Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 18, 2011

Consumer-First Energy Act[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 Consumer First Energy Act of 2008. Jafeluv (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no direct information about this proposed act in the target article. This deserves its own article. Lux (talk) 21:13, 18 November 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 clothing[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 15:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sociology of clothing is about more than just dress code, and is a notable topic. Should be red per WP:RED, not misleading people directing them to a narrower if related topic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the current Dress code article once used to be Sociology of clothing (July 23, 2004‎ - July 14, 2005‎), as You might have noticed. So, this redirect should be kept per WP:RFD#KEEP reason 2. You might want to prepare Your draft in Your userspace or in the private space of related WikiProject and request a move instead. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:14, 19 November 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.

Yum yum palace[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 capitalisation not correct anyway, it should be Yum Yum Palace. ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 04:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Originally an A7-speedable article about concession stands at Six Flags theme parks, it was redirected instead of deleted. Not mentioned in the target article, therefore Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:08, 18 November 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.

Chemical science[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 with a hatnote to Chemical Science (journal). Jafeluv (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect makes it difficult to find Chemical Science (journal). Suggest deletion or replacement with links to both Chemistry and Chemical Science (journal) Janhmoonstone30 (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeplayer's idea might be better. I don't insist. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add a hatnote for Chemical Science (journal) to the target. Chemistry must be by far the prime subject for this redirect, and likely the most helpful to readers, and a hatnote will resolve the nominator's concern. The Chemical Science page can then also be to a redirect to Chemistry. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why You consider disambiguation page on Chemical Science for replacement with redirect? After all, it's the name of journal, and it is fairly dubious that readers searching for Chemical Science (journal) would find it with no such redirect... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with your point that the journal needs to be found easily. However, once we have the hatnote on 'Chemistry' then if 'Chemical Science' is made a redirect then the journal can be found in the same number of clicks as keeping as a disamb page. Also, it is a rather peculiar disamb page so a redirect looks neater. I know that sometimes different capitalisations point in different directions but I don't think that this is a particularly good idea since readers are often not careful as to the case when they search. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I agree with Bridgeplayer. Hatnote should be enough; lower case name to my mind suggest, indeed, chemistry, not a journal. It is likely that most people would be searching for chemistry, not a journal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know for most people, but I do my searches with smart bookmark and all lower case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it literally means "chemistry". Just because there's a journal called that doesn't enter into it. (Just like there's journals named after other fields of science, doesn't mean the journal is primary overtop the science it reports on) 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure. I worked for a molecular model(l)ing compamy for many years. There, "Science" implied chemical science as opposed to all the other branches of science. So I think chemists do tend to have a slightly self-centred view that the whole world of science is chemistry, as opposed to physical science, computational science, etc etc. If it inhibits the search for Chemical Science (journal) there is something that should be done, is to place Chemical Science (journal) as the primary topic. But if not, let it stand as it is. Si Trew (talk) 04:51, 3 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.

Plankton (SpongeBob SquarePants)/redirects[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 WP:CSD#G6. Uncontroversial housekeeping deletion ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 03:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. Appears to be an artifact of a page move. No significant history other than being a redirect. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 03:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as per nomination (R3 reason). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - useless artefact with no hits above background noise. Actually, not eligible for R3 deletion since it was not recently created but I think that this RFD can be speedy closed. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not needed. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. πr2 (t • c) 00:39, 22 November 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.

VrC[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 with hatnote. Jafeluv (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting this redirect be merged with VRC disabmiguation.Creates Confusion while searching.Arnavchaudhary (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as VrC (Vr.C.) is a common name of Vir Chakra as stated in the respective article. Not sure about whether Vir Chakra should be added to VRC. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So true, but I've found nothing of VRC that could be called VrC, so the current target makes more sense. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:46, 19 November 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_November_18&oldid=1089911486"