Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 30

November 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 30, 2011

Next Labour Party (UK) leadership election[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 18:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next Labour Party (UK) leadership election → Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2007 (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

As an organisation that has unpredictable intervals between leadership elections, there is only going to be an article on the next election when one is imminent, until then any speculation will be discussed on the Labour Party article or possibly the article of the incumbent leader. But as almost all of the time there won't be any speculation (if Milliband wins the next general election there may not be another election for 5, 10, 15 years, so the redirect will be misleading almost all the time. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Labour Party (UK). I don't think such name should be left as a red link. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Why would it be "left as a red link"? There are no articles which link to it.MsBatfish (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it in a wrong way. I don't like the idea of such names unused. If no redirect, there'll be a definitely article there soon. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally inane search term. Si Trew (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Before deletion the history of this redirect prior to 6 September 2006 should be merged into the target. Ruslik_Zero 17:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sensible target. Unlike general elections, elections for party leadership happen on no regular basis: the next election for the Labour party leadership could happen next week, or it could happen ten years from now. As such there's no good place to redirect this. Robofish (talk) 00:27, 18 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.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Astrophysics Strategic Mission Concept Studies[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 ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 07:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Astrophysics Strategic Mission Concept Studies → Astrophysics Strategic Mission Concept Studies (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Astrophysics Strategic Mission Concept Studies created Drift chambers (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is this covered by WP:CSD#G6? Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:05, 30 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.

Current Year[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; not everyone uses Gregorian calender, and these redirects are harmless and plausible. ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 07:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current Year → 2011 (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]
Current decade → 2010s (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]
Present decade → 2010s (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]
Delete. If you really need a link to "Current Year", "Current decade" or "Present decade", use some autoupdating code. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't imagine anyone using this as a search term. Shadowjams (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Though these redirects are obscure, they might be used from some software. Anyway, they are harmless. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The decade ones are new. Phoenix's year redirect was this year, but is probably not used by software. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard that used as a legitimate reason to keep before. Shadowjams (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because redirects are so cheap there generally needs to be a good reason to bother deleting them. These redirects are not offensive, they're not inaccurate, and they're not in the way of anything, so why delete them? Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created Current Year, not the others, I felt that it was an obvious link of no harm, and could have prevented another article in its place with content such as, "The current year is 2011". – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to nominated yours (year) separately, as the creator of the decade redirects has other editing problems, but someone combined combined them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have just created User:Thryduulf/List of time-sensitive redirects to keep track of redirects like this that have a need to be updated periodically. Please add any others you know about. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why can't the current year one just be replaced by

#redirect:[[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]]

? -- Indeed, I'll implement that change right now. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it won't work, due to some obscure and perhaps frustrating technical limitations to do with the way the database is set up. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess that

#redirect:[[{{#sub:{{CURRENTYEAR}}|0|3}}0s]]

wouldn't work either? 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, see User:Thryduulf/testredirect (feel free to play around with that page if you want to test other ideas). Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided: I'm sorry but I don't understand what any of these redirects are for... None of them have any articles that link to them & I would be very surprised if they were ever used as search terms. What is their purpose? MsBatfish (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the stats for Current Year show that it got 18 hits in September, 12 in October and 35 in November (excluding the 28 hits on the 30th, as being on RfD always distorts the stats). These are above background noise, showing that they're useful to someone at least. The other two are too new to have meaningful use figures yet (every new page gets a bunch of in the first 2-3 days, presumably from new page patrollers). Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These redirects should not be deleted unless we are certain that everyone in the world is familiar with the Gregorian calendar which we are using to name articles on years and decades, including people from countries where that calendar is not traditionally used. (Look at the table "2011 in other calendars" in the article 2011). James500 (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not implausible; correctly targeted; used; useful. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:02, 7 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.

Esscher Transform[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 withdrawn by nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esscher Transform → Esscher transform (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

~~No need for this redirect, WP:CAPS Sasha (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)~~ I retract my request after re-reading the policy. Sorry. Sasha (talk) 05:51, 30 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.