Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 April 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 7, 2010

Glibertarian[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the current target doesn't reflect usual meaning, a perjorative portmanteau of "glib libertarian"[1] and there's not an obvious better target. Retargeting to libertarianism is a possibility but doesn't really seem right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.52.47 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 26 March 2010

  • Keep I think it's useful as it is. hmwith☮ 20:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If not deleted I think it should be retargeted (per above) based on apparent usage. Does anyone else have a view on this? 66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's usually just an insult for right-leaning libertarians. 140.247.250.17 (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, though WP:CSD#G10 could have be applied rather than this discussion and relist Gnangarra 02:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term is not the same is what the page is being redirected to, nor is there any mention of it on that other article. Dream Focus 05:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kingdom of Dambadeniya from Yapahuwa[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 Moved so this was a wrong venue. Ruslik_Zero 19:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page already exists as Yapahuwa Blackknight12 (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The stats show that this gets upwards of 50 hits a month on average, which is not trivial by redirect standards. I don't understand why "Page already exists as Yapahuwa" is a reason to delete - the purpose of a redirect is that they link to articles that exist at different titles. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Yapahuwa page needs to be renamed to Kingdom of Dambadeniya from Yapahuwa, but it wont work because of the redirect.--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Comparison between roman and han empires[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. Useful search term. Ruslik_Zero 19:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion: Variant of Comparison between Roman and Han Empires which has already been deleted. The consensus in the Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (2nd nomination) and the subsequent discussion on Talk:Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires#Redirect from Comparison between Roman and Han Empires was to change title and scope of article to Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires which emerged as a complete rewrite from a very different angle. Thus, the link leads to a topic which does not exist anymore, and which in fact the Afd has found to be unencyclopedic. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep no reason provided for deletion of the redirect. Perfectly reasonable search term. AFD deletes articles based on content, not on titles. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Why should we keep a title which directs to a topic that does not exist anymore? We are no museum. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - this redirect was created as an alternate for the article Comparison between han and roman empires, but that article was sent to AfD because of serious wp:SYN problems, then was sent to the article incubator where it was decided not to use the comparison of... language, and was instead changed to comparative studies of... This redirect is a holdover, and is actually in violation of the AfD decision on the original article. --Ludwigs2 05:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless of the history of why it was created, this is a logical search term (the stats show several thousand views most months) and discourages the recreation of an article at this title. Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I wasn't aware that now stats figure as arguments in deletion discussions...At any rate, it cannot be a logical search term because the topic does not exist. The topic was deleted by community consensus, so its title now needs to be deleted, too. This cannot be insurmountable logic. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Stats often figure significantly in discussions about redirects as they are the best indicator we have about whether a particular title is used (and is therefore useful) to find articles. The topic was deleted, but the title remains a useful search term for people to find the similar topic that this evolved into. The point of redirects is to be useful navigational aids for our readers, when we don't (and by consensus shouldn't) have an article at a given title it is very common for a redirect to be created to point readers to where they can find the information they were looking for. We don't have information about this exact topic, but we do have information about a very similar topic and the redirect enables people to find that. WP:RFD#KEEP points 2, 3, 4 and 5 apply here. Additionally the inverse of WP:RFD#DELETE point 9 applies - consensus is that we do not want an article to be created at this title and having a redirect discourages the creation of new articles. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thryduulf - you're misunderstanding the delete request. the original article went to AfD precisely because a comparison of the han and roman empires could not be done without engaging in original research. This redirect should go because it retains the sense of the OR that brought the article to AfD in the first place. --Ludwigs2 18:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. This is the case and my apologies if I did not make that clear enough in my deletion request. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that, and it is part of my point. If such a comparison was possible, then I'd be encouraging deletion so as to leave an encouraging redlink. As we do not want such an article, we do not want to encourage people to create one. If someone is looking for a comparison of the two empires, then our Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires article gives them information about studies that have compared them. The references, external links, bibliography and further reading sections give them pointers to where they can find out more about the comparisons, and at least one actual comparison. One of the main purposes of an encyclopaedia is to be a starting point for finding out about a topic, and thus a redirect to an article that does exactly that serves our readers far better than not having any information. To be clear, I am explicitly not proposing there be an article at this title. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As a simpler way of putting it, we do not (and should not) have a comparison between the Roman and Han empires, we do have an article about comparisons between the Roman and Han empires that links to comparisons done by others. To me this seems exactly the sort of instance that redirects are intended for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like reasonable logic. In that case (assuming this is a keep), we should probably recreate the reverse-worded redirect (omparison between the Han and Roman empires) as well, and treat it exactly as this one (with protections per Peterkingiron below). --Ludwigs2 16:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't imagine that anyone would have a different opinion about the reverse-worded redirect than the one they hold about this one, so if this is a keep (as is currently looking likely) then (re)creating the reverse form would be entirely consistent with the spirit of this discussion. I'm not certain that protection is actually needed, but I don't have a strong opinion and am not going to oppose it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per point two of WP:RFD#DELETE. The redirect may be misleading if someone is expecting a direct comparison. Nev1 (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If someone is seeking information, what they find will not be irrelevant. We should provide for all reasonable points of entry . the earlier deletion of a redirect was wrong, and this one would be about as bad. (I turned down a speedy deletion on this redirect, as it met no speedy category). DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All users who participated in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (2nd nomination) are notified per WP:Canvass as they have shown an interest in the subject in the past. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gun Powder Ma is clearly lying here as I was not contacted.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it attracts significant traffic. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i dont have a problem with the phrase being redirected despite it being essentially for a different article. i think anyone who comes here looking for an article comparing the 2 empires should be directed to this new article on historiography. that way they may understand that we won't host the article they are looking for, but that we will give them a reasonable substitution: a discussion of other peoples comparisons. I do have a problem with the redirects length and specificity: do we have, and do we want, lengthy redirects? since a person would have to type in this exact phrase, most attempts to access the subject wont be redirected, but will instead give them a nice list of articles with this article near the top. "comparing han and roman", "comparison of the han and roman empires", "was han or roman empire bigger" etc. we really dont need to try to cover all variants. a good WP reader would use proper search techniques and try, say, "han roman empire". this particular redirect string is simply a holdover from the previous deleted article, whose title could have been just as easily named something else. simplicity and compactness says delete, but im not as aware of redirect policy, this is my common sense speaking.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this seems to be a reasonable and useful redirect Nick-D (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't really understand the argument for deletion here. The redirect is from a logical alternative title, it gets significant traffic, the target contains information significantly related to the redirect as a search term (i.e., people interested in a comparison between these empires will likely be interested by comparative studies concerning the empires), and the existence of this redirect discourages creating a new article under the title.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (again). dont we want to preserve the discussion page for the redirect? it that is at risk of being lost, i say keep.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because renaming and expanding when moved incubator only validates this as an alternative search term as per WP:R#KEEP pt 3 as well as pt 2 making duplicated article less likely. Noting that also Comparison between Roman and Han Empires which contains additional history(current & deleted) should also have a redirect under WP:R#Keep pt 1, pt 2. Gnangarra 02:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep Logical redirect. Sadads (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Search term gets a lot of traffic. It redirects to an actual article which those searching for this will likely be after. Dream Focus 05:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the old article should have a redirect to its new location. The history shows the article was restored, and then renamed, it the same article, only with some changes. So its old location before the move should have a redirect. So I just added one. Comparison between Roman and Han Empires Dream Focus 05:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DreamFocus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep i fail to see the reason why this redirect must be deleted. Okip 13:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If people want information about comparing the two empires, there is no reason why we cannot link to an article about how they are studied. Also, highly plausible redirect. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but only as a redirect, and permanently protect it (and the better capitalised Comparison between Roman and Han Empires) against conversion back to substantive articles. Redirects are cheap. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I need a point to be clarified. What is if the redirect, despite its misleading character, is consistently used as internal link, for example under "see also"? Do these redirects then need to be changed to Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires or not? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- As far as I can see nothign links to this miscapitalised version; there is this no reason why it should not be deleted (despite my vote above), unless there is a history worth keeping. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I mean if the "Comparison between Roman and Han empires" is somewhere internally linked, must we change it to "Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires" or not? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an editorial judgement based on where and how it is linked. A see also section should probably link directly, but I don't think it necessary to say it should never be used. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be changed, yes, and all links to the old title (in both capitalizations) already have been changed to the new title (as, at least for the capital version, they would have been redlinks otherwise). However article histories of course cannot be changed, and they will continue to show the old title forever. I understand that the title of the article was a point of contention at both AfD's, and Ive been one of the most fervent supporters of keeping the article at both AfD's, so I may be seen as having a biased opinion, but putting aside the issue of what the article is I think it is good to keep the redirect in place so that people browsing article histories will know what happened to the redlinked article that they see linked as "main article" at the top of various sections of various articles. —Soap— 12:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This re-direct is logical, reasonable, and useful and receives quite a bit of traffic. As such, it should not be deleted. Laurinavicius (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep -That this article actually covers the subject matter of the article rather than summarising scholarly studies of why some people like to compre them. If the article actually ocvers in detai actual comparisons between them ordered, by like culture, communications, politics etc then I think this would be acceptable. There is nothing wrong with the redirect, we should be helping people find what they are looking for and the stats prove this. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The AFD only called for a rewrite, not a deletion of the entire article. There was no consensus to delete the article, and in fact more voted to keep than delete.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Substantial changes in content notwithstanding, the target page still exists, and the redirect is a plausible search term. Cnilep (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's already a redirect, so what point would there be in deleting it? I'd be in favor of deleting and re-creating redirects if there is something really bad on the history, but this is just poorly written. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Work aversion disorder[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. Ruslik_Zero 08:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

requesting deletion as ONLY the redir page called it a 'Disorder'. There was no Cite for this being listed as a Disorder as came to light in the associated AFD. The redirect might cause confusion. All targets of the redir have been updated to the direct link of Work aversion Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 09:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per WP:R#KEEP#2, since it has already been agreed that the title should be "Work Aversion," this would discourage creation of a separate article under the title of this redirect. Per WP:R#KEEP#3, this article was titled this way for a long time, so many readers may still search for the term under this name. Per WP:R#KEEP#4, there are still some pages outside of main namespace that link to this term, and this would create red links there. Per WP:R#KEEP#5, there are some people, including me, who find this useful. Hellno2 (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When you rename something, you put a redirect to the new location. What's the problem here? Dream Focus 05:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name is wrong. It is not a disorder. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 12:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People search for the wrong name, and get redirected to the proper term. Redirects are for common search terms, to help people find what they are looking for. They don't have to have proper names. Dream Focus 12:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they are going to do a search for work aversion disorder, removing this redirect would move the proper article (work aversion) to the top of the search results. Creating redlinks in this instance would be a good thing, it would correct a fallacy that simple laziness is a disorder. Forcing redlinks to be corrected is a good idea when the statements they are embedded in, tend to give the wrong impression of this being medically related (which it is not). Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del
  • Keep but only as a redirect, and permanently protect it (and the better capitalised Comparison between Roman and Han Empires) against conversion back to substantive articles. Redirects are cheap. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the above !vote obviously relates to the discussion above this one, where a duplicate of it also exists. Thryduulf (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment there is no need for protection on this. There has been no edit warring on the title. Hellno2 (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_7&oldid=1148048134"