Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 18, 2010

Ford Prefect (HHG)[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn (so keep). Non-admin closure by HairyWombat (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: Very obscure synonym for article name, moved in 2003, no longer likely to be useful, nothing links to it, no Discussion page. HairyWombat (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - harmless redirect that doesn't meet any of the criteria for deletion. Each month there is a fair number of hits so it is used. This is a long-standing redirect that has been picked up by the mirrors so deletion would cause red links in the external sites for no benefit. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep receives a rather significant number of hits for an obscure synonym. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Engrand[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. — ξxplicit 02:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Engrand doesn't exist and Engrish is unusual English in Japan. See the page history to know what the creator means.Décembër21st2012Freâk Talk at 18:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, just a joke redirect not worthy of anything more than an Uncyclopedia article. As a second best, retarget to England as a conceivable misspelling. That seems more likely to lead to confusion than a simple redlink, however.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - bizarre! Even Engrish is unsourced and of arguable notability. If it is entered as a typo for England the target would be confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bridgeplayer. Kansan (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing the Google search. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Joke redirect, redirect would cause more confusion that worth. Mauler90 talk 02:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - to England. Many Japanese people don't know the difference between "L" and "R", and habitually mix them up when using English. Engrand→England helps the user to get to where they were trying to go. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Solar Generation[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 Retarget to Solar power. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The redirect is confusing, created by possible sock puppet of user:Mac. There is no indication what connection Solar Generation has with Greenpeace Beagel (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Solar power for which it seems a plausible search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a group within Greenpeace called Solar Generation. If someone adds information about them to the Greenpeace page, a dab might be the best solution. --Muhandes (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; Ah, good catch, that's the reason for the redirect, then. If someone adds a section to the Greenpeace page then, I agree, it should be dabified but at the mo' it would just be confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Solar power per Bridgeplayer. The current target has no information about usage as a proper name, which apparently refers to a Greenpeace project or youth group. Searching the Greenpeace.org website I find only the above-linked blog with very little current activity and some old posts in other blogs linking to a www.greenpeace.org/international/solargen/ subdirectory that no longer exists, so it seems unlikely that significant coverage in the Greenpeace article will be forthcoming. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as above for now. If at some point someone adds relevant information to the Greenpeace article, they can deal further with it then.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Cita web[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. It can be useful for catching when refs are copied over. Ruslik_Zero 18:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template redirect is misleading since editors expect it to work like the "cita web" template on the Spanish wiki, so they copy paste refs. Except the field names are totally different and it ends up in CAT:AWBC (where I cleaned 20 or so of them before thinking I'm doing a needless job). So either it is made an exact copy if "cita web", or completely deleted to avoid this. Muhandes (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have notified the creator who is still around from time to time. It would be helpful if nominators would kindly do this. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I did that. Now I see, I notified the creator of the page, not the one who actually made it into a redirect. Nice catch, thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the redirect should stop future use. However, deleting this redirect will create a whole bunch of red links for little benefit. Since the concern is with the underlying template, WP:TFD might be a better forum. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix transclusions and delete per nom. There would be some potential benefit of replacing the template with an exact copy of the one on the Spanish Wikipedia to facilitate copying articles, but leaving it as a redirect is not useful at all. --B (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. This is not the Spanish Wikipedia. Citing web sources is not something that is primarily a Spanish language activity, or an activity invented on the Spanish Wikipedia. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to handily catch future instances where references are copied over, but keep it emptied out. bd2412 T 20:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Skeet skeet[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 both. Ruslik_Zero 18:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sole basis for the redirect appears to be that the term appears as lyrics in the song. The term is hardly unique to this song, so this redirect could be very misleading. Kansan (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not mentioned in the target and, because of the generic nature of the term, it could be confusing. I have added 'Skeet Skeet' to the nomination. Also, I have alerted the creators. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, confusing, pointless, and unhelpful, as described above.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to ejaculate, because that's what it means. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; well it would be to Ejaculation to avoid the double redirect. Redirecting there would not be a good idea because this usage is not mentioned in the article and therefore the reader would be confused as to why they were being taken there. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it should be to ejaculation. Redirecting doesn't confuse the reader, it explains something that he might not have known. Note also the existence of a dab page at skeet. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that we will have to agree to differ. My view remains that if someone searches on this term, and finishes up at Ejaculation, then they are left to guess why they are there, so it is confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does it "explain" anything when the term is mentioned nowhere in "Ejaculation"? Kansan (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Aß[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 both. Ruslik_Zero 18:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See these two discussions (here and here) about the redirects. In summary, to quote from This, that and the other from a previous discussion: "Besides the obvious unwieldiness of such redirects, there are many possible permutations of [the German character ß] that could be used for each [English word containing 'ss'], and thus hundreds of possible redirects for each [of them]. Keeping these redirects would open a messy can of worms." (The ones in [brackets] are the ones I modified from the original quote.) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Although I think that this is a sort-of-reasonable search term for anyone who might be using ß in place of "ss" usually, it really isn't used that much, as evidenced by the pageview stats. —fetch·comms 01:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects are cheap, it is doing no harm. Chzz  ►  01:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete German is not the native language of these topics, they aren't German anyways, and are hyper unlikely typos. "aß" is a German word, the verb "to eat" ; 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this redirect is silly and unlikely. It would not make sense to put every combination of unicode characters that sounded like an "s". Only those combinations that might be used, say if that was how the word was spelled in its native language, are reasonable like that. But then I also agree that it is cheap and does not harm, as long as no one clicks what links here and then thinks that it is a sensible way to spell the word. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first one because of the possible confusion with the German word. Keep the second because it is unlikely it could ever lead to confusion due to its unique nature. Kansan (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aßaßination but delete Aß. Aß is potentially confusing with the German word. Aßaßination is harmless. The argument that "if we keep these '000s of others will be created" is always a bad argument. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete no German speaker (like moi) will ever use this. Hekerui (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it isn't needed. German speakers wouldn't need this. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 01:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no conceivable purpose for these redirects. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely unusefull. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:29, 28 July 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_July_18&oldid=1148048028"