Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 28, 2009

Country Music Awards[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 15:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect. There are multiple country music awards shows, and it's very likely that someone might type in "Country Music Awards" when searching for the Academy of Country Music, the CMT awards, or even country Grammys. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or disambiguation page. This redirect is the result of an old page move that I did. As per the nomination it is misleading with the various articles that exist. Deletion is fine, the Wikipedia search works ok for this item. Or a disambiguation page can be created. I have no preference, but just delete it if this discussion doesn't garner a strong consensus.--Commander Keane (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

United States Census, 2005[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 15:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects should be deleted (the 2002 and 2004 redirects were deleted without question; other admins are refusing to delete these without RFD). There was no census in 2005, 2006, or 2007, so these redirects should not have been created in the first place.

  • Delete - no such census exists so redirecting is potentially confusing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely search term and potentially confusing for the reader. Jafeluv (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually don't understand why these aren't just deleted already. There was no discussion for the 2002 and 2004 articles; I feel like these discussions are a clear waste of time. Timneu22 (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understood; I just would like all of these to be eliminated asap. Timneu22 (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

United States Census, 2006[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 15:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects should be deleted (the 2002 and 2004 redirects were deleted without question; other admins are refusing to delete these without RFD). There was no census in 2005, 2006, or 2007, so these redirects should not have been created in the first place.

  • Delete - no such census exists so redirecting is potentially confusing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely search term and potentially confusing for the reader. Jafeluv (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

United States Census, 2007[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 15:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects should be deleted (the 2002 and 2004 redirects were deleted without question; other admins are refusing to delete these without RFD). There was no census in 2005, 2006, or 2007, so these redirects should not have been created in the first place.

  • Delete - no such census exists so redirecting is potentially confusing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely search term and potentially confusing for the reader. Jafeluv (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Rollbacker[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Rollback (disambiguation). Ruslik_Zero 15:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect from article to wiki namespace. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unneeded cross-namespace redirect. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The alternative is that we have to go through two other sites so that we can find the rollback page. I think that this is necessary because I doubt that people are going to type in the entire page to go directly to it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What two other sites? From what I can see, this redirect has no incoming links to speak of? Amalthea 00:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, newly created WP:XNR. The target page has plenty of shortcuts like WP:Rollbacker or WP:RBK. Why does it need another one in mainspace with all the ugly side effects, like turning up in searches, AJAX search hints, mainspace statistics, …? Amalthea 00:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the only reason for deletion would be that it's a cross-namespace redirect. What would a reader searching for "rollbacker" expect to find? If there's another prominent use of the word that I'm not aware of, the deletion may be appropriate, but I don't think there's consensus to delete all the 2,000+ cross-namespace redirects currently in use just because they go from one namespace to another. Many of them serve a purpose, and if there's no potential confusion with actual article titles, I see no reason to delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume a reader might be looking for any of the pages listed at Rollback (disambiguation). Also, I think very few people want to delete all pages in Category:Cross namespace redirects, it's the redirects from the reader-side of Wikipedia (Mainspace, Category, Portal) to the editor-side that are problematic and should be avoided. I don't want to rehash all arguments and counter-arguments from WP:XNR, but I am convinced that in this case, the possible benefits of this highly specialized redirect don't warrant weakening namespace boundaries at all. Amalthea 11:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if the reader is not a Wikipedian, he doesn't need to know about the behind-the-scenes machinery. If he is a Wikipedian wanting to know about this feature, he wouldn't expect to find it in article space, and he has only to type "WP:ROL" in the search box to have "Wikipedia:Rollback feature" appear. JohnCD (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Rollback (disambiguation). Some of the terms there can be converted into a rollbacker verb so this is a plausible redirect. It also links to the Wikipedia feature so the intent of the original editor is fulfilled without being a cross-name space redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Obama Beach[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 15:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Obama Beach" isn't mentioned in the target article and thus the redirect is inappropriate ThaddeusB (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, confusing. Or follow Gordon Brown's slip of the tongue and redirect to the more appropriate Omaha Beach. But that's still confusing. Kusma (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of course. I took the same view as the above posters some weeks ago and prodded it, but the prod was declined for some red tapey reason and I simply couldn't be bothered to bring it here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JohnCD (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2009 (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/2009_June_28&oldid=1086346972"