Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 2, 2010

Phocid Dynasty[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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per relevant CfD. The term is virtually non-existent in its original sense, and "dynasty" can hardly be used for seals. Constantine ✍ 21:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Don Sanderson[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 by nominator. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not mentioned in the target article. Sumbuddi (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have retargeted, not sure how to fix the link at target though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumbuddi (talk • contribs) 21:26, 2 October 2010
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tomato that lost an argument[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) 17:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??? M4gnum0n (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #5—Chris!c/t 18:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but criterion 8 not 5 which is not applicable. This is a colloquial term for Ketchup that is used from time to time. However, the stats show effectively no usage as a search term and there are virtually no Ghits so it is sufficiently obscure to meet 8. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Intrawar[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 Deleted. No longer mentioned at target & removal has not been disputed at target so redirect as it currently stands isn't helpful. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted because intrawar and interwar are antonyms (intrawar meaning "within" one war and interwar meaning "between" multiple wars). This does not appear to be a common error. Furthermore, this redirect was already deleted once for this very reason, as an admin with access to the logs could attest; this redirect was recently recreated on 26 September by User:John J. Bulten, the previous creator. Intrawar links to no articles, so it is not a redirect any editor is using in article space. If further information is needed to delete, consider that there has been an ongoing dispute at Gadsby: Champion of Youth to remove the letter "e" from the article, and this redirect was originally made to avoid using the letter "e", despite the blantant incorrectness of changing the prefix. Phoenixrod (talk) 05:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, "intrawar" may point to its antonym, if fitting. I am of opinion that all dictionary words should link to topics (if not to Wiktionary). Also, this is a rampant confusability, in that "intrawar" is a typo for its antonym an awful lot, so it's a good link if thought of as "from a typo" also. A prior draft of this topic did rightly talk about this confusability. Allusion to my original motivations for this link is also wrong: I did not at any point say or imply that "intrawar" was a synonym and not an antonym; that was an assumption by a third contributor that my good man Phoínixrod is carrying on. In short, this is a wholly valid link (both as common typo and as valid subtopic) and is only on this board as a casualty of a faraway lipogram discussion. JJB 11:43, 2 Oct 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. But John J. Bulten, none of your changes of "intrawar" and even "intra-war" to "interwar", few in number as they were, involved the redirect in question, intrawar; fixing unlinkedtypos and mistakes is irrelevant to whether this redirect is useful. My point stands that this redirect is not in use in any article on Wikipedia, so I simply don't see why it was recreated, and there is certainly a high likelihood of misleading and confusing readers by redirecting to an antonym. Reason #2 for deleting redirects is "The redirect might cause confusion"; that is the case here in redirecting a term not in use to its antonym.
Since the redirect was previously deleted for the reasons I have brought up, and it was recreated by the same editor both times, let me ask: what, if anything, has changed since the previous deletion? Nothing, as far as I can see. And as an aside, John J. Bulten, please drop the lipogram charade here and use the letter e where it is warranted, as in my username. -Phoenixrod (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[1] JJB 00:36, 10 Oct 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy close - this is a collateral of an edit dispute on Interwar period. The future of the redirect cannot be determined until the edit dispute is resolved. Redirecting a term to its antonym is Ok, but only Ok, if its meaning is explained in the target. This was the case until the relevant material was removed by the nominator here. If that material stays then the redirect should stay; if it goes then the redirect should go. Deleting the redirect now, on the basis that the definition has been removed, is pointless since the material might return tomorrow justifying the redirect. The way forward is to close this RFD, copy the discussion to Talk:Interwar period and await the resolution of the edit material. If the talk page consensus is that the definition stays out then the redirect can return to RFD. I would add, in passing, that intrawar (or intra-war) is a respectable term on which we should have something. See here, for example. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm good with this, and it's our only nonpartisan contribution. JJB 00:36, 10 Oct 2010 (UTC)
      • Please assume good faith. Being "partisan" doesn't enter into the matter. -Phoenixrod (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki - I almost agree with Bridgeplayer, but I don't think the decision should come after a long drawn-out and nigh-forgotten discussion. I think we should decide if this is an article that has some merit or simply a term that needs to be transwikied for sake of a definition. Is there something about this term that we need to explain or expound on? Is the term itself notable enough for an article? If all we're talking about is the expounding of a word definition then I say just transwiki and cut the crap. As for redirecting to it's antonym with no relation or explanation - absolutely not. JJB has shown his hand by continuing the lipogram here that he has become enamored with. He is capable of using the letter 'e' when it fits his need.[2][3] So his insistence to continue the annoying habit in the context of this discussion is, to me at least, an indicator of his intentions. Padillah (talk) 12:27, 4 October 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_October_2&oldid=1141906630"