Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 6, 2011

Vibrating Belt Machine[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 08:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vibrating Belt Machine → Whole Body Vibration (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
  • Delete, Not a suitable title to have a page and a redirect to Whole Body Vibration. Possibly created by the advertiser on Whole Body Vibration article Sudhir Swarnkar (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have fixed this nomination and also alerted the creator, User:Big Brother 1984. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - (Applies to All) I'm not an advertiser, nor am I a proponent of "Whole Body" anything. I just remember seeing these things in old cartoons and photographs. And I had a hell of a time finding out what they were actually called. I never heard Betty Boop or Elmer Fudd talk about their "Whole Body Vibration units", so I thought a redirect from a more commonplace term would be useful. The problem here is not with the redirects, but rather with the "Whole Body Vibration" page itself. The article for this goofy exercise fad is full of spurious unsourced claims, and is in dire need of a rewrite. -- Big Brother 1984 (talk) 04:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - confusing as no reference in the article. I also don't see a plausible retarget. For example, though Treadmills use belts, they don't vibrate! Bridgeplayer (talk) 11:14, 19 September 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.

Vibra Belt Massager[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 16:28, 17 September 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.

Vibrating belt exercise machine[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 16:28, 17 September 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.

Fat Shaker[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 16:28, 17 September 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.

Shaking Machine[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 16:28, 17 September 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.

Vibrating platform[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 16:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vibrating platform → Whole Body Vibration (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
  • Delete, Not a suitable title to have a page and a redirect to Whole Body Vibration. Possibly created by the advertiser on Whole Body Vibration article Sudhir Swarnkar (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have fixed this nomination and also alerted the creator, User:Nutriveg. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a generic term that is well covered in the target. This redirect is helpful and no policy-compliant deletion grounds have been specified. There are issues with the target article but those are for the editors of that page to solve. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:34, 6 September 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.

Vibrating Belt[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 08:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vibrating Belt → Whole Body Vibration (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
  • Delete, Not a suitable title to have a page and a redirect to Whole Body Vibration. Possibly created by the advertiser on Whole Body Vibration article Sudhir Swarnkar (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have fixed this nomination and also alerted the creator, User:Big Brother 1984. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not an advertiser, nor am I a proponent of "Whole Body" anything. I just remember seeing these things in old cartoons and photographs. And I had a hell of a time finding out what they were actually called. I never heard Betty Boop or Elmer Fudd talk about their "Whole Body Vibration units", so I thought a redirect from a more commonplace term would be useful. -- Big Brother 1984 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - confusing as no reference in the article. I also don't see a plausible retarget. Bridgeplayer (talk) 11:14, 19 September 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.

Template:Deletedpage[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 Sent to TfD. This redirect was converted back into a template part-way through the discussion, and so it's not strictly within scope of this page any longer. As there is no clear consensus below, and I'm sending this to TfD for consideration there. It is noteworthy that this redirect was created after a 2007 TfD when the creation protection facility (that replaced the system this template was part of) was relatively new, and the landscape has since changed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad cross namespace redirect. Templates that are deprecated since 4 years should be deleted, not be kept as a confusing redirect. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cross name redirects are generally deprecated anyway. Agree Delete. Si Trew (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to some earlier version that had some meaning. The current version is just idiotic. I did not create this as an evil cross-namespace redirect. I created a simple template to put in certain deleted pages to emphasize that they ought not be re-created. If you put nothing there at all then, in some cases, the foolish re-creation is guaranteed.
In fact, I'm just going to be bold and revert this template back to last useful version.
Despite claims to the contrary, this template currently is transcluded 59 times. — Xiong熊talk* 23:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the transclusion count seems to be outdated, see WhatLinksHere w/o links. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not restore to non-redirect. It's a depreciated template that is not supposed to be used anymore. --Taelus (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are several hundreds links to it. It would be too disruptive to break them. Ruslik_Zero 19:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The links are to when it was MENTIONED in a page, not being used. Transclusions show no usage. We really shouldn't have items in the template space that aren't templates. Potentially it leads to wierd transclusions of the template. Hasteur (talk) 13:06, 21 September 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.

Lionel messi[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 --Taelus (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone types "cristiano ronaldo" (which is not a redirect) in the search box, the encyclopedia will display Cristiano Ronaldo. I believe that there is no need for this redirect and bring this redirect for discussion. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this is a standard {{R from other capitalisation}} (and is tagged as such) that we normally keep to aid accidental linking and those who find articles other than through the search box. There are many such methods, a good proportion of which are case sensitive. Additionally it also discourages the creation of duplicate articles by well-meaning users who are looking for the article that exists at another capitalisation - exactly such an article was created at this title in 2006, and was the reason for the redirect's creation (compare the final state of the new article [1] with the existing article at the same time [2]). Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per Thrylduuf. Si Trew (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked, christiano ronaldo is not a redirect, but the article title is Cristiano Ronaldo (and under WP:NAME and WP:TITLE he is expected and entitled to have the cap on the R). The underlying Wikimedia software assumes the caps when necessary, although that is no excuse for getting away with it: I am tempted to add the lower case redirect to something completely different, Wankel rotary engine or Birds Custard or whatever, but that would be being deliberately obtuse and unhelpful. Si Trew (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf's excellent analysis. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Thryduulf. —mako๛ 00:34, 12 September 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.

Process technology[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. Per WP:RED. Ruslik_Zero 16:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This term can refer to other materials like metal, ceramics, plastic, etc. Such a redirect can be misleading. My opinion is that it should have its own article. Quest for Truth (talk) 08:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be a dab page, I would say. Rich Farmbrough, 10:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • I would agree with Rich Farmbrough. Rather a technical term so doesnt seem like there would be a primary topic here. Si Trew (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RED. This is an important industrial topic and one on which we should really have an article. A disambiguation page is a thought, but I think that it would pull together various related bits and pieces without providing the necessary overview. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my line of country it is a fairly common term and a semiconductor fabrication plant (or as we sometimes call them a chip shop) would seem the obvious place for it to redirect to. Much as I respect you Bridgeplayer I would say keep on this one. And I used to work in one. Coming to the basics of is it misleading or not, I do not think it is misleading and cannot thing of any other place it would lead to. My deepest respect. Si Trew (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought about starting an article on this, if only a stub, but it is such a vague term really I think it should stay as it stands. Si Trew (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is the Journal of Processing Technology here. But it doesn't really say much against the vagueness which I am arguing against. Si Trew (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If nobody wants to make a DAB or start an article on the topic, I think the best option would be to redirect to Innovation#Processes. —mako๛ 00:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I think that this is the worst of all options. That section has nothing to do with 'process technology'. Process technology is a notable discipline in it's own right with a learned journal etc. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig At a local college, they have a process technology program. It teaches students how to operate systems in large industrial plants. It is targeted, and partially funded, by refineries nearby, and has nothing to do with semiconductors. A disambig seems to be the best option considering the terms wide variety of meanings. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:18, 16 September 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.

Preon stars[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 --Taelus (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete, as nothing links to this redirect Robert Treat (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep target has a section called "Preon stars" and the redirect gets occasional traffic [3]. Seems harmless and the fact that it is not linked from mainspace is not a valid reason for deletion. Yoenit (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plainly useful since there is good content at the target. The target needs slight polishing to correct the section name. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful term although it should be refined to point to Exotic_star#Preon_stars.--Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plainly useful search term. Have marked as {{R to section}} but that won't take effect until this discussion is closed. Si Trew (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For all the reasons above. Clearly the redirect should be to the section and not just to the article. Thanks Si Trew for fixing that. —mako๛ 00:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed broken link to me. No thanks needed, we're all in it together, although it is nice to get a thanks once in a while. Only fixed so that anyone can link into me, for purposes of discussion. Si Trew (talk) 08:46, 12 September 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.

Renaissance (Tunisia)[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 current target, consensus that it is the primary topic and/or that no other alternative targets are viable here. --Taelus (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Renaissance Party of Tunisia should not have the monopoly over the use of the term Renaissance in Tunisia. — Abjiklam (talk • stalk) 03:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What other uses of the term are in reasonable currency? Rich Farmbrough, 10:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep as per Bridgeplayer. Tunisia didn't really have a renaissance in the sense of the sixteenth century Western Eurpoean Renaissance, but this is a well written and well documented article, and for someone searching, would seem to me to be the primary topic. Si Trew (talk) 23:23, 10 September 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:Votes for deletion/Shadez[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 speedy closed - target is being discussed at MfD and the fate of this redirect will follow the decision there - no need for a separate discussion, here. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion per WP:Courtesy vanishing. Shadez was an additional account of mine. Colourlines (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the MfD goes through this redirect should be picked up automatically. Rich Farmbrough, 10:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • defer to MfD. If the target is kept at MfD there is no reason to delete this. If the target is deleted, then the redirect will be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G8. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close per Thryduulf: we have no need to nominate this separately. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 7 September 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_September_6&oldid=1136448375"