Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 6, 2012

Trick (nautrical term)[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 13:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation portion is a misspelling, so not a likely search term. Ost (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. Likely misspelling. Weihang7 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term. It isn't necessary that a search term be a likely term in a given search, just reasonable enough that people use it and we don't want to fuck them over. WilyD 21:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate spelled correctly - The term is fine, but if the dab string is spelled incorrectly, it should be fixed. MSJapan (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC) I don't believe this is a plausible typo. There's no way anyone is going to get into a parenthetical area and then make a mistake if they have the wherewithal to use parentheses in their search terms. MSJapan (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It already is. A redirect links to the main article helping people to find the article and in this case it is helping someone who makes a typo find the article they want. The properly named article can't be the reditect otherwise the article would be its own redirect which would not work and there appears to be aggrrement that this is a plausable typo therefore a valid redirect.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ask me how I missed that, but I missed that. I'll adjust my vote accordingly. MSJapan (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't believe this is a plausible typo, you're grossly misusing the word plausible. Hittring t and r together is plenty easy, since trhey're rightr nextr to each other on many keyboards. WilyD 08:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite my point. Why would you look up Trick +( +n +a +u +t +r +i +c +a +l +t +e +r +m +) instead of just Trick? Or let me rephrase: when looking for a nautical term called trick, why would you type in anything else but trick and expect to find it, and additionally know that it needed parentheses to hit the search you wanted? In short, it's not plausible not because you can't do it, but because most people who would be looking for it 'wouldn't do it. MSJapan (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are many meanings of "trick", many people who are looking for an article about a topic they don't think is the primary meaning will append a parenthetical disambiguator to their search string (anyone familiar with Wikipedia has seen articles titled this way). I do this all the time as it is quicker than going via a dab page - if I was the only one then there would be no need for {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} or {{R from other disambiguation}}. It also doesn't matter whether most people use a redirect, only that some do. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 10 December 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.

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews[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. Request Withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) Weihang7 (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of a redirect this would be better served as a redlink to encourage development of an article. Thanks. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep I have created a stub on this (indeed very notable) journal, deletion not needed any more. --Randykitty (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request withdrawn. Positive resolution. Thanks, Randykitty! DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:11, 6 December 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.

Organization & Environment (journal)[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) 11:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect page - no longer any reason for it; no links. Thanks. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. With no incoming links, and with a title no one is likely to use accidentally, I think this is an easy one. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per arguments above. Phoenixred (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I see no pressing reason to delete it (redirects are cheap), but then, I don't see any reason to keep it either. --Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful for navigation, likely to have incoming links. No argument has been presented for deletion. WilyD 21:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a classic {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} Ego White Tray (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as {{R from merge}}. TimBentley (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep we don't delete redirects just because they have no links. And this is a good choice for the searchbox, since it clearly shows this is a journal link. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 03:44, 8 December 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.

Political technologist[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. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Political technologist" (and also technology) is very common in Russian press (политтехнолог, политтехнология). It is applied to many different people and things, and not just to this person. This redirect's history implies that it was coined by this person, but there's no reliable source for it, and even if there would be, it shouldn't redirect to the page about him. The term "political technology" deserves its own article, given its popularity in Russian press, but that is just my impression, and I don't have any good reliable sources to write such an article. Until that happens, this redirect should be deleted. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:06, 6 December 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.

Equal representation[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, without prejudice to creation of a dab page if someone comes up with a reasonable idea of what should be included in it and what not. I do not see such an idea in this discussion. Ruslik_Zero 13:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded redirect. Target not equivalent. Ariconte (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is better; but I don't think a redirect is needed. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Congress is not the definition of this term. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one's hard. It shouldn't be deleted, but it should point to US Congress either. I see Representation (politics), Apportionment (politics), One man, one vote#United States, Connecticut Compromise, Reynolds v. Sims (maybe). There isn't a single clear meaning of this term, in fact the meanings of One Man, One Vote and Equal Representation in the Senate are diametrically opposed. Of those, I think the best alternative is to retarget to Apportionment (politics)#Malapportionment. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delete" redirect, change to dab - It's just a matter of editing the page rather than deleting outright, hence the quotes. I agree with what EWT says above, but there are also other legal items (29 USC 3911 refers to it), and I'm sure there's something in statistical sampling and many other contexts as well. Therefore, we should be using a dab page with choices instead of a redirect to a fixed article. MSJapan (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per MSJapan. Clearly there are multiple meanings and no primary topic - exactly the situation dab pages exist for. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 9 December 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_December_6&oldid=1050185406"