Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 31, 2010

Spill, baby, spill[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 --Taelus (Talk) 09:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A word play on "Drill, baby, drill" (which may be a more plausible target if a removal is declined) with marginal relation to the oil spill itself. I proposed this redirect for speedy deletion as a misnomer, but the request was rejected. Don Cuan (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deepwater Horizon oil spill should have a section under Deepwater Horizon oil spill#Consequences entitled "Political consequences". "Spill, baby, spill" should then redirect to that subsection, with a link to "Drill, baby, drill". There were/are several political consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, such as a number of top ranking politicians backing away from their previous support of "Drill, baby, drill". Facts707 (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If such a section is created and if it provides a context to the "Spill, baby, spill" slogan, I'd be perfectly fine with keeping the redirect. However, such a section already exists in the article on the original slogan, at Drill, baby, drill#Aftermath of the BP oil spill, so that still looks like a more viable target. If the redirect is to be kept. --Don Cuan (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this has become a meme, see here, which has been picked up by the mainstream media. I agree with Facts707's excellent suggestion as how to handle this but deletion certainly isn't the way to go. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep that phrase is associated with this spill, not "drill, baby, drill". 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tropical plants[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, no consensus on an entirely accurate retarget, however there is consensus that this should become an article, thus a red link would encourage creation. --Taelus (Talk) 09:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was tagged by 78.145.218.108 the other day, but not listed here so listing it for them. IP's rationale in the edit summary was When looking for information on tropical plants, "introduced species" is a rather odd and unhelpful destination. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Introduced species is the wrong target. I looked for an alternate target, but did not find an appropriate one. This would be better off being a red link indicating an article is needed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Tropical garden as a sensible target. I agree that the present target is badly chosen but taking the page to WP:RA, as I have just done, is a better way of getting a page than leaving a red link. Whatever we do, should also apply to Tropical plant. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete tropical plants are not necessarily introduced, they could be native, to say, the tropics. And tropical gardens have nothing to do with native populations of tropical plants in tropical areas. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Floristic region as useful information when querying an overbroad category spanning multiple ecosystems. Otherwise Delete as misleading: every species is native somewhere (or so highly domesticated as to be a non-natural life form). ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought about the retarget options above, but it seems we don't really have an article which is the perfect target for this search term; perhaps making it into a red link will encourage someone to write one. Robofish (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Peacock words[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 Puffery, thus it becomes mainspace to mainspace. --Taelus (Talk) 09:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:R#DELETE, this is a cross-namespace redirect from mainspace into Project-space ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 13:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could have non-Wikipedia usage, so delete after retargeting the links. —Кузьма討論 21:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after retarget. FinalRapture - † ☪ 15:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Puffery, where it is mentioned, and it is a viable search term. The many incoming links do need to be fixed, first, to point to the present target. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Puffery and put a hatnote in the article pointing to WP:MOS (peacock words redirect here, for the wiki manual of style...). That way, we avoid the cross-namespace redirect while retaining the function of the redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Irish revolution[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 List of Irish uprisings. --Taelus (Talk) 09:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing this redirect for deletion as it a contentious POV neologism. An article on a so-called timeline of the Irish revolution was deleted for the same reasons after complaints, and the term Irish revolution itself is not used to describe the Irish War of Independance in any historical/academic sources or in popular culture. The term Irish revolution can refer to many periods throughout Irish history in terms of economics, politics etc. and should not be focused solely on one article which was not a revolution. Mabuska (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of Irish uprisings - redirects are not articles and are POV-neutral. However, I agree that there is some ambiguity in the term and this seems a more helpful target. This is, though, a well trafficed redirect, and deletion would not be a good way forward. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, i disagree that redirects can be POV-neutral as some can clearly not be - would a redirect called Islamic freedom-fighters that redirects to al-Qaeda be non-POV?. I still think it should be deleted as uprisings do not automatically equate to revolutions and binding the two words together is not a good precedent especially for Wikipedia with some of its "hard-line" editors. To link it to List of Irish uprisings is especially a worse precedent as it will give impetus to those who want to see all Irish uprisings termed subversively as revolutions and a redirect will legitimise it to some way for them. The issue is very sensitive for several editors and Wikipedia is meant to support neutrality. I still recommend deletion. Mabuska (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Revolution - a compromise proposal if its believed the redirect shouldn't be deleted. Mabuska (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - that would be a particularly poor retarget since there is nothing relevant on that page. Redirects are simply a means by which readers can find information that they are seeking; they do not legitimise any point of view. In any case, this is a perfectly respectable term see here for example. POV considerations do not apply to redirects; for example, we have recently kept Gaza Holocaust redirecting to Gaza War. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well it would take people to a target that is actually about revolutions so its more relevant. But what about its ambiguity? Yet if you insist what else can be done. Mabuska (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Irish uprisings per Bridgeplayer. I agree that the current redirect is POV, but more importantly it is potentially ambiguous - there are many events in Irish history that could be (and have been) referred to as revolutions. Robofish (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

No Strings Attached (NSA)[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 Delete, R3. Lenticel (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible search term—why include the abbreviation? (Target article has a bad title as well, and contains no appreciable content. Real subject is covered at casual sex.) TheFeds 03:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural keep - redirects, with a history, created after page moves cannot be deleted for GFDL reasons are considered to have useful page history. However, if the target, which has been prodded, gets deleted, then this can then be speedied. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid that's incorrect for recent (after 2007?) page moves. However, I have no comment as to whether the redirect should be kept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for drawing my attention to this; now corrected. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:52, 3 June 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_31&oldid=1146511123"