Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 9, 2010

Template:Pop density km2 to sq mi[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. — ξxplicit 01:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unused redirect to a redundant template JIMp talk·cont 19:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unused template redirect. Rehman 12:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unused, no need. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 16:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't care. I think that I created this years ago to reflect the proper abbreviation for square mile (sq mi). Don't have any strong feelings either way. —MJCdetroit (yak) 02:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedian in Residence[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. — ξxplicit 01:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly inappropriate cross-namespace redirect ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 17:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. This should be deleted, and I am the resident that this link is about. 02:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Witty lama (talk • contribs)
    But no longer the only WIR! Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-08/News_and_notes. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, for now. Once the article has a bit more content (and updates) and a few more reliable sources, it could potentially be moved back to mainspace. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a leftover redirect following the move of the target to project space. I have to say that there should be a place for the target in main space, possibly as a section in Artist in residence. Note: if/when this redirect is deleted then the 'See also' in Artist in residence needs fixing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism; Impermissible cross-namespace redirect. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I got here from the link on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-11-08/News and notes, and wanted to vote to restore it as a main space article, but currently the subject does not meet WP:N, a search for references found no published (gBooks) hits and only two news articles. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Poltergeist IV: In The Shadows[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. — ξxplicit 01:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nom; this redirect was originally listed at AfD. This movie doesn't even appear to be in the making; the only source I can really find is this, which isn't exactly reliable. Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the target doesn't exist as yet and there is no reliable information on this film being made. It should be deleted as confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Delete not mentioned in the target article and unlikely to be added soon. --NYKevin @986, i.e. 22:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Border country[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 Kept and hat note added. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content here was merged into Anglo-Scottish border, thus page history can't be deleted. However, this shouldn't redirect there - Border Country (novel) would make more sense, or perhaps to Border (disambiguation) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep with a hatnote for the novel added to the target. This is the only usage that I am aware of. This is a historical term and the redirect is just fine. Over 1,000 hits each month. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment how many of those hits actually want the Anglo-Scottish border though? 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or disambiguate Hits don't indicate that the redirect is going to the right place, they just indicate that people are looking for something called "border country". --NYKevin @965, i.e. 22:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - indeed not but since this is a historic, well used term it is reasonable to assume that people are looking for the target or, if not that, the novel. Adding a hatnote to the target seems to cover all bases. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move edit history to Scottish-English border, and then disambiguate since the Anglo-Scottish border is definitely not what everyone would be expecting, especially with all the stuff going on on the border country of the US-Mexican border. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (1st choice) with a hatnote for the novel at Anglo-Scottish border, per Bridgeplayer, or move the page history to Scottish-English border and then disambiguate (2nd choice) per 76.66.203.138, but do not retarget. More people appear to be searching for the border (c. 4,100 hits, not counting the c. 1,150 hits to the redirect) as opposed to the novel (c. 230 hits). -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

High Achievers[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Implausible alone isn't enough. However, this wasn't merged anywhere, there is no connection between the name and the High School it redirects to. The redirects creation was borderline vandalism. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "High Achievers" is the motto of the school. Please see this PDF from the school a few years ago. TubularWorld (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - there are several usages. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, or delete. Rehman 12:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disambiguation would properly be high achiever, note. What are you suggesting are the ambiguities? Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:German plant[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 most Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: Per this discussion. Deletion is uncontroversial; I forgot to mention these at the linked RFD page. Rehman 07:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all except Template:Infobox power plant. As in American English "power plant" is a common form instead of "power station" this redirect would be useful while looking for the template. Beagel (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But its doc page can be deleted without any issues, right? Rehman 00:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no need for the obsolete documentation subpage. Beagel (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that redirects are cheap; I am not attempting to save the server disk space or anything. Its just that these links keep showing up in search results and are misleading to people who are new. Yes, some these were orphaned in the past 24hrs, but what's wrong with turning a page from pointing to a redirect, to pointing to the actual article?

All of the links above are now free from mainspace links, and we do not need such redirects as these are not articles; people do not frequently search for it, and if they do, we need to have clear search results. Things like Template:Infobox Power Station with caps will automatically be redirected (without a redirect page) to the actual article by MediaWiki. Rehman 01:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These were all very recently orphaned, and as I said, removing the redirects would break my ability to view old versions of the articles. As you are well aware, I am the one who ran a bot to assist with this orphaning. It is much more difficult for me to check my edits for errors if I am unable to view old versions of the articles. I'm not suggesting that this feature needs to be kept forever, but at least a month or two seems like a reasonable request, which will give me enough time to sort out any problems. As a second argument, if you consider the capitalisation variations in the article titles for power stations, allowing for alternative capitalisation seems like a reasonable request. The search for the alternative capitalisation redirects, but the usage does not, so deleting the caps variant will break transclusions in older versions of the articles. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find it quite nasty of you to recreate the deleted redirects after the community deleted it a few weeks ago. You could have at least discussed it first. If you are simply asking to delay the deletions of the redirects you mentioned above, thats perfectly ok. Is that what you're asking? Rehman 02:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I am asking for. The RFD that deleted the other redirects had no discussion other than the nominator. I suppose I could take those to DRV, but considering that I was going to re-delete them in a couple weeks, I didn't think it was necessary. The CSD/RFD tags break these transclusions, so I am basically waiting to review my bot's edits until these tags are removed. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Alright then. I will temporary withdraw deletion now until you are ready. And once you are done, lets delete the above along with the previous nuclear bulk. If you find it uncontroversial, you may delete the talkpages and doc pages above. Kind regards. Rehman 03:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. In fact, I will be happy to delete the bulk redirects as well in a couple weeks, as I appear to be the only one voicing any objections. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, Unused and histroy-less redirects. Simple caption redirects are automatically dealt with by MediaWiki. 119.235.2.174 (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What? They are not all history-less. They are almost all the result of a merger of multiple templates. The capitalisation variation is the result the template being moved. The caps version was the original version before the move. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, all tranclusions replaced. Rehman 11:39, 27 November 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_November_9&oldid=1150995051"