Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 April 24

April 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 24, 2012

Ämt[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. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ämt → Amt (country subdivision) (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Delete, "Ämt" is an implausible typo but an already executed {{db-r3}} was reverted/contested. Ämt is nothing anyone knowing the least of German would search. An Englisch user wouldn't look for it either because of the Umlaut. -- S.K. (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The correct singular is Amt but the plural is Ämter. This does not seem like an implausible mistake for a novice speaker. The argument against the umlaut overlooks the fact that we have somewhere around 10,000 titles in Category:Redirects from titles with diacritics. Many readers of the English Wikipedia use alternate keyboards. Even more use cut-and-paste to try to find the article they want. Rossami (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument about the around 10,000 titles in Category:Redirects from titles with diacritics is IMHO misleading. From what I can tell, the titles are in their majority valid titles with diacritics for which the English Wikipedia for one reason or another has chosen to store the article without. The C&P argument is valid for "Ämter" but why would anyone restrict the cut to "Ämt", who has no idea of German? And such a person would most likely reduce all the way to "Amt". --S.K. (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a plausible synonym per Rossami.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Stats show hits at least a bit over the noise level, so evidently someone is inputting this somewhere.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The stats are probably above noise level because Table of administrative divisions by country contained a link to Ämt before I corrected it. --S.K. (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps, but even that incorrect link proves that somebody thought it made sense. Redirects are cheap.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It proves that someone without knowledege of German found it easier to create a misleading redirect than to set a correct link in the one article that needed it. --S.K. (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged the redirect as {{R from misspelling}}. The diacritics category is in my view only for titles where the diacritic is correct. Still, I would prefer deletion, mainly because "Ämt" really hurts my eyes (I am a native speaker of German and too lazy to attempt constructing a policy-based deletion reeason). —Kusma (t·c) 19:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Spelling errors are often easy to make, and the spelling of the singular and plural that Rossami raises is enough to demonstrate the plausibility of this redirect. Nyttend (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2012 (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.

Intelligent Energy[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 the RfD guidelines above, because of the good faith nomination and no further votes for or against, default is to delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Energy → Integrated operations (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Delete. Target section has minor mention of one use of the term. The Wikipedia search "Intelligent Energy" shows many articles with other uses. There is apparently no primary target. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. According to the redirect target "Intelligent Energy is the dominant term in publications ..." though I don't know how much that stands up to scrutiny if you consider the cited reference seems to be strongly related to the term. Perhaps a hatnote on the target section, to direct interested readers to the European Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme would be a better idea? Astronaut (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated operations is a term in the oil and gas industry and not energy in general. The article is only about that meaning. The source [1] of your partial quote says "Each SPE Intelligent Energy International event marks a milestone on the Oil & Gas industry's road map to fully integrated operations." My point is that the oil and gas industry does not have a monopoly on the term Intelligent Energy. It's used in other fields as the Wikipedia search shows. I nominated after a post at Wikipedia:Help desk#Intelligent Energy about a fuel cell & hydrogen technology company called Intelligent Energy, mentioned in ENV and several other articles. The company does not have an article but is among many uses of the term Intelligent Energy in Wikipedia articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral For electricity, the I.E. term as in 'intelligent energy grid' is today more commonly referred to as a smart grid. But when I originally made this redirect, I would have preferred to make Intelligent Energy a disambiguation page, had there only been other pages to redirect to, like a page about the fuel cell. The same applies to a lesser degree to integrated operations which is also a military term [2] and even business parlance. (As in 'vertically integrated operations'). This is not a coincidence, as the "integrated operations" in the three domains share some of the same concepts, borrowed from organizational and management theory. Regardless of the redirect decision, this discussion has unearthed material which would be very useful in the Integrated operations#naming conventions section! :-) EverGreg (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2012 (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.

Haul road[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. The most persuasive argument is that it is always confusing to redirect a general term to one particular example. So, until the article about Haul road is created it shall remain a red link. Ruslik_Zero 19:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haul road → Dalton Highway (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

A "haul road" is a generic term for any road specifically designed for heavy and/or bulk transfer of materials by lorries or construction equipment, that are often temporary or not fully made up (gravel roads, etc) and occur in all parts of the world. The Dalton Highway is just a specific example of a haul road, although probably the most famous. We really ought to have an article on haul roads in general, but afaict we don't, the closest I can find is Gravel road, which is not a suitable target as it's just an overlapping set (some haul roads are gravel roads, some gravel roads are haul roads, but neither set encompasses the other). If I've overlooked a suitable article this should be redirected there, otherwise it should be deleted pending the writing of an article (if I had time I'd write a stub myself). Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep redirect. It's used for others, but it's a terribly common name for the Dalton. Google news supports this. It would be entirely appropriate for it to become a stub or a dab page, but until then, the redirect seems perfectly appropriate. tedder (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the Dalton Highway is the specific road referred to more than any other, it is not the primary use for the phrase "haul road" and it is not helpful to redirect the generic term to one specific example as it tells our readers that "haul road" = "Dalton Highway", especially as the only use of the word "haul" on the page is the phrase "formerly known as the North Slope Haul Road". Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it's a WP:SOFIXIT issue at that point. tedder (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to article per nom, or delete since the Dalton Highway is not the only haul road. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

diasmbig with a redlink for a generic haul road article, even before we have one. Once we do, then move to haul road (disambiguation). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2012 (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.