August 6

Therdhal

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasRetarget toI (film).Tikiwont (talk)20:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• TherdhalTherdhal →Shankar (director)(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Film was never officially announced with this name. Later is was named asI. So this redirect should not exist. -Vivvt^Talk15:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably keep A redirect doesn't have to be official or even correct. If there was buzz about the film using this name, that's enough for a redirect. That said, I don't know if there was such buzz or if this name was just made up.Ego White Tray (talk)00:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Thryduulf (talk)20:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To me, the test for these types of redirects ought to be "is it worth mentioning this term in the article?" If it's worth a short line in the lead or a subsection explaining that the film(-to-be) was known by that title briefly, then the redirect is also valid, and furthermore won't cause confusion. If the short-lived moniker can't justify mention in the target article, the redirect is harmful for the confusion would-be readers would experience.BigNate37_(T)05:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - the term doesnt show up in google news as having ever been used by a reliable source to refer to the project. --The Red Pen of Doom14:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.Retarget toI (film). Appears to be an alternate spelling (or perhaps transliteration from the Tamil) ofTherdal. I also intend to create as a parallel redirect atTherdal if this is kept. The term is mentioned at the target, andI have now sourced it.BigNate37_(T)19:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed toretarget: the film is what the term referred to, and that article also mentions the term in a sourced statement.BigNate37_(T)19:39, 23 August 2012 (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.

List of statistics categories

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete.Salix (talk):19:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• List of statistics categories →Statistics(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics/List of statisics categories →Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics/List of statistics categories(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This page was created at the titleList of statistics categories in July 2008. Since it was in the wrong namespace, the page creator moved it one minute later toWikipedia:WikiProject Statistics/List of statisics categories (note the typo) and then again to the current title. Neither redirect serves a useful purpose, and if they had been created more recently they would be speedily deleted under criteriaR3 (implausible typo) and/orG6 (unambiguous error).

The mainspace redirect wasnominated for deletion in November 2008, but the discussion was pre-empted by retargeting to the articleStatistics. The problem is that this target makes no sense asStatistics contains no information about 'statistics categories'. In addition, as an editor who spends much time working with categories, I see a lot of confusion regarding the difference between categories and lists and can say that a redirect of this type—'List of ... categories' that redirects to a page that is neither a list nor a category—can only deepen such confusion.

The page move history ispreserved in the page history ofWikipedia:WikiProject Statistics/List of statistics categories, so deleting these redirects will not break attribution. --Black Falcon^(talk)19:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete mainspace redirect, as non-intuitive, uncommon search term with low traffic, whose specific topic is arguably not an actual subtopic of the target, but rather a meta-topic (this argument depends on the continued fact that the topic does not have mention at the target article).Weak keep the project space redirect, as a plausible misspelling.BigNate37_(T)19:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)(changed toweak keep 20:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

  Although it is a plausible misspelling, it is not a plausible search term. Is it really necessary to keep a mispelled redirect (which clearly was created in error and fixed minutes later by the same editor) to an obscure project page? --Black Falcon^(talk)18:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Necessary? No, but keeping requires zero action, as it is the do-nothing alternative. To delete requires intervention and a minuscule increase in server load. Were we discussing whether or not to create this projectspace redirect, I would be saying no.BigNate37_(T)20:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I see what you mean, but the expenditure of time and server resources is, as you say, miniscule and, in my opinion,not worth the worry. I think what you're getting at is that there was no need to nominate the project-space redirect, which I'll keep in mind for the future. :) Thanks, --Black Falcon^(talk)20:19, 23 August 2012 (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.

FC Obninsk (1996)

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasRetargetFC Industriya Borovsk. A just about plausible search term. No real harm by it still existing, but new target does at least mention the previous name.Salix (talk):20:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• FC Obninsk (1996)FC Obninsk (1996) →FC Zvezda Serpukhov(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Wrong redirect (see Serpukhov teams history in en- and ru-wiki)Postoronniy-13 (talk)12:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - According to the article aboutFC Industriya Borovsk, which was known originally as FC Obninsk: "When the team moved to Borovsk, a new team was organized in Obninsk called FC Obninsk. That team played in the Russian Third League in 1996 and Russian Second Division in 2004. It was replaced in the Second Division by FC Zvezda Serpukhov in 2005." If this is correct—I'm unable to confirm this claim as the relevant sources appear to be in Russian—then the team known in 1996 as FC Obninsk is different from FC Zvezda Serpukhov. --Black Falcon^(talk)19:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget toFC Industriya Borovsk, where the topic is explained in the most detail. This is also the target ofFC ObninskFC Obninsk, which makes for consistency. I would suggest that this is neither anunnecessary disambiguation, nor is it an{{R with possibilities}}.BigNate37_(T)19:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neither the current target norFC Industriya Borovsk are appropriate. Although the latter contains some (unsourced) information about the 1996 team known as FC Obninsk, that still amounts to three short, off-topic sentences. There is no reason, in principle, for the articleFC Industriya Borovsk to contain anything other than a single-sentence mention ofFC Obninsk (1996). --Black Falcon^(talk)18:19, 13 August 2012 (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.

Wikipedia:LYNCH

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasDelete. Whatever everybody's stance on RfC/U or sense of humor, there is consensus that this one shouldn't be hardcoded in in project space.Tikiwont (talk)19:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:LYNCH →Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Deeply un-AGF redir which only serves to disparage an accepted part of community process. Mercifully never took off: There are only five inbound links, one of which was added today, so deleting this isn't going to disrupt very many discussions in which it was invoked.Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk)12:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nom says it all. Ryan Vesey14:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It would make a good shortcut to an essay about how RfC (or some other process) isn't a lynch mob, but I haven't been able to find any such essay, nor any other suitable page.Thryduulf (talk)15:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Retargeting articlespace titles is frequently helpful, but retargeting uppercase WP shortcuts can be detrimental. They're not for searching out new project pages and we shouldn't encourage that: blind policy linking is already bad enough. Uppercase WP shortcuts are for having a short handle to a page you're already familiar with. This one is three years old, and while it hasn't seen much use, I'm not comfortable with the idea of trying to "save" it for its own sake.BigNate37_(T)17:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It also fails in its purpose as a shortcut.WP:RFCC is an easier shortcut thanWP:LYNCH. Ryan Vesey17:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I take the point about retargetting shortcuts. However, shortcuts do not necessarily need to be shorter than other possible or existing shortcuts to be useful - they just need to be more memorable to some users. For example the existence ofWP:SK does not mean thatWP:CSK andWP:KEEP fail their purpose.Thryduulf (talk)20:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you there.BigNate37_(T)21:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - what an appalling "shortcut"! This serves no useful purpose and has the potential to propagate nastiness. Very bad, hideous idea that should never have been created.LadyofShalott17:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above.TBrandley22:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep orRedirect to WP:AE. It captures the essence of the exercise. The main reason for deletion seems to be with the underlying nature of RfC rather than with the redirect itself. But that's a problem with... the underlying nature. I can't remember the last time I've seen an honest AFG RfC.VolunteerMarek00:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Oh, stop clutching at your handbags, it is a harmless link, no different from ANI's critical redirects (WP:CESSPIT,WP:HAPPYPLACE,WP:Great Dismal Swamp). Think about what these pages are largely anonymous users bringing their largely anonymous wiki-brethren to what they perceive is a hall of wiki-justice. The sad reality is that the Wikipedia's justice system is far closer to the kangaroo court than it is to the Supreme Court. Stop taking yourselves so mother-loving serious.Tarc (talk)01:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Lynching is a repulsive human behavior, and we have no business implying that any of our processes (unpleasant as some, such as RfCU, can be) are analogous.LadyofShalott01:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ms. Shallot, as an American black man, I officially give you a pass to say "lynch" without fear of offending me. I know the drive-by media likes to paint us as hair-trigger offended by anything and everything slavery-related, but really, we ain't like that. The Wikipedia can refer to something unfair as "a lynching", and we're cool. Cool?Tarc (talk)01:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that you are an American black man gives you no authority to give someone a pass to refer to lynching as a joke. Lynching has occured (and sadly still does, see2000 Ramallah lynching) to people of all races, colors, and creeds. Ryan Vesey01:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't offend you, Tarc. Good for you.I, however, find it disgusting. My opinions are not all based on what I think will offend <insert group here>, thanks for making your assumptions clear though.LadyofShalott01:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The funny thing is, being unoffended is not a right. What you're trying to do here is elevate "lynch" so that it is as onerous as some feel "nigger" is. And I'll say again; no thanks. The wordcan be used to make a sharp and pointed criticism of a particular situation. There is nothing wrong here but your own personal wounded sensibilities.Tarc (talk)02:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The racial connotations have nothing to do with the nomination, so that particular straw man can be put back in the corner. I'd have nominatedWP:KANGAROO,WP:KLINGONTRIAL or any other silly and disparaging noms if I'd seen them, because I've grown out of the lulz of community-commentary-by-snarky-redirect. And yes, whataboutery about silly redirects to ANI isvery helpful, thanks, as it helps to ensure those are cleaned up in due course as well.Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk)08:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ya'll seeing that this was created by an esteemed member of the arbitration committee, right (before election;)Br'er Rabbit (talk)01:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Arbs can make mistakes^{[citation needed]} —Ched : ? 01:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)^{[neutrality isdisputed]}[reply]

  I expanded with your citation needed with a POV tag. You clearly should have spent at least another paragraph talking about how the arbs are always right if you want to say they can make mistakes :) Ryan Vesey02:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Before this gets further off-topic, let me go on record with a stance.Delete it: it's not a logical shortcut, nor is it even listed in the{{shortcut}} box. It's only intuitive if our hypothetical shortcut-user has a major lack of faith in our DR process (à laSteve Smith, the redirect's creator). That is not a healthy attitude to implicitly promote.BigNate37_(T)05:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm going to go along with Thumperward and LoS on this one, with a nod of appreciation to Tarc's comments. Theconcept of "lynch" is offensive, so I'm sure we can find less abrasive short-cuts to use. In the end, I'm not even a fan ofWP:RICHARD. —Ched : ? 08:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I absolutelydespiseuser conduct RfCs, and the fact that this link redirects there explains my position quite well (ironically, my comments on the matter over atYRC's RfC are probably what drew attention to this redirect and got it at RfD in the first place); but with reluctance, I accept the fact that they are perhaps a necessary evil. Now, I personally find it to be very amusing, in much the same vein as whenWP:DRAMA had served as a redirect tothis well-known theatrical facility. But I'm kind of in agreement that it does make a mockery of a sadly important Wikipedia process. Therefore, with my mixed feelings on the matter, I am goingneutral on this RfD. If the community wants it gone, then I'll still have fond reminiscences of the good old days when we had a sense of humour.Master&Expert (Talk)11:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and just FYI, when I think of "lynching", the image that comes to mind is a huge throng of disgruntled citizens in a small town gathering in the dead of night, collectively raising their torches and pitchforks into the air and drivingpersona non grata out of town.Master&Expert (Talk)11:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a very Disney-esque interpretation of what lynch mobs did.WP:DRAMA (and for that matterWP:PITCHFORKS, which survived a similar RfD last year) are at least a step removed from specifically comparing a part of process to extrajudicial murder.Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk)12:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "Did", and still do in some parts of the world. Quite in fact, I remember there being a lynching over in Pakistan about a month ago, where a guy was slaughtered for some ridiculous reason. Now that I see the pitchforks redirect (which is equally amusing and less offensive), I'm fine withWP:LYNCH being deleted, with the caveat that I stillreally hate RfC/U.Master&Expert (Talk) 12:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Check it out:[1]Master&Expert (Talk)12:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.Highly inappropriate redirect. As unpleasant as RFC/U can be, it is in no way equivalent to being violently murdered by a bloodthirsty gang. Without meaning to get too pompous about it, this redirect seems to me an insult to the memory of all the real-world victims of lynching; it's no more acceptable thanWP:NAZI orWP:GULAG would be. Comparing Wikipedia to historical atrocities just makes us look incredibly petty and self-important.Robofish (talk)20:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, essentially perUser:Master&Expert.Steve Smith (talk)00:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely unnecessary andWP:POINTy.Prioryman (talk)20:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not a useful shorcut, and its use can needlessly inflame a discussion. --Black Falcon^(talk)17:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There areplenty of worse things in projectspace that are far more visible (such as essays) and, per Tarc, these sorts of snarky redirects are pretty common.--The Devil's Advocate (talk)15:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to bebeansy, but ... to what are you referring? --Black Falcon^(talk)20:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete'... or write an essay about how some processes can resemble a lynching, then point the redirect there. --Enric Naval (talk)13:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The redirect is a morsel of fun, for heaven's sake, and it saddens me that even an unused redirect made in the spirit of{{humour}} cannot go unharassed. Enric Naval's suggestion would work well.AGK[•]14:37, 2 September 2012 (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.

Toad Town News

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete.Salix (talk):20:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Toad Town News →Super Mario (series)(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

No mention in target, seems like an unlikely search term for an obscure in-universe thing.Ten Pound Hammer •^{(What did I screw up now?)}06:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with that assessment. The Toad Town news appeared in Paper Mario and was a bulletin board with with info regarding the events happening in the game (ie mentioning the kidnapping of Princess Peach) and unless I am mistaken I don't believe it even needs to be read to finish the game. Also the Paper Mario article itself does not even mention this.--70.49.81.140 (talk)17:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Move page history anddelete. The stub article was originally prodded, and then instead merged on25 January 2010. That content was since removed, and the rest of the section that it was merged into continues to exist in its current form at the target section (the redirect actually points atSuper Mario (series)#Mushroom Kingdom). Where an obscure subtopic is (1) unworthy of its own article, and (2) not mentioned at the target article, it becomes a harmful violation of our principle of least astonishment. If we cannot educate readers about a term, it should not be a redirect. If/when recreation becomes an issue for such titles, salting can be handy. However, that seems unnecessary here.BigNate37_(T)17:33, 6 August 2012 (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.

North America (Americas)

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasno consensus no really strong arguments either waySalix (talk):20:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• North America (Americas)North America (Americas) →North America(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. Unlikely search term, with no incoming links from article namespace. Redirect was created with the title of an article deletedvia AfD. This is confusing because editors viewing old discussions would expect to see red links for the deleted article.202.28.181.200 (talk)04:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - gets used 20 or 30 times a monthcheck - prevents people from wanting to create the article, which they're likely to do if it's a redlink. Anybody confused by the archived AfD (from five years ago) is now a bluelink isn't going to end up looking at archived deletion discussions from five years ago; nevermind that large numbers of those are now blue.WilyD07:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In a case such as this one, I think that a redlink is more likely to prevent people from wanting to recreate the article. With a redlink, one can immediately see the deletion log and the linked AfD and DRV. With this many incoming links (most of them from canvassing carried out on talk pages), 20–30 pageviews per month is to be expected and is not enough to worry about. --Black Falcon^(talk)19:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Theconventional wisdom is that redlinks encourage article creation and redirects can subtly discourage it. Further, the typical background noise for redirects is of the order of 3-4 hits/month, so 20-30 is an order of magnitude larger and so deletion would inconvenience readers for no benefit.— Precedingunsigned comment added byThryduulf (talk •contribs)21:04, 6 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but this is not a conventional situation. I, too, think that redlinks generally encourage article creation; however, it is different when the redlink is accompanied by a visible deletion log entry. Likewise, though I agree that 20-30 views per month is higher than normally should be dismissed, the normal unused redirect does not have 40 incoming links. --Black Falcon^(talk)21:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Redlinks encourage inexperienced users to create articles, redirects discourage them (because they find themselves where they should be). They're unlikely to understand deletion discussion processes (because they're inexperienced). It's possible the same isn't true of experienced users, but a talk page note about the AfD can always be added if there's fear of confusion.WilyD09:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This redlinks article is absurd. 40 inbound links a month is approximately zero, so it doesn't matter that it's ten times what other completely random pages get. They're almost certainly all unidentified bots and not good faith editors looking to create an article on North America because we apparently don't have one anyway.Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk)09:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unnecessary redirect and an unlikely search term. The argument that it's needed to prevent an article with this title being created seems pretty dubious to me; in the five years since the AFD, no one's tried to do so.Robofish (talk)20:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — the nominator's suggestion would inconvenience 20-30 people per month without helping in some other way. I don't understand Robofish's final comment: isn't the fact that nobody's tried a piece of further evidence for keeping? I would agree with this comment if this had been a redlink for five years without any attempts to create, but because nobody's tried to convert the redirect, that's either irrelevant (along the lines of snapping fingers to keep the tigers away) or solid evidence that it's working.Nyttend (talk)23:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since it's extremely unlikely that anyone would be actively searching for this term, the only people clicking on the redirect would be those browsing old talk and project pages, most likely in the context of the original article's deletion request. These people would want to quickly go to the deletion discussion, which is provided when clicking on a red link. Having the redirect is an inconvenience to these editors and a convenience to no one. --202.28.181.200 (talk)06:14, 27 August 2012 (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.

Wikipedia:Vehicle Factory Jabalpur

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasspeedy deleted as a redirect created by moving a page unambiguously created in the wrong namespace (WP:CSD#G6).Thryduulf (talk)07:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Vehicle Factory Jabalpur →Vehicle Factory Jabalpur(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Redirect up for deletion. Improper move by editor from AFC to Wikipedia space. Opting to remove cross-namespace redirect.ChrisGualtieri (talk)03:48, 6 August 2012 (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.