Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 4
May 6 >

May 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 5, 2010

Template:Cleanup-link[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) 04:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and confusing. A dead link doesn't need cleanup. It needs fix. Magioladitis (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the link is to a reference then it needs fix in most cases. Anyway, cleanup refers to the article and not to the link. This is an inline template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Gap (clothing retailer[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) 23:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have such redirects for all disambiguated articles, so I don't see why we should for this one. Before today, only two articles linked to this redirect (strangely, one of them was Gap (clothing retailer)). Svick (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the redirect received 4566 hits for 2009[1], from memory it was created on a basis of traffic. Being a R from misspelling it shouldn't be linked by any articles at all. I don't know why it gets so many hits but needs to be kept because it is quite useful. XLerate (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in addition to the points made by XLerate, it is an established rd so deleting it will break links in mirrors. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's easy to forget the right parentheses and hit the return key instead. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because the traffic shows that it's plainly not an implausible redirect. Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Runescape Job Classes[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) 23:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly unlikely that somebody is going to search for "Runescape Job Classes," as there are no concrete job classes, plus just typing in "runescape" shows the article in the autosuggest anyway. Unionhawk Talk E-mail 18:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not mentioned in target article due to not existing in the actual game. --Taelus (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mostly per Taelus. The game doesn't have job classes, just different skills that players might train. Under that argument, a lot of redirects to RuneScape could go - just check the long list. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of astronomical objects[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) 04:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Astronomical object article provides a table of types of astronomical objects, whereas Lists of astronomical objects consists of lists of named objects. Thus the Astronomical object article is a closer match to the original intention of the redirect's name. I'm recommending changing the redirect to point to Astronomical object. RJH (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Most redirects of this sort on Wikipedia, point from "list" to "lists", I think that practice is a good idea, since it will direct you to various lists of the topic you are looking for, when that particular list has been broken up into multiple lists, or has that effect. Though, the article astronomical object does contain a list of types of astronomical objects... 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My concern there is that most of the "lists of lists" on wikipedia might not fall neatly into this arrangement where there is a list of defining terms. Lists of actors, for example, doesn't have a page defining each actor sub-type. So going by the majority arrangement isn't necessarily the best approach.—RJH (talk)
      • Well... a list of prominent astronomical objects could be created at List of astronomical objects, which would not redirect to the list of lists, which is how some of these cases occur on Wikipedia (not redirecting list to lists), and also works well, with prominent cases available. It would have one of those templates lying on it saying that the list will always be incomplete and size limited. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the nominator makes an interesting point. However, it is impossible to know which page a reader might be seeking. Both pages are clearly linked from the other and, without a good reason for change, my inclination is to leave things as they are. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Rule 72[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not called that by anyone. If there were a real "Rule 72", a hat note referring to the "rule of 72" might be appropriate, but a freestanding redirect is misleading. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Entirely plausible misnomer. Seeing there is, as you say, no real notable "rule 72", this redirect is cheap and painless. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A Google search finds "rule 72(t)" referring to US income tax, and "Rule 72" of the (US) Federal courts. Perhaps, though, a search from Google UK would find different rules. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also rule 72 as used on railways in the UK, particularly Rule 72(a), which states that "signalboxes must be kept strictly private, and signalmen must not allow any unauthorised person to enter". Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If we have articles on those, then dabify it, if not, then keep it as is, and tag with {{R with possibilities}} . 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are too many possible "Rule 72"s that can be found in law, sports, etc. In addition, redirecting this to Rule of 72, an article on a short cut method of estimating the doubling time for investments (also known as Rule of 70 and Rule of 69), would be misleading, to say the least. There is also a Rule of 78, a method of calculate unearned interest should an installment loan schedule be terminated by payment of a large lump sum. This is a case in which keeping a redirect actually would be harmful. B.Wind (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this seems a plausible mistype. Carrying out a search produces no other page in which Rule 72 is mentioned; however, if there are any then it can be simply converted to a DMB page. I don't see the harm; if the target is not what the reader is looking for then they will have to try other searching methods; and it could be helpful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be plausible, but it's misleading, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I just don't agree. It's not an article; it's a redirect which is just a way to help readers find pages that they want. The fact that there may not be a 'Rule 72' is irrelevant and is not misleading anyone about anything. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Delete - a Wikipedia search of "Rule 72" (in quotations) refer to a rule of civil procedure, a chapter of a Japanese manga, and an Internal Revenue Service rule regarding retirement. None of these mentions merit an entry in a dab page. Hockey has a "Rule 72" regarding fighting, but even in the two (or so) articles mentioning fighting in hockey, there is no mention of the rule number in either article. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Vaŝingtonio[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) 23:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not plausible search terms. R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Donald Cameron (Canadian parliamentarian)[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) 04:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete re-direct as its a very unlikely that anyone would ever use it redirect Þadius (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep—as he was a member of the Canadian Senate for over twenty year according to the article, it seems a likely enough search term to me. –Grondemar 16:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - long-standing redirect. Not a very likely search term but harmless and, since its here, could be useful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Concord Hotel, Kuala Lumpur[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 do not think the passing mention in Salman Ebrahim Mohamed Ali Al Khalifa justifies retargetting to that; a redirect there could be created if that article were expanded to include more about this, but as the subject has been released that does not seem likely. JohnCD (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mentioned nowhere in the target article and makes no real attempt to connect the hotel directly with any term in the target. B.Wind (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Salman Ebrahim Mohamed Ali Al Khalifa where it is mentioned a couple of times. Also, this is a well-established rd. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Target article is about a general phenomenon and some other general terms may be appropriate redirects, but single guest hosues would not. That is a general objection independent of references on the claim / suspicion. We just should not have in such a case form the single item to a a general topic where it isn't even mentioned. The redirect should not serve as shortcut to the valid editorial solution namely stating and sourcing at the article about the detainee where he stayed and what that may have to do with his detainment and where necessary link directly to the article on the general topic. Nor should it be redirected to the BLP itself just because it is mentioned there. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - plainly the present target is inappropriate. However, this is a long-standing redirect and should be deleted only if there is no viable alternative. I see no arguments against the retarget. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it is a long standing link from Salman Ebrahim Mohamed Ali Al Khalifa itself to provide background, but that can be done directly. As there is no edit history to conserve, this is by itself not a reason to find an alternative target unless we're convinced to the same extent that we would create a redirect from an hotel to a biography that quote the assertion that it is an Al-Qaeda safe house. I am not, but the closing admin may want to leave recreation at editorial discretion
  • Delete The mention at SEMAAK is fleeting, and in a perfect world would be given even less prominence. This is a poorly formatted redirect that doesn't fit in with our naming conventions, so I really don't see a reason for it to be around. It's not being used, as I think it's safe to assume that most of the page views from this month are due to this RfD. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The other guy from Wham[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. — ξxplicit 02:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found this while looking around for Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 April 26#The Other Guy. Amusing, perhaps, but definitely not productive. Had some activity from March 27 to April 4th, but nothing before or after. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:01, 5 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_5&oldid=1091465304"