Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 23, 2015.

Pro-abortion violence[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 30#Pro-abortion violence

Asaá¹…ga[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) 17:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE the accent stripped forms and conversions of superscripts to regular numbers are not even mojibake, they are typos of mojibake and created by Eubot (talk · contribs) and are therefore completely useless, since they aren't even generated by mojibake errors. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all per WP:G1 or possibly WP:G6. Is the bot misbehaving by creating these redirects and should it be told not to? Ivanvector (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only some of them were generated by Eubot, those ones that were are not real mojibake. Eubot (talk · contribs) used to create typo-redirect pages automatically. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2015 (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.

Puerto Douglas[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. This situation resulted from an erroneous page move which has since been reverted. No matter how you look at it, there's no more redirect to delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Spanish redirect for location not in a typically Spanish-speaking area. Jeffro77 (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I agree. The move of Port Douglas to Puerto Douglas in the first place was not necessary. But several cut-and-paste moves later the revision history of Port Douglas is in Puerto Douglas. -- Sam Sing! 10:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the history is important. It is a {{redirect to disambiguation page}} but not marked as such, nor as {{R from alternative language}}. Since the target only has two entries, that should surely be sorted out per WP:TWODABS (i.e. just hatnote them). But my first guess was Douglas, Isle of Man (which is not listed at the DAB at target), but that's just me. But deleting it will kinda lose the history for this kind of gnoming, hence keep and I am happy to sort it out once there is consensus. Si Trew (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, by "once there is consensus" I of course mean "when everyone else agrees with me." :) Si Trew (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing particularly meaningful in the page's history. There's no point having a redirect from an alternative language where the alternative language has no relevance to either of the place names; the purpose of such redirect is for when a place name is commonly known by another foreign term. (That remains the case even if the Isle of Man location were considered.) The page was created by an anonymous editor who geolocates to New South Wales, Australia, and creation of the page seem to have been entirely fickle.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then the redirect Puerto Douglas (which will be a {{R from page move}}) can survive as {{R from alternative language}} per WP:CHEAP or not, it doesn't really matter. I offer no comment on whether either (or neither) the Canadian or Australian Ports Douglas are the primary topic. Ivanvector (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's an awful lot of effort for a redirect page that has only trivial history.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True dat. But attribution is not optional. Generally we keep histories if at all possible even if they are trivial. If I'm wrong about this, we can simply skip step 1. Ivanvector (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. I typed the existing disambiguation page at Port Douglas from scratch after it was deleted (and then the person who deleted the page restored the old history).--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not irrelevant. You didn't create the original dab, which is still there in the history of what is now a redirect at Puerto Douglas. If that is deleted, we erase the attribution to the original content creator(s). That violates those contributors' copyright. Likewise, your copyright is violated if we delete the current dab at Port Douglas. The only thing to do is merge the histories and then move the resulting page to where it's supposed to be, at Port Douglas. Ivanvector (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous. My copyright isn't 'violated' by deleting content. One page only previously resembled the other because both use standard Wikipedia syntax for presenting information for disambiguating the same target articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your mistake was innocent enough, but your assertion that Port Douglas should be the main page for the Queensland locality is incorrect, as there has been no consensus that it is the main page for the articles correctly indicated by the disambiguation page. The 'Puerto' page is redundant and serves no purpose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to discuss this, but Port Douglas almost always refers to the town in Queensland, not the isolated community in Canada. I will make this an issue on the talkpage. Luxure Σ 00:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed not the place. And you should have raised your suggestion about which is the main article before you took any of this other action.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those interested, I flagged the articles for history merging and Jeffro77 pushed the revert button, so this thread now has the ignominious distinction of being mentioned at the administrators' noticeboard. Ivanvector (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You incorrectly tagged the page, falsely asserting it as a cut and paste. You were wrong, so the tag was removed. Your subsequent retributive behaviour is noted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith, my friend. I am seeking only clarification from more knowledgeable users on how to best clean up the good-faith mistakes made here. I realize AN tends to be a drama board but that seemed to be the best place to request it. I mean to imply no wrongdoing and have no interest in retribution. Ivanvector (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the Port Douglas and renaming Puerto Douglas would be an acceptable but trivial action. There is absolutely no need to merge the histories of the independent pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2015 (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.

Anchorsholme F.C.[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) 17:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly non-notable amateur sports club, certainly not in the top six tiers (at least) of English football. I tagged this as a speedy, but another editor declined without making any other changes, so I've brought it here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore and close The redirect seems to have been created whileI was in the middle of an AFD Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RFD#D8, "Novel or confusing synonym". Si Trew (talk) 23:57, 23 Janua'ry 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - really low-level team, not a likely search term, does not merit a redirect. GiantSnowman 08:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I notice that Ritchie333 apparently created this redirect in the belief that the Lancashire County FA is the league in which this team plays, but it isn't. The LCFA is the governing body for all football in the county and oversees literally hundreds of clubs, so the link between this extremely low-level club and the county FA is very minor and tenuous and certainly not meriting a redirect -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to section Anchorsholme#Sports, where it is mentioned. I note Anchorsholme FC (without the stops) does not exist, though. Si Trew (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2015 (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.

Hera Pheri 4[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) 17:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I declined both PROD and CSD G4 as inapplicable. I actually feel that this redirect should stand, but since there evidently is sentiment for deletion, I will take into RfD. Safiel (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2015 (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/2015_January_23&oldid=1138580142"