Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 29, 2008

Death In Hounslow → Is It Legal?[edit]

The result of the debate was Re-target to List of Is It Legal? episodes. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both are unlikely things for somebody to type in, only two of twenty-one episodes, and redirect to non-existent sections of a page. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Death in Hounslow, as it's the name of an episode which doesn't have its own page, and it's quite plausible that someone might search for a particular episode of a TV show. Whodunnit? (Is It Legal episode) is also plausible, for the same reason, but because "Whodunnit?" is a more general term, it's also plausible that someone would use the parentheses to search for it. PaulGS (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to List of Is It Legal? episodes - which, ironically enough, only contains these two (presumably it was started and never finished). That article has been considered for deletion in the past, but as long as it is still around, these titles should redirect there. Terraxos (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

X → Template:X[edit]

The result of the debate was retarget appropriately if possible, otherwise delete, except for National symbols of Poland, Symbols of Poland, and Scandinavia in World War II, which were kept pending article creation. Near-close central unrounded vowel is kept pending the outcome of the template.

Deleted:

--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC) All others were retargeted, excepting the "cite" template redirects, as those were withdrawn from discussion.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retargeted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - This template is applicable to >50% of Wikipedia articles. I created the redirect, but I won't raise a fuss if it gets deleted due to policy.   — C M B J   20:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, no worries.--Jeff79 (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, nom was unaware that I had retargeted both of them two days earlier. B.Wind (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget. (See next.) kwami (talk)
Should be retargeted to one of the articles the template is transcluded in. kwami (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. Original target template is nothing but redlinks. B.Wind (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted to Columbia River. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Template:ColumbiaRiverGeobox should be moved to mainspace -- I don't think there's a need for it to be in template space. This page exists to reduce the clutter of the infobox on the Columbia River article. To be honest, I'm really not sure what the best solution is, but I'd like to request a little extra attention on this one, to make sure we get it right, as it will be nominated for Featured article shortly. -Pete (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted to FC Dynamo-3 Kyiv. Is there any real point to the original target of this CNR (a template that spits out a single Wikilink)? 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Target was blanked by author; tagged for speedy deletion. B.Wind (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once the above two redirects are deleted, the non-template "templates" of the same name can be moved. Whether both targets need to be taken to TfD or AfD is best discussed in another forum. B.Wind (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. This one really needs its own article, though.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See "Close front compressed vowel" above. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected. B.Wind (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected. B.Wind (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are redirects to templates that are the exact same name as the template. Because of the technical features of the MediaWIki system, it is not necessary to have an article redirect to a template, because the system treats {{X}} as if the page name is Template:X. Therefore, these are all inappropriate redirects that can be deleted as they serve no useful purpose and can only distract the reader by pointing them at the backroom of the project. MBisanz talk 14:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems wise to me. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, the 'cite' redirects have recently (in August) been discussed here and been kept for a clear consensus that they are useful as linked on the respective talk pages.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most because they mostly seem to be the result of pagemoves - a template created in the wrong space (or before the separate Template namespace existed) or content that was subsequently turned into a template. While they may strike you as useless, I often find these pagemove leftovers useful when investigating the history of a page. None of them seem to be particularly confusing to readers, at least not as they are currently used.
    I can't support the argument that they are somehow 'distracting' to a reader. Unless they're used incorrectly, no reader will ever find them (since in an ideal world, redirects like these are orphaned) but if they 'are' used incorrectly, then the redirect will point the reader to the right place. Rossami (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but they are pagemoves from after the creation of the pagemove log, so we have a record for GFDL purposes. MBisanz talk 16:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • GFDL compliance is one of the reasons that we keep those pagemove redirects but not the only one. Even with the pagemove log, they have some value to me. Rossami (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it doesn't matter to me either way, whatever is decided in this discussion should have ramifications for future instances of a move from article space to template. If we decide that these deletions are appropriate for example, then a future article space redirect can be marked for speedy delete. Likewise, if the opposite occurs then future discussions can be shortened by referring to this discussion. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 16:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right now these pages would fall under G6 and R2, but since some of them were created in 2007, I felt it prudent to bring them all to RFD. MBisanz talk 16:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget them to the appropriate list article, even if the article must be created from the contents of the template. Whichever ones don't correspond to an appropriate article should be deleted. Retargeting should help abate the conflict between reducing/removing CNRs and maintaining histories for GDFL. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that some of the nominated redirects have already been retargeted and should be struck from the list. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One other thought - another way around this without redirecting directly to a template is to redirect to an appropriate article that transcludes the template of the same name. This way, the history is maintained and the CNR is neutralized. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding National_symbols_of_Poland → Template:National_symbols_of_Poland: we have an article series on the subject; we are still missing main article for Poland but we have good subarticles with a template. Until a main article is creating, redirecting search to this useful template seems like a good temp solution.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - whatever is done with National symbols of Poland should also be done with Symbols of Poland, a similar cross-namespace redirect with the same target. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Template:Swaminarayan_Temple_List/Arusha it was created by mistake at Swaminarayan_Temple_List/Arusha and then moved to the right place. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 18:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support deleting all that are orphans and all that are linked to by less than 10 pages right off the bat. The rest need to be checked on how they're currently being used and if they have had past deletion discussions on them. The Cleveland template can go. The one instance was in the Cleveland Indians article and that has been fixed. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as the page can be deleted without it breaking the other pages which use the template, then there is no reason to keep the redirect. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Pardon me for putting the retargeting updates up top, for I thought it best to indicate which nominated redirects were retargeted as I went through the list. I should point out that there are at least two target templates that consist either of redlinks, or (in one case) a template that appears to be a single link. More of these nominated redirects could be retargeted, but I couldn't think of them in my limited time here. B.Wind (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any that aren't appropriately retargeted as redundant, unnecessary. –xeno (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep those which are not retargeted, as helpful and as redirects with possibilities--Rumping (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While we are still waiting for a decision, here is a list of the nominees that were not retargeted and not suggested for a retargeting:
AM_Station_Data
Anglican_Bishops_of_Plymouth
Articleissues
Campaignbox_Alto_Perú_Campaign_1810-1817
Cquote
FeatureDetectionCompVisNavbox
Infobox_Theatre_Festival
List_of_Dish_Network_International_Channels (repeating B.Wind's "delete" recommendation to facilitate a move)
List_of_Dish_Network_SD_Channels_2-899 (ditto)
Locations_in_the_World_with_British_names
Metropolitan_of_Ontario
Mexican_diaspora
National_symbols_of_Poland (see discussion above)
Refimprove
Scandinavia_in_World_War_II
See_also2
WPCLE
WWE_video_games
Xin_Dynasty_Sovereigns
147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Theatreography → Theatre[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No such word exists; it shouldn't appear in Wikipedia unless it's listed in the OED or another similarly reliable dictionary. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google turns up a mere 207 hits, most duplicative and none meaning "theater". This appears to be a protologism created to parallel filmography, a sort of curriculum vitae for stage actors. Rossami (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The word "theatreography" is a list of acting credits. It's not truly the same thing as "theatre," a theatre is just a location where acting takes place. Other than spelling, the two items are quite different, so this redirect makes no sense. --VictorC (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have lots of redirects that will never show up in the Oxford English Dictionary, so that definitely shouldn't be a reason to delete on its own; but in this case, it does seem to be a very-rarely-used "word" that is unlikely to be a search term. Gnome de plume (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Frost Atronach → The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is simply one of numerous attackable foes in the game for which the target article pertains to. Since none of the other game creatures have such redirects, and indeed such a thing would be ridiculous, this should be deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete as there is no mention of the character in the target (side note: WP:ALLORNOTHING is not a viable reason for deletion, however. Should the name be re-inserted, this would tip things over to the "weak keep" side). 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though there's no mention of the game foes in the article, anyone searching for "frost atronach" would know that it's a creature in the Elder Scrolls series and would not be confused by the redirect. The redirect also signals that the creature is too minor to warrant its own article, and it's better to redirect users to the game article than the search page. PaulGS (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per PaulGS. Inclusionist (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia almanac → Wikipedia:Almanac[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate CNR to a wikipedia space page. Does not link to encyclopedic content. MBisanz talk 02:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for historical reasons. This redirect used to point to content that has been moved several times. It's a useful pointer for those of us who might need to investigate the history. Furthermove, the accidental omission of the colon strikes me as a plausible typo. Rossami (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I find the link useful. --VictorC (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians → Wikipedia:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians[edit]

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to meta. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate CNR to a wikiproject, non-notable and not content, readers would not be interested in it. MBisanz talk 02:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but Redirect to Meta:Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians instead. I found this on a simple use of the Search Box for "Association of Inclusionist", so why make things difficult for others? —— Shakescene (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Redirect As per Shakescene. Inclusionist (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as retargetted. There is no reasonable possibility that readers will expect to find anything but that content when following this link. And the number of inbound links and the project's history both demonstrate that readers are interested in this topic. Rossami (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I find the link useful. I think that other users can find the link useful. Thus I say leave the link. Given, I can't even see why this is even an issue. MBisanz says it's not interesting, but most of us are nurds. Nurds are interested in the most counter-intuitive things. --VictorC (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but just because we don't want to tweak off our inclusionist friends. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Prominent marxists → Category:Marxist theorists[edit]

The result of the debate was retarget to List of contributors to Marxist theory.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-NPOV redirect to a category, not all marxist theorists are "prominent" and we shouldn't have this confusing CNR that says they are. MBisanz talk 02:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cat:Language icons → Category:Language icons[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. Since there are no objections, even from me as the creator, I'm going ahead and closing this one. Call it a G7 if you like, but consensus below seems clear. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CNR shortcut, that well isn't really a shortcut, and its in the article space, so it should be deleted. MBisanz talk 02:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Not really sure what my thinking was here, to be honest - Can't imagine it's a high-traffic page to warrant a shortcut, especially one that isn't much of a shortcut. No objection to deletion. I was under the impression that CAT: links were parsed as CATEGORY:, in much the same way that WP:ANI, for example, is parsed as Wikipedia:ANI, which redirects properly to ANI. Like I said, no problem with deletion. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It does seem to be an unnecessary redirect - cross namespace redirects should be used sparingly. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as originator of redirect has no objection to deletion, above. Aside from a retargeting, a bot-edit, and the tagging for the rfd, there has been no substantive change in the page. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_29&oldid=1089911522"