc1294. Basically I don't think these bank networks are notable enough for standalone articles, at least initially, and information should instead be added to the present target. At the very least there should be a list of networks that were amalgamated into it and what areas they served (shouldn't take more than a few minutes for someone who knows where to look) that we can point these redirects to. Thryduulf (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2014 (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.

Template:Revisionuser

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 Procedural close/wrong venue. This discussion is no longer in the scope of WP:RFD since the redirect is now a template. I will be moving this discussion shortly to Template talk:REVISIONUSER to achieve a more thorough resolution. (I was WP:INVOLVED in this discussion, but the discussion to resolve this issue really needs to be on the proper forum for prompt resolution.) (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This does not work within a template if used, so it would be better as a redlink. Example: {{talkback|{{revisionuser}}}} returns this error:
link=User talk:{{revisionuser}}
link=User talk:{{revisionuser}}
Hello, Redirects for discussion. You have new messages at [[User talk:{{revisionuser}}|User talk:{{revisionuser}}]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
but {{talkback|{{REVISIONUSER}}}} (not using the redirect) works properly
Hello, Redirects for discussion. You have new messages at MalnadachBot's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you ever use {{REVISIONUSER}} inside {{talkback}}? {{REVISIONUSER}} gives the name of the person who last edited the page, not the person who added the template. See how the demo above has changed now that I have edited this page. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No rationale provided for deletion; the nomination is essentially a request to improve the functionality of the template. This discussion should take place on the template's talk page. In fact, I would go to a length to say that this discussion should be closed to "wrong venue". Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a completely unrelated note, I am now going to enjoy being easily amused as the user name displayed in {{talkback|{{REVISIONUSER}}}} is the most recent editor of this page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... honestly, I'm having a hard time recalling my exact thought process, and the lowercase redirect was just an afterthought. Given that it was just a redirect, I'm surprised Template:revisionuser returned a blank text when I transclude it here when the capitalized version works. I ought to try to understand the bug, but out of laziness I've just copied the single-line contents of the target template into this one, so hopefully that will be the end of the bugs. (I should note I ended up removing the RfD template from the page though, because it gives a message that it can't find the redirect in it now that there's not a redirect in it) ---- erm, except, that didn't fix it! Hmmmm, time to have another look... OK, the thing was, if it was just {{REVISIONUSER}}, with no parameters, it would go to the built-in function, not the template. But the lowercase version was running the template, with no parameters, i.e. {{REVISIONUSER:}}. So I put an #if into the lowercase version. I'm not going to touch the uppercase version lest I am still confused and foul it up, because some pages actually use that. Wnt (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2014 (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.

Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

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. JohnCD (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While this is not as generic as the other related redirects nominated below, it is now ambiguous between Prince George and his forthcoming sibling so the current target is not really appropriate. I'd rather this not be deleted, as it is a used search term, but I can't find a suitable place to retarget it to - British Royal Family#Members is the best I've come up with but that doesn't really give people much information. I'll advise Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty of this and other nominations on this page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2014 (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.

Mark Jeffrey Miller

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) 16:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This actor had a minor role in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, one of many such roles he's had, so a redirect from that actor to that one movie isn't appropriate. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:02, 8 September 2014 (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.

Royal baby

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. JohnCD (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see any disambiguation page to which this can be redirected. DrKiernan (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's one of a bunch of more-or-less ambiguous redirs that were created in June-July 2013, in this case because of a page move (see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 114#Move log bug?). --Redrose64 (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's job is done. Bo.Clive (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as a vague redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as all above. Si Trew (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2014 (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.

Baby Cambridge

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. JohnCD (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2014 (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.

Þýskaland

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. JohnCD (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for Icelandic. - TheChampionMan1234 00:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per champ. I note that Icelandic has is:Þýskaland; :Faroese has fo:Týskland. But that is no reason for it to be in English WP. Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2014 (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.

韓国語

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) 16:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an exclusively Japanese title. - TheChampionMan1234 00:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (1) jawp seems prefers 朝鮮語 slightly over 韓国語 by the looks of article title. (2) According to zhwp (zh:朝鮮語) Korean language in Korean is 韓國語 in hanja (note 國/国). Probably delete because of this though. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 07:25, 8 September 2014 (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/2014_September_8&oldid=1040101323"