Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 24, 2011

Wikipedia:IPA for Catalan and Occitan[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 Convert to disambig in order to avoid breaking navigation. --Taelus (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occitan and Catalan (both Occitano-Romance languages) have now separate IPA keys: Wikipedia:IPA for Occitan and Wikipedia:IPA for Catalan. For this reason, I suggest this redirect to be deleted. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 22:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Make a dab page. We should keep this around to preserve history and bookmark links, etc. but direct users to the places content is now. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It Is Me Here t / c 10:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

John Drew (Contemporary American actor, voice talent, writer and producer)[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) 21:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. No history to preserve. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because he should have used a serial comma between writer and producer. TPH is spot on.--kelapstick(bainuu) 19:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong delete - grossly improbable; looks like somebody is seeding for SEO or something. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this is not eligible for speedy deletion as R3 is only for recently created redirects whereas this is a couple of weeks over 18 months old. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This exists because the page was originally created at this obviously overdone title, and I moved it to a title more in keeping with our actual naming conventions — while one normally doesn't go out of one's way to immediately delete the resulting redirect unless there's something inappropriate (slander, etc.) about it, there's no compelling reason why it needs to stay in place permanently either. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The chance that anyone would look for an article with this qualifier is virtually nil. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sociology of food[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 Restore article, with no prejudice to further action. Consensus here is that this redirect is not useful in its current form. --Taelus (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology of food is a notable article in need of creation; the current redirect to the index article (I hate those...) is misleading. Per WP:RED this should be a red link. Piotrus 04:10, 24 August 2011

  • Restore page to this version and tag for expansion. Obviously badly needs useful content but I see no reason to lose what is there and hopefully expansion should follow fairly quickly. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:NBD[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 current target. As a normal editorial action I've added a hatnote at the current target to reflect the previous meaning. Any amending of historical archives should be discussed at an appropriate venue, there is no conensus for or against it here. Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

See [1]: the conflict seems to be between "No binding decisions" and "No big deal". I propose creating a disambiguation page containing links to both at WP:NBD. It Is Me Here t / c 15:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the whole point of creating shortcuts is that they should be just that; a quick way of reaching a specified page. Consequently, redirecting a shortcut to a disambiguation page seems to defeat the purpose. Though there has been an edit dispute in the past, this page has been stable since May 2009. Consequently, I am not seeing any overriding exigency to make a change. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just came here to say that I don't really care. Redirect, used by presumably nobody. — Joseph Fox 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with User:Bridgeplayer in that a shortcut that leads to a dab page seems counter-productive. On the other hand, if people consistently mix-up a shortcut, it's clearly a broken shortcut. The question is, is that happening? I haven't done a comprehensive analysis, but it appears most usage is the "no-binding" case, and most of the "no-big-deal" usage appears to be historical from when WP:NBD pointed there. So I'd say the current target reflects most usage, and should be left as is. • Back in 2008, User:Fox changed WP:NBD to point to Wikipedia:Administrators#History (no-big-deal). There was already 2+ years of historical usage of WP:NBD pointing to Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change (no-binding-decisions), so this broke a lot of links in archives. I didn't see any consideration of that, so I reverted when I encountered such a link, in 2009. It appears from 2008-09, though, it did get some use as no-big-deal. So now we have broken archives either way. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to retarget those use cases in the archives? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... Or put a hatnote on the top of whichever article we end up pointing this bad boy at. — Joseph Fox 22:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, original meaning. Make a hatnote if there is actual evidence of people getting confused. —Kusma (t·c) 05:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_24&oldid=1142587676"