Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 22

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 22, 2014.

Poopsocking

[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) 16:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poopsocking is an urban term (the type you would see occur on Urban Dictionary). It's definition there is "Defacating into a sock in order to avoid having to get up from your computer to use the toilet. Often utilized when playing online role playing games". Hardly encyclopedic, and all of it's mentions seem to be on sites with the same reliability as Urban Dictionary. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 23:53, 22 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.

Useless Inept Twat

[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 Anthony Bradbury. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious attack redirect. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 21:54, 22 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 lakes named Fish Lake (disambiguation)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 6#List of lakes named Fish Lake (disambiguation)

Glenden Enterprises

[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) 16:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect could plausibly be turned into a full article. Per WP policy, if the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself. D-Day (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Glenden as shorter title. We've just been discussing "Ltd" and "plc" as suffixes of (British) company names – I just reeled a few off for examples – and I forget exactly S.A. as French ones and p.A as Italian ones? What about Volkswagen GmbH or Harris Pty or whatever? Wouldn't this come under the same reasoning? That RfD (#Società Italiana per l'Esercizio Telefonico p.A.), right here today, has not got consensus yet, but surely it is a suffix in the same way? Either Glended Enterprises is either an "Inc." or something, or it is not: but Glenden does not exist so it would be sensible to move it to a shorter title. Trotter's Independent Traders does not exist, nor Trotters' Independent Traders, but Trotters Independent Traders does and redirects to the British sitcom Only Fools and Horses, as it should. There's no obvious pattern or guideline I can divulge here. Si Trew (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's much point in moving this redirect. There's no significant history that needs preserving. Someone could create Glenden, certainly, and the article could be made there. --BDD (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very bad idea - "Glenden" is not the name of the team, claiming it is would be original research. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:55, 25 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) 16:24, 22 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.

Fred Biagi

[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. Absent some evidence as to whether Biagi is independently notable, this will stand. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect could plausibly be turned into a full article. Per WP policy, if the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself. D-Day (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It could be but it isn't. Are you suggesting WP:REDLINK?. Since others seem to be the experts on motor racing, why doesn't one of them make the article? Si Trew (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't they, indeed? Maybe because they see a link that already exists? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:54, 25 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) 16:23, 22 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.

Template:WPCO

[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. Number 57 10:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While "Co" is a common enough abbreviation for "Company," CO stands for other things as well, of which Colombia and Colorado also have dedicated WikiProjects. Thus, this is likely to cause confusion. It also doesn't match WP:CO. Finally, the variant Template:Wco was recently deleted (by me, in the interests of full disclosure). --BDD (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Useful shortcut in all capital letters. Because it was produced in 2008, the time for changing this longstanding shortcut has already passed. There is an active discussion about this type of issue at WT:SHC#Template_shortcuts, for which I have requested closure at WP:ANRFC. 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. On a side note, "Template:Hmm" has not been removed from all templates following RfD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:35, 23 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.

Bukkit

[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 reason given for deletion "Non-notable server software" is not a policy-compliant ground for deletion. Being non-notable (and I am making no judgement on notability in this case) is a standard reason for creating a redirect rather than writing an article. This term is mentioned at the target that is a sensible place to point this redirect. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable server software for minecraft Shuasa (talk) 10:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Declaring an interest, I am a software engineer and I have never heard of it – in that sense you're right – but I don't work in games software. Nevertheless a quick search of fora shows there is lots of interest in it. Sure, should be an article: but while it isn't, this is the right target. The only thing I could think of a reason to delete is if it were a proprietary product, but it seems to be pretty much open source e.g [bukkit.org] – and this is a typical model to encourage people to create games for a platform but of itself it is not WP:PLUG etc, the article seems reasonably neutral (e.g. not written by the company itself and so on). I am not qualified to write the article: wish I was, but at worst WP:REDLINK to encourage its creation. It's not as if it goes to bucket or Hyacinth Bouquet or something, and is not a WP:PLUG as far as I can see: it goes to the relevant topic. Si Trew (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is not a requirement for redirects. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:47, 25 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.

Brazilian aardvark

[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 (by non-admin): Good-faith editors just slipped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 12:10, 22 May 2014‎

Per my comment on Talk:Brazilian aardvark, this should be targeted to the page to which it is most relevant, which in this case is Coati, whether the term really refers to this animal or not. Jinkinson talk to me 03:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Somehow I completely missed that section. WIth redirects is often best to just be bold, and open discussions if reverted. Often new articles have appeared since the redirect was creation, or the creator simply missed a better target. Diego (talk) 08:12, 22 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_22&oldid=1136448223"