Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 March 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 26, 2013

არგენტინა[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these redirects, whose targets are not related to Georgian. Gorobay (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2013 (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.

The Contortionist (album)[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 with no prejudice towards recreation if an album does, in fact, ever decide to exist. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pair of pointless redirects to The Contortionist#Studio_albums. The parenthesised form is not a plausible search term, and whatever the case for retaining such redirects after a merge, there is no point in creating them merely as some of sort of placemarker. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. These aren't pointless, because the target page has a possibly ambiguous title and the redirects are much clearer about what they refer to. People really do use these longer, disambiguated titles, especially since they appear as part of the search box autosuggestions for the shorter title. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there doesn't seem to be an album named The Contortionist so these redirects are misleading. Siuenti (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Thank you 168.12.253.66. Albums, songs and musicians related to a notable artist or musical ensemble should be redirected to that artist or ensemble per WP:BAND. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But there is no album by this title. Siuenti (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Redirects are cheap, and there was an album by that title when the redirect was created. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What happened to it? Can it not be mentioned at the target, so someone using this redirect will not be confused? Siuenti (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find no sources that even refer to such an album. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:33, 26 March 2013 (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.

Ice cream redirects[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 those that remain, except Laotian vanilla ice cream which has been redirected to the Vanilla ice cream stub. Additionally, I am BOLDly moving the history of Nancy Johnson (ice cream) to Nancy Johnson (inventor), where a redirect should exist. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Target is about ice cream in general, not any particular flavor, nor does it have a list of flavors, nor is it about home-made ice cream. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Soy ice cream for now.--Lenticel (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moot point, this is now a stub. --Lenticel (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Retarget Strawberry ice cream to Strawberry#Uses. --Lenticel (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Strawberry ice cream for now.--Lenticel (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with retargetting List of Ice Cream Flavours, Ice cream flavors to Category:Flavors of ice cream.--Lenticel (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sense nominating these I found a target for "List of Ice Cream Flavors" (Category:Flavors of ice cream) and I suppose we should do the same thing for "Ice cream flavors", so if you agree we can withdraw those. As for "Vanilla ice cream" that's now moot, I created an article. I created that section in the "Vanilla" article for this redirect, but then reverted it because I thought it didn't flow with the rest of the article. As for "Strawberry ice cream" I disagree. "Strawberry#Uses" says nothing about Strawberry ice cream except "Strawberries are a popular addition to dairy products, such as [...], ice cream [...]", along with listing a bunch of other dairy products. Better to leave that, along with the other stuff it lists that doesn't have have an article, redlinks in my opinion. As for "Soy ice cream", I was going to agree with you, but I took a better liik at the section and despite it's name it says nothing about ice cream except "Vegan ice-creams include Tofutti, Turtle Mountain's So Delicious, and Luna & Larry’s Coconut Bliss." I gave that section a name that better reflects it's scope. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified my comments based on the details you added here. I'm going to try to expand the vanilla ice cream article. If this article can be sourced and expanded then there is a chance that soy ice cream and the other flavors can have their own articles--Lenticel (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: I forgot to RFD tags on most of these redirects,which I'll do now, so count this as the first day. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2013 (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.

Green Apple[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 Apple ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What should the target be? Granny Smith, Apple, or something else. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2013 (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.

Lightning protection[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 Improper forum This is not the place to discuss content. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect needs to be removed. Lightning protection includes many different categories of "things", i.e., Surge protector, static dis-chargers (airplane wings), Earthing systems, etc., and often they work in conjunction with each other, not as a single unit such as a Lightning Rod. A lightning rod by itself is just that a rod, nothing more, and therefore lightning protection cannot be exclusive to a lightning rod. The redirect should be removed and allow for a stand alone article for Lightning Protection to be created. Borealdreams (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for exactly the same reasons as above. I fought the merger & redirect vigorously with the same logical arguments as above, however those wikieditors at the time cared not that it was a$$-backwards logic, rather that the only lightning protection systems to be "known" have lightning rods as their key component, even though a LR is nothing more than a piece of conductive material made to collect a lightning strike if it is used in a variation of a lightning protection system composed of air terminals, conductors & a grounding grid. Borealdreams (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TBH both pages (and any other name variations) should be banned from being created, as they have always been grounds for toxic discussions, where logic and reason left the playing field and civil discourse was impossible. I would further move, that anything not directly related to a lightning rod be subject for removal from the article, without debate. Any mention of a LR as a system, should be banned, however mention of a LR as a primary component of a Lightning Protection System variant is acceptable. In all reality, a new page should be created called "Air Terminals" ("finales" in the UK) and the Lightning Rod page redirected there.... as their are multiple types of air terminals used to collect a lightning termination (hence the name "air terminals", i.e., static wires, catenary (wire suspended over areas to be struck), weather vanes, system, faraday cages, etc., and a lightning rod is but one of many. A cog in a machine is all it is.... yet we don't call a "transmission" a "gear" do we? Borealdreams (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore lightning protection article, Boreal is correct, not the same thing, but the rod is a component of a system, like a hard disk and a computer. The lighting protection system redirect can not be deleted since it provides attribution for the merge. However, if an editor were to revert the merge (meaning reverting the redirect and removing the material from lightning rod) we would no longer have a problem. Discussion of the merge was nearly nonexistent, so there is no policy or consensus violation in reverting. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll give a little background. I fought the merge vigorously...mainly bc the LR page was horribly biased and flawed. My intent was to move everything not LR to the LPS page where it belonged. Because the "wikigods" involved in this debate declared I had a CoI due to my actual involvement with the industry (which I have always stated from the beginning), they just went a head and merged it anyways. TBH it is a philosophical & political debate where money is involved, there are few without a CoI, but fewer that will admit to it and try to proceed unbiased and sticking to something close to actual science. I left this discussion after removing obvious biases... needing a break. For "sh1ts & giggles" I did do a "smart ass" edit of the entire article the other day, pointing out all the obvious flaws & to draw attention to it. It was reverted instantly as I suspected... but it does give a good primer of all the issues at hand. It will take an "Act of God" to reinstate the LPS page, and put only in LR what a LR is. I'm open for any Wikieditor "Heavy Hitters" assistance, but need to stay mostly on the sidelines...plus I am doing major work on the lightning & lightning strike pages, that was needed. Cheers!  :) Borealdreams (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2013 (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.

Calc.exe[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have redirects from filename extensions? I started creating them, but then I thought it would be best to ask here, as I don't think we've ever really discussed that, and I wanted to make sure that the ones I found weren't a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. The point of this isn't to discuss any of the examples listed above in particular, the point of this is to discuss weather we want these types of redirects in general. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and encourage. When people have a problem with software (e.g. crash reports) or they see these in directory listings and don't know what the programs are, then it's natural for people to search them. Where we have articles on the program, or they are covered as sections of a larger article, we should have these redirects to help people find them in these circumtances and avoid duplicate articles. To pick a aandom examples from Macs (linux doesn't use file extensions in the same way), mail.app has existed uncontroversially since 2003 and Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as plausible synonyms.--Lenticel (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and as sort of an add-on to Thryduulf's comment, create {{R from file extension}}, or a similar template, as an effort to tag these redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2013 (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/2013_March_26&oldid=1138579040"