Misplaced Pages

:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 14 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CloudComputation (talk | contribs) at 00:28, 19 August 2014 (→IPhone 6). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:28, 19 August 2014 by CloudComputation (talk | contribs) (→IPhone 6)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) < August 13 August 15 >

August 14

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 14, 2014.

미셸오바마

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 WP:SNOW delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete per WP:FORRED - no particular connection to Korea. JohnCD (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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.

Piotr Żyżelewicz

He also played in other bands � (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: apparently Piotr Żyżelewicz is best known for his participation in this band, so redirect is warranted. Other notable bands he played in could be listed in his entry within target article, which is more then enough to address the nom's issue. As I gather, there are several articles about him in Polish music-related media, which on its own does not allow to stubify the title immediately (narrow topical and geographical scope of sources) or delete the redirect per WP:RED, but warrants tagging redirect with {{R with possibilities}}. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as creator, per above. GiantSnowman 18:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

T:SINGLE

Unused cross-namespace redirect. — Keφr 10:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. A standard psuedo-namespace template shortcut. This shortcut was previously nominated for deletion three times, and was kept each time. - Eureka Lott 01:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:NOTAGAIN is an argument to avoid. Also, previous discussions were batch nominations; at least part of the reason for keeping was that the nomination failed to address templates individually. What are the merits of this particular redirect? Nobody seems to be using it. This one hit every few days might just as well be Googlebot. — Keφr 05:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
      • It might be better to ask what has changed since those earlier discussions. You haven't identified any of our reasons for deleting a redirect. What makes this harmful? - Eureka Lott 06:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
        • It is a cross-namespace redirect from article space, which defeats separation of encyclopaedic content from infrastructure, and there is no evidence of its usefulness, so it makes little sense to apply the grandfather clause to it. The template has other redirects; typing {{tl|Oneref}} is only one character longer, for one. {{SINGLE}} and other variations are free to create. Do I have to repeat it every single time? — Keφr 06:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: no more or less valid deletion rationale was presented. While term "SINGLE" is ambiguous (there are single issue warnings, templates for singles, etc.), page history does not reveal any confusion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • delete this pseudo-namespace is not needed. Frietjes (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • 'keep. Convenient, which is a reason for a redirect of this nature. "not needed" is in a sense true of every shortcut--we could always write them out in full. "NOTAGAIN" can be a valid argument--because of variable attendance here, sufficient nominations can delete anything; it's accepted at afd that too many are a bad practice, though it has proven incapable of numerical definition. DGG ( talk ) 15:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Convenient for whom? Literally nobody uses these particular two redirects, if backlinks and visit counters are any indication: one visit every few days is just a web crawler, and the only backlinks come from deletion nominations. The "we could always write them out in full" argument is a strawman — I am not arguing against shortcuts in general. — Keφr 10:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

IPhone 6

It is the 4th Nomination for RFD. See 1st, 2nd, 3rd nomination for reason. I want that page to be deleted. CloudComputation
CloudTracker 04:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

speedy or snow keep. It is obvious that the term is used.It is less obvious to me why we do not have an article on it--if any future product is certain to be real, this one is. In the meantime we need at once a redirect. There are real problems at WP that need cleanup. DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - Seems to be an abuse of process, if the first, second, and third time didn't merit a change or deletion - why should it now? Nominator should know better and simply wanting the page deleted for no other reason is incredibly disruptive. Stop wasting our time already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Windows 9 now have 1.15 Billion results. But, those are from the sources that JOJHutton has said (BusinessNewsDaily, Yahoo, Recode)! As now Windows 9 is deleted, why don't delete iPhone 6?! This discussion will end up like Windows 9. CloudComputation
    CloudTracker 01:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redirects are means of leading readers to information. A redirect that is not doing so is misleading and harmful, instead of being useful. It sends the reader after a wild goose chase: He or she peruses 58 pages (A4 pages) and finds nothing, eventually realizing that his time is wasted. It is better to let readers' search for iPhone 6 to reach the search page, where they immediately realize no such article exists. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete per Codename Lisa, people looking for iPhone 6 on Misplaced Pages will instead get redirected to a page that has nothing about what they're meant to look for, we don't want to mislead our readers, do we? - TheChampionMan1234 10:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment CloudComputation forgot one little thing when he/she made the comparison of the "iPhone 6" redirect to the "Windows 9" redirect. When doing a Google search, you need to use "Quotes" in order to refine the search and get the exact search results that you are looking for. Case in point, when the Google search is conducted using actual "quotes", the result is not in the billions, but a few million. Thats a massive 12 to 1 comparison of the two searches. --JOJ 13:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Again Oh and those of you using WP:CRYSTAL as some sort of reason for deletion should actually read what it says, especially the part that says Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Good Day.--JOJ 16:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In Addition Given the fact that last month, this redirect alone averaged around 500 article views a day and this month the views have increased, its obvious that this redirect needs to go somewhere, instead of simply be deleted. In fact, I would argue that the amount of information coming out about this product is so unprecedentedly massive, that we may need to create the article anyway, well ahead of the announcement date in September.--JOJ 19:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Please, stop flooding! 4 comments in sequence...
      Where can I read a product announcement about iPhone 6? Where can I read any information about iPhone 6 on Misplaced Pages? Redirects exist with a single purpose: to get reader to the information he looks for. Until Misplaced Pages contains information about iPhone 6, there is nowhere to redirect to. Of these 500 daily viewers exactly 0 (zero) found information they were searching.
      Massive amount of information? Please, point me to any single reliable source whose statement about iPhone 6 is more or less credible. All of this massive amount of information can't be included per WP:CRYSTAL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Last time, I said delete. Everyday 500 users (As what JOJHutton said) can't find their desired information about the iPhone Six. JOJHutton, stop it! I promise, this is the last discussion if you agree with Lisa, Czarkoff, TC1234 and me. A redirect shouldn't be an placeholder. Link to related AN/I notice: Click here CloudComputation See also: 3rd nomination
        CloudTracker 00:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy procedural keep Nominator offers WP:IDONTLIKEIT with no listed reason, and lists prior nominations that failed to delete it (so all previous reasons have failed). -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep We should discourage wikilawyering and pointy nominations. Besides, a google search shows that the web is abuzz about the gadget.--Lenticel 06:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No, you think the page might be vandalized and prefer the technical error message because you are well-acquainted with the behind-the-curtains of Misplaced Pages. The casual reader will figure out their answer much more quickly from the the fact that the page on the iPhone says there are five iPhones than to an apparent technical error message. They're both ultimately acceptable methods, but principle of least astonishment says that we take people to articles rather than error messages whenever possible. --erachima talk 09:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment After some IP replaced the redirect with a copyvio article (that I have revdeleted), I have semiprotected the redirect for a short time. I don't see much harm in the redirect being there and a proper article made soon, when information is available. —Kusma (t·c) 14:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete I disagree with erachima, I think it's more astonishing to be taken to an article which has no information about what you are looking for. Siuenti (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)