Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

November 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 25, 2014.

Moscow Metro template redirects[edit]

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 keep. --BDD (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, previously I had tagged similar redirects for speedy deletion; some admins deleted them, some declined to do so... In short:

  • These are redirects from page moves, not aliasing;
  • These are redirects either to templates or to template talk pages, so there is no chance that they will ever be needed for navigation or searching (those that may be needed, like Template:Butovskaya Line → Template:Butovskaya Line RDT, I did not include into this nomination);
  • They have no incoming links, even from some maintenance pages (checked);
  • They have no relevant edit histories (those that do, I did not include).

-- YLSS (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. Are you serious in claiming that all of them have no incoming links? Some of these are nine years old: surely they've been used in numerous old revisions of pages. You're attempting to create linkrot with no benefit to the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Links from old revisions will certainly lead to a notice that this page has been renamed to some-such title, so no link rot will occur. Benefit to Wikipedia: no need to maintain double-triple redirects and so on, clean edit history, clean WhatLinksHere, and generally, keeping the things neat & simple, leaving no garbage behind you. Moreover: for older revisions it may actually be better to show a red link in place of a template than to show the current version that is totally out of sync with that revision (at least for such things as route diagrams). YLSS (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, links from old revisions will display a broken template; a page that calls Template:Kol'tsevaya Line will be just like a page that calls Template:nbgnorubgoudbrhordh. Please note that several bots fix double redirects; no human input is needed in this context. You're trying to create gibberish in numerous pages; it's horrid net citizenship, and there's a reason that speedy criterion R3 does not permit the deletion of redirects created by pagemoves. Read WP:RFD#KEEP line 4. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      That's precisely what I'm saying, for RDTs it's better to show a red link than an out-of-synced version. And where does WP:RFD#KEEP line 4 speak of old revisions? It doesn't. And if we're starting to accuse each other, then I can say that "horrid net citizenship" is polluting the system with such junk. BTW, your comments only concern redirect to templates, while the majority of those that I listed are redirect to template talk pages. YLSS (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      In what way will they be out of sync? If an old revision links to a template that is now redirected it transcludes the template at the redirect target. Old revisions are important because people are encouraged to link to specific revisions when referencing Wikipedia articles. Good net citizenship is all about not breaking things unnecessarily - far better to have redirects that are only occasionally needed than for them to not be there when they are needed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      "In what way will they be out of sync": cf., for example, 2008 revision and current revision. Concurrent versions of the article would be based on the same schemes. YLSS (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nyttend. No reason to break old revisions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 26 November 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.

User:Victorsmesq[edit]

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 User:Victorsmesq deleted by Anthony Bradbury; User:Humphrybert 'converted to soft redirect. Humphrybert, if you ever see this and object to this result, please let me know. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor seems to have created an article on his user page and then moved it to namespace - which created this inappropriate redirect. PamD 16:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect per previous discussions/consensus to leave, but disable, these redirects from the user namespace. In my opinion, user space redirects to the article namespace are only harmful if they are not soft redirects. Speaking of which, I will be adding another redirect to this nomination shortly that relates to this one. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have added User:Humphrybert to this nomination. Same rationale, same issue, same vote for "soft redirect". Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect. Hard redirects from user pages to article space pages are harmful, but soft redirects are not and they maintain the link that the user is apparently happy with. Deleting a user page is potentially very bitey and so should not be done when there is an alternative. Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hard redirects are clearly harmful, as clicking on a user name and then talk to leave a message will result in talk for a user being left at an article talk page. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete User:Humphrybert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- the user didn't create this redirect, it was part of maintenance cleanup, and shouldn't have been left behind after the maintenance cleanup was completed. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete user:Victorsmesq -- this is a redirect left by a user when the page moved to articlespace, by using their userpage as a sandbox instead of a subpage. The user didn't actively create the redirect, it is merely the messy leftover redirect of a pagemove. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:44, 26 November 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.

🎈 release[edit]

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 burst. BencherliteTalk 23:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as if this is a commonly used method of searching for this, or that people will learn or understand anything from it. Redirecting a single "character" to the word may be acceptable, but redirecting every phrase it appears in as well is serious overkill. Fram (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unlikely redirect. Untypable character, not used in phrases in English in this manner. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You can't type it so how would it work as a redirect? I cannot even see it, it is a square that says OIF 388. Can someone link to a picture of what it looks like? Chillum 08:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is technically typable in some phone OSes without finagling. As for its looks, it probably bears most resemblance to Samsung's emoji for it visible here. Also visible in the official Unicode chart linked from Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs (character's actual code is (U+)1F388. - Purplewowies (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cute. Useless, hence delete, but cute. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are enough pointless redirects without exploiting the endless permutations available using emojis. The ballon character in question can be seen at U+1F388: BALLOON and there is a loooong list here (slow) showing "A total of 1032 emojis were introduced by Unicode Version V6.0 in 2010". Items on that list include ballon, icecream, doughnut, cookie, candy, lollipop, cake, egg, dolls, and a lot more. If one of these icons were to be used in a redirect, it should be to an article with useful encyclopedic content on the icon. Anyone wanting to see the cake article will have to type "cake" rather than enter a cute icon. Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a completely implausible redirect. Redirects ought to assist readers in some way, but I can't see anyone ever entering "🎈 release" into the toolbar hoping to get "balloon release". Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as implausible; nobody is going to search a combination of emoji and plain text. Frankly I have doubts as to whether we should even have redirects for simple emoji (e.g., 🎈 → Balloon) given Google does not seem to handle them, at least not yet. (also @Purplewowies: the symbol looks exactly like the Samsung emoji to me using OS X) —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mendaliv: Yes, and on Windows (at least the way mine is set up), it's a black balloon with a comically short string pointing in the other direction. :P - Purplewowies (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to what Mendaliv says. Having single-character redirects is good, partly because people like Chillum who can't see the character can go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/🎈 and get a hint about the redirect from its target. But nobody will follow "🎈" with "release". 65.210.65.16 (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see a use for this --- TheChampionMan1234 21:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 💣Delete Implausible, as others have 📝d. Redirects from particular characters to their subject articles aren't harming anything, but mixing unicode with English would seem to be putting the 🚗t before the 🐎. Ok I'm done now. Ivanvector (talk) 23:14, 25 November 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.

National Anthem Act[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#National Anthem Act

Alyssa Funke[edit]

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. The suggestion for salting sounds premature to me, but feel free to request this at WP:RPP or let me know if there are attempts to recreate it. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently redirects to a school article where there appears to be a some support (here and here) and a generally silent consensus that the material is not appropriate under the "controversies" section after it was removed and remained absent over a five month period. Addition of material on this subject appears to be in violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and the subject herself does not appear to be notable beyond a single event that is her suicide. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, this is also a fully-protected article due to prior concerns with its creation with regard to the recently deceased. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if there were a list of bullying incidents that would be the proper target, if it covered the incident. As it is, it seems to point to the wrong location, as the bullying did not occur at the high school, or while the bullies/bullied were attending there, but after they graduated in locations that are unrelated to the high school. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the only connexion to the high school appears to be that all individuals were alumni thereof. Why would this be considered bullying, anyway? The term tends to be used for activities by children, not adults aged 19 years. Nyttend (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt, regrettably. The recent AfD is somewhat uninformative. It seems that we can't reliably establish a link between this young woman's suicide and the high school, so it's not really appropriate to redirect there. Retargeting to Cyberbullying#Harmful effects or similar wouldn't be particularly informative to readers searching for info on this woman, and it's perhaps a WP:BDP issue for us to indirectly sum up her life as having been a victim of this. Since the redirect is protected now it would make sense to block future creation as well: her unfortunate death has had no lasting notable impacts (by our encyclopedic standards) thus any future article would be very likely to fail WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Ivanvector (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector and Nyttend above. I asked JethroBT to create this due to the difficulties posed by the redirect's protection. John from Idegon (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying: John asked Jethro to create the Rfd, not the redirect itself. (Correct me if I'm wrong!) Ivanvector (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct; John and I had a substantive discussion about this topic here as John was looking for a second opinion on the matter. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:35, 29 November 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_25

Leave a Reply