Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 20, 2014.

Bird law[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 3#Bird law

O'Higgins Circunscription[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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems not to be used anywhere (except for Wikipedia mirrors) Fram (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - deleting will break history of Andrés Chadwick . And you wouldn't want to do that, would you? Or would you! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC).
    • It will not "break the history", it will at most create a redlink in some older versions of the page. Fram (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • And that is a good thing, why? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC).
        • It's not a "good thing", but merely one of the consequences of change over time on a wiki. Besides, old revisions of pages are often broken, and it does not seem to be a worthwhile pursuit to try to keep them looking good. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I could agree with that, (though note I removed the link after the Rfd was started). But to deliberately go out of one's way to break stuff seems foolish. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC).
            • Nice of you to deign to your subjects. Si Trew (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is this a misspelling of circumscription (of the globe)? O'Higgins circumscription doesn't exist, neither does O'Higgins' circumscripton with the apos for the possessive, nor circumscripton of the globe . Can't we Move something to the correct name and then change this redirect to an {{R from incorrect name}} or some such? I see Rich Farmbrough's point about not changing links, but also This That and the Other's: links break all the time as the encyclopaedia is, we hope, improved by doing so. Si Trew (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Harmless; useful in past article histories. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think you both missed my point. "Circunscription" is not correct English, "Circumscription" is: though obviously of Latin origin (to describe a circle, in particular a great circle or round-the-world trip. wikt:circumscription Si Trew (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Per TTO, we are absolutely not required to maintain unlikely redirects to preserve rare links in page history; down that road lies madness. — Scott • talk 10:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Scott, there is no "maintain", redirects simply sit there happily doing their jobs. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:15, 20 May 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.

CCC Erfa Ulm[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 no consensus. BDD argues that "The Ulm group isn't mentioned at the target article, so the redirect is misleading and ought to be deleted." However, the keepers argue that this redirect is useful per WP:RFD#KEEP point 5. Though the redirect group is not mentioned at the target nonetheless the target deals in depth with the Club as a whole of which the subject of the redirect is a part. Balancing the arguments, I see neither a clear consensus nor an overriding policy reason to keep or delete. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to redirect one specific but no notable instance of a larger organisation, there are many similar organisations that have chapters in every city, we don't create redirects for those either.

This one wa once listed on the "most missed articles", but these lists are notoriously unreliable. Fram (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This local chapter is commonly called Chaos Computer Club Ulm, see here. They have periodical presentations, meetings, their own radio program, etc like many other chapters. I do not think that they are notable on their own and I see no reason to keep this redirect. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fram; I cant see any reason why this one justifies a redirect; especially a redirect created recently. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:37, 10 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) 17:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was wrong in saying Ulm should have the diacritics, it doesn't. I think some fellow called Bertie Einstein or something was born there; I wonder whatever happened to him. Oh sorry I forgot, I am not allowed to make jokes. Si Trew (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though this isn't as much of a slam-dunk as similar cases. The Ulm group isn't mentioned at the target article, so the redirect is misleading and ought to be deleted. Now, if a reader came across the phrase "CCC Erfa Ulm" and had no idea what it meant, this might clarify the initialism, but it still wouldn't offer any more information. Since we have nothing to say about the chapter, a reader is ultimately better off checking a search engine. We shouldn't try to suggest otherwise. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 27 May 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.

Intercaluary day[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 that has the stronger arguments and also reflects the policy position. The approach adopted here is given at WP:RFD#HARMFUL that states "Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones." Normally harm is indicated by one of the criteria in WP:RFD#DELETE being met. No claim of harm has been made by any of the commentators. Though the policy allows recently created redirects to be deleted it doesn't say that they must be nor that they should be considered for deletion because of being recently created; the default remains for redirects to be kept and there needs to be a good reason for deleting that outweighs any benefit from keeping or harm from deleting. Such a reason has not been adduced here. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo (Intercalary day already exists). Fram (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have already made this typo twice, it is likely that I will make it again. The redirect is therefore useful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC).
    • Wikipedia is not your personal playground though. Fram (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nor is it your personal battleground. At least it's not supposed to be. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC).
  • Keep as likely typo. Wikipedia is neither a playground nor a battleground, though it can seem like one or the other or both, sometimes. It is a likely typo. It breaks my heart to agree with Rich Farmbrough – we have had several run-ins over the years – but on this occasion it is right. Si Trew (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Intercalculary day (with the C as for "calculator" etc) is redlink. Ultimately "calculus" comes from Calculus, "Stones, pebbles" moved from one and to another like we do as an umpire in cricket to count the runs in an over, but is not etymologically connected, I think, to caluary, a nonce word that does not exist so you can' just shove "inter–" in front of it; might as well have intercalorie days, the days when you stop eating Ryvita each morning and have a full English breakfast instead. It is a false friend. One would kinda expect it (calculating days ahead from a calendar etc) but it is a redlink, at the mo. I don't know if that helps or hinders the discussion. Si Trew (talk) 10:37, 10 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) 17:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searching intercaluary -wikipedia with Google returns only one page. Not a frequent misspelling, it seems. --Kusunose 02:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • One may safely assume that the substantial bulk of serious web pages using such a term are spell checked. Given this, compared with about 300 links (including such delicacies as "We are professional For the intercalary hair Abrator ") that Google throws up one hit is significant. According to Grok stats the target page is getting 3% of its hits via this link. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC).
      • I doubt the reason why web pages with misspelling "intercaluary" is rare is because web pages discussing the topic are spell-checked. If that is the case, pages with misspelling "intercallary" would also be rare. But there are many. --Kusunose 06:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • 3%? Where did you get that idea? Intercalation (timekeeping) got 19629 hits in the last 90 days[1], while Intercaluary day got 39 hits in the same period[2], including quite a few caused by this discussion here. That's nearly 0,2%, not 3% at all... Taking only May, the redirect got 24 hits so far[3], only one of them before this discussion started: the target got 5100 hits[4]. So even during this discussion, which caused most of the hits, it doesn't exceed 0,5%. Fram (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Harmless redirect, and it's aiding searchers. No good reason to get rid of this redirect. Nyttend (talk) 07:43, 27 May 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.

Дуся[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 procedural close; reverted to stub. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I originally turned this into a redirect to an article that had a mention of it, but now the article, extensively reworked, no longer does. It really isn't a sensible redirect, this arbitrary Slavic name leading to an article on general Eastern European naming, so it may as well be deleted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Largoplazo. And nice work in doing so; to turn a redirect into an article and then it to be reworked makes the encyclopaedia better and I hope that is what we are here for. My hat off to you, to nnominate your own R because it is now redundant because it has been improved: that is what it is about. I bow to Largo sincerely. Si Trew (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert to an article, and (if you wish) CSD/Prod/AfD. User:Largoplazo@ Turning an article into a redirect then nominating if at RfD seems like bad idea, as it circumvents the normal deletion process. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC).
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.

Bob krakower[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 deleted by RHaworth. G6 does apply, but tagging for G8 speedy deletion is the best way of dealing with these. Ideally this would be addressed by the AfD closer, though. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page that is redirects to is now deleted per AfD LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:17, 20 May 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.

List of Kentucky Derby Winners (1950 - 2005)[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) 17:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overly specific. Redundant given List of Kentucky Derby Winners. Brycehughes (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but that was confusing. List of Kentucky Derby Winners and List of Kentucky Derby Winners (1950 - 2005) both target Kentucky Derby top four finishers. So I agree with Bryce, there's no need for this over-specific and indeed incorrect redirect: it lists from 1875 to 2014. That target is marked as start class, but should probably be marked as list class if we get consensus here. We are not the Racing Post but it seems relatively encyclopaedic, I doubt anyone is going to use it as a form guide. Si Trew (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is an eight year old and harmless redirect from a former article . Please read RfD policy on why we keep these types of redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC).
  • delete This is actually the result of a questionable move away from the (then) name of the article, which was reversed presumably because there is no sense in making a subarticle of older races (which never existed, as far as I can tell). There's no need to memorialize this mistake. Mangoe (talk) 23:53, 26 May 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_May_20&oldid=1039434941"