Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 December 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 11, 2011

Climate Change Exaggeration[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. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fully-protected redirect, now a double redirect since an AFD closure called for the merging of the target article. There's some controversy there, but let's let that pass for now: The capitalisation is unlikely, no pages use this redirect, and, depending on where the final target for climate change alarmism ends up, this could result in a very confusing double link. At the least, it needs unprotected, but it should probably just be deleted. 86.** IP (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep under WP:CRYSTAL (although we are now applying it to itself); if we don't know where it will go, leave it where it is. I would love to tidy every link (indeed I imagine many at RfD would) but have lost many a debate here for doing so, and have to stet sometimes. WP:NOTPERFECT. Si Trew (talk) 23:48, 15 December 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.

Raghead Injun[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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G5. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Limited legitimate navigational value outweighed by hostility of the term. I think we're better off without this one. Kilopi (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G5 may also apply since this appears to have been created by a sock of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/DavidYork71. Kilopi (talk) 07:09, 11 December 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.

Express boiler[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. Seems to be at least minimally useful. Ruslik_Zero 14:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble understanding this. The cat page doesn't even explain what an "express boiler" actually is. In my view, this redirect should either point to an article, or it should be a redlink. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're having trouble understanding it, then I suggest reading the description that has been on the category page since it was created two years ago. That would form a valid stub in its own right. It would be possible to target the redirect instead at List of boiler types, by manufacturer#express boiler, as has generally been done for most of the other minor boiler types that don't yet have articles, e.g. Belleville boiler. However in this case there is no single "Express boiler" made by the "Express" company - the type is instead a generic title, applied to a wide range of water-tube boilers that had the shared characteristic of small diameter water tubes. The best fit we have for this (and indeed, are ever likely to have) is the Category:Express boilers category to which it already points, suitably annotated with a description. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did read that description, and it was not really clear to me that it was a definition of an "express boiler". Looking again, I can see that is what it is, but it is not particularly obvious. I'll give it a bit of a polish. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a redirect across namespaces, which is discouraged (but not as far as I know prohibited, taking that term in Wikipedian sense) but I forget exactly what the WP policy for it is. A more expert person here could possibly tell me. Si Trew (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. WP:CNR. Si Trew (talk) 23:42, 15 December 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_December_11&oldid=1039427645"