Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 21, 2010

22 Armdale[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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for non-existing bus route. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; the article shows it as planned for the future, which seems to be confirmed here (page 2). The fact that it doesn't currently exist is irrelevant, as it's a conceivable search term which is adequately described at the target. Google doesn't show any other significant uses of "22 Armdale" for which this might be confusing.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirect specifically states it is to a future route, and the redirect is a plausible search relevant to the target article. ArakunemTalk 17:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - entirely harmless and possibly useful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --Orange Mike | Talk 20:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - actually, I don't see WP:CRYSTAL applying to redirects. A redirect is simply a means of finding what's there. If it shouldn't be there, because of WP:CRYSTAL, then the way forward is to correct the page. In this case the action would be, if so minded, to remove the reference from the page and, in that case, the redirect would obviously fall. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment CRYSTAL refers to unverifiable speculation. As Glenfarclas points out, this route has sources to support that it will soon exist, making it a verifiable future event. ArakunemTalk 15:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Climate change skepticism[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 Global warming controversy as already implemented by William M. Connolley. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been argued that skepticism is not the same as denialism in this context. See also the discussion here under Please read the sources where denialist is much "stronger" and for many more negative than being a skeptic. Nsaa (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Nsaa (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just restore the previous more sensible redireect: 

   * (cur | prev)  2010-06-21T10:56:19 Nsaa (talk | contribs) (43 bytes) (This redirect has been listed on 
                                       Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. (TW)) (rollback | undo)
   * (cur | prev) 2010-05-13T03:12:51 202.176.14.2 (talk) (35 bytes) (←Redirected page to Climate change denial) (undo)
   * (cur | prev) 2007-03-26T05:13:05 Chriswaterguy (talk | contribs) (40 bytes) (#redirect Global warming controversy) (undo)
   * (cur | prev) 2007-03-26T05:08:18 Chriswaterguy (talk | contribs) (38 bytes) (#redirect Environmental skepticism)

William M. Connolley (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to GW controversy for now and then we can create an article about cc scepticism later mark nutley (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reverted (to GWC) and removed the deletion header, as it seems pointless now and kept the RFD header: very few pages link to it, and it isn't a very natural search term. I'd say delete it; we can recreate it should anyone ever write an article William M. Connolley (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at Climate change denial. Comment - Whether 'denial' and 'skepticism' are equivalent is a semantic point that is not pivotal. What we are seeking is the most helpful target for searchers and Climate change denial, that refers in the article to climate change skepticism, seems the most directly relevant. Whichever target is chosen, this redirect should not be deleted as it is a perfectly plausible search term as shown by the stats and this search. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - when the fate of this redirect is decided, then Climate Skepticism and Climate change scepticism should follow the same route. Climate Sceptic views should also be considered. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Global warming controversy. I agree that skepticism is not at all the same as denial, and that the redirect can easily be taken to imply that the first is tantamount to the latter. With respect to which article would be more useful for one entering the search term, I would think that someone looking for information on "skepticism" is more interested in the public debate and scientific controversy, which are covered by Global Warming Controversy, than in mere "attempts to downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior," which are the subjects of Climate Change Denial. A rough-and-ready comparison shows that "skeptic" appears 23 times in GWC, including a whole subsection, versus 3 times in CCD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Global warming controversy#Changing positions of skeptics. Having reflected, I agree that this is the better redirect. The one caveat is that I think targeting at the relevant section is more helpful than a general redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Global warming controversy as probably the most appropriate target we have. The redirect to climate change denial is somewhat misleading, as reliable sources usually distinguish between 'skepticism' and 'denial' (though the precise distinction is tricky). The 'global warming controversy' article is better, as it discusses the views of 'skeptics'; it may be the case though (as mark nultey suggests) that there's enough material here for its own article. Climate change denial, climate change skepticism and environmental skepticism are all subtly different, and perhaps all deserve their own articles. Robofish (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

A150 road (Great Britain)[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 no consensus. From what I can tell, people are in agreement that something should be done with this redirect, but there seems to be no agreement on exactly what needs to be done, and how much preparatory work needs to be done before that something can be done. I have a feeling that since deletion of this redirect seems to be mostly off the table, that this can be accomplished via regular editing and discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a redlink; it's the name of a specific article that doesn't yet exist. JaGatalk 09:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I agree that this needs fixing. The problem, though, is that the page uses a template for the road numbers, so it needs a full reworking. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should stub out these road articles - I'd say there should be an article for A150 that says where the road went, and what its fate was. And in the meantime, before that article is created, it should be a redlink. I agree that it's useful to direct people to that list page, but doing so also conceals the need for an article. Redlinks are a good thing! --JaGatalk 15:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can track down sufficient sourced material to make a worthwhile stub then that would be splendid. Redlinks are only a good thing when it is likely that a decent page can be written and we have nothing worthwhile to say. When, as here, we have something useful to offer then presenting a searcher with a redlink is, frankly, bizarre! Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It all comes down to whether the A150 will ever get an article. If it's likely to get an article some day, we should redlink it to encourage article creation. If not, keep the status quo. Considering that most, if not all, existing British A roads already have articles, it's likely this former A road will eventually get one as well. You have the opposing view. Could someone else weigh in? --JaGatalk 20:56, 29 June 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_June_21&oldid=1148047712"