Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 4, 2009

Play On (Amanda Overmyer album)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. The original article contained very little information (which is understandable, since the single wasn't even released when the article was written), so there wasn't really anything to merge. History merge is not applicable because the content wasn't copied anywhere – the article was simply redirected to the artist's article, which is a valid alternative to deletion in cases like this. Jafeluv (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Overmyer never released an album with this name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be potentially useful content in the article history. Was or could any of it be merged to the artist's article? Powers T 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the important points seem to have been merged. Her article mentions rather clearly that she had a single with that name — not an album. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they were merged, then we have to keep the redirect for attribution purposes. Powers T 12:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Histmerge (if applicable), merge relevant content from history, and delete -- Sounds like a lot of work for someone but I think that's the best outcome. An alternative would be one of the other methods of history preservation like moving it to a subpage of the Amanda Overmyer talk page. —mako๛ 20:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Gaol[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Jafeluv (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Jail. "Gaol" is simply an alternate spelling of the word "jail" and so should be redirected accordingly. However, the target has been changed to Prison twice now by two different editors, so rather than revert again, I thought discussion was in order. Powers T 15:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is not the redirect (which could just as easily have been targeted to Jail (disambiguation) as well as the other two targets mentioned in the nomination). The problem is the U. S.-centric Jail destination (which has a hatnote offering prison for the (apparently) more-appropriate destination. "Gaol" is not used in the United States, but in the British Isles and other regions in which English-speaking people lean toward the U.S. spelling and use. There seems only one realistic option here: merge Jail into prison, then retarget the redirect there with a hatnote indicating the disambiguation page. Clearly a person looking with a British Isles spelling would be more interested in an article with a global perspective than one that is relatively "local" for another part of the world.B.Wind (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good reason to fix those articles and I suggest you do that. At the moment, however, it seems hard to argue that Gaol shouldn't redirect to an article that is a different spelling of the same word. We should keep this article pointing to Jail and then, if and when Prison and Jail are merged, we should fix the double redirect then. —mako๛ 23:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But is 'gaol' a spelling used in the US? The article jail only covers the US usage of the word, whereas prison covers the general meaning of 'jail' elsewhere. If 'gaol' is not used in the US then it is probably more helpful to target it to the article covering its general usage which would be prison. PaulJones (talk) 09:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done as suggested. Will someone kindly take a look to make sure that everything that was supposed to be in the Prison article (and talk page) is actually there. There will probably be a need for some editing as I simply moved the blocks over and duplication within the article is likely. The hatnote that I mentioned has been placed in the section "Jails in the United States". B.Wind (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as in many places gaol/jail/prison mean exactly the same thing. The opening paragraph of the target outlines and links to the specific use of 'jail' in the US, though following on from B.Wind this is something that probably does need to be clearer. PaulJones (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused Could those bolding "keep" in their responses please clarify? Gaol currently redirects to Prison, but Benjamin Mako Hill said "... keep this article pointing to Jail". Powers T 00:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this forum, "keep" (without elaboration) usually means to keep it as it was at the time of nomination (and indicated within the posted nom). Those who want the redirect to point to another article would usually suggest "retarget to..."; if the redirect is retargeted after the beginning of the RfD, it is generally preferred if the person who retargeted it puts a notice in the discussion mentioning the change (this would also be done if a new article or disambiguation page overwrote the redirect). B.Wind (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment To clarify my argument, as per B.Wind keep in my argument means continue having it point to prison as in most English speaking countries gaol/jail/prison mean exactly the same thing. The opening paragraph of prison highlights the specific meaning of jail in the US, and jail has a hatnote to prison, though this difference in usage does really need to be made clearer than it is at present. PaulJones (talk) 09:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that I was one who was confused and imprecise. Sorry about that. I've struck out my suggestion above and will try again. I would support redirecting to Jail (disambiguation) (as others have suggested) which prominently links to prison. Apologies again for the confusion! —mako๛ 20:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a valuable sort of observation, up until then didn't even know jail and prison had different meanings in the states. Certainly the word looks similar to jail, my guess is the disagreement is centering around the terms being synonymous outside of the states? Tyciol (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jail (disambiguation) - I've modified the dab page to reflect the U.S.-centric Jail page and the alternative Prison (also cross-posted at WikiProject Disambiguation). --Zach425 talk/contribs 08:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jail (disambiguation) (and as a separate matter move that to Jail and the US version to Jail (United States) or similar). PamD (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Gaol" is never used in American English to mean the thing that's now at Jail (the US institution), so there shouldn't be any conflict. Dekimasuよ! 11:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Gaol" does not mean the U.S. detention style, so Prison is the correct target. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. Jail now redirects to a section in Prison (with a hatnote to Jail (disambiguation)) per discussion above. Gaol was not touched. Unless someone objects to the recently-completed merge, the only issue remaining for the redirect is whether to keep it pointed to prison or the disambiguation page. To this I remain neutral. B.Wind (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In light of the merge by B.Wind, I'll change my vote to Keep targeted to Prison. —Zach425 talk/contribs 06:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep targeted at Prison as the other entries in Jail (disambiguation) are names of specific things, and so Gaol is an unlikely alternative spelling for them and thus not a primary target. However, it should be ensured that the Jail disambiguation page can easily be found by anyone following the Gaol redirect.PaulJones (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Alberta Highways[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep all per more recent developments. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denying PROD but deserves a look at RfD - appears to redirect to a part of a page that doesn't exist. Doug.(talk • contribs) 12:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further info that applies to all of these highways, some indication they may have been renamed by Alberta, which would suggest the re-directs should exist, or at least some form of them. See User_talk:Qyd#List_of_Alberta_Highways. BTW, neither my nomination nor this comment should be taken as supporting deletion, I nominated them here purely bc they had been PRODed and weren't eligible for that.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 12:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --- I can't imagine anywhere else these should pointing, can't imagine serious harm that keeping them here might cause, and think we should wait until an expert with knowledge on the topic can explain the issue related to renaming/renumbering the highways in question. —mako๛ 15:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - none of the roads named in the redirects appear anywhere in the target article. If the roads are included in the list, then - and only then - should the redirects be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.Wind (talk • contribs) 01:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to Delete second nominee and keep the rest as all but Alberta Secondary Highway 502 are now mentioned in the target article. Should ASH 502 be similarly inserted, then its redirect should be kept at that point. If the redirect is deleted, I am not opposed to its recreation should AH 502 be appropriately inserted in the target in the future.B.Wind (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix the redirects had anchors in the article, but they were lost in time (see old article version; some deleted due to lack of references, some due to the fact that they have been renamed by Alberta transportation. Alberta secondary highway 745 was renamed to "Little Smoky Road" for example, and it appears as such on new maps, but still as 745 on older maps. 788 was renamed to Calahoo Road. 989 is a 120km long road in remote northern Alberta. It's not marked on Google maps, but is visible on the satellite map. Can't find any reference to 502. Can't find anything on 940, but I remember it was connecting 734 south of Ram Falls to Highway 40 north of Ghost Lake. I believe the redirects should stay, and the anchors restored, with remarks regarding their actual status. --Qyd (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd agree with you if the former use of those numbers can be cited and indicated within the current article (something like "formerly AH ###"[1]). While official maps and commercially-prepared maps are reasonably reliable (and far more reliable than Google maps or Yahoo maps), they have been known to have the occasional error (there have been a number of huge mistakes in various U.S. "official" state maps over the years, for example). B.Wind (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the articles starting with Alberta Secondary Highway. As per the Canadian naming conventions the articles starting Alberta secondary highway were moved to start with Alberta Highway. When I changed the redirect in select Alberta Highway articles (Alberta Highway 502 to Alberta Highway 877, Alberta Highway 575 & 837 to Dinosaur Trail, Alberta Highway 615 to Alberta Highway 26, Alberta Highway 794 to Alberta Highway 44, Alberta Highway 788 to Spruce Grove, Alberta Highway 940 to Highway 40, Alberta Highway 989 to Alberta Highway 986,) I decided that there was no need to do the same for the Alberta secondary highway articles, since they were uncategorized and nothing links to them, I did not see any reason to keep them around. If there was a Little Smoky Road article, then we would have a redirect for Alberta Highway 745, but in the mean time, I think that every road in Alberta can be summed up by one line in the List article, unless there is something noteworthy to say about it. 117Avenue (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per User:117Avenue's deletion rationale, these should be kept because they are valid search terms, since he himself said so. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where do you suggest the redircts go then? 117Avenue (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To wherever information on their renamed existences exist, since you already retargetted alternate forms of these redirects already. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note as a result of updating the target article, all the nominated redirects now point to an article that actually mentions the numbered highway in its table... except for Alberta secondary highway 502. If a mention of this road, even as a "formerly Alberta Highway 502," can be inserted, all of the nominated redirects can be kept without further controversy. If AH 502 cannot be mentioned in the target article at all, then the redirect for it should be deleted and the rest of the nominated redirects kept. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find any reference of an Alberta Highway 502, it had a summary in the list before I did an extensive search to expand the list. 117Avenue (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jeffree Star's third extended play[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Untitled album already redirected. Should probably be Hammered instead. Wolfer68 (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
  1. ^ with source in here
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_4&oldid=1136448534"