Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 June 30

< June 29

July 1 >

June 30

The Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act of 2007 → 2007 Gas Rationing Plan in Iran

The result of the debate was article re-written by User:Sina Kardar. No longer a redirect. --- RockMFR 17:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is essentially propaganda. The first sentence of 2007 Gas Rationing Plan in Iran says: "2007 Gas Rationing Plan in Iran refers to a plan launched by president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's cabinet to counter to US action to limit Iran's gasoline supply (so called: The Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act of 2007)". In reality, the Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act was introduced two days AFTER the Gas Rationing Plan. It has just begun the lengthy process by which a bill becomes law, it has not been voted on in committee, etc. To suggest that the act led to the gas rationing, as the creator of both the article and the redirect is trying to do, is OR nonsense. See BBC coverage of gas rationing at: [1], [2], AP coverage at: [3] or choose your own news source. GabrielF 21:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Infrasubspecies → Rank (zoology)

The result of the debate was no consensus. This discussion seems to have ground to halt several days ago without reaching a conclusion. I suggest further discussion on the relevant talkpages about how to deal with the issues raised. You can retarget the redirects as an editorial decision if consensus is reached to do so or renominate them if deletion is found necessary. WjBscribe 19:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

---

• Also Infraspecies, which points to the same target.

There is no information about either at the target article, which is confusing. There once was a stub on this topic, which has been at both of the above names; the history of it is now at Infraspecies. I gather that one sentence was not quite accurate; hence the redirect. But that leaves us with some confusing links from other articles. Chick Bowen 21:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the creator of the Infraspecies redirect was indefinitely blocked on October 21. Chick Bowen 21:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Brya. Her block has nothing to do with the credibility of the article, but rather with her personal credibility, because of the nature of the block, so let's not include this in the discussion. I will add some statement(s) about "infra" and someone else can edit, and we can leave it at that--these are nomenclaturaly defined words, so the redirects are required to make the usage of the primary article robust, that's all. KP Botany 22:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete both, unless they can be added to the primary article; the original entry for Infraspecies barely rises to the level of a Wiktionary entry. Not every word needs its own Wikipedia article, even a redirect.--Curtis Clark 22:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

But I thought that was the purpose of a redirect, to direct the reader to the containing article, when the word itself is insufficient for an article? KP Botany 22:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The ideal solution would be a target for the redirects (doesn't have to be the current one) in which at least one of the terms would be a bolded lead word. A little bit of information added to the Rank article down toward the bottom would be a less ideal solution, but acceptable if it could be highlighted in some fashion, I think. What happened to me today is that I ended up at rank from breed and had no idea why, which is the situation I'd like to avoid. Thanks for looking into this, KP Botany. Chick Bowen 23:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to explore why and how you ended up at rank, particularly a purely taxonomical article (isn't it a redirect from Taxa (zoology)? Breed is a fairly non-technical term that merits its own article outside of crap on taxonomy.

I thought the idea behind a redirect could also be to direct the reader to an article that discusses the term, when the term itself does not merit an entire article:

"The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect."

While not the average reader, it is concievable to look up "infraspecies" in an encyclopedia. KP Botany 23:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see. It's on the taxonomic template of ranks, infraspecies is. It should not be there. I have asked for the template to be edited. Great catch, Chick. Hmmm, this may need looked into. In zoology, I think infraclass is a rank, like subclass, but infraspecies refers to the species lower than species. KP Botany 23:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, while you're looking into things, I see that Infraclass redirects to Class (biology), while Infraclass (zoology) is an odd little chart with very little linking to it. Seems a little odd to me; what do you think? Chick Bowen 23:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My point was that a redirect isn't very useful if the target page doesn't even define the term. Perhaps it would be useful to have a Rank (biological classification) that all the rank names could redirect to. The Maginificent Seven (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species) are common to all the codes (but not always consistently regulated by them), and then there are (1) intermediate ranks mentioned by the codes, (2) intermediate ranks not mentioned by the codes but in common use, and (3) intermediate ranks of historical importance only. Such an article could bring together a lot of material.--Curtis Clark 03:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would probably be better, having a single page for all of the redirects, even though they have different meanings. Chick, I think that infraclass biology means something different than infraclass zoology, in which case different redirects would be appropriate. But if there were a single page with everything, the differences could also be seen by other editors trying to figure out what articles are doing. KP Botany 22:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

FAB Uno → FAB 001

The result of the debate was delete. Sr13 08:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The original name of the article was probably due to a misunderstanding of Portuguese, since "Uno" is not "one" in Portuguese, furthermore, there is no such designation both officially and unofficially. For instance, by searching the Brazilian Google for the term, no articles other than the Wikipedia one are linked. I propose the redirect to be deleted to avoid confusion with the name, and perhaps introducing an erroneous designation for this aircraft (given the current impact of Wikipedia). I have corrected all links to and from this articles to the proper FAB 001 designation, as well as adding the unofficial designations of "Aerolula" and "FAB Santos Dumont". fmeneguzzi 20:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. --Aarktica 00:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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