Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 4, 2010

Template:Major Indoor Soccer League[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 Keep following Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 26 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template should be deleted because it's a former soccer league and it's not used anymore since it's been put up for deletion. Wayne Olajuwon (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Scott right now cain you very much[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 Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect (created in 2006 so not eligible for speedy) Gobonobo T C 22:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Wookieepedia box[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  Relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 14. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggests that the template is a box, whereas it actually is an external link, thus misleading. Unused, so deletion should be unproblematic. The Evil IP address (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - contains a significant page history so should be kept per WP:RFD#KEEP. Better to take this to TFD for a decision on the underlying page rather than deleting it by proxy. Though it is admittedly only used on a handful of pages, it is not unused as stated in the nomination and deletion would produce red links. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We could still move it to a talk page subpage, but it should definitely not remain under this title since it confuses. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move (without redirect) to an appropriate page, probably a subpage of the talk page of the target. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Arthur Rubin's most helpful suggestion deals with the history. However, we are still left with two issues. Firstly, this was kept at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 31. Deleting a template by proxy by deleting a redirect remains a poor option, particularly where it has been kept at XFD; secondly, deletion is going to leave a bundle of red links. I accept that the title is potentially misleading but since it will not be added to future pages that is not a practical issue. In my view, the correct course of action is to return the underlying template to TFD. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Third holiest site in Islam Controversy[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 Keep first and third, Delete second ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely unlikely search terms. These are left over from an age-old move war, and would seem to serve no purpose now. *** Crotalus *** 20:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all - The nomination does not cite any of the guideline grounds for deletion. Where we have long-standing redirects, such as these, which appear in the mirrors, we need a good reason to delete them, rather than a good reason to keep them. The redirects are harmless and though they collectively only attract a trickle of hits, the occasional person has found them useful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the third, which is sufficient to direct anyone searching for it. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first and third, delete the second. Third holiest site in Islam already redirects to the same target, and we don't need "The expression 'X'" when we already have "X"  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first and third, delete the second. The second isn't a plausible search term; I'm not sure the third is either, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Robofish (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Southampton Docks[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 Speedy retarget to Port of Southampton. This is an uncontroversial retarget. The reason for the original target was that the page, then a sub-stub, was redirected 12 months before the creation of the Port of Southampton page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget from Southampton to Port of Southampton as it makes more sense to send users to the article about the subject. Wintonian (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Serbian War against Bosnian Muslims[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 Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was not Serbian war against Bosnian Muslims only. It is very POV to write this way about this subject. Tadijaspeaks 17:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - redirects are POV-neutral - see WP:RNEUTRAL. However, this is a possible search term; for example the BBC said "Some of these atrocities were perpetrated by Serbs against Bosnian Muslims." here, and decidedly partisan comments here and "Serb war leader Ratko Mladic ... a mutual war against Bosnian Muslims here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, I made the same mistake regarding redirect neutrality myself. If it's any consolation to the nominator, this does redirect to (what should be) an NPOV article, ensuring the topic is addressed in a neutral way, even if the search is not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's just a redirect. Agree with Shawn in Montreal. --Sulmues Let's talk 21:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this redirect 3 years ago based only on what was already reported by credible international sources (like the BBC) and the ICTY about the Milosevic x Izetbegovic conflict after the independence of Bosnia from Yugoslavia in 1992. But anyway, it’s just a simple redirect…--MaGioZal (talk)
  • Delete - the POV may not be an issue, but unless someone can show that this is a widely-used name for the war, I don't think this is a plausible search term. Robofish (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Peak fossil fuel[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 converted into a disambiguation by User:Bridgeplayer. Non-admin close. —  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could just as easily be a redirect to Peak coal. What action if any should be taken? My inclination was to delete it until such time as we have an article on all such peak fossil fuels, but I've been known to be wrong. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much better idea! And I hope you were driving in an electric vehicle powered by renewable energy. Shawn in Montreal (talk)
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_June_4&oldid=1148047889"