Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 April 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 5, 2012

Listof cysts of the jaws[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 10:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely typo. Albacore (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was a typo. It was fixed via pagemove on the same day the article was created. Why should it be deleted, though? Leaving a redirect behind after a pagemove adds no burden to the database and creates no additional work for any editor. Tag with {{unprintworthy}} and ignore it. Redirects really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 15:40, 8 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.

Konzentrationslager Majdanek (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 retarget to Majdanek concentration camp. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is an appropriate redirect for "Konzentrationslager Majdanek" to the target page "Majdanek concentration camp". There is no need for disambiguation of "Konzentrationslager Majdanek" because there is nothing to disambiguate. Konzentrationslager Majdanek is the same thing as Majdanek concentration camp, and it cannot be interpreted in any other way. Hoops gza (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an appropriate link for "Majdanek (disambiguation)" at the top of the page "Majdanek concentration camp" for anyone who is confused.Hoops gza (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • So you are arguing to delete it because it is redundant? That is not a valid reason to delete a redirect. At some level, all redirects are redundant. The relevant question is whether it is harmful or confusing. This has existed for three and a half years without causing a problem. The title is not in the way of other content. Keep because redirects are cheap and to minimize the chance of link rot. Rossami (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I am arguing that there is nothing to disambiguate. It does not disambiguate anything.Hoops gza (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That also is not a reason to delete. It's fairly common to turn a disambiguation page into a redirect when all the other line items on the page have been deleted (for lack of notability, for example). And we tolerate it when readers (with perhaps an excessive desire for consistency) see that pattern and create new "disambiguation redirects" directly. Unless they're harmful, they're generally left in place. What would the project gain by deleting it? Rossami (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Konzentrationslager Majdanek" only means one thing: "Majdanek concentration camp". Not only does it not disambiguate anything, there is no need for it.Hoops gza (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I know that. My German is rusty but it's at least that good. That's irrelevant, though. "No need for it" all by itself is not a sufficient reason to delete a redirect. Rossami (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only reason. The other reason is that it does not disambiguate anything by redirecting to "Majdanek (disambiguation)". This is because there is nothing to disambiguate about Konzentrationslager Majdanek. It is a bad redirect.Hoops gza (talk) 23:44, 5 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.

الأسو[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. There is no article with such a title as الأسود‎ in the English Wikipedia. Ruslik_Zero 10:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the redirect is a typo for "الأسود‎" (al-Aswad), which means 'black'. It does not refer solely to the Black Stone. I propose either retargeting to Aswad (name), or deletion. Gorobay (talk) 17:07, 5 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.

Toulky èeskou minulostí[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 12:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This title is a typo for "Toulky českou minulostí", which appears to be a book on Czech history. I can't find any relevant article in English, and as it is a typo, I propose deletion. Gorobay (talk) 16:18, 5 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.

template:toolbox[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 12:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is an unused, cross-namespace redirect, we can safely delete it, which will clear it from Wikipedia:Database reports/User template redirects. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 5 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.

Dipotassium hexafluoronickel[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 12:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is obviously wrong. Because it wasn't recently created, it can't be deleted with CSD R3. MakecatTalk 10:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I know nothing about Chemistry, but [1] and [2] say that Dipotassium hexafluoronickel is a synonym of Potassium hexafluoronickelate(IV) (A page at "Look Chem" does to but that's falling foul of the spam filter). If these are reliable sources (I wouldn't have a clue), then it would seem sensible to keep this redirect from a synonym to the more common name. I'll drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I do know about this kind of thing. It is wrong; it should be dipotassium hexafluoronickelate. The two sources above aren't really reliable. They've probably got the name from this redirect! Chris (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being wrong is not a reason to delete a redirect. If it were, we'd have to wipe out all the R from misspellings and all the other {{unprintworthy}} redirects. The question is whether it is a plausible mistake and whether a reader would be helped by it to find the right article. In this case, I believe the answer is yes. I can find no other article that would be a better target for this redirect. A layman presented with just the chemical formula K
    2    NiF
    6     might well come up with this name. This redirect points him/her to the where they can see the right name.
    By the way, I am not convinced that Thryduulf's two references above are derivative of Wikipedia but I do think that they may suffer from translation problems - both are Chinese sites and the distinction of the suffix '-ate', while clear to any chemist, might escape their webmaster. Rossami (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say keep it as it is used on quite a few web sites. Even if it is not an official name it is sufficiently precise to have this meaning. So the redirect should correct the misconception that this is the true name but will hep our readers to find the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:09, 11 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.

Template:College coach infobox[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 08:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't follow the {{Infobox xxxxx}} scheme. Most likely all Wikipedia editors are now familiar with this scheme and this template will remain unused. Magioladitis (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Redirects are cheap and this one has quite a few links to it and a decent amount of non-mainspace transclusions. Don't see any benefit in deleting. Jenks24 (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
95% of these are in the same subspace. We could just fix these. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, most of them are stale drafts and are subject to deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But even so, what is the actual advantage of either (a) breaking those links/transclusions, or (b) going on an automated run to "fix" them? How is the status quo a problem? Jenks24 (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Less redirects to keep an eye on them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The solution to that is to add the redirects to your watchlist, not to delete the redirects - editorial convenience must always play second fiddle to what benefits our readers. Perhaps some coder could write a "watch redirects to this page" tool that would make it event easier than it is at present. Thryduulf (talk) 20:54, 9 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.

Voronezh Governorate[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 10:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ezhiki attempted to speedy-delete this redirect with the explanation that it is "a remotely related, but distinctly different entity". Because the redirect was created in July 2011, it does not meet the "recently created" requirement for CSD#R3. This is a courtesy nomination to determine if regular deletion is appropriate. Rossami (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I had some time to do a little digging. The Guberniya article is the parent article describing the Russian administrative districts of the time. The Voronezh Governorate was one of 15 that existed at various times between 1708 and 1726. Based on the chart at the bottom of the Guberniya article, Voronezh may be the least notable of the bunch. lasting only 2 years and if I'm reading the map right not covering very much geography. Of the 15, three are red-links and one redirects to Ingria, an article about the location with a small history section on the governate.
    In my opinion, the best solution would be if someone would overwrite the redirect with content, paralleling one of the other local governate articles. Unfortunately, I do not have the content knowledge to do so. Looking at the length of time that some of the others have been redlinked, I'm skeptical that redlinking this one will make it more likely for the article to appear. A redirect from the sub-topic "Voronezh Governorate" to the parent topic "Guberniya" seems the least bad choice until someone does write content. Rossami (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Digging some more, the Azov Governorate article alleges that the Voronezh Governorate was a mere renaming. That page shuts off its history in 1925 right before the rename, though. Perhaps that page should be expanded that this title retargetted there?
      I really don't know what the right answer is. The only thing I'm sure of so far is that deleting the redirect is the wrong answer. Rossami (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the author of the Azov Governorate article, and I am actually planning to write the articles on all governorates of Russia. Since Voronezh Governorate is clearly different from both editions of Azov Governorate (different areas most of the time, different center etc) there should be a separate article on it. I volunteer to write the article as soon as the DR question is settled (I do not particularly care which redirect is there when I start writing, for me the essiest would be if the redirect gets deleted so that I get the article in created articles list generated by X-tools). Will be traveling till Apr 12 anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 5 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.

Veterans Today[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 10:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion since it merely redirects to a BLP about an individual that uses Veterans Today as a reference, so at best irrelevant. Veterans Today doesn't seem to have enough WP:RS for an article and there doesn't seem to be a logical place to link to. At worst, it seems to be done to make the organization look bad because the individual was prosecuted for a crime and Veterans Today writes favorably about him, so "redirect is offensive or abusive." I doubt Veterans Today is WP:RS for BLP, even if it does write favorably about him. CarolMooreDC 17:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur that this particular redirect is unsustainable but not for the reasons above. WP:BLP applies to specific persons, not to organizations. A connection solely via redirect is also too tenuous to meet the requirements of BLP. That said, the redirect is deletable because it is counterintuitive. It would be like redirecting the Wall Street Journal to Coca-Cola. It might be plausible if their only claim to fame was the one event (and it were a significant event) but google shows very little connection between these two.
    The page previously had content about the Veterans Today organization itself. That was speedy-deleted in April 2010 under A7. I don't know the organization well enough to know if it is notable enough (then or now) but the deleted content was overly promotional and should not be restored regardless. That leaves me at delete until and unless someone can draft an article which demonstrates that this organization meets our generally accepted inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has several incoming article space links, and gets quite a significant amount of traffic, so it would be a good candidate for deletion per WP:REDLINK. However there seems to be doubts as to whether we want an article on this organisation or not. If we don't want an article, then I'd strongly recommend redirecting it to somewhere, but the current target is I agree inappropriate. That begs the question where is the right target, and I've not found anything suitable yet. My first thought is a list of veterans organistations in the US that gives a sentence or so of context about each organisation. However if such a list exists I've not found it. I'm left with only a less than ideal recommendation to retarget if a suitable target exists, otherwise delete as a second preference. The status quo is the only thing I'm certain isn't right. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The site is popular but just doesn't have many WP:RS writing about it; I checked. This is biggest thing I found. Various foreign publications mention them also. There are a lot of publications and oranizations with similar lack of WP:RS which DO have articles. But since this publication is quite critical of the state of Israel and prints many of its foremost activist and writer critics, there probably would be another big Brouhaha AfD with meat puppets coming out of the woodwork for deletion. This doubtless happened with its former deletion and has happened to other similar publications. CarolMooreDC 03:07, 7 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_5&oldid=1039429146"