Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 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, 2012

Rocky Mountain Laboratory Historic District[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. JohnCD (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #2. The Rocky Mountain Laboratory Historic District does not include the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory; the district is in Montana, while the biological laboratory is in Colorado, 900 miles (1,400 km) away. Nothing links to Rocky Mountain Laboratory Historic District, except for its entry on National Register of Historic Places listings in Ravalli County, Montana, which is obviously not meant for the biological laboratory. Nyttend (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete'. If they're not the same place (and I have no reason to doubt you) then this seems like a textbook example of when redirects should be deleted. If you haven't already you may wish to let the NHRP WikiProject folks know about this discussion. 82.132.235.183 (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Disabilities Act[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 all to Disability discrimination act. Ruslik_Zero 17:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all four of these for precisely the same reasons. These redirects are some of a substantial group of redirects created by Hopiakuta not long before he was indefinitely blocked on competence grounds. These redirects are implausible; despite living my entire life in the USA, I can't remember ever hearing the ADA called simply the "Disabilit(y)(ies) Act" or seeing it in print. What's more, while the article's title is quite specific, these redirects could easily apply to other laws dealing with disabilities; my first thought on seeing these titles was that they created disabilities for former officeholders, i.e. providing that certain people be ineligible to hold office. They're not so implausible as to need R3 speedy deletion, but they're too confusing and implausible to be beneficial for the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or disambiguate shows clear US-bias -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 02:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • disambiguate. These a very logical search terms for people who don't remember the specifc title of the act(s) they're looking for. In addition to the US act there is the UK's Disability Discrimination Act and almost certainly other acts from several countries so this will be a useful dab page. I'd suggest Disability Act athe best location with the other titles redirecting there. 82.132.215.147 (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget all of them to the existing dab page per the anon below (who despite coming from the same range is not me!). Thryduulf (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Disambiguate for the same reasons as above, but if we aren't going to create a dab page to non-US versions, these redirects go exactly where we expect them to. -- Selket Talk 15:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. No objection to converting one of them to a disambiguation page talking about similarly-named non-US Acts (and retargetting the others), but that can be done by overwrite. There is no reason to delete the pagehistory. Rossami (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can't complain about conversion to disambiguation pages, but these are not likely search targets for people wanting the US laws. Conversely, they'll be even better disambiguation pages because they're generic; I simply wasn't aware of other articles about laws with similar names. Nyttend (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Disability discrimination act which already acts as a dab page for this topic (and expand the list there if necessary). 82.132.139.10 (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, retarget. "The ADA is a wide-ranging civil rights law that prohibits, under certain circumstances, discrimination based on disability." Sounds like a perfect fit. Good find, Numbers. BigNate37(T) 18:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Disability discrimination act as suggested by 82. This is a better target since it list similar laws in several countries. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate one; redirect the rest to said disambiguation page pbp 15:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Disability discrimination act.--Lenticel (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ted Hall (musician)[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 18:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This redirect was previously at Ted Hall but I moved it to create a DAB page for Theodore Hall and Ted Hall (footballer). This redirect was previously an article about a musician which was unsourced. It was redirected to Theodore Hall, as he also is known as Ted Hall. As this redirect now has a disambiguator it is inappropriate to keep it pointing to the unrelated physicist. There is also no other suitable target, the band the musician was in is a redlink (The Fents). Deletion seems the best option. Tassedethe (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I can be sure — do we presently have an article about the musician? If so, retarget, since deletion would be unhelpful. If not, delete because it's quite implausible. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Historical states of Italy[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 for now, with no prejudice against turning them into articles (note that Republic of Brescia was just before the close of this discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:RFD#DELETE. "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself." Enok (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if someone wants to create a main article on those topics at some point, they are free to do so. In the mean time, it's a useful redirect. -- Selket Talk 15:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Useful for what? Redirects don't correspond in any way to target articles. If you need information about the Napoleonic Republic of Brescia, what's the point of reaching this page?--Enok (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. As Selket notes, anyone wanting to create the content can easily overwrite the current redirect. In the meantime, pointing from the government to the area governed is the most helpful we can be to our readers. It would be nice if the target articles had more historical content already but I am sure that it will be added eventually. In the meantime, I do not think it likely enough that the redlink will result in content being added anytime soon. These titles are all virtual orphans, linked only from List of historic states of Italy today. Rossami (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion, turning all these red links in (relatively useful) redirects does not entice users to create new pages. Besides, it becomes difficult to determine which articles are missing and which are already present in the encyclopedia.--Enok (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded the one on Brescia, self-reverted regaring Noli as it isn't clear that it warrants a separate article and that sense there is no reason not to keep the redirects till someone knowledgeable actually evaluates things. Redlinks are only the crudest incentive to create or means to track 'missing' articles. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_18&oldid=1039428896"