Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 7

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 G8: Redirect dependant on a deleted page. --Taelus (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thomas goggin → Thomas Goggin (links to redirect) (stats) 

Unnecessary redirect Jezhotwells (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While redirects such as this one may be unnecessary, deleting them is even less necessary. They don't do any harm. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it';s definitely necessary, I never bother capitalising either letter of names I tpye in the search box and neither do many people.--Patton123 (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if you don't capitalize in the search box you will still find the correctly capitalized article in the results. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unless WP adopts a policy forbidding such - there are a lot of them. Collect (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Like Jezhotwells said. There is no need for capitalization when you use search box.  Ilyushka88  talk  17:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Utterly unnecessary. True, no harm in leaving it, but the whole point of the RfD process is to clean up clutter. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redirects from alternate capitalizations do no harm and may do good. Moreover, not everyone arrives at an article through Wikipedia's search box, so arguments that rely on it "fixing" searches miss the mark. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — alternate capitalization redirect, harmless and possibly useful (see WP:RFD#KEEP). Spacepotato (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - The scenario has changed from this message onwards. The target article has now been deleted. --Taelus (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, target article was deleted at AfD on the 12th of November, making this redirect defunct. I will contact the closing admin of the AfD regarding this. --Taelus (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agüeira → Angueira (links to redirect) (stats) 

Agüeira is the name of a river in Galicia, Spain, no reason to redirect it to a Portuguese village Jezhotwells (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In light of a lack of an article of the aforementioned Spanish river, keep as a plausible misspelling of the name of the Portuguese village (lack of diacritics). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT? That's like saying if there is no article on Washington, West Sussex, redirect it to Washington, DC. Delete the redirect and perhaps remove the (red)link from the only article that refers to Agüeira. Sussexonian (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sussexonian for some common sense here and in other threads. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mad at the world (disambiguation) → Mad at the World (disambiguation) (links to redirect) (stats) 

Unnecessary redirect Jezhotwells (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While redirects such as this one may be unnecessary, deleting them is even less necessary. They don't do any harm. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As noted above, WP has no policy that I know of opposing such redirects. There are enough misleading ones to remove that deleting this is insignificant. Collect (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redirects from alternate capitalizations do no harm and may do good. Moreover, not everyone arrives at an article through Wikipedia's search box, so arguments that rely on it "fixing" searches miss the mark. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — alternate capitalization redirect, harmless and possibly useful (see WP:RFD#KEEP). Spacepotato (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Work needed. Such a page is not "possibly useful", unless you believe users looking for articles go round Wikipedia typing in the word "(disambiguation)". What has happened here is two articles have been created with the same name but different capitalisation, one for a hardly notable band and the other for the same band's album. Then someone has created a page "(album)", and at least two pages "(disambiguation)". The way things are at present no user will ever arrive at either of the dab pages. Sussexonian (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Delete both.[reply]

• Jam hot → Jam Hot (links to redirect) (stats) 

Unnecessary redirect Jezhotwells (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't mind the deletion, I don't even recall what circumstances led to my creation of the redirect in the first place. -- Atama頭 19:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it';s definitely necessary, I never bother capitalising either letter of names I tpye in the search box and neither do many people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Patton123 (talk • contribs)
• Delete Capitalization in search-box does not not matter. Searching for List of UniversitiEs and colLeges In GuangXi takes me to List of universities and colleges in Guangxi, but linking with wrong capitalization doesn't. In my opinion this should be deleted though. If someone links to the article, they should see themselves if the link works.  Ilyushka88  talk  22:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, utterly unnecessary. True, no harm in leaving it, but the whole point of the RfD process is to clean up clutter. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redirects from alternate capitalizations do no harm and may do good. Moreover, not everyone arrives at an article through Wikipedia's search box, so arguments that rely on it "fixing" searches miss the mark. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as WP:RFD#KEEP actually lists alternate capitalisation as a reason to keep a redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — alternate capitalization redirect, harmless and possibly useful (see WP:RFD#KEEP). Spacepotato (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Good old boat magazine → Good Old Boat magazine (links to redirect) (stats) 

Unnecessary redirect Jezhotwells (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While redirects such as this one may be unnecessary, deleting them is even less necessary. They don't do any harm. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's what's known as an "implausible" redirect. The value of the article itself is highly questionable in any case. Deb (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, utterly unnecessary. True, no harm in leaving it, but the whole point of the RfD process is to clean up clutter. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redirects from alternate capitalizations do no harm and may do good. Moreover, not everyone arrives at an article through Wikipedia's search box, so arguments that rely on it "fixing" searches miss the mark. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — alternate capitalization redirect, harmless and possibly useful (see WP:RFD#KEEP). Spacepotato (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gavia immer, could you please explain your comment? I agree the search box fixes capitalisation in the background, but what other mechanism are you thinking of that brings users to a Wikipedia article that is case-sensitive? Certainly Google et al do not distinguish by capitalisation. I would like as many of these unnecessary redirects deleted. Sussexonian (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I was inclined to close this already but maybe there is need for further discussion. Such redirects are left behind by default after page moves by our wikimedia software and there are a a lot of them. It needs more than considerations about searches or general clutter but rather some good arguments per WP:RFD#DELETE to actually change that, which have not been given here. The target has been moved to Good Old Boat but I am not sure if that changes anything.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, inbound external links are case sensitive. As this was created due to a page move, there may be inbound links we do not know about. It is harmless to keep as it is beneficial to a small group of users, whilst being harmful to none. Policy also dictates that we should never delete because a redirect is a poor use of memory either, so I do not see how this can be classed as "clutter". --Taelus (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• List of fatal, unprovoked shark attacks in Australia → Shark attacks in Australia (links to redirect) (stats) 

Unlikely redirect Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, also fails WP:NPOV by a mile. Orderinchaos 03:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was the early title of the article based on the List of fatal, unprovoked shark attacks in the United States, then it was moved to a simpler title. James4750 (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Siratal Saif International → Siratal Saif (links to redirect) (stats) 

Unnecessary redirect, anyone typing in first two words will find article Jezhotwells (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The name Siratal Saif International sounds like the organization that teaches it and Siratal Saif is the actual art itself. I don't see a need for article about organization to be directed to the article. --Vishnu2011 (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 2009–10 Coupe de France 5th through 7th Rounds → 2009–10 Coupe de France 5th through 6th Rounds (links to redirect) (stats) 

Unlikely redirect Jezhotwells (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't create page. Rounds 1 through 6 usually feature only amateur and semi-professional clubs. The seventh round is when the tournament gets professional. That's why it's on the main page. Joao10Siamun (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Daily fail → Daily Mail (links to redirect) (stats) 

Redirect actually a sarcastic nickname for the paper NellieBly (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redirects from insulting nicknames should be avoided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sarcasm ill-suits redirects. I suggest the "Daily Heil" redirect also be removed for the same reason. Collect (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There should not be insulting/sarcastic redirects in Wikipedia. I don't think anyone searches for Daily fail if they want to see article about Daily Mail.  Ilyushka88  talk  15:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No strong opinion about this particular case, but I don't think it should be general policy to exclude redirects from derogatory terms. For instance, enough people mention the Grauniad that it's probably worth having a link for the benefit of the confused (as I was the first couple of times I saw that name). --GenericBob (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "grauniad.co.uk" is registered to the Guardian. Has 116 hits within the Guardian site, and not considered defamatory by the Grau^K^K^Kaurdian. And thus appears a tad less derogatopry than "Daily Heil" or "Daily Fail."