Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 July 6

July 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 6, 2008

Nonexclusive license → License[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep. (non-admin closure) Mastrchf (^t/_c) 18:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presently, the target article has no content related to the exclusivity or non-exclusivity of licensing, thus rendering the redirect misleading. Also, it does not appear that there is an alternative article to serve as a target, nor can the redirect be reverted to a version where a stub had been created. Delete without prejudice for re-creation. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of anything encyclopedic to say about non-exclusive licenses so I'm not sure that a redlink is what we want in this case. What could you say except that "it's a license that's non-exclusive"? The link to license might lead me to incomplete informaiton but it doesn't strike me as misleading. Keep as is unless someone can find a better target. Rossami (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the redirect may not be crystal clear, I do not think that non-exclusive license could be anything more than a dictdef, also per Rossami. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 23:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but this situation should be mentioned on Talk:License as an exhortation to expand the target article. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment good idea; either {{expand}} or {{expand-section}} could be used to bring attention to "license types, i.e. exclusive, non-exclusive, ...". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Israeli occupation forces → Israel Defense Forces#Criticism[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. Target updated from #Criticism to #Controversies. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism, portmanteau of IDF and occupation. i don't think it has a place in an encyclopedia. suggest speedy delete. MiS-Saath (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the simiarly spelled Israeli Occupation Forces redirect has already been though an RFD and kept a speedy deletion is not viable here. --76.66.185.109 (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note without further comment (for the time being) - this was the subject of an RfD five months ago (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 16). The closing admin discusses in great detail his justification for repointing the redirect to its current target. All editors are strongly urged to read this before contributing !votes in this discussion. B.Wind (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but update the target. I see no reason to overturn the decision made back in February. Update because the sections in the destination page seem to have been moved/renamed. I don't have a particularly strong opinion about which section would now be best (but that can be worked out on the respective Talk pages). Rossami (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update. The target article has been reorganized and there is no longer a section called criticism. However, the section called controversies talks almost exclusively about what one has in mind when thinking about "Israeli occupation forces". --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Fake articles and entries in dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other reference books, lists, and directories as well as fictitious places, streets or other intentionally fake insertions in maps → fictitious entry[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a very improbable search term. Can't see this ever being of any use. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This redirect is almost total nonsense, WP:CSD#R3 if possible. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 16:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The redirect doesn't qualify as nonsense as defined by Wikipedia (CSD G1), nor does it qualify as an implausible typo (CSD R3) as there is no typo; but if an admin wishes to speedy it as a forgotten test page (CSD G2) I would have no objection. B.Wind (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the it being "nonsense", was that almost nobody would look up that term to redirect to the target, sorry if I was unclear about that. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 23:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessarily long article title, especially given that it turns out to be a redirect. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's save the humor redirects for humor pages, shall we? --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking at the target article, I believe this redirect was intended more or less as an example of the concept being exposed. However, it serves that purpose rather inefficiently, and, in any case, that possibility should not affect our decision here.

--Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you caught me. I just wanted an excuse to use the really long NCR redirect. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above indicates that the redirect is most likely a WP:POINT violation, in which case the most appropriate action would be to delete. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The odds of someone typing in this in the exact order is practically zero. Wikipedia:Use common sense summarizes quite well my reasoning. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} 18:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Episode list → Category:Lists of television series episodes[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect. UsaSatsui (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's ample precedent for redirecting "list of" article titles to categories, if the category is the useful list that we have. Unless we're going to blanket-delete all the other examples of this, which would require a more general discussion, there's nothing in the nomination that makes this deletable. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while the comments above are quite valid, the lack of context (television programs are not the only things that have episodes... or episode lists) make this as "useful" as it appears to be. Generally, it is not a good idea to redirect a general term to a more specific one. B.Wind (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per B.Wind. Additionally, since, to me, the main criterion with regard to redirects is, what will people type in the search box?, I believe the fact people would tend to type the name of the show for which they want information rather than just "episode list" is reason enough to regard this redirect as useless. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.