Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 8

September 8

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 8, 2009

Penn hall

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 retarget to Pennsylvania Hall (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penn hallPenn hall → Pennsylvania Hall (Gettysburg, Pennsylvania) (links to redirect) (stats)

Penn hall is linked from one article that actually names a venue on Phildelphia not this hall. Sussexonian (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What article used to link to Penn hallPenn hall? Only the RfD links there now, so perhaps there was a recent edit. It is strange that we have a Penn hallPenn hall but no Penn Hall, but it does sound like a likely slag or nickname for any of the three Pennsylvania Halls, so perhaps we should redirect to that dab and consider creating Penn Hall. There is a redlink to Penn Hall on Survival Tour#1979 - Survival Tour as a Philadelphia venue for Bob Marley & The Wailers, but Pennsylvania Hall (Philadelphia) was a historic building destroyed in the 19th century. I'll contact that editor to try to identify the venue. -- ToE^T 00:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with Benjamin and Zach below on the retargeting. I've unlinked that Penn Hall redlink in Survival Tour as the venue is almost certainly an error in the source. -- ToE^T 12:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pennsylvania Hall -- Unless someone can argue well that one of those Pennsylvania Halls is the much more likely target, Penn hall should point to the dab page. —mako ๛ 01:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Pennsylvania Hall per Mako. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 20:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Robert levine

The result of the discussion was delete all. Killiondude (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert levine → Peter A. Levine (links to redirect) (stats)

These seem to be two unconnected people. There is only one article referring to Robert levine. Sussexonian (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Even after a little bit of websearching, I can't figure out why Robert levine should possibly redirect to the article it's currently pointing at. If someone else can explain this, I'll be happy to change my position. —mako ๛ 01:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Peter A. Levine article was originally created under the title Robert A. Levine and later moved with the comment "moved Robert A. Levine to Peter A. Levine: Real name". Both the article's creator and the mover are currently active editors, so I will ask for their input. I haven't found any other connection between the names yet, so I suspect that it was a typo (wordo?), and if this is the case, then we should consider deleting all related redirects as confusing, as there are several redlinks to Robert Levine apparently referring to more than one person -- Mary Tyler Moore's husband, a notable brazilianist (god, I hate shotgun linking of random lists of people), an actor who's played in Superboy , Jericho, and Love Affair, and a trainer whose horse won the 1985 Cotillion Handicap (more shotgun linking). -- ToE^T 01:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : this redirect is obviously a "wordo". DocteurCosmos (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. (It was DocteurCosmos who moved Robert A. Levine to Peter A. Levine.) I move to append the following redirects to this nomination and delete all. -- ToE^T 10:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robert A. Levine → Peter A. Levine (links to redirect) (stats)
Levine robert → Peter A. Levine (links to redirect) (stats)
Delete all - it appears that the originator of the article had the wrong first name in mind (see target talk page); so all three of these redirects are textbook examples of confusing redirects (similar to the example mentioned in WP:RFD#DELETE). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

9th Wonder prodcution discography

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete under R3 (non-admin close). —mako ๛ 01:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9th Wonder prodcution discography → 9th Wonder production discography (links to redirect) (stats)

This was my own mistake; I was moving 9th Wonder discography to 9th Wonder production discography and I didn't realize I misspelled "production". THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was eligible for an R3 speedy, so I boldly fixed the double redirect and speedily deleted the bad one. If anyone disagrees, feel free to reverse and leave me note telling me why. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Baggy jeans

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 (non-admin close). B.Wind (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baggy jeansBaggy jeans → Jeans (links to redirect) (stats)

Implausible search UltraMagnus (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It sure seems like a plausible search term to me. Stats for previous months see a steady trickle going in. If there's a better place to redirect it, I'd love to hear it. —mako ๛ 01:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mako. "Baggy jeans" is one of the styles listed under Jeans#Fits. This use to be a short article but WP:Articles_for_deletion/Baggy_jeans resulted in a merge/redirect on 6 October 2006. -- ToE^T 06:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, what's up with the {{rfd2}} template and its use of {{urlencode}} to form the stats link giving us "+" characters for spaces instead of "_" as needed to make stats work, and how can we fix this? You'd think that this redirect, for instance, received no traffic when it get between a couple of hundred to a couple of thousand hits monthly. (I wonder what happened on 21 May 2009 that instantly cut the daily hits down by a factor of eight. There was a correspondingly strange spike in the hits to Jeans on 20 May 2009.) -- ToE^T 06:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed this bug by replacing {{urlencode}} with {{anchorencode}} - hopefully this won't give us any problems. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 07:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvement, Zach425. There's still a problem, but I'll take it up on your talk page. Regarding the strange May statistics, I still don't know what caused the one day spike at Jeans, but amongst that rush of visitors was an editor who removed a circular link in that article to Baggy jeans and that's what cut traffic to the redirect to 1/8 of what it had been. -- ToE^T 11:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're on to something with the circular link theory. A comparable drop occurred between a similar edit on March 8 and the time it was reverted on March 14. Though I'm not sure why there would have been a delay between the edit you mentioned and the May drop - possibly a cache issue? As for the template problem, I'll check out my talk page now... --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 11:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! On 20 May the front page "On this day ..." section ran an item on the 1873 Levi Strauss copper rivets reinforcement patent and included a link to Jeans, causing a four fold spike in its traffic for that day. About 1 in 12 views of Jeans resulted in an attempt to view Baggy jeans via the circular link, accounting for about about 85% of its traffic. But that link was removed at 0800 on the 20th, so Baggy jeans only experienced a slight bump in traffic that day, followed by a precipitous drop the following day. -- ToE^T 12:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could provide some amusement :D --UltraMagnus (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mako & ToE. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 07:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Zach, for the work you did in getting {{rfd2}} to generate a useful stats link. -- ToE^T 11:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ozhiphop.com

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ozhiphop.com → Australian hip hop (links to redirect) (stats)

delete, not covered in target. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- As per nominator. Sounds like an unnecessary and potentially confusing redirect to me. —mako ๛ 01:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 10:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Dance company redirects

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dance company redirects → Dance (links to redirect) (stats)

Another {{catmore}} redirect (see here, here and here). This serves no purpose for the reader, and now that the {{catmore}} link has been corrected to point directly to Dance, there's no need for the redirect. Jafeluv (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very improbable redirect. No one would search for "Dance company redirects". Cunard (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --- This type self-referential redirect seems to show up from time to time and seems mostly to be a mistake. Deleting seems both extremely sensible and keeping with a strong precedent. If this were a category, it might make sense. As a redirect, it seems to be nonsense. —mako ๛ 01:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Musicals by director/choreographer/composer

The result of the discussion was delete per this discussion and many very similar discussions that have been taking place recently. Killiondude (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects for linking {{catmore}} templates from similarly named categories to their appropriate articles. The catmore templates have been replaced with text, and these redirects are no longer needed. They're rather unlikely search terms for readers looking for the composer/director/choreographer articles. Jafeluv (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Implausible search terms that serve no purpose. Cunard (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per the nominator and my comments on many extremely similar RfDs that Jafeluv has been proposing lately. —mako ๛ 01:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Police (town), Poland

The result of the discussion was delete. Note that Police, Poland was already move-protected for a week to prevent move warring (now expired). If there are further problems consider listing it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Jafeluv (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Police (town), Poland → Police, Poland (links to redirect) (stats)

Delete - residue of an out-of-process page move created when an editor in the middle of a recent CFD unilaterally moved it. Unlikely search term, probably speediable as an R3 misnomer. Otto4711 (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Implausible redirect. Cunard (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps consider salting, since already 3(?) attempts have been made to move the article to this name out of process.--Kotniski (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete -- Folks arguing about the articles relating to Poland and its Police (of all sorts) should work this. In any case, this particular redirect seems like a very implausible search term and need not be kept around. ~~Alternatively, this could be moved to Police (town) which doesn't seem quite as implausible and might even help folks interested in finding out about the town.~~ —mako ๛ 01:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just created Police (town) as an alternative redirect (that's the only meaning I can think of for "moving" a redirect). --Kotniski (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's exactly what I meant. I suggested it because the move did not require an administrator but a delete did. Now that it's created, deletion seems the best option. I've struck out that party of my suggestion. —mako ๛ 21:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Scanadalous

The result of the discussion was keep as a redirect to Scandalous. Jafeluv (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ScanadalousScanadalous → Scandalous (Mis-Teeq song) (links to redirect) (stats)

Implausible redirect. {{db-redirtypo}} does not apply, since this redirect has existed since 00:57, 27 December 2005, when the typo was corrected by Noboyo (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -- Why do you think that this is implausible? Common mispellings are fine for redirects and the stats for previous months show a pretty steady trickle of traffic to the redirect. People have trouble spelling. This redirect might help them out. —mako ๛ 01:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is just one view, whereas plausible typos receive many more views. If the consensus is to keep, I would recommend retargeting this redirect to Scandalous. Cunard (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Scandalous -- You're absolutely correct. I thought I'd checked and saw that Scandalous was itself a redirect to to the Mis-Teeq song. The dab is the correct target. —mako ๛ 18:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Scandalous - with between 5 & 10 hits a month, it seems plausible enough. But I agree, the Mis-Teeq article is not the right target. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 10:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above discussion, I've boldly retargeted the redirect to Scandalous. B.Wind (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.