Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 9

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 retargeted to Armenia--3^0$0%0 1@!k 13:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Armania → International Talk Like a Pirate Day (links to redirect) (stats)

Unlikely search term, apparently unrelated. Stifle (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There are ~500 hits a month going to this link so it it's not an implausible search term. That said, I agree with the nominator that International Talk Like a Pirate Day seems like the wrong target. Although wrong, it does not seem to be entirely unrelated. The idea, I guess, is more like Ar-mania because people say Arrr repeatedly on International Talk Like a Pirate Day. Googling for Armania seems to imply that this is most likely a misspelling for Armenia so my suggestion would, unless someone has more information, to retarget to Armenia as a common misspelling of that country's name. Other possible targets which I'll throw out there but won't argue for would be (a) an article (to be created?) on the (very minor?) city of Armania, Ethiopia, (b) the extinct Armania species of ant in the Armaniinae family, or (c) the article on the designer/label Armani as a corruption or misspelling of that name. —mako๛ 17:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Armenia per Benjamin.--Patton123 (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Armenia as suggested by Benjamin. It can be overwritten should someone wish to write an article about the exinct ants.147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Armenia per Benjamin. Great sleuthing on explaining the original target (which suggests ill advised option (d) tag {{R from misspelling|Arrr-mania}}). -- ToE^T 00:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close - User:Evosoho has boldly retargeted the redirect to Armenia per the above discussion. B.Wind (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Season 12 → The Simpsons (season 12) (links to redirect) (stats)

No reason for this to redirect to the Simpsons or any other TV show. --EEMIV (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This was created a week ago and has no other history. -- ToE^T 03:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 06:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- As per nominator. There's no possible correct target for this redirect. —mako๛ 17:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - way too vague to be useful. List of longest running United States television series has a bunch of possibilities... (and that's just in the United States, I must add!) and "Season (#)" has applications far beyond that of television or radio. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Many shows have had a "season 12". youngamerican (wtf?) 12:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The search page would be much more useful.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Came across a similar redirect, Season 8, earlier today, though from an entirely different series. Favonian (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Navpop → Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups (links to redirect) (stats)

Redirect from Article namespace to Wikipedia namespace. Cnilep (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the redirect was deleted in April 2007 per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 April 7, and again in February 2008. The page was re-created in May 2008. There are currently no incoming links from the Article namespace. Cnilep (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per the April 2007 log, the main reason for deletion was disuse; however, Navpop gets ~500 hits per month. If there are issues with cross-namespace redirects, I would suggest changing to a soft redirect. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 09:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Zach's suggestion of a soft redirect makes sense. It eliminates a CNR while helping people over to the page with the correct title. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to soft redirect -- As per Zach and comment directly above. It's got issues, but seems the least problematic of all the suggested options. —mako๛ 21:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why is a soft redirect better then a hard redirect? 147.70.242.54 said "[i]t eliminates a CNR" but weather a Cross-namespace redirect (C.N.R.) is hard or soft, it is still a C.N.R.. To the best of my knowledge, The difference between a hard and soft redirect is with a soft one you need to click the mouse again and I don't see how an extra moue-click would effect any C.N.R. issues.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're technically correct, of course: a soft redirect is still a CNR. The benefit, as has been laid out in previous discussions regarding the appropriateness of CNRs, is that a soft redirect provides newbie editors with some degree of guidance as to the correct page name. Thus, while hard CNRs effectively reinforce improper page name entry, soft CNRs promote learning of the correct page name by editors. On another note, it seems one of the core arguments for deleting CNRs may no longer be valid, as I just laid out on the CNR talk page. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 23:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A soft redirect makes it clear to the person clicking that they are being brought to something other than an article and keep users from being confused. Additionally, the ability to explain the situation first lets us educate editors, and potential editors. It also ensures that people searching or linking in from outside get to the page that they are trying to get to. It's far from perfect but seems like the best compromise in this particular situation. —mako๛ 00:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]