Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 27

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 27, 2014.

Template:Cleanup-lead

[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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All three of these redirects with a similar purpose have multiple different targets. This can be confusing to an editor trying to use cleanup tags for the lead section of a page, but does not know about which cleanup tag these redirects target. I recommend that each of these should target the same page, but possibly all target Template:Introduction cleanup maintenance templates to sort of act as a disambiguation page for these terms. Also, the redirect Template:LEAD exists, but Template:Lead is about the chemical element. Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget "Cleanup lead" to template:lead-rewrite, as that would be cleanup, in all cases -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see nothing wrong with inconsistence of these redirects. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As this discussion got relisted, I might need to expand my rationale a bit: these redirects can be found in old revisions of multiple pages. When someone looks up such old revision, the transclusions are rendered as they stand now, so any change of template redirect target results in perverted display of historical revisions. At the same time, these templates are there mostly to request some action on the article; so changing redirects would break sequence of events and severely damage the ability to investigate history of particular pages, which is IMO much more important then local consistency between these three redirects. Furthermore, template redirects mostly serve as shortcuts, being memorised by editors and used to save typing; editors, who used them in the past, may continue doing so even not noticing the change of target. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dmitri. Templates are hard: now that you can script em every little script kiddie writes them. but they used to be very hard even as a professional programmer to get the syntax right etc: anything that made it easier was worth it. It is not as if they are in mainspace. 85.238.64.128 (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:40, 27 June 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.

Georiga State Route 213

[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 because no valid grounds for deletion have been presented. The default for redirects is to keep. This is not a recently created redirect. Such redirects are only deleted if they are in some way harmful. WP:RFD#HARMFUL states "Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.". In any case, the fact that the redirect was originally created with this title shows some plausibility for the misspelling. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is an implausible misspelling and should be deleted. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:32, 27 June 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.

Doggy woggy

[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. Jenks24 (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Internet slang again. TheChampionMan1234 09:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
in fact, this is a good argument for a soft redirect to the Wiktionary. Cavarrone 18:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't find documentation on this either way, practice has been to use soft redirects to Wiktionary sparingly, such as for highly likely search terms or to replace longstanding DICDEF articles. NOTDICT certainly does not mean we should always redirect there if a term can't be treated encyclopedically. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... as well as NOTDICT certainly does not mean we should delete plausible search terms in the face of plausible targets. --Cavarrone 19:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW assessing plausibility is a difficult task, prone to heavy influence of subjective factors. The only objective factor we have – stats – show 6 hits per month, which is below normal noise volume. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:16, 7 July 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.

Μάρτυς

[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. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The targets are not more relevant to Greek than to any language. Gorobay (talk) 14:19, 27 June 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.

Power sharing in nigeria

[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 refine target to Nigeria#Government and politics that has relevant material. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not covered in target TheChampionMan1234 11:43, 27 June 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.

아르헨티나

[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. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Not especially Korean. TheChampionMan1234 07:23, 27 June 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.

پرتغال

[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. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevent language. TheChampionMan1234 07:15, 27 June 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.

大韓民國

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 7#大韓民國

Mumbaī

[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 as a plausible search term and no other grounds for deletion. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk)

Unlikely search term. TheChampionMan1234 06:28, 27 June 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.

Tenjikukoku

[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 retarget to Tenjiku. As long as there's an article on a Japanese name for India, it's a logical target. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a transcription of a Japanese name, Japanese is not a language of India whatsoever. TheChampionMan1234 06:26, 27 June 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.

Stalin's Russia

[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 retarget to History of the Soviet Union (1927–53) as being the target most likely to provide the information being sought. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk)

Misleading, perhaps retarget to Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic TheChampionMan1234 06:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is particularly senseless in this case since Stalin was Georgian. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand you. What connection do you see between his Georgian ancesty and his rule of USSR? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - does "oppose" mean delete, retarget or keep? Ego White Tray (talk) 04:16, 28 June 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.

Hasakesitan

[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. --BDD (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this is a transcription from the Chinese name 哈薩克斯坦 using Pinyin, thus this is pretty much unrelated to the target. TheChampionMan1234 06:14, 27 June 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.

List of Jazz Bass players

[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 G8'd. No prejudice against creating a new redirect to somewhere else. WilyD 15:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to deleted page should be deleted also. Mikeblas (talk) 13:28, 27 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_27&oldid=1138579723"