Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 May 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 1
May 3 >

May 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 2, 2012

Lotus 59[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The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the redirect deleted. The target of the redirect doesn't discuss the subject in any depth and the existence of the redirect masks the fact that no specific article exists. I think it would be more helpful for Lotus 59 to appear as a redlink. DH85868993 (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion. The model/term "Lotus 59" is totally valid, and most casual readers would prefer to be nudged in the right direction rather than the getting the impression that they'd searched for something invalid. Also, (per WP:REDIRECT#HARMFUL) deletion may be harmful if an outside web site somewhere parked a link such as this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_59[1]
    Something to be lost, almost nothing to be gained... --→gab 24dot grab← 15:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn. Fair point. Nomination withdrawn. DH85868993 (talk) 11:20, 12 May 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.

Gulf and western (music genre)[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. There is clear consensus that having a redirect at this title is better than having a redlink. Where the redirect should point is less clear, but there is relevant content at the current title and (at least currently) no relevant section at Country music. Should a significant section be written at an article other than the current in the future then I don't think anyone here would object to a retargetting, but I would suggest proposing it on the talk page of the current and proposed targets first. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to nonexistant section. Addition of (music genre) makes it unlikely to be typed in. Only inbounds are from Buffett-related articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:18, 2 May 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.

Peche Island Light[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. Consensus is that as the sources are not clear about the naming that this redirect, in combination with the hatnotes at the target, is useful. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created this redirect as a result of a page move, but I think it should be deleted. The problem, essentially, is that the sources are rather sloppy about the naming of these aids to navigation. There is a "Peche Island Light", which appears in the current USCG light list and on charts dating back to the 1930s; it is not the same location as the "Peche Island Rear Range Light", which dates back to 1908. The first is in the Detroit River due west of Peche Island; the second is in Lake St. Clair, NW of the island. The old charts are very clear on this. A number of the sources seem to think that the latter was sometimes called the former, but I think this is a mistake; the charts always refer to it as the rear range light. I do not think we could ever write an article on the real Peche Island Light because there's just not that much documentation of these modern unmanned lights, so for the sake of avoiding the confusion I went through already on this, I'd rather just delete the redirect entirely. Mangoe (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to keep it the way it is. If sources are confused as to the naming, people might search for it by the wrong name and this would lead them to the right place. The present "Not to be confused with . . ." hatnote seems to clarify any confusion anyone might have. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm sorry but it seems like you have completely misunderstood the sources. E.g. Rowlett's lighthouse directory places the Peche (Peach) Island Range Rear light "off Peche Island in the entrance to the Detroit River from Lake St. Clair", not inside Lake St. Clair (which is actually north-east of Peche). The old tower is now located in Marine City at St. Clair River, which is also not Lake St. Clair. And there's also an official NOAA chart that places Peche Island Light west off Peche Island but still inside American waters. De728631 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you will go back and look at historical charts, as I did, you will see that the light now named "Peche Island Light" wasn't built until the very late 1920s (e.g. Chart LS41 1921 edition). There was no light at that location in 1908, just a spar buoy. Rowlett and the USCG site have the right name, but the wrong location; the LHF page is titled incorrectly, but also has the correct name and location. I don't know why there is a confusion of names among the narrative sources, but the charts are quite clear. Mangoe (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 1921 chart you are referring to does show a lighthouse at today's position west off Peche Island. That is not a bouy since the same symbol is also being used for range lights and other fixed light sources all around that map. And from my point of view the LHF page is not a reliable source per WP:RS. Peche Island is not even located inside Lake St. Clair, so much for their expertise. De728631 (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you aren't reading the chart carefully. That light is on the other side of today's channel; if you will look at things at a larger scale, it's near where Belle Isle ends now. Go back to the 1909 chart, and there are a pair of spar buoys. Mangoe (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect as is but add/improve target's hatnotes.--→gab 24dot grab← 16:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we hadn't had the "keep" votes, this could have been a G7 speedy deletion candidate. Mangoe created the "Peche Island Light" title and was the only person to edit that page, so author-requested speedy deletion would have been appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the USCG: "Also known as Peche Island Lighthouse, Peche Island Rear Range, Peach Island Lighthouse." [3] De728631 (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's precisely the origin of the problem. I cannot find any original documents that actually refer to the rear range light simply as the "Peach/Peche Island lighthouse", but I don't have access to the same documents that the USCG researchers did. I've found, though, that they do make a fair volume of mistakes. I was a little reluctant to propose a speedy simply on my misgivings about the quality of their research. Mangoe (talk) 21:20, 14 May 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.

Adverse impact on the environment[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 Environmental degradation. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the redirect deleted. I don't see any connection between the redirect and the target. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Environmental degradation, I'm also okay with deletion as vague synonym for present target.--Lenticel (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not synonymous with target. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Lenticel. The current redirect is not completely implausible but "environmental degradation" is better. Rossami (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects are cheap, but they aren't free. IMHO, this does not seem to be a plausible search string, and absolutely nothing links with the implausible name; see Special:WhatLinksHere/Adverse impact on the environment[4].--→gab 24dot grab← 15:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment re: "but they aren't free" - What specific costs do you see associated with this (or any) non-harmful redirect? Remember that WhatLinksHere can only show us the current internal links to a title. It will not show any recently-overwritten links (any one of which could be restored if/when a page is reverted, say to cleanup vandalism) nor will it ever show any external links to a page. We assume that very recently created pages probably have no or few inbound links but the older a page is, the less reliable that assumption becomes. This title was created in Oct 2009. We have no way to know whether or how many external links were created in that time. Rossami (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as per the two above; though I doubt there will be very many, I believe there will be a non-zero amount of people linking to this article at some point in the future. --V2Blast (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do I need to do anything to get this closed, or will an administrator take care of it eventually? Retarget seems to be the consesus. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 05:32, 30 May 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.

Holyforce[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 delete as vandalism. No prejudice to any future legitimate use. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the redirect deleted. I don't see any logic to the redirect or the redirects in its history. There is a band named Holy Force, but there never has been a Wikipedia article under that name. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not a synonym for the target. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy-delete as long-overlooked vandalism. The pagehistory shows that this title has been a redirect to "idiot", "God", "pedophile", "Mythomania" and "Pseudologia fantastica" before the latest retargetting. None of those can be substantiated and the contribution histories of the anonymous editors making those edits are highly suspect. There is a "Holy Force" band (note the space). A redirect to that title would be plausible if they meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards but any such redirect should be unencumbered by the prior vandalism. Rossami (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Rossami's findings.--Lenticel (talk) 00:48, 3 May 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_May_2&oldid=1144543001"