Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 19, 2010

Talk:Constipation/Archive 2[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 as G7. NAC. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to fix archive numbering. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for CSD G7. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:RSMED[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 (after 23 days). JamesBWatson (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The medical RS guideline is universally known as WP:MEDRS and that shortcut widely used explicitly rather than as a piped link with longer text. This new shortcut has not been used to any degree and wasn't even advertised as a shortcut on the guideline page until recently. The extra shortcut will only cause confusion when people see this new abbreviation on talk pages. Colin°Talk 15:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is absurd to have a confusing shorcut. It is not RS. It is MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no harm in having both redirects and I think that this alternative should also be listed as an alternative redirect on the guideline. Many policies, guidelines and even essays have more than one redirect. I don't think it will confuse editors, as it hasn't done for other pages with more than one redirect. The new redirect is also more accurate based on the page name change which occurred recently.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this shortcut reflets the new title of the project page more accurate and there is no harm of having two shortcuts. Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in principle, it is down to the editors of the project page to decide what redirects they need, and Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) is really the place to decide on this. Many pages have multiple redirects so that isn't an issue. Not confusing with other targets. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I guess. It's WP:HARMLESS in itself, but the page is widely known by the other short cut, and I'm concerned about the potential for confusion (e.g., editors saying, "MEDRS says we should always..." and another "Then MEDRS conflicts with RSMED, which says we may not..." -- when they're all talking about the same page). This sort of confusion has happened with other guidelines, although the problem is (much) greater with shortcuts to specific sections (e.g., WP:SPS vs WP:V or WP:EL vs WP:YOUTUBE). Also, the page (long name) has been moved twice this year with zero efforts at discussion and I suspect more silent grumbling than merely my own, so making it 'reflect the new title of the project page' is probably a bad idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The WP:MEDRS shortcut is widely understood and used as an abbreviation in discussions. To have RSMED will cause confusion, I fully agree with WhatamIdoing's comments above, including those about undiscussed page moving. Graham Colm (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I often can't remember when seeking to recall a template either the exact name or the "shortcut", and have to try to find it using the search function. I would think that our dyslectic brethren would be assisted by this simple reversal of the two concepts. I am frankly surprised that people would find it confusing to have more than one shortcut. Certainly we have many examples of that. Keep both, use the one you remember. --Bejnar (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We want people to refer to MEDRS as MEDRS and not all possible permutations of those letters. If one forgets the way to spell it, you'll see a redlink on preview and fix it. If we keep this shortcut, and one uses this backward-form, the reaction will be a "wtf is that guideline". It will actually lead to people not knowing how MEDRS is written. Colin°Talk 19:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you really think, that the editors are dumb. I mean, if i don't know what a shortcut means, then i click on it and see for myself. If you don't do this, than you could also say that: V conflicts with RS. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why are you trying to produce a situation where someone doesn't know what a shortcut means? Why make life hard? Why do we have to go to all this grief to remove something that nobody uses and nobody wants. There is no demand for RSMED. But you seem determined (and are prepared to revert-war) to advertise this incorrect version of MEDRS simply because the shortcut exists. I can understand hassle if I was trying to delete an article someone had spent time on, but this is just a bloody shortcut that nobody uses and nobody wants. *sigh*. Colin°Talk 17:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Coord/d[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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, useless editprotected redirects, please take a look here. Basilicofresco (msg) 15:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, these aren't useless, they save typing. For that matter, why does the standard template require the six extra characters to type "/input"? D O N D E  groovily Talk to me 13:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are orphans, thus they are not saving anything. Moreover they are not meant to be used directly. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 19:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Several years ago these might've served a purpose, but the templates in question got renamed and these redirects are no longer used for anything.--Stepheng3 (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These are no longer necessary now that the templates have been renamed. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Conduit (metaphysics)[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. Lenticel (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term "metaphysics" should be reserved for legitimate academic philosophy, not abused and co-oped by esoterism, and spirituality. Greg Bard (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It bothers me that someone would move the article and nominate the redirect for deletion without addressing the 50+ incoming links to the title from which the article was moved. In any event, keep the redirect. Unless there is likely to be a separate and unrelated article on a conduit as a concept in metaphysics, the current scheme is just fine. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
You know I can't be responsible for the fact that someone plastered a bunch of links to this new article with a dubious title. However as a gesture of good will, and since I use AWB, I will change those links after the result of this discussion. Greg Bard (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so dubious. The article on Metaphysics has an entire section that claims "Religion and spirituality" as subsets of the study of metaphysics. bd2412 T 16:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
That content should be refactored to some other article then. WP is not the final authority for what is and is not appropriate in other parts of WP.Greg Bard (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on that, but I have fixed all the links, so there is no obstacle to deleting the redirect. bd2412 T 22:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • delete. Agree with the Bard, provided the links, even if recently added, are changed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Gregbard is correct: this is an inappropriate name. I'm not convinced that the present location of the article is good, but at least it's better than (metaphysics). CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - to forestall the misguided creation of any new links. --Bejnar (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of tropical cyclones that affected the U.S. state of Delaware[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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Implausible redirects Rehman(+) 13:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC) -- Rehman(+) 12:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all - being an 'Implausible redirect' is not a ground for deletion of long-standing redirects. Because deleting such redirect can break internal links within external sites, deletion requires some indication of harm. Here, they are all harmless. In addition, they have possible use - someone typing 'List of tropical cyclones' will be offered these redirects as options. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Implausible redirects come under WP:RFD#DELETE criterion 8, and in this case the redirects are very implausible (especially List of hurricanes (alphabetical)...) OK, they aren't particularly harmful, but they don't do any good either. Sideways713 (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - List of hurricanes (alphabetical) is rather doubtful, I agree. The others do not meet criterion 8 as not recently created, and may be useful. Also note WP:RFD#Keep criterion 5: "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Criterion 8 doesn't specify anything about time of creation as far as I can see, outside implausible typos and misnomers being potential candidates for a speedy. Anyway, I can't see any reason why the problem of breaking historical or external links would hit criterion 8 extra-hard. Sideways713 (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Criterion 8 states "Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created." Other than that being an implausible typo is not grounds for deletion. Wikipedia has a constructive partnership with the mirrors, and we don't lightly break their internal links particularly, as here, when there is no good reason for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where does it say that not being a candidate for speedy deletion disqualifies you from being a candidate for deletion at all? Anyhow, these aren't implausible typos, but rather "novel or very obscure synonyms for an article name", which the sentence you quoted doesn't touch at all. If only recently created implausible typos or misnomers can be deleted, what's the point of even mentioning that "a novel or very obscure synonym [...] is unlikely to be useful"? Sideways713 (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—harmless, long-standing redirects. –Grondemar 05:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - they're not even all that implausible. These redirects are virtually costless, let's just keep them. user:Agradman, logged out. 160.39.220.172 (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

How to create spaghetti[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. The two editors suggesting retargetting have not made a plausible case for this wording to be a likely search term. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Totally irrelevant to Wikipedia. Rehman(+) 12:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but refine the target to Spaghetti#Preparation. Former article that has been redirected. Seems a perfectly plausible search term and since we have something to offer readers why not help to make it easily accessible? Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to a sub-heading is generally a bad idea. Sub-headings, unlike page names, provide no notice or redirects when changed. D O N D E  groovily Talk to me 13:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Generally I am in favor of useful redirects, and if we were a recipe wiki, I might go for a bot that could parse "how to" questions, but this redirect is not for an encyclopidia. I would be in favor of a subroutine that truncated all "how to" queries and sent them to an essay on basic search technique. --Bejnar (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Spaghetti#Preparation as suggested by Bridgeplayer above. This logically would be what the person who typed in this phrase would be searching for. I don't think a redirect from a "how to" is necessarily unencyclopedic, and either way "unencyclopedic" isn't a redirect deletion reason. It's plausible-enough that someone would type the phrase above, and it is far more useful and customer-friendly to direct the reader to what they are looking for (the whole reason for redirects) rather than lecture them on how "they're doing it wrong". –Grondemar 05:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Untitled Rush album[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. Jafeluv (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect's purpose has long been served and essentially useless. "Untitled Rush album" can refer to any upcoming Rush album, not solely to its target. — ξxplicit 08:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Rehman(+) 12:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Untitled fourth album[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. Jafeluv (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely vague search term. This can refer to any fourth album by any recording artist or band... ever. — ξxplicit 08:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom. Rehman(+) 12:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - seems a straightforward enough solution. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate what? All fourth albums, on the theory that they were untitled at some point? Or all as-yet untitled fourth albums, which would then cease to be included once titled? bd2412 T 22:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing. bd 2412 is right, of course. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague and confusing. Way too general for a WP:DAB page. –Grondemar 05:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Juran kingdom[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 redirected with the agreement of the nominator. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, disambig redirect, no apparent connection to target page. bd2412 T 03:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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_September_19&oldid=1140228042"