Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 17, 2010

Brace expansion[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 with no prejudice against recreation as an article or disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget or delete. The existing redirect is clearly wrong because Bash is a disambiguation page; the section intended actually exists on Bash (Unix shell). However, retargeting it to that article may not be appropriate because the "brace expansion" syntax actually originated in csh, not bash, and is discussed (briefly, and without using that exact term) in the C shell article. If the topic does not justify its own article, deletion may be an acceptable alternative, as there are no incoming links and the "search" box will help readers identify relevant articles. R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I can't see one target article that's unambiguously what people would be looking for. I'd suggest that the search engine results page is probably going to be more useful, though a disambiguation page or indeed a full could also be helpful if someone more knowledgeable about this topic cares to create one. Until that time it's probably better as a redlink. ~ mazca talk 21:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Superfluous redirects to narcissism[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 various, see below. Some need to be treated differently than others; the rationales suggested by B.Wind below saw general support. ~ mazca talk 21:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are all superfluous redirects to Narcissism which include eccentric mispellings, unlikely forms of the word "narcissism" and non-standard capitalisations. Narzisstisch is just German for narcissist. Some of these redirects have significant past usage. I think that is entirely because there were a few Wikilinks to them (mainly from userspace) which i have now tidied up to go straight to narcissism or via an alternative existing redirect.--Penbat (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Save some, kill some. Note that redundancy is not appropriate grounds for deletion of a redirect (per WP:RFD#KEEP); however, some of these (a few of them at least five years old) should be removed as improbable search items as previously pointing toward long-deleted articles:

B.Wind (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gender narcissism and Acquired situational narcissism already exist as correctly set up redirects and will remain. i dont see anywhere else in Wikipedia that caters for incorrect use of initial caps and there is no reason to single these out.
Comment Narcissistically, and Narcissistical are unlikely grammatical forms not mispellings as per Narcissisms.--Penbat (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grammatical forms are expressly mentioned in WP:RFD#KEEP - I just didn't want to split any more hairs than I had already done; in the first case, {{R from alternative capitalization}} covers such variants. B.Wind (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Idemo Dalje[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. Unnecessarily confusing, certainly does not apply exclusively to the target. ~ mazca talk 08:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just proposed title of the album which was latter released under the title "Balkansko a naše". This album is nowhere called "Idemo Dalje", so it makes confusion because there are other albums called "Idemo Dalje", for example 1995 album by Baja Mali Knindža. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional keep - if the name can be documented to be a proposed/original title of the album, it can be incorporated into the article and make this a valid redirect (side note: target is a mess that was initially tagged for cleanup - I did some, but much more needs to be done - since 2008). If no such citation can be made, this should be deleted. Should the article for the Baja Mali Knindža album be written and posted, then the redirect can be retargeted to it (with a hatnote to the current target). B.Wind (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to delete as this title should be preserved for Idemo Dalje, a 1982 motion picture starring Dragan Nikolic.[1][2] B.Wind (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]

Wikipedia:RELISTINGISEVIL[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 no consensus to delete. The general attitude in this discussion seems to hold that this redirect could indeed be unnecessarily confrontational - but that is generally a usage issue. Plenty of examples of other WP redirects that are more controversial and opinionated than their targets have been provided - ultimately there's no consensus this is really harmful, and it is reasonably memorable. ~ mazca talk 22:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Our NPOV policy does not explicitly apply to redirects, however in this particular case it probably should. The redirect "WP:RELISTINGISEVIL" clearly pushes an agenda in an unconscionable way, and obviously re-listing an article for consensus on deletion is a far, far cry from "evil". It should further be noted that this is sole WP redirect for this subject. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm... I'd say not a particularly appropriate redirect to a topic that is "Relisting can be abusive". This redirect's title is actually rather different by simply stating "Relisting is evil", and thus is potentially more harm than good in some situations. After all, some users may not read the page, simply taking the title as fact and guessing that the page just says the same thing but expanded. Whilst I am unsure about the NPOV point here, I can see it is potentially "POINTy", but my main concern is that it isn't something we want people to just slap into XfDs after a relist assuming that we don't like relisting at all, thus probably best to delete it as a potentially misleading and confusing redirect. --Taelus (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I must point out that this is shown to be a short cut on the target page, and the WP:RELISTINGISEVIL appears to me that deletion would no have affect whether or not the short cut is actually posted in XfDs (like WP:SOFIXIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ALLORNOTHING, WP:SLOBBERINGFANBOY, or WP:USEITORLOSEIT) as the abbreviation itself contains the message, rather than any potential target. WP:NPOV does not apply to redirects (per WP:RFD#Neutrality of redirects), but I'm not too sure if WP:RFD#DELETE would apply here. In the long run, it doesn't matter. B.Wind (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • bow to consensus what does that mean? It means that I'm the editor who created it in the first place, and now that I look at it I probably would have done it differently. I think the essay itself has something to offer, but "yeah" a better redirect tag could be created. Whatever you guys come up with is fine by me!--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is no worse than the common Wiki mantra WP:VOTINGISEVIL. I don't see any reason to delete. –Grondemar 00:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Lmo.wikipedia.org[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 retargeted to List of Wikipedias (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lombard Wikipedia —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I made the redirect, I intended to make it easier to find Lombard Wikipedia, because if someone directly typed the URL of lmo.wikipedia.org, he wouldn't understand what is the language of this Wikipedia. If admins here really find a problem with this redirect, then OK, delete it. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Wikipedias, in the same way as the current target (basically, fix the double-redirect). Makes the most sense, IMO, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Lord Spongefrog. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

B-Rock "The Islamic Shock" Hussein Superallah Obama[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 deleted per WP:CSD#G10 by User:Nyttend. Non-admin closure. –Grondemar 03:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is just insane and downright insulting. I've never heard this used to describe the president except in a very limited number of extremist blogs/forums. It seemed to be used for one day as a joke, and since has had very little activity. AP1787 (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as an attack page. Tagged as such. B.Wind (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Hoka hey[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 Hoka Hey Motorcycle Challenge --Taelus (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While this is a Lakota phrase, I didn't see it specifically in the article, and it may make more sense to redirect it to the upcoming event Hoka Hey Motorcycle Challenge. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:01, 17 March 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_March_17&oldid=1141906691"