Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 3

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 3, 2014.

September 11, 2011 attacks

[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 September 11 attacks (disambiguation). This disamb page was not available when the previous RFD was closed. As the nominator implies it is always best to redirect to a broader target rather than one which is dependent on guessing which typo was intended. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was previously kept at RfD under the presumption that "2011" was a typo for "2001." I submit that it could just as easily be a typo for "2012" (i.e., September 11, 2012 attacks). In fact, it's very easy to image someone in the future trying to remember when the Benghazi attack occurred and being off by a year. Thus. I think it would be best to retarget to September 11 attacks (disambiguation). BDD (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I meant September 11 attacks (disambiguation). Fixed. --BDD (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2014 (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.

Purple-headed

[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) 13:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a slightly different case from the one below. Here, the starling is the only thing "purple-headed" could reasonably refer to, but there's no evidence the species would be referred to as "purple-headed" alone. It definitely shouldn't've been created, but if others thing we should apply RfD zen and keep it, I can deal with that. --BDD (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also White-masked. I suspect there are many of these still floating around. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Xezbeth. I'll list these. Neelix seems to be the creator of all of these, and I've been in touch with him about the issue, so he knows they're under discussion. I'll put White-masked in the section below because of the White-masked whisp, Agriocnemis falcifera. I still think they should all go, but the ones that are only in the names of one species might be a slightly different issue. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, everyone; I created these about six years ago, back before I had heard of partial title matches. I hope they aren't causing you too many troubles. Neelix (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2014 (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.

Dark-throated

[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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like Red-knobbed et al., Pale-breasted, and Spot-winged, these parts of bird names don't lend themselves to dabs, due to WP:PTM, nor is there evidence of primacy of the species these point to versus other "Dark-throated" and "Black-ringed" topics. --BDD (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black-ringed does match entries from Black ring. A character wearing the DC Comics black ring is black-ringed, and a plant infected with Tomato black ring virus is black-ringed. Neelix (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2014 (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 price is wrong, bitch

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 25#The price is wrong, bitch

Лазурный поползень

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 25#Лазурный поползень

Bird law

[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 convert Bird law to a DAB page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect this was created in reference to a joke from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. While the target is a law dealing with birds, it's hardly a comprehensive treatment of laws dealing with birds, not that I'm sure that we could really have such an article. The hatnote refers to Audubon (magazine), which was formerly known as Bird Lore, but not, as far as I can tell, Bird Law. The joke is mentioned at Charlie Kelly (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia)#Legal and monetary issues, but retargeting there doesn't seem to make sense either. BDD (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Bird's law exists, it should retarget there. Unfortunately it doesn't. J. Alfred Bird made the recipe for Bird's Custard which doesn't have any egg in it cos his wife was allergic to eggs, if I remember correcty: so Bird's Law could equally go to him (and sometimes I do this on purpose to provoke discussion). But otherwise it should go to ornithology or some such. In what sense is bird law? Robins fight for their territory, pigeons like to cohabit. Si Trew (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I'm not sure about a dab, but I'd love to write an actual article here. Any suggestions on sources? I've left a call at WT:BIRDS.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ordinarily, I'd want to retarget to animal law because bird law is just a special case of that, but birds aren't specifically discussed there. So the reader would be better served by search results. --NYKevin 19:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Users who go to bird law expect to see something in the user's home country, but the target is only about the law in one country. It would be fine to create a disambiguation page with links to various laws or an article about laws in different countries under this title, but until such a page has been created, we should not keep this confusing redirect. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, page drafted on the redirect page. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. Hopefully we can still get an article up there at some point, but this is an improvement. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the new dab page.--Lenticel (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2014 (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.

Template:Wpem

[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. The default for redirects is to be kept except where they are harmful or for recently created misnomers (WP:RFD#HARMFUL). In this case there is no suggestion of harm. The deletion argument is that this shortcut is redundant to Template:WPEM. This is not a valid reason for deletion. Consequently the keeping argument that this is both harmless and a valid lower case version of an existing shortcut carries the day. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

useless redirect to save on capitals The Banner talk 11:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There is an active discussion about this issue at WT:SHC#Template_shortcuts. Barring a change to something more suitable, this redirect does no harm now that it has been created. Though consensus may state otherwise at this time, I feel that in most cases, that we do not want a lower case redirect to point to a different location than its upper case counterpart. Additionally, we have redirects such as {{albums}} and {{songs}}. Whoever nominates these should be obligated to correct them manually. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2014 (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.

Πεντάγραμμον

[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. --BDD (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pentagrams are not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2014 (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.

User:Gonzalev1

[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. Within policy limits, that this page does not breach, it is up to the user what they do with their own user page. However, the talk page does need fixing since it is clearly confusing to someone trying to leave a message to the user. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing redirect from userspace to an article. Same problem with the talk page. Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fix the talk page (i.e. remove the #redirect header and {{R from move}}) and keep the user page. The user is actively editing the target page, and may be using this redirect for reasons of convenience. Until they say otherwise, we should leave their stuff alone. --NYKevin 19:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: neither offensive, nor misleading. Let Gonzalev1 decide his own matters. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If Gonzalev1 wants his userpage to redirect to the article, that shouldn't matter to us. All we really need to do is to edit the talk page: remove the redirect code from it, and add something saying "You can keep this if you want, but if you decide that you don't like it anymore, here's how to change it". Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete harmful redirect. This leads people to posting messages for the user at the article or article talk page. As people do occassionally leave messages to users on the userpage instead of the user talk page, this will result in messages on the article page. And if they click talk after clicking on the user link, they end up at the article talk page, and will end up leaving messages there for the user. Further the user talk page redirects to the article talk page, so is very inappropriate, which results in the article talk page containing user talk information already. The user should be apprised to use a subpage for a sandbox instead of their own userpage to avoid such problems. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not delete the talk page. It has actual content below the #redirect, and RfD is not the appropriate forum for deleting such content (that would be MfD). (NB: I have already !voted, so this is just a comment). --NYKevin 23:14, 24 June 2014 (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.

Wadewitz

[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 converted to Surname page. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad redirect, other people have this name too. Also there no indication she commonly known just by this Beerest 2 Talk page 12:40, 3 June 2014 (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/2014_June_3&oldid=1037875534"