Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 26

October 26[edit]

Bulbapedia → Pokémon#External links[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. This redirect bypasses any encyclopedic content, and basically provides readers with an external link. It should be noted that articles which contain only external links can be speedily deleted per criterion A3. matt br 08:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this encyclopedia is not notable to have an article, or even a mention about it in the Pokemon article, then there shouldn't be a redirect to the External links on the Pokemon page. That's pure advertisement. Corvus cornix 22:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a section about it in the Pokémon article. Oboeboy 12:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirects to external links sections are bad, because they deliberately avoid the encyclopedic content in favor of a link directory. I've typically just retargetted these to the top of the article when I find them, but the currently nominated one is not a useful redirect to its target article. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should make a section about it in the Pokémon article. Oboeboy 14:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I didn't make this redirect for advertising. And please add this on the Pokémon noticeboard, I'm sick of missing out Pokémon-related nominations. (like I missed the one regarding Ash's mother) I made this link so I can direct people that are disappointed in the lists to the proper place. Without the link, it's hard to direct people to the right encyclopedia. If the nominator is assuming it's a fansite, it's not. It's as serious encyclopedia as we are, just with different policies. TheBlazikenMaster 15:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no knowledge as to whether it's an encyclopedia or a fansite, my only concern is that the link is to the external links, which makes it advertising. Corvus cornix 19:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe so, but got any better ideas on how to make the people that are looking for good Pokémon articles stop complaining? TheBlazikenMaster 17:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Prove Bulbapedia's notability. If there is none, there should be no redirect. Corvus cornix 22:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That doesn't answer my question, I asked if you got any better idea, please don't repeat yourself. TheBlazikenMaster 13:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The only better idea would be if there were a mention of Bulbapedia in the Pokemon article. As there is not, there is no other solution but removal of the reference, and, possibly, removal of the link as well. Corvus cornix 18:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not a repository of links. If a person is just looking for Pokémon links then WP is the wrong place. meshach 15:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong keep We should make a section in the Pokémon article about Bulbapedia and make it redirect there. Oboeboy 14:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bulbapedia would add nothing to the main article and is not deserving of its own article. I have no opinion on the redirect though. Spigot Map 19:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per User:TheBlazikenMaster. FunPika 17:23, 28 October 2007 (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 (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

USA's Allosaur → Allosaurus[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally a piece of original research later converted to a redirect, it is a very unlikely search string that reads more like it should pertain to a TV show on the USA Network. J. Spencer 18:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Although the article was tagged for merging, no actual merge took place (the content was not worth merging): User:Salad Days, the editor who redirected this page in December 2006, made no edits to the article Allosaurus during that month. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Cagayan → Talk:Cagayan (province)[edit]

The result of the debate was Redirect removed (talk page blanked). A history merge is not needed. The current history only consists of the moves which are already contained in history of each page so merging that doesn't do anything. As for the 20 July 2003 edit, that was deleted well prior to the page moves and only consisted of a template that has already been re-added to the final target. Restoring the edit serves no practical use and there is no GFDL issue with leaving it deleted as the content was independently recreated and not re-used. -- JLaTondre 12:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unsynchronized with the main article Cagayan. --seav 17:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move Talk:Cagayan (province) to Talk:Cagayan and execute a history merge in the process. The article and its Talk page were apparently moved and then re-moved several times. It looks like the Talk page was missed in that last move back to the original location. When executing the history merge, undelete the version as of 20 July 2003. That version of the page appears to have been deleted by accident while cleaning up some spam that had been added to the page. (Do not undelete the spammed versions.) Rossami (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Military of Kosovo → Kosovo Protection Corps[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 01:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kosovo Protection Corps has been created as a civilian emergency service agency(UNMIK/REG/1999/8 (.pdf)), not a military organization.

UNMIK at 18 months: Kosovo Protection Corps further clarifies that "the KPC will [e]schew military or law enforcement functions. This means no riot control, counter-terrorism or any other task related to the maintenance of law and order."

The KFOR Chronicle No. 1/99 (September 27, 1999) page 4: The Kosovo Protection Corps mentions that "[t]he Kosovo Protection Corps will have no role in defense, law enforcement, riot control, internal security or any other task involved in the maintenance of law and order."

Even the KPC's website, in it's KPC's History and Mission section, mentions no military functions (although it fails to clarify that these are not part of its tasks).

Most of Kosovo's ethnic-Albanian majority consider the KPC to be the nucleus of a future Army of Kosovo, and I guess that this desire lies behind the recent creation of this redirect. But this aspiration does not changes the fact that the current KPC cannot be considered the "Military of Kosovo".

UN proposals have called for the disbanding of the KPC and the establishment of a new and lightly-armed Kosovo Security Force, with members of the KPC invited to join the new force. When this Kosovo Security Force -or an equivalent one- is created, then a redirect to its article from "Military of Kosovo" may make sense.

In the meantime, this redirect affects the "Military of" version of the Template:Europe topic, giving readers a false impression of the KPC's nature & intended purpose. Ev 15:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well brother until the new armed force is created after the definition for Kosovas status this remains Kosovas military, the UN has said that KCP will be disbanded and integrated into the new Kosovo defense force AFTER there status of Kosova is denied until then KCP will remain Kosovas Military.GB-UK-BI 18:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. - Ev 21:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Buckshot06 21:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —Ev 21:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the creator of the redirect, GB-UK-BI, has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Gon4z (talk · contribs · block log). - Ev 14:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The american wigger → Nigger[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 01:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well first, this should probably point to wigger, not nigger, as I see no reason for its current target. Even then, it is an incredibly unlikely search term. --- RockMFR 14:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unlikely search term, per nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

USAF Histporical Research Agency defines Wings → Origin of USAF wings[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 01:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mispelt redirect that noone is likely to search for. Creator (now left wikipedia) also created 'USAF Historical Research Agency defines Wings' after he realised his mistake. Buckshot06 13:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Invalid raw signature → Wikipedia:How to fix your signature[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse than the below example – Gurch 23:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary (and unlikely) cross-namespace redirect. Terraxos 02:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no useful history or move logs. I agree with Terraxos, it's implausible due to the technical terms for a new user to search for this. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 10:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly harmful cross namespace redirect. Marlith ^T/C 18:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a cross-namespace redirect that has no significant incoming links and is an unlikely search term, for reasons expressed by Mtmelendez. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fixing your signature → Wikipedia:How to fix your signature[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic through self-referentiality, and rather unlikely to be used anyway – Gurch 23:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary (and unlikely) cross-namespace redirect. Terraxos 02:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no useful history or move logs. I agree with Terraxos, it's implausible since new users who are aware of the signature function probably already know about Wiki-space. In any case, if the redirect is not deleted it should direct to the article space, maybe signature, which already contains two links to Wikipedia pages about signatures. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 10:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Harmful Cross namespace redirect. Marlith ^T/C 18:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a cross-namespace redirect that has no significant incoming links and is an unlikely search term, for reasons expressed by Mtmelendez. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Homogeneous equation → Sides of an equation[edit]

The result of the debate was retarget to Homogeneous (mathematics). WjBscribe 01:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect doesn't make sense. Target article is not relevant to the subject matter. May deserve its own article, not sure. Either delete (possibly prompting others to create a proper article), or redirect elsewhere - perhaps Homogeneous differential equation, or Homogeneous (mathematics) (the latter would be a circular redirect)? DonkeyKong64 (Mathematician in training) 17:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the options, retarget to Homogeneous (mathematics). Homogeneous differential equation is also a possible target here, but it's just about possible that someone typing this in might want one of the other reasons, so I think going to the disambiguation page seems best. Terraxos 02:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Livin Da Vida Loca → Livin' la Vida Loca[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 01:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unneccesary. David Pro 12:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I do not believe that anyone will ever use this. Marlith ^T/C 18:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would someone really make this mistake? GlassCobra 20:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: the combination of three mistakes (punctuation, capitalisation, spelling) makes this an unlikely search term. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Joker (1989 Batman character) → Joker (comics)[edit]

The result of the debate was retarget to Joker's appearances in other media#Batman (1989). WjBscribe 01:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was originally created as a article about the Joker's depiction in the 1989 Batman movie, and I nominated this article to AFD and the result was merge to Joker (comics). David Pro 23:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Joker's appearances in other media#Batman (1989). Since it needs being redirected to the 1989 Batman film section. David Pro 15:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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