Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 February 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 3, 2011

Freezing point (disambiguation)[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 Converted to Disambiguation. Lenticel (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It originally redirected to the main dab page, but now Freezing point is an article with a hatnote at the top linking to other subject. A target dab page no longer exists. Quest for Truth (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I created a dab page here. More interestingly I found two other redirects to "Melting" - Freeze point and another, which should have been re-pointed to Freezing point. Don't know how we can accomplish this sort of stuff whenever it is needed. Rich Farmbrough, 00:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Gmask[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 13:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, gmask and pixelization are distinctly different. No gmask routines are or involve pixelization (which really should be "mosiacing") Keith D. Tyler 23:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment is there a censorship article to redirect that to? 64.229.101.119 (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading. There is not currently a single article dealing with different methods of censorship, just the high level general Censorship article (for which this is too detailed) and the "Methods" section of Template:Censorship. If this is notable enough for a standalone article (I've not looked) then it should be at this title and included on that template. I note though that several articles on different methods are stubby and/or poor, so perhaps a combined article would make sense? I'll drop a note at the template talk page as there doesn't seem to be a wikiproject. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gdansk possibly? That's what I thought when I read Gmask. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kingdom hearts riku[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. Lenticel (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect case, while Riku (Kingdom Hearts) exists and is ideal. this redirect was declined a declined speedy delete. I moved to a capitalized page, but at least this one is unneeded, though I understand that a redirect is cheap. Ost (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yes we keep old redirects like this, unless they are actually harmful. Rich Farmbrough, 00:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep because it helps to document the pagemove and the probable merger of content. Kudos for moving the page to a better title but deleting the redirect is inappropriate. Rossami (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

BITNET MSG[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. Ruslik_Zero 13:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MSG was just the instant-message command on BITNET, if I recall correctly. Therefore, redirecting it to BITNET Relay is not really accurate -- Relay ran using MSG commands, iirc, but MSG didn't rely on Relay. If it were used, I'd think about redirecting it to just BITNET, but since it's unused, I don't see any reason not to delete it outright. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is, however, mentioned early in the Bitnet Relay article as a predecessor function. I have no objection to retargetting if you can find a better fit but we can never say for sure that an old redirect (and this is several years old now) is unused. Even if it appears orphaned in what-links-here, there may still be external links. Rossami (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is consistently getting 6-10 views a month, so it is not unused, and the target is not inappropriate. No objection to a better target if there is one though. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Halfback (Amercian football)[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 Retarget to Halfback (American football). Ruslik_Zero 13:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previously speedied under R3, but it was too old to qualify. This is an implausible typo. Logan Talk Contributions 15:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are many reasons to keep this redirect.
    1. How is this an implausible typo? There are no typographical errors in the title.
    2. My knowledge of American football is limited but the target article says that running backs are referred to as half backs in some circumstances. This shows that the title is not a misnomer, let alone an implausible one.
    3. The creation comment "new redirect (to keep linking articles separate in case halfback is ever to separated from running back)" suggests this is a redirect with possibilities
    4. There exists the article Halfback (Canadian football). Canadian football is a similar game to American football, meaning that it is quite likely a user familiar with the Canadian code wanting to learn about the American sport would search for this title.
    5. The first sentence in the article about the position in Canadian football compares the usage of the term in that sport with the usage in American football. This further shows that it is neither misnomer nor unlikely search term.
    6. The existence of Category:American football halfbacks shows it is terminology used on Wikipedia.
    7. A google search for "American football" halfback gets approximately 710,000 hits, suggesting the terminology is in much wider use than just on Wikipedia.
    8. The redirect is used. While it normally gets around 10 hits per month, it got around 50 on each of 30th November and 1st December last year suggesting a link from somewhere external, perhaps a news website? Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amercian. Yes I missed it too at first. Google shows that this is a common typo (it's a left hand right hand one on a Qwerty keyboard). Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Redirect to plausible typo: Halfback (American football). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Arthur Rubin. The misspelling of American is a probable typo but it is entirely plausible. Rossami (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of former Home and Away cast[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. Ruslik_Zero 13:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed as "List of Past Home and Away character" serves this fine. RAIN*the*ONE BAM 14:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This seems like a perfectly reasonable search term, exactly like List of past Home and Away characters is. It's not conflicting with anything, is used and has as a significant page history. Why would we want to delete it? Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not only is this a plausible variant of the current title (one of the preferred uses for redirects), this page also documents a series of (apparently disputed) title changes and considerable content history which appears to have been merged into the page. "Not needed" is a value-judgment based upon how you navigate the wiki and is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. Rossami (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

American Mexico[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. It seems to be a made-up term known only in Wikipedia. Ruslik_Zero 09:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone heard of this? (By the same guy who redirected "North Mexico" here) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert in geography, nor in sociology, but a simple search of the term "North Mexico," and "American Mexico" brings up opinion based sites that refer to the influx of mexican immigrants into the southern united states as creating a "northern mexico." Both of these should be, in my opinion, deleted. --Nolimits5017 (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I put American Mexico because it is after all, the part of Mexico that was taken by the United States in the 1840s (California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Texas, and about half of Colorado, as well as parts of Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma).--Fernirm (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I thought; how about Navajo land stolen by Spaniards, Hopi Mexico, and Apache America? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

North Mexico[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 Retarget to Geography of Mexico. Ruslik_Zero 13:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and Northern Mexico .

(links to redirect • history • stats) 

More than pointy. Nothing links here anyways. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above comment Nolimits5017 (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2011 (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/2011_February_3&oldid=1141363593"