Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 13, 2012

Алексей Табо Мэнделеевский[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 18:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Rose is not a Russian, and his name is not Alexey Tabo Mendeleyevsky. As far as I can tell, this redirect makes no sense. I propose deletion. Gorobay (talk) 22:49, 13 February 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.

London Euston Railway Station[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 plausible search term.--Salix (talk): 11:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from a page that has no pages linking to it, and does not following the naming convention of lower case "railway station" Stewart (talk | edits) 19:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. In an ideal world, all redirect would be orphans. Being an orphan is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. Likewise, one of the purposes of a redirect is to accomodate spelling and capitalization variants. The embedded search engine is (now) capitalization-insensitive but several of the other techniques that our readers use to navigate the wiki remain capitalization-sensitive. I also note that this link has existed for almost 3 years without creating a problem. The possibility that there are external links to this page can not be excluded. Link rot is a bad thing. The redirect is not obviously confusing or malicious. Without some compelling reason to delete, it should be kept. Rossami (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. It is a correct alternative name and likely search term. Deryck C. 17:34, 15 February 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.

Sam Smythe[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 16:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently malicious redirect that has stood for 8 years. No link between the name and the redirected article. Little Professor (talk) 02:53, 13 February 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.

Lukáš Přibyl[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 16:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not mentioned in target article. Recently deceased. Geschichte (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this article, he was the Vice Chairman of the organization until his recent death. To the extent that the redirect preempts an otherwise unnotable biography, it could be tolerated, though as you noted, he hasn't been included in the article yet, much less had a biography attempted. Count that as a very, very weak keep, I guess. Rossami (talk) 02:02, 14 February 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.

Hog-baiting[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 Dog-baiting. Ruslik_Zero 14:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I request that we delete the redirect Hog-baiting as the article is now about something else: Hog-dogging. Please see the article and it's talk page. At first glance, they seem to be the same but if you look into it they're different and the hog-dogging community is offended to be called boar baiters because they're not a bunch of bloodsporters and are vehemently fighting to de-conflate the two, as you could well imagine. Chrisrus (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-formatted per WP:TPO. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it did, but that may have been my ignorance and fault. I've since been (needlessly forcefully) educated about the matter and now regret conflating the two. Chrisrus (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am uncomfortable about deleting a perfectly reasonable redirect for the sole reason of pandering to the hog-dogging community's desire to sanitise their "sport". If hog-dogging and hog-baiting are so different then surely a new hog-dogging article should have been written rather than simply moving hog-baiting. One should also consider that until a few days ago the article was at Hog-baiting so who knows how many inbound links there are from outside Wikipedia which would be compromised by its deletion. nancy 19:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a new hog-dogging article, this one Hog-dogging. There is no article about hog baiting anymore. The difference between the way it used to be and the way it is now is the reason for this deletion. Any links to hog-baiting being used will bring them to an article about something else, so that problem already exists. If they, as they mostly seem to do, use only bay dogs that don't even touch the pig, then it's not about baiting anymore. It's not baiting if they just bay. And even the catch dog events, rare at these events, are not the same if they just catch the pig and are not allowed to fight. If you'd rather change it back to being like it used to be, then do so, move it to hog-baiting, and then delete the hog-dogging redirect. Either way is fine with me. I have no dog in this fight. Where are the references for the old baiting article? We could do it that way if you prefer. Just roll back the article until it was about boar-baiting and let hog-dogging go red. Chrisrus (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either
1. Hog-baiting = hog-dogging in which case the redirect should stand
or
2. Hog baiting != hog-dogging in which case the hog-baiting article should have been left alone to describe the historical practice and a new article about the completely different contemporary practice of hog-dogging created
If, as I think I read from your comment, option 2. is correct, then your actions thus far have been somewhat outside policy and should be reversed - we don't unilaterally remove all references to articles just because they describe an obsolete practice. Best, nancy 19:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that they overlap a bit, but hog-dogging mostly consists of bay dog events (please read the article) and the animals don't make contact. The parts of hog dog events which employ catch dogs might qualify as hog baiting, but that is at least controverial and far from clearly true. So it's possible that the two referents overlap, but it's not possible that they are the same because if the animals don't make physical contact then it's not baiting by definition.
Next, I didn't unilaterally change the article from what it used to be, an article about hog-baiting to one about hog-dogging. Lots of people were involved. I was one who fought against it, actually, as an investigation of the history will show. But I lost that fight, so now it's an article about hog-dogging, only, and not about baiting, except maybe in those bits where the two overlap. So if you want to go to the article and turn it back into what it was, be my guest. I'm just here to report to you that our article about hog-baiting doesn't exist anymore, so all hog baiting links should turn red until that changes.
No, I don't think you read my comments correctly. It has nothing to do with it being an obsolete practice. Again, we do need an article about hog- or boar-baiting, just like we have one about badger-baiting or duck-baiting or any of the many others we have. But we don't, anymore, and that's not because of me, I'm just here to tell you that we don't. So if we don't have an article about hog-baiting anymore, all hog-baiting links should turn red to reflect that fact. Also, it might be a step in the direct of spurring the creation or re-creation of such an article. By not allowing the hog-baiting link to turn red to reflect the current reality, you are not helping fix that problem.
Again, just to be clear, we need to turn the link hog-baiting red because there is no article about it anymore. That's the only reason. Forget about people's feelings or those other things. Concentrate on this fact: There is no article on Wikipedia about hog-baiting, so that link should be red until that changes. That is all. Chrisrus (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to re-creation  The main argument here seems to be as to who has the burden to create the article, not the subject-matter of the title.  Ipso facto, we have no article on this topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about the need to archive certain deletions  The only useful edit history has moved to the new title, although because this is not clear without actually seeing the edit history, this is an edit history that would be better preserved in an archive rather than available only to admins.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Dog-baiting. That article describes the general activity of setting dogs on animals, including hogs. --Salix (talk): 12:56, 26 February 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_February_13&oldid=1082504421"