Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 6, 2010

Vietnam War II[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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – unverifiable term for the Afghanistan War, not to mention blatant POV-pushing. –MuZemike 19:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have fixed the nomination; it would be helpful if nominators would kindly follow the listing instructions at WP:RFD#HOWTO. With regard to the POV issues; this is not a consideration - redirects are value-free per WP:RNEUTRAL. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading WP:RNEUTRAL, I believe there is a significant distinction to be drawn between terminology used to describe or characterize something, especially by analogy, and an "established term" that is used to refer to it. Are there reliable sources that use this figurative language without otherwise identifying what is being referred to, showing that the referent is presumed to be understood by established convention? ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Iraq War#Criticisms and costs. This was the long-standing target before it was changed, a few hours before nomination, by an IP. Parallels and comparisons between the two wars are commonplace. This is one of many in reliable sources. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As some consider the French-Vietnam war of the 50's to be the first, and the American-Vietnam war of the 70s to be the second Vietnam War, these redirects are useless. 76.66.197.151 (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not an "established term" that is used to refer to the current or prior targets, and is misleading to someone searching for information about Vietnam. Analogously, "Waterloo II" should not be a redirect to any of the defeats that have been compared to Napoleon's Waterloo, nor should there be a disambiguation page listing such comparisons. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy/list[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. — ξxplicit 16:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't sound like a plausible redirect to me. Traffic is low. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep—harmless. I think it's plausible someone might forget a hyphen. –Grondemar 18:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is used so some people find it helpful. No reason to delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:RSNB[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 16:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unhelpful "shortcut" to an "information page" that has essentially zero traffic. I'm not sort what algorithm the author used to shorten "Reasonability" to RSNB but its lack of use is evidence of its non-obvious nature. This redirect shortcut has only recently been advertised on the "information page" though it has been around for a few years. Colin°Talk 16:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Strange, I thought I created it to point to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—unnecessary shortcut. It's confusing as an abbreviation for "Reasonability", and redundant to WP:RSN if pointed to the reliable sources noticeboard. –Grondemar 18:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not helpful and potentially confusing;; plenty of alternatives; not widely used. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly, it was a mistake in the first place. Graham Colm (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:RSWP[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 16:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Originally a shortcut for "WP:ATT#reliable sources whenever possible" it has not been used to any degree and wasn't even advertised as a shortcut on the guideline page until recently. It isn't an abbreviation for "Identifying reliable sources". The "whenever possible" phrase appears nowhere in the tile or body of the current guideline. Colin°Talk 15:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as confusing. –Grondemar 18:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not helpful and potentially confusing;; plenty of alternatives; not widely used. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not at all useful. Graham Colm (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:RSMED[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  Relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 19 עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The medical RS guideline is universally known as WP:MEDRS and that shortcut widely used explicitly rather than as a piped link with longer text. This new shortcut has not been used to any degree and wasn't even advertised as a shortcut on the guideline page until recently. The extra shortcut will only cause confusion when people see this new abbreviation on talk pages. Colin°Talk 15:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is absurd to have a confusing shorcut. It is not RS. It is MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no harm in having both redirects and I think that this alternative should also be listed as an alternative redirect on the guideline. Many policies, guidelines and even essays have more than one redirect. I don't think it will confuse editors, as it hasn't done for other pages with more than one redirect. The new redirect is also more accurate based on the page name change which occurred recently.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this shortcut reflets the new title of the project page more accurate and there is no harm of having two shortcuts. Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in principle, it is down to the editors of the project page to decide what redirects they need, and Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) is really the place to decide on this. Many pages have multiple redirects so that isn't an issue. Not confusing with other targets. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I guess. It's WP:HARMLESS in itself, but the page is widely known by the other short cut, and I'm concerned about the potential for confusion (e.g., editors saying, "MEDRS says we should always..." and another "Then MEDRS conflicts with RSMED, which says we may not..." -- when they're all talking about the same page). This sort of confusion has happened with other guidelines, although the problem is (much) greater with shortcuts to specific sections (e.g., WP:SPS vs WP:V or WP:EL vs WP:YOUTUBE). Also, the page (long name) has been moved twice this year with zero efforts at discussion and I suspect more silent grumbling than merely my own, so making it 'reflect the new title of the project page' is probably a bad idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The WP:MEDRS shortcut is widely understood and used as an abbreviation in discussions. To have RSMED will cause confusion, I fully agree with WhatamIdoing's comments above, including those about undiscussed page moving. Graham Colm (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User:Ganerer/List of Cambodian singers[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 deleted as WP:CSD G6 by Nyttend. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to main space - no idea why it was moved to user space in the first place, as the user is not active -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If the new article is deleted after the PROD, I'll tidy the redirect up. GedUK  12:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G6 and tagged as such. Leftover redirect after page move; created in banned user's user space. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:36, 7 September 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_September_6&oldid=1089732899"