Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 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, 2009

WP:LULZ[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism policy page does not mention 'lulz'; also, nothing links to this redirect. Pointless. Cicely of Sicily (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Pointless shortcut, unrelated. American Eagle (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unrelated and potentially harmful. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary and unrelated. –Meiskam (talk•contrib•block) 05:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless, obviously unrelated to vandalism, if not vandalism itself. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree. Encyclopedists don't use things like "lulz" to begin with and as pointed out above, it's not as if the vandalism page mentions this nonsense term. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Burlington Mall ([edit]

The result of the discussion was History merge. The article was incorrectly "moved" via copy-n-paste. I have done a history merge to fix that and in the process removed the redirect. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect, created too long ago for R3. (Note the left parenthesis.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 12:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Malta–Moldova relations[edit]

The result of the discussion was on hold: this topic is the subject of an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force#Merge and delete to determine how to treat this class of redirect. Once that RFC has reached a conclusion, the guideline formulated there should be applied to this redirect.--Aervanath (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a somewhat complex case. Recently, many bilateral relations articles have been nominated for AfD. Among them, a few have closed with a recommendation to redirect to the Foreign relations article for one of the countries. For instance, I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta–Moldova relations as redirect to Foreign relations of Malta. The problem is, such a redirect is inherently NPOV since it implies preference of one country over the other. But since the content was merged into Foreign relations of Malta, deletion of the history would violate GFDL. I would rather have it end in a different result, but I had to close it based on what consensus in the AfD told me, so I'm bringing it here to RfD. I don't know what should be done, but this POV redirect won't work. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King of Hearts, you raise an important issue. as these articles cannot be redirected to either country's foreign relations article, I think there is some inherent bias in choosing one country over another. for that reason, I believe keep (even from non consensus) or delete are the only real options. LibStar (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another solution is to make a redirect Malta–Moldova relations → Foreign relations of Malta and another redirect Moldova–Malta relations → Foreign relations of Moldova. The content in these stubs typically is no more than date of recognition and mission locations, which will be duplicated in both target articles. I prefer redirect to delete for a couple of reasons: it makes it easier for a reader to find the content when searching, and if an editor who knows a lot about the subject (seems doubtful in this case, but who knows?) decides to make a real article, they are not discouraged by a red-flagged notice that they are recreating an article that was deleted. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care. Just to add, these are all highly implausible search terms. One interested in malta will look for malta coutnry pages, one interested in moldova will look for moldova country pages.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt if many people are interested in Malta/Moldova relations, but if they were they would probably enter "Malta Moldova" or "Moldova Malta" as a search term. The two redirects would come to the top of the list, and they could choose whether to look under "Malta" or under "Moldova". Leaving two redirects seems like a good general approach for these stubs, with no POV issues. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this and thought I'd add my two cents. I propose that, in cases where the relations between two states are not significant enough to have their own article, the redirects be deleted. As stated above, bias is implied when it only redirects to one state's page.

The other option, of course, would be to create a disambiguation page listing pages relevant to the foreign relations of both states: "For relations between Malta and Moldova, see Foreign relations of Malta and Foreign relations of Moldova." The obvious problem with this, of course, is that by doing this for some states (Malta and Moldova, for instance) and not others, it defeats the purpose. Furthermore, it would be impracticable to do it for all states, as, estimating the number of both recognized and unrecognized states and major international entities to be, perhaps, 250 (conservatively), there are 3.05 × 10599 such pages that would have to be created.

For these reasons, delete. Mnmazur (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • After working several lists, my best guess is about 2,000 redirects. A different way to look at it, is whether a redirect like Vietnam–Serbia relations should be deleted. On what grounds? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Darn, my number was off. 3.23×10492. Regardless of the actual number, it's far too large to bother with. Mnmazur (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are only 2,000, probably less, and I do not propose to create any new titles. But when an article is merged, I prefer to leave a redirect from the original title. Why not? Aymatth2 (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying how many there are, I'm saying how many there would be if a full list was made (it's a rhetorical point). Mnmazur (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (200 x 200) = 40,000: 40,000 / 2 = 20,000. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should explain the above. If each of the 200-odd countries were related to all the other 200-odd countries, there would be 40,000 combinations, or 20,000 if Malta/Moldova is seen as the same as Moldova/Malta. In practice, there are far fewer. I have been working lists for mid-size, mid-income countries like Cyprus, Bulgaria, Egypt. These typically have 10-30 entries, say 10% of the potential. Smaller or poorer countries like Togo will have formal relations with fewer countries, but larger or richer countries like the United States will have more. Some of the articles will of course be more than stubs. "Under 2,000" seems a reasonable estimate. The editor who was most prolific in churning out these stubs made about 800, as far as I can see, before being stopped. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 'redirect' just isn't a practical solution for these titles; they can only be either kept or deleted, as 'X-Y relations' can't be redirected to 'foreign relations of X' without violating NPOV. And I don't like the idea of turning them all into disambiguation pages - even at 'under 2,000', that would create far too many pointless disambiguation pages for unlikely search terms. Robofish (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Plus, we can always have two redirects: X-Y relations to Foreign relatins of X and Y-X relations to Foreign relations of Y. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems to me that the following would be a good way to solve this. If the AfD closes as "delete," always delete without a redirect if permissible. If significant content has been merged, turn the page into a disambiguation. I feel that the presence of two redirects, based solely on the order of the countries, is confusing and inefficient. For notable relations (e.g. France/Germany), one redirects to the other because Germany – France relations is the same as France – Germany relations, and should be treated as such. If a bilateral relations page closed as "delete" on AfD, I would prefer making the title in correct alphabetical order a disambiguation, and the one in incorrect alphabetical order a redirect to the one in correct alphabetical order. This, I believe, would make it easier for the reader to find the article that he/she wants. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am concerned about these existing as disambiguation pages since they aren't even disambiguating anything--the two articles aren't ambiguous. See here for an example. Drawn Some (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Merge and delete includes a few rarely used alternatives such as Move to subpage of talk page. If this method is used, a dummy edit can be added to the article's history to mention the permanent revision ID. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This issue is currently up for RFC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ace Hotels[edit]

The result of the discussion was Continue this discussion at Talk:Ace Hotel#Move?, since a "yes" verdict here would need a page move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Hotels should redirect to Ace Hotel. Ace Hotel is the proper name of this company. There are NOT multiple "Ace Hotels". There are multiple Ace Hotel locations, but these are never referred to as different "Ace Hotels". There are many Mariott International hotel locations but their page is not titled "Mariott Internationals". It is confusing because the common noun "Hotel" is in our name, but "Ace" is not its adjective, rather "Ace Hotel" is its own two-word proper noun. I work for this company and can confirm that "Ace Hotels" is improper usage. Notbot (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Closel, nominator has already made a move request and assuming that is successful the redirect issue will be delt with. So unless the niminator want Ace Hotels deleted there is nothing that needs to be done here.--76.65.140.248 (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_22&oldid=1138576920"