Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 2

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 2, 2014.

Divine intervention

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 11#Divine intervention

Wikipedia:NOTWIKIA

[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 WP:NOTWEBHOST (non-admin closure). I have boldly retargeted to the expanded section title rather than the shortcut. Ivanvector (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just created this redirect, but now, I question its target. I have targeted the redirect to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, which is currently the target of WP:NOTFANSITE. Immediately after I created this redirect, I questioned both if its the best target, as well as the redirect's existence. Given that Wikia is sort of associated with Wikimedia, given that their heads are the same person, I'm not trying to belittle either organization, but rather create this redirect in terms of how it could help Wikipedians here. In my experiences on Wikia sites, most of them seem like fan-driven wikis with their own set of notability requirements, etc ... and thus, why I targeted it there as the equivalent of a "fan page". Is this the best target? Should the redirect be deleted? I would like community opinions on this redirect, but for the purpose of this discussion, I am weak keep/neutral. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 2 October 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.

Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous

[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. Withdrawn by nominator. Tgeairn (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following an AfD discussion, the content was merged into Landmark Worldwide. This redirect is now an orphan (with only one double-redirect remaining linked to it). There is no need to maintain this orphan. Tgeairn (talk) 21:37, 2 October 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.

Pope Gregorius XVII

[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 Siri Thesis. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created by a disruptive page move. As the body of the article notes, Giuseppe Siri was never pope, and the redirect serves no real purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not per nom. Where did the nom ask for it to be deleted? The default is Keep. Si Trew (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"This redirect was created by a disruptive page move" and "The redirect serves no real purpose" are both statements that can be taken as implicitly asking for deletion of a redirect when nominated here in the absence of any explicit statement to the contrary. The nominator didn't call for speedy deletion, and while G3 does cover redirects created when fixing page move vandalism, this is sufficiently plausible to at least merit discussion because the term does appear in the target article. Specifically it appears in the "conclave speculation" section, but instead of targetting there I think it should be retargeted to Siri Thesis which is the main article for that link. The article deals with the speculation/rumours that Siri was elected pope and chose the pontifical name Gregory (English)/Gergorius (Latin) XVII. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Thryduulf. That sounds sensible.
But I disagree with the "deletion is implied" argument. I didn't know whether to bring this up at Talk but the heading "This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on (date)" I think is misleading: giving undue prominence to deletion. It is redirects for discussion, as you well know and that is what it says. If you want to make it "Redirects for Deletion", a common fallacy, then say so. I was wondering how to ask to change the strap from "deletion or other action" to "discussion". I was going to bring this up on Talk but might as well do it here.
For if not, why call it "discussion" if the default is "deletion"? It says at WP:RFD#The guiding principles of RfD that the default is delete, but at WP:RFD#Keep it rather is mealy-mouthed about it. But several here including me assume the default is "Keep"; and that is kinda the Hippocratic Oath, "first do no harm". I haven't done a straw poll but I would guess about a third go deletion, a third get retargeted, and, the last third half of them (that is a sixth of the total) go keep and the other half fall by the wayside when nobody is interested. Deletion is a large minority, but a minority nonetheless, and I think RfD is misrepresented as "Redirects for Deletion" etc in Twinkle and so on. You and I and many others go and research to try to tie things up; for me deletion is kinda the last resort. Si Trew (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't follow almost all of that, but I didn't say that deletion is always implied, just that the wording of this nomination clearly implies that user:Robert McClenon believes this redirect should be deleted. Discussion of what the guiding principles are/should be and/or what the instructions, etc say is a matter for WT:RFD not an individual nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC) ps: You currently have two bolded recommendations in this discussion, please fix that. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 6 October 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.

Ford V8

[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 List of Ford engines#8 Cylinder. --BDD (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Direct to a different page. This and Ford V-8 currently redirect to the first V-8 Ford, one of the 1932 Fords. I would suggest it instead redirect to List of Ford engines#8 Cylinder (where Ford V8 engine redirects), or to Ford flathead V8 engine. pbp 20:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seems like a situation that would be helped by a disambiguation page pointing to the various vehicles known as "Ford V-8" and the list of V8 engines. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make a DAB like wot Thryduulf says. Si Trew (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into lists I tried to make a DAB, being bold. However, in doing so I quickly found that the engines are pretty much covered at Ford V8 engine in slightly more detail than we would typically have at a DAB: so the DAB, at least for the engines, would be superfluous.
I wonder if we should split that section out of there into List of Ford V8 engines (and retarget to that) and then make a parallel at List of Ford V8 vehicles or some such? I've taken the liberty of adding Ford V-8 to the nomination proper. Si Trew (talk) 06:06, 3 October 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.

G Blows

[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) 18:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This redirect's topic is not explained in the topic article. Also, it is unclear what this is, and there seems to be no other topic for redirecting. Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 2 October 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.

Wikipedia tool

[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, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. I wouldnt be surprised if we can find a mainspace target for this title. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:39, 2 October 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.

Wikipedia Observer Effect

[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) 18:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a real thing. Content rightly removed from target page, as it is silly content.[1] John Vandenberg (chat) 16:23, 2 October 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.

Several redirects with bolding HTML code

[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) 15:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These redirects do not serve any useful navigational purpose as searching does not require HTML code (such as the ones used for these redirects which is supposed to cause bold text, but does not since it's in the actual title.) Each of these redirects have an equivalent that exists that does not contain the three apostrophes on each side that redirects to their targets, so navigation would not be lost if the nominated redirects were to be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 14:47, 2 October 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.

Talk:Occupy Central

[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 redirect boldy replaced with project banners. Thryduulf (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page Occupy Central also deserves its own talk page, not sharing with Occupy Central (2011–12)'s. Not sure how to interpret the history, but seems to be a creation of error? 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 07:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are correct that the dab page deserves its own talk, but as deletion is not requried for that I've just overwritten the redirect with project banners. The redirect was the standard result of a talk page being moved with it's associated article leaving a redirect behind. Thryduulf (talk) 07:57, 2 October 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.

Nimco Ali

[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 procedural close; the redirect was converted into an article. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nimco Ali is not the same person as Leyla Hussein. Both are notable and I would like to create an article for Nimco Ali. I am One of Many (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse article creation & speedy close the redirect is neither edit-protected nor subject to any controversy, so there's no administrator action or community approval required for you to expand it into an article. Like it says at the top of WP:RFD, If you just want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold. This is definitely a bad redirect (no mention on the target article), but it might become a decent article in its own right. Cheers, 61.10.165.33 (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse article creation & speedy close per the IP above. Deletion is not required here - just overwrite the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 07:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC) See below.[reply]

*Endorse and close as above. Go for it! Si Trew (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse speedy close per above. I created the re-direct to Leyla Hussein since Nimko Ali (spelled here in English with a "k", and in Somali with a "c") is a co-founder of Daughters of Eve along with Hussein, and since I planned on later starting a bio for Nimko when I had more time. I've started it now/removed the re-direct I added, so the discussion can be closed. Middayexpress (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah User:I am One of Many, I already started it at Nimko Ali (with a "k") since that appears to be her WP:COMMONNAME. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Middayexpress: The nomination is for Nimco Ali, not Nimko Ali where you've created the stub. So it's not a procedural close. (Seems pretty obvious what to do, though.) Si Trew (talk) 07:18, 3 October 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.

Wikipedia secure server

[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) 15:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, unless someone can propose a plausible mainspace target where this topic is discussed. FWIW Wikipedia's use of TLS has been the subject of minor news coverage (e.g. [2][3]), though I'm not sure whether this deserves mention somwhere in a Wikipedia article (maybe at Wikipedia#Hardware operations and support). 61.10.165.33 (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a cross-namespace redirect from mainspace is not a reason to delete a redirect in and of itself, because there are some which should be kept and others retargetted, converted to articles, etc, depending on several factors. The primary reason for keeping cross-redirects from mainspace to project space is to assist the finding of pages that are important for people who don't understand namespaces. This is not an example of such a page. Thryduulf (talk) 08:01, 2 October 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.

Wikipedia is not a finished project

[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) 15:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Being a cross-namespace redirect from mainspace is not a reason to delete a redirect in and of itself, because there are some which should be kept and others retargetted, converted to articles, etc, depending on several factors. The primary reason for keeping cross-redirects from mainspace to project space is to assist the finding of pages that are important for people who don't understand namespaces. This is not an example of such a page. I wondered about redirecting this to the main Wikipedia article or Criticism of Wikipedia but the quality of not being finished and thus containing incomplete information and articles only seems to be touched on very briefly and not using these words. Thryduulf (talk) 08:05, 2 October 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.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

[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) 15:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Being a cross-namespace redirect from mainspace is not a reason to delete a redirect in and of itself, because there are some which should be kept and others retargetted, converted to articles, etc, depending on several factors. The primary reason for keeping cross-redirects from mainspace to project space is to assist the finding of pages that are important for people who don't understand namespaces. This is not an example of such a page. I would not object to retargetting this if the term was notably used anywhere, e.g. in relation to criticsm of Wikipedia, but I haven't found that it is. Thryduulf (talk) 08:10, 2 October 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.

Wikipedia/Education program

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 5#Wikipedia/Education program

Wikipedia (UNESCO World Heritage Site)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 5#Wikipedia (UNESCO World Heritage Site)

Wikipedia is not a blog

[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) 15:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Being a cross-namespace redirect from mainspace is not a reason to delete a redirect in and of itself, because there are some which should be kept and others retargetted, converted to articles, etc, depending on several factors. The primary reason for keeping cross-redirects from mainspace to project space is to assist the finding of pages that are important for people who don't understand namespaces. This is not an example of such a page. I have not found any reliable source discussing whether Wikipedia is or is not a blog (or even much in unreliable sources other than Yahoo Answers), so it seems unlikely that there will be any coverage relevant to this topic in articles - there certainly isn't at present in Wikipedia or Criticism of Wikipedia Thryduulf (talk) 08:27, 2 October 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 box

[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) 15:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:17, 2 October 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_October_2&oldid=1142991999"