Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 25, 2009

Isolist.ini[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely implausable search target otherwise not needed. 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 23:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is actually a double redirect as Wubi (installer) has been moved to Wubi (Linux installer). The term is mentioned nowhere in the target article, and the nominated redirect has no significant content in its history. B.Wind (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per B.Wind, few hits, and a lack of relevance in an encyclopedic context. —Zach425 talk/contribs 06:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tim Starling[edit]

The result of the discussion was retarget to Wikimedia Foundation#Volunteer committees and positions. Jafeluv (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong target. 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 23:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retargeted to Wikimedia Foundation#Volunteer committees and positions six days ago.B.Wind (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Google box[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from extremely implausible search query and user to template redirect 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 22:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - redirect created by nom (as a move from userspace to template space) minutes before nominating it here. Originator of the template (User:Google box) should be notified of this discussion. If he/she agrees to the move, then the redirect can be speedily deleted; if not, the move should be reverted. B.Wind (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as the user has been indefinitely blocked (see here), I doubt notification would be an issue. The page seems much more appropriate in the Template namespace, and I see no reason to keep this redirect. —Zach425 talk/contribs 07:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

2011 Australian Grand Prix[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete all. Jafeluv (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These motor races are still two years into the future and are by no means guaranteed to take place. No 2011 calendar has been announced. --Falcadore (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - As per User:Falcadore. Cs-wolves(talk) 15:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Normally I wouldn't go for this, but considering the lack of calendar and many troubles faced by Formula One these days, I have to agree. --JaGatalk 15:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. DH85868993 (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - The redirects are logical and help accidental linking in the sense that they redirect interested readers and editors to a target where all the possible races are discussed and whether or not they take place. They should therefore be kept as useful navigational aid until and unless there is sufficient information to expand to an article which can can be handled by mere reverting. Red links on the other hand give no such information and may actually invite uninformed recreation as redirects or unsourced stubs forcing us to discuss a possible threshold for inclusion repeatedly, although they are useful in any case. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all speedily non notable and per nom.--3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 23:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for two very different reasons: since they have not even been scheduled, let alone be run, this would be crystal balling; in addition, even if they have been scheduled, a redlink would still be too tempting a target for such a crystal balling (dispite the reason in WP:RFD#DELETE saying that redlinks would be preferable for imminent articles), so I'd recommend removing the redlinks as well... at least until after the end of the 2010 season. B.Wind (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - to the extent that this is crystal balling, all information about these races should be removed from Wikipedia (including redirects & their redlinks). However, that is a discussion for the target's talk page. Until and unless the information about these races is removed from 2011 Formula One season, the redirects should be kept. —Zach425 talk/contribs 07:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all at very least prevents creation of these articles. At best may help someone looking for information. Rich Farmbrough, 13:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete all It's not as if any redlinks even exist. These races are not scheduled and there is no calendar. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per B.Wind, clear crystal balling. --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all --Francesco Betti Sorbelli (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Second Battle of Bapaume[edit]

The result of the discussion was withdrawn, RfD moot as the misleading redirect has been converted to a stub on the correct battle. ~ mazca talk 15:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is to wrong battle. Second Battle of Bapaume takes place between 21 August-3 September 1918 whereas the Battle of Amiens takes place 2 weeks earlier. When there is actually content for this page it should be created but redirecting to a completely different battle is not appropriate. Labattblueboy (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I edit conflicted with you creating a small stub. Shall we consider it moot or would you want me to revert it?--Tikiwont (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Comment Guidelines[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2005, this one was redirected to {{talkheader}}. The name is confusing, it may mean "comment the guidelines". Moreover, it's not a usual name of talkheader redirects. Magioladitis (talk) 09:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there is no real reason for this redirect to exist. It encourages sloppiness, and if anything we should promote template specificity amongst users/editors. —Zach425 talk/contribs 07:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

L is real 2041[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Jafeluv (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was put to AFD recently over here, but I closed it to list over here since it's not an article, but a redirect. I have no opinion, I'm just keeping things organized. =) Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone can explain why that could be a realistic search. --JaGatalk 15:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The section it targets discusses the "L is real 2401" rumor in some detail - this is a plausible typo of that, with the 4 and 0 transposed. ~ mazca talk 17:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a plausible typo. —Zach425 talk/contribs 07:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Hamlin's Wizard Oil[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 first replaced by new article; second retargeted to Hamlin's Wizard Oil (non-admin close) B.Wind (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to a musician who sold this medicine as a young man, it doesn't seem appropriate. Fences&Windows 01:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retain until someone writes an article about Hamlin's Wizard Oil, but I don't have time to write it. The redirect was a stopgap measure until an article exists. Maybe the redirect should instead go to the article on patent medicine. Rammer (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects aren't meant to be stop-gaps. Fences&Windows 02:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - We explictly discourage such stop-gap redirects, if the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject. In these cases, it is better that the target article contain a redlink pointing back to the redirect. See Wikipedia:Redir#Reasons_for_deleting.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing wrong with redlinks. --JaGatalk 15:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: I combined these two RfD discussions as they had identical rationales and identical participation, and will clearly have the same outcome. ~ mazca talk 16:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both, redlinks encourage article creation and the current target is not useful. ~ mazca talk 16:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Miami-Dade (county)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the use for the redirect. First, it should redirect if anywhere to Miami-Dade County, Florida, not to the police department. Second, why would anyone put in brackets into their search? Fences&Windows 00:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, It was my mistake. It was supposed to be to Miami-Dade County, Florida. Miami-Dade Police Department had a link to it according to the red link report that seemed to be a generated link through a template. This is no longer the case so go ahead and delete --Open2universe (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Braison Chance Cyrus[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Retargeted to Billy Ray Cyrus#Marriage and children. Jafeluv (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is inappropriate; someone looking for Miley Cyrus' brother won't be interested in a redirect to her page that says nothing about him. p.s. There's an article behind the redirect, if that matters. Fences&Windows 00:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Billy Ray Cyrus#Marriage and children. That way people wondering who he is can find out, at least. --JaGatalk 15:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per JaGa. It's a reasonable redirect as a potential search term, but the current target doesn't discuss him. ~ mazca talk 16:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good plan, I know so little about Miley Cyrus that I wasn't aware that Billy Ray is her dad. Fences&Windows 21:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as retargetted -- This is a common search term and we should have it point somewhere appropriate. The redirect subject is mentioned in the new article which seems like the best possible match until Braison Chance Cyrus gets his own article. —mako๛ 20:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

General Webb[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Redirect replaced with disambiguation page which is indeed the obvious solution to an ambiguous redirect! ~ mazca talk 16:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a good redirect, as there are many General Webbs on Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 00:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My dear friend, there is only one more General Webb, and here he is Daniel Webb (?-1771), British Army general, and I have never heard of him. His article really isn't that worth looking at also.--Red Wiki 00:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

John Richmond Webb, James Watson Webb. Fences&Windows 00:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Neither "I have never heard of him." nor "His article really isn't that worth looking at" constitute good arguments for defending a bad redirect. I think it should be removed. DBaK (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and disambiguate. The reference to the current target makes sense so there is no reason to remove it and the only question is whether and how to disambiguate. As there are four targets, the now existing dab page should be fine.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, I'm a muppet. No need to delete, disambiguation is the solution. Fences&Windows 12:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the new disambiguation page. Nice one. More people on wp should admit I'm a muppet from time to time, it lightens the atmosphere! Excellent solution, much better than zapping it. It would be nice with a tiny bit more on the three who currently don't have a bracketed explanation. Cool. Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC) (PS I'm a muppet too. Frequently. )[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_September_25&oldid=1140261662"