Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 January 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 23, 2012

Sweet bread[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, disambiguation page deleted as no function and no significant history. Salix (talk): 10:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect causes more confusion than it is worth and should be deleted, as "sweet bread" is not the same thing as "sweetbread". My understanding is that "sweet bread" is bread that is sweet, while "sweetbread" is a culinary term for the thymus or pancreas of an animal. I came across the redirect from sweet bread to sweetbread in the article on raisin bread, and was surprised when clicking on the link to find that it took me to an article that has nothing to do with bread. Having this redirect causes people to mistakenly link to an article on an unrelated topic (e.g. in raisin bread and gata (food)), while having sweet bread be a red link would let people know that no such article exists and that one perhaps should be created. The sweet bread page was previously also a disambiguation page, but I don't think that is appropriate because I don't think "sweet bread" is regularly used to refer to sweetbread and also because there aren't two articles to disambiguate between. Calathan (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "sweet bread" as a very reasonable {{R from mispelling}} or revert to disambiguation page [1]. Delete the disambiguation redirect, since there's no disambiguation page, if it isn't reverted. 70.24.245.198 (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I think "sweet bread" is a reasonable mispelling of "sweetbread", I still think this redirect will more often be confusing than useful. I think more people would type "sweet bread" expecting to see an article on bread that is sweet than would type "sweet bread" expecting to see an article on sweetbread. As far as I can tell from using Google, the term "sweet bread" referring to bread is much more common than "sweetbread" or "sweet bread" referring to offal. Perhaps the best solution would be for someone to just write an article on the topic of sweet bread and then put hatnotes on the articles . . . but I still think deleting the redirect would make it easier for people to notice that such an article doesn't already exist. Calathan (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Assuming that the bread that is sweet is worth an article (as opposed to a dicdef), I agree that a hatnote between the pages is the most appropriate. I'm even ok with sweet bread going to a disambiguation page with a red link for the bread. However I think it does a disservice to a reader if accidentally putting in a space causes them to be told there is no such article. Vicarious (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I removed the DAB reference because there was no DAB, but I agree with Calathan that the redirect is confusing because sweet bread and sweetbread are two very different items. I think it would be handiest if some would write an article, even just a stub, for sweet bread, and as suggested place info in the hatnote. Hohenloh + 12:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Bread that is sweet" is not a sufficient topic to support an encyclopedia article that will ever become more than an obvious dictionary definition. A google search on the exact phrase "sweet bread" returns no more hits (and no more obvious groupings) than the equally obvious sour bread or salty bread. Sweetbread, on the other hand, is a discrete and noteworthy encyclopedia concept.
    Note: I would not be completely averse to a return to the May 2008 version which disambiguated sweetbread with Category:Sweet breads but that would be an exception to the Manual of Style for DAB pages. Rossami (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My Google search results seem to be completely different than what you claim above. Searching for "sweet bread" I get 1,160,000 hits, while searching for "sweet bread" -sweetbread (i.e. everything with the exact phrase "sweet bread" but without the word "sweetbread") I get 4,640,000 hits (Google assumes you might have meant to not have a space if you just type "sweet bread", though I have no idea why removing a search term results in more hits). For "salty bread" I get 45,100 hits and for "sour bread" I get 130,000 hits. So "sweet bread" gets far more hits than either of those topics. Also, I think sour bread is a notable topic, just that its article is under the name sourdough. Given all the articles in Category:Sweet breads, I would be very surprised if sweet bread is not a notable topic that could support an encyclopedia article. Regardless though, I would be happy with almost any solution that doesn't leave sweet bread as a redirect to sweet bread, including turning it into a non-standard DAB page. Calathan (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies, I was unclear in describing my assessment of the google results. I was not basing my opinion on page counts (yours are similar to what I saw) but on notable clusterings and discussions of the actual topic as opposed to a mere adjective-noun combination. I found no such examples. "Sour bread", by the way, is entirely different from "sourdough". Many breads can be sour (just as many can be sweet). Sourdough is a specific subtype of bread that is based upon lactic acid rather than yeast fermentation. The fact that it is sour is interesting but is not the defining characteristic of the bread. Rossami (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thinking more about this, I must withdraw my support for a return to the disambiguation layout of the page. The folks who patrol disambiguation pages for compliance with the Manual of Style are unlikely to agree to the non-standard usage (as evidence, the page has been converted away from that layout twice already) and there is not an easy way to ask for their agreement ahead of time. I believe that a more maintainable compromise would be a hard-redirect to sweetbread but add a hatnote to that page referencing Category:Sweet breads. I will attempt to draft that hatnote now. Rossami (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had actually been thinking of proposing exactly the same thing. After thinking about this more, I think that deleting the sweet bread redirect doesn't really make sense. Instead, I support adding a hatnote like what Rossami describes above. I still think the sweet bread (disambiguation) redirect should be deleted unless there is any use for it that I am missing. Calathan (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • History, the possibility of external links and the fact that it's not really harmful would be reasons not to delete the ...disambig page. Redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think it has any real page history considering the only edits to the page (other than me putting an RFD tag on it) were a bot creating it and a bot fixing a double redirect. I would also be surprised if there were external links to a page that never had any actual content and which contains the Wikipedia term "disambiguation" in its title. While it doesn't do any harm to keep it around, it also doesn't seem like it would ever be useful and is incorrect in that it doesn't redirect to a disambiguation page. I know that redirects can be useful while not being a correct term for the target article, but in this case the redirect is both incorrect and not useful, so I don't see any reason to keep it around. Calathan (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a reasonable misspelling. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2012 (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.

File:Cheese.jpg[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. Ruslik_Zero 16:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from file move, links are all from deleted photos in the same nameuploaded by hilarious five year olds. Delete and salt, please. Acather96 (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2012 (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.

Another[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 Converted to Disambiguation. Lenticel (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect of a common English word should be removed or replaced with a DAP. It is no longer useful (it was once a workaround for stopwords} and it makes finding Another (novel) more awkward than it needs to be. Anoyatu (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2012 (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.

Template:Copyrighted free use[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 revert to previous non redirected version. Retarget solutions slightly change meaning.--Salix (talk): 08:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting RFD debate, as to me Copyrighted free-use is NOT the same as 'public domain'. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ruslik_Zero 13:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Dmitrij Czarkoff is right; already it's causing issue, as I couldn't help but notice that every page this template (redirect) is used on is also 'tagged' for RFD (and since the tag uses {{FULLPAGENAME}}, that was a little confusing). Obviously for normal templates a noinclude would get around that, but that doesn't work for redirects. I'm just mentioning this here so maybe someone who knows what to do about it can maybe do it. Or something. I'unno.
And yeah, PD ain't the same thing as this. Why not just steal the commons template? -— Isarra (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support stealing the commons template. --NYKevin @865, i.e. 19:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both to preserve history and because it is in use on a large number of pages. No opinion on whether there is a better target or if the redirect should be overwritten with the commons template. Rossami (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change. It seems that it was this discussion from 2006 that started it? But I could not find a "follow up" in 2008 when this template was changed to a redirect. But I have 2 suggestions:
  1. We revert to this version or copy Commons:Template:Copyrighted free use on top and leave a note to the uploaders and ask if they could please select a better license. If they do the problem is solved. If they don't we move the files to Commons or delete them if there is a problem with source etc. Once the license is no longer used we delete the template.
  2. We change the redirect to {{Attribution}} to be sure that we do not make the license more free than uploader/copyright holder intented. --MGA73 (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added Category:Copyrighted free use to the template so now it is easy to see the files and find the uploaders that used the template for their files. --MGA73 (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Used on 81 files. 34 users used this license. One uploaded 40 files. The rest uploaded 1-4 files. --MGA73 (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2012 (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.

Golden Bay (district)[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 after history merge (page was a result from a previous split). Assumed to be uncontroversial, contact me if not. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Bay (district). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:41, 23 January 2012 (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.

Feeder bus[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. Ruslik_Zero 16:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect, as a "feeder bus" is a generic term used to refer to any bus service that brings people from a rail station or transit hub to their final destination or vice versa. No real place to retarget this. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. generic redirecting to a specific instance. 70.24.245.198 (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_23&oldid=1145853464"