Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 21, 2010

Template:Unfinished[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. JohnCD (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel this is a good redirect, as it suggests that cleaned up articles are "finished", which is misleading. Furthermore, there are other templates that people would rather think of when hearing the word "Unfinished", e.g. {{Inuse}} or {{Underconstruction}}. Thus, this redirect should either be retargeted to a better template or deleted as misleading. It's only used once and it only existed as a real template for some hours in 2005, so deletion should be doable. The Evil IP address (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - redundant template; I have replaced the sole use with a more suitable tag. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to {{expand}} 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Hi, can you explain the benefit of the redirect, please? There are now no uses of the template and, if an editor wishes to tag future articles, they will use the ((expand)) template. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if an editor thinks an article is greatly unfinished, it would be the same as saying the article needs expansion, or atleast in my opinion. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But the term "Unfinished" could also refer to a {{Stub}} tag, which is unfinished too, or the {{Inuse}} and {{Underconstruction}}, where the article isn't finished either. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I agree that we should not associate finished/unfinished status with the state of an article, and I think deletion is a better option than renaming for that reason. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jack Conway (disambiguation)[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirects to a page that is a disambiguation itself. Gobonobo T C 15:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Texas indpendce[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure what the policy or precedent is here. This is not a CSE R3 (implausible typo}, as one certainly could imagine a user making this typo. And its not hurting anyone to have it sit here. On the other hand, where does this end? Should we also have "Texas Indapendence", "Texas Independance", "Texas Indapendance", "Texas Independenc", "Texas Indpendence", "Texas Indepenece", and on and on? And similar redirects for every article? That way lies madness, I think - and a maintenance nightmare. Herostratus (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a plausible redirect. Gobonobo T C 13:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary to what the current edit history suggests, this hasn't been created as redirect but was a copyvio article converted into a redirect. An Admin deleted it almost at the same time and then decided to restore the redirect. While this may have helped for a moment the newbie to find the correct article, no reason to keep it around now, so delete. No reason to fear the wiki breaks down because of stuff like this, though, as there isn't anything to maintain which isn't the same as tidying up..--Tikiwont (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am not seeing a good reason to keep. However, I have alerted the creating admin in case he has a differing view. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:BEBO[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. I will change incoming links to one of the shortcuts currently listed on the policy page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect doesn't seem to match up with the target page. It could also be confused as a shortcut to Wikipedia:Be bold, so perhaps it should be retargeted there. 95j (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to WP:Be bold. Airplaneman ✈ 03:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Maybe you guys know this, but Bebo is a reasonably popular social networking site. This redirect is along the same lines as WP:MYSPACE, and is being used on a few pages as a substitute. Maybe because it's shorter? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 12:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The redirect is not listed as one of the shortcuts to that section, nor is Bebo even mentioned there. There are very few links to the redirect, so they could all be easily replaced with another shortcut to the same target if it was modified. 95j (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Do we ever have disambiguation pages in project space? This might be a good place for one. --Zarel (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A full-fledged disambiguation page probably isn't necessary, but a hatnote that says something along the lines of, "Page A redirects here. You may be looking for Page B" might be helpful in this case. 95j (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is certainly ambiguous. I am not in favour of re-targeting short-cuts because that seeds confusion. The present target has no less than 10 other short-cuts which seems plenty! I think that a rationalisation of short-cuts is needed and we may as well start here! Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it's an unlikely search or linking term (Facebook or Myspace are widely known for this section) and it blocks other potentially better shortcuts. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Language families (Ethnologue)[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. JohnCD (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deletion as SPAM hgilbert (talk) 10:43, 21 May 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_May_21&oldid=1141906653"