Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 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, 2012

One Step Closer (album 2)[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 18:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted as the "2" is not a useful disambiguation - maybe it was the second article about an album called "One Step Closer". Peter E. James (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- No editing history, no incoming links, does not assist searches this appears to be the setup (album 1). Dru of Id (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, the page was at this title for about 35 days back in 2006, so there is the chance that external sites link here (which wiki stats can't tell us). We don't want to kill external links, which is an unknown as always. Retargeting to One Step Closer, the disambig page, might be best. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 21 June 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.

Moomincorn[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. JohnCD (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both should be deleted as implausible. Peter E. James (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy-delete as probable vandalism. Creator's username and edit history do not support our usual assumption of good-faith. Rossami (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible redirects.--Lenticel (talk) 06:34, 22 June 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.

Heavy Mechanical Complex Taxila[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 18:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad redirect... HMC needs a separate article as it is a separate industry than HIT. Needs to be a redlink so that an article could later be created and the need for creation could be displayed. lTopGunl (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess this is non controversial and should be deleted anyway as there's been no objection. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:40, 4 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.

Commonist[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. JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Used in Commons as a tool and this redirect may be confusing. See commons:Commonist MichaelSchumacherMercedes (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "Commonist" is a common alternate spelling of "communist". See, for example, the more than two thousand Google Books hits. Neelix (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well this term has certainly been used as a joke sort of term for communist. So either we should have an article on the commons tool, or perhaps a hat note at communism article. PS I was the one to decline the speedy delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A {{self-ref}}erential hatnote is the way to refer to non-encyclopaedic pages.Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commonist is mentioned in the Wikimedia Commons article so would be a valid redirect to that page. A misspelling shouldn't be a primary topic over a correct spelling. Commonism redirects to Commons, and Commonisms redirects to Communism - if both are valid maybe a disambiguation page is needed. Peter E. James (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Results in the Google book search appear to show that it can mean "communist", but they are either errors in converting scanned pages to text, eye dialect, or are probably not intended to refer to communism. Peter E. James (talk) 18:59, 21 June 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.

In Soviet Russia Wikipedia browses YOU[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. JohnCD (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could not create a redirect for every Soviet Russia Joke. "In Soviet Russia" itself is enough. MichaelSchumacherMercedes (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This has existed since 2007 without causing any problems at all, it gets a trickle of uses and is not misleading or in the way of something else. Indeed we couldn't and shouldn't create redirects for all Soviet Russia jokes, but redirects are so cheap that once created deleting brings no benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Small benefit to keeping, zero benefit to deleting. Rossami (talk) 01:15, 22 June 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.

Cruising California (Bumpin' In My Truck)[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. JohnCD (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The correct spelling is actually Cruising California (Bumpin' In My Trunk) (Trunk, not Truck). Was nominated for deletion as a misspelling at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cruising California (Bumpin' In My Truck), but no action was taken there due to the fact that redirects are not deleted from AfDs. Canuck89 (have words with me) 02:09, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep You seriously expect us to believe that no one ever misheard trunk and truck? Incorrectness is not a reason to delete a redirect. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just get rid of that redirect and create a new one with the correct word in the song title. --Crocodileman (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sounds liek a plausible error. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Misspellings and mishearings are exactly the sort of thing redirects are designed for, and this seems a very likely example. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is a likely error, there should be links between "truck" and "trunk" articles via hatnotes or see also links, unless there is a reason for this one to exist, such as the incorrect title appearing in an official or well known publication. Peter E. James (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dondegroovily and Thryduulf. To Peter's comment, there is a world of difference between an error in a song lyric (which are very frequently misheard) and a stand-alone word. Incorrect titles as redirects exist all over the project - it is one of their explicit purposes. See, for example, Category:Redirects from misspellings and the many other {{unprintworthy}} categories. Rossami (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - People might hear the title orally and think "Truck" is the correct word. Having the title redirect to "...Trunk" is useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jax 0677 (talk • contribs) 05:33 23 June 2012
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.

Stunt Show[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 Stunt performer. JohnCD (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reason #2. There are many stunt shows in the world and redirecting this through to just one is misleading. Current links to the article are referring to the topic of stunt shows not this particular one. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:18, 21 June 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_June_21&oldid=1142587555"