Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 14, 2010

Minion Master[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 11:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. If my memory serves me correctly, this was a term for a specific "strategy build" in the game "Guild Wars". It lacks notability for an encylopedia to cover it, and content relevant to it would be similar to a game guide. Delete as misleading redirect. Taelus (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note for convenience: This was kept at RfD two years ago. The discussion can be found here: Previous discussion. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jeremy Clarkson/Archive1[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only edit in history is it being redirected here, so there doesn't seem to be any content to keep. Taelus (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wcradio[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete all. Ruslik_Zero 09:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result of an AfD which closed as merge, yet the relevant information was removed from the target article as it is irrelevant to the primary topic. In its current form it is a misleading redirect, and there is no suitable target. Taelus (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old Town, Stormwind City[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 09:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A specific part of a specific city in the game World of Warcraft. Consensus was to remove long intricate geographical detail from the series article, and such information was never included on the game article. Not mentioned in redirect target, no suitable target on Wikipedia currently, thus it is a potentially confusing redirect for users. Taelus (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Saurfang[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 09:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in redirect target, a list of characters was previously deleted with the consensus that many were not notable.

No prejudice to retargeting to a new character list, or turning into an article, as after all consensus can change, however as a redirect it currently lacks function. Taelus (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Epic mount[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 09:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially ambiguous term for multiple games, and I don't think there is a suitable redirect target as it is a very minor topic which would not be discussed on Wikipedia due to our notability policies.

No prejudice against converting to a disambiguation page, or retargeting if there are any notable uses elsewhere of the term. Taelus (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

World of Warcraft items and equipment[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 09:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific, target contains no information relevant to this, and we won't ever hold information on the topic on Wikipedia due to the fact it would just be a very very long list of trivia and indiscriminate information. No suitable target, misleading in its current state. Taelus (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I created this redirect after an AfD (many years ago) deleted an article with this exact name. There may be references or links to the deleted article from outside Wikipedia, or a former contributor to the deleted article may search for it at its old name. Redirects are cheap, so this one should be kept for the convenience of such parties. Also, the presence of a redirect serves as a suggestion to any newbies who might try to revive the deleted article at its old name. Xoloz (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A fair point, but I personally think that it is misinformative with its title, and that keeping a redirect to avoid page creation is fruitless as we have page protection for that. --Taelus (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With newbies, a redirect can often seem less harsh than page protection. Besides, protecting a page from creation should only be done where evidence of persistent unwarranted recreation exists. Redirecting is a "softer" way of keeping newbies from creating silly articles (if for no other reason than because newbies often don't know how to edit a redirect!) As to your other point, I don't see how the title is misleading, given that the title has actually been used by several editors in the past. If you believe there is a better target for the redirect than the World of Warcraft main article, then please do change the target. I have no knowledge of Warcraft, so there may well be a more precise target article somewhere else in WP. Xoloz (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Frost Shock[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 09:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable spell from game World of Warcraft, which will not be documented on Wikipedia due to our notability policy. No suitable target, and is misleading in its current state. Taelus (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lakeshire[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 Retarget to Lakeshire, Missouri. (Non-admin closure) --Taelus (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable location in the game World of Warcraft. We would not hold information on this topic due to the notability policy, thus there is nowhere to redirect this page to without it being misleading and potentially confusing. Taelus (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This redirect originally targetted Lakeshire, Missouri, but the target was changed several times to World of Warcraft, thus can this not be closed early (unless snow) as it would be beneficial to gain full consensus on the target. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change redirect to the Missouri town - A real life town should take precedent over something in WoW. And I say this as a former WoW player and a frequent editor of the World of Warcraft article. -- Atama頭 17:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:PLAXICO[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is un-necessary given the search-box's facility to find pages regardless of capitalisation. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 19:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Look at this. Every single one of those would become a redlink if this redirect were deleted. That's the reason why I created the redirect in the first place, and people have continued to link to the essay with capital letters since I created the redirect; in fact, more people link to the version with capital letters than the "correct" version (see here). See WP:R#KEEP, where one of the reasons for keeping a redirect is to "aid accidental linking". -- Atama頭 19:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this certainly isn't doing any harm, and Atama makes a good case for why it serves a useful purpose. Scog (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reasonable redirect to essay. There's no reason we shouldn't include unambiguous redirects like this. Jclemens (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects for variant capitalizations aid wiki-linking among articles. The improvement of the search function is no reason to delete these sorts of redirects. Xoloz (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no compelling reuse for that redirect, and WP:ALLCAPS shortcuts are customary for widely-cited essays, which is the case here. Actually, having to remember to spell this in Titlecase would be a hindrance because it would be a departure from the usual practice. 85.204.164.26 (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as necessary for the force-of-habit of folks linking to WP:CAPS versions of alphabet soup. –xenotalk 23:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

USS Lawrence (1812)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 09:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete, removed all links to this redirect and replaced with links to USS Lawrence (1813) Bonewah (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_14&oldid=1146692527"