Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 24, 2010

Wikipedia:INDECISION2010[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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect appears to be a form of commentary on the nature or outcome of the elections. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There's also WP:INDECISION2009, by a different humorist. Jafeluv (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a play on a bit that they did on the Daily Show during the US election. -DJSasso (talk) 12:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's funny-ish, but ... meh. At least end use in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Header. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why not? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Fetch I am not seeing why this should be deleted. →GƒoleyFour (GSV) 04:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The short form is displayed at the top of the page, and while voting is ongoing, the short form may be used to get to the ARBCOM election page. Needs to be kept as we're right in the middle of this. Next year, can decide whether or not to use this particular term again. Saebvn (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was actually trying to use this redirect, as it is the only one of the redirects to the ArbCom elections that I can actually remember (because I find it funny). What's the harm in keeping it? Jenks24 (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jenks. It's effective because it's funny, and does not constitute biased or inappropriate commentary on the elections.  -- Lear's Fool 08:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Veil of ignorance (disambiguation)[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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The target is not a dab page. Jafeluv (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but replace the redirect with a disambiguation page – Veil of ignorance was dab page before someone moved Veil of ignorance (philosophy) over the top of it. Veil of ignorance (disambiguation) should be recreated. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The page is not a useful redirect (points to a page that is not a disambiguation page, no significant incoming links, no essential page history as the pagemove is preserved in the page history of the target page, <10 pageviews per month) and should not be converted to a disambiguation page since there are only two topics (a hatnote works just as well). P.S. Jafeluv, thanks for making me privy to the existence of the "intitle" function of Special:Search. :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bajrang Lal Takhar[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 speedy closed as wrong forum. The procedure in WP:RM should be followed; perhaps simply tagging {{db-move}}. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. The name of the sportsperson is "Bajrang Lal Takhar" and not "Bajranglal Takhar" (185000+ google hits for the former and 3000 hits for the latter). So, the current article should be moved from "Bajranglal Takhar" to "Bajrang Lal Takhar." However, this cannot be done till such time that the existing redirect at "Bajrang Lal Takhar" is deleted. Hence, I propose deletion. Gurubrahma (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there is consensus, I'd also request the deleting administrator to move "Bajranglal Takhar" to "Bajrang Lal Takhar." --Gurubrahma (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Brendan Gallagher[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 Deleted. There are at least 3 other Brendan Gallagher's mentioned in Wikipedia articles. None of which currently seem notable enough for articles so a dab page is not appropriate. Redirecting to this target is also not appropriate as our users may not be looking for the hockey player. This is a case where the search function is better than a redirect. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see Gallagher's article deleted at this point as I don't see it as useful at this point. The author of the article want it to remain, citing point 2, 3, 4 and 5 at WP:REDIRECT#KEEP. I don't see enough information about Gallagher to warrant an article or redirect. There are more than one hundred players selected in the 2010 NHL Entry Draft currently playing in North American junior leagues, should they all get a page which simply redirects to their current team? Or is there something noteworthy about Gallagher which warrants an article at this point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ho-ju-96 (talk • contribs)

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

Portal:Game[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 Mixed. First three deleted, next two kept, and last one re-targeted to Portal:Sports and games. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 17#Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Africa as there have previously been no discussion on the subject of these cross-namespace redirects. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Portal:List of M*A*S*H episodes and the Russia ones could probably be deleted as useless, but there is no compelling reason to. The others should be redirected to the appropriate portal, as plausible. —innotata 22:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these redirects point to good targets, but not all should be deleted. Delete Portal:Game - the title is ambiguous (see Game (disambiguation)) and the redirect is practically unused. Delete Portal:List of M*A*S*H episodes - a list of episodes is not something that should be a stand-alone portal page and the redirect is unused. Weak delete Portal:M*A*S*H (TV series) - although this could be a plausible redirect to Portal:M*A*S*H, the redirect is unused and anyone who starts to type the title would see the main portal page in the search drop-down list. Weak keep the two Russia-related redirects for now, as there are many incoming links at the moment. Retarget Portal:Sport and games to Portal:Sports and games. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget within portal space, unless they are inappropriate within portal-space (for example "Portal:Russia/New article announcements" - which has incoming links but mainly from a 2006 user talk page spam as far as I can see. Rich Farmbrough, 19:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Portal:United States of America[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 three, but delete Portal:Palestinian National Authority.. Courcelles 08:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 17#Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Africa as there have previously been no discussion on the subject of these low-traffic redirects. They are also implausible because of their length, the autocomplete should be able to locate the portals without the need of these. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Pkukiss[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. Lenticel (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 17#User:Pkukiss to discuss this cross-namespace redirect. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or blank as cross-namespace redirect. —innotata 22:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or blank. While users do and should have significant leeway with regard to what they do on their user pages, redirecting one's user page in this manner starts to negatively affect other users (by redirecting them to an unintended page). -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Black Falcon. Rehman 13:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

FUck[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. --Taelus (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 17#User:Pkukiss to discuss this low-traffic, implausible redirect. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – although this is entirely plausible, we don't need a billion redirects to account for people pressing shift for too long. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The redirect target actually is the article "Fuck" (a single-world title), so the search function will automatically take care of any capitalization variants. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

You miss the point - the U is capitalised deliberately - it means "you". Rich Farmbrough, 19:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Ppmm[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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 17#User:Pkukiss to discuss this low-traffic, implausible redirect. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete we don't have any "PPMM" articles. —innotata 22:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Innotata. Rehman 13:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Old Bush[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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 17#User:Pkukiss to discuss this low-traffic, implausible redirect (search term could refer to just about any other bush). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - low traffic, not too plausible and ambiguous. The title could refer to any old Bush or bush (e.g., the colony of Box Huckleberry in Pennsylvania that is estimated to be 5,000–13,000 years old). -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per BlackFalcon. Rehman 13:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Idclip[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 Re-targeted to John Romero#Doom II and Final Doom where idclip is described. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 17#User:Pkukiss to discuss this low-traffic, implausible redirect. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - helpful redirect that isn't all that implausible (it's the noclip code for Doom II). Sideways713 (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - practically unused (c. 10 pageviews per month) redirect, with no incoming links and no essential page history, from a cheat code in a single game (actually, if I understand correctly, one installment of a series). Perhaps more importantly, the code is not even mentioned at the target page (added later: and, per Sideways713's reasoning below, probably should not be mentioned); in fact, the target article suggests that "noclip" is the noclip code for Doom II (see Noclip mode#Description). -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I removed the claim that "noclip" is the noclip code for Doom II, which it isn't (it is the noclip code for Doom 3, but I didn't put that in). I didn't replace it with any mention of "idclip" either; no other noclip codes are specifically mentioned, and if idspispopd (which is the original Doom noclip code and regularly gets 200 views/month) isn't mentioned in the article, there's no reason idclip should be. Sideways713 (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for correcting the article. I've struck the relevant portion from my comment. -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not recent (four years old). Rich Farmbrough, 19:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Vivat[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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 17#User:Pkukiss to discuss this low-traffic, implausible redirect. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given the second sentence of Vive, Viva, this is clearly not implausible in the least, and is a perfectly fine redirect. The traffic that it garners is quite irrelevant. It's a good redirect that does an appropriate job. Uncle G (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Uncle G. The redirect's title is mentioned multiple times in the lead of the target article, and the redirect itself receives c. 100 pageviews per month, which is (in my opinion) well above the threshold of "low-traffic". -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kapkinoe[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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 17#User:Pkukiss to discuss this low-traffic, implausible redirect. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Convicted politicians[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 Re-targeted per Black Falcon. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are low-traffic redirects from mainspace to category-space. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

1988 election[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. There is no consensus for deletion. Of the 5 or so that have main space alternatives, they have been redirected. As for suggestion to restore articles or create new lists, any editor that wishes may be bold and do that. If there are issues, they should be worked out at the applicable articles' talk pages. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are low-traffic redirects from mainspace to category-space. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links should exist (or not) to help the readers, not to "incentivize" or cajole or annoy into action the tiny fraction of Wikipedia readers who are also editors. If you're concerned that there should be an article there, put it there. Croctotheface (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather keep a redlink without information than an article with incorrect information, or even more so than a non-article page. No information > bad information. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

ANE Resources[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 all. Courcelles 08:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low-traffic, cross-namespace redirects to the portal namespace. Please also take this previous rfd into account when !voting. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. If I lookup Geography portal, I would expect to see an article on some sort of portal wormhole between the regions of the world, not anything else. But I really would like to keep the List of lists antique; perhaps retarget to a mainspace article? Rehman
  • Keep-There's simply too many diverse redirects being nominated here to give them a fair evaluation. Many are likely deletion-worthy, but I doubt they all are. No objection to a more piecemeal relisting.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - What -possible- justification is there for removing these redirects? They're simply aliases to another (often harder to remember, often with more typing involved) page. I -greatly- prefer to type 'list of portals' than whatever the ugly alternative is. If there's a lot of programming/memory overhead for these aliases ... and there shouldn't be ... that's a programming problem. I consider the aliases to be a -big- plus. Twang (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The primary justification usually is that they're cross-namespace, see WP:CNR for an explanation. -- Ϫ 23:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Change title of a Wikipedia page[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 RESULT was delete. --Orlady (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low-traffic, cross-namespace redirect. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The page receives sufficiently low traffic for me to support deletion. The target page has more than 40 other redirects, including a few cross-namespace redirects that are much more likely to be searched. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant cross-namespace redirect, per Black Falcon. Rehman 01:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the same reasons that I gave on #Changing Username, I again agree with Black Falcon. Uncle G (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Christian topics[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 Mixed results in accordance with Black Falcon's recommendations. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are low-traffic redirects from mainspace to category-space. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Changing Username[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 RESULT was retarget to User (computing), along with other redirects mentioned by Black Falcon. Orlady (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low-traffic, cross-namespace redirect. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I want to suggest retargeting to User (computing), which contains a hatnote link to Wikipedia:Username policy, but "Changing Username" just is not a likely search term for that article. Delete, I suppose. Note also Switching user names and Switching usernames, which are less plausible and less used. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, including the two proposed by Black Falcon. Rehman 01:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects within the encyclopaedia proper should not drop out of the encyclopaedia into the editorial plumbing. None of these three have any significant edit history, and I agree with Black Falcon. If there's no appropriate place in the encyclopaedia proper to redirect to, these should be deleted. Uncle G (talk) 09:34, 8 December 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_November_24&oldid=1138577441"