Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 25, 2012

Southern Border (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 Keep and tag with {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. While the keep arguments are week, Redirects are cheep and consensus leaned towards keep. Whether Southern Border should be a redirect or disambig is the subject of another discussion, as it was not formally part of this discussion.--Salix (talk): 13:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading, this page does not redirect to a disambiguation; Southern Border is now a redirect. TimBentley (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_22#Southern_Border_.28disambiguation.29, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Border (California).--Salix (talk): 12:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Southern Border redirect is also misleading and unused; delete that, too. Dicklyon (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very dull page history, basically just a move to Talk:Southern Border (California).--Salix (talk): 12:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Southern Border" because it is part of a complicated series of content mergers and page moves and helps to document the history of the current content. "Southern Border (disambiguation)" is neither harmful nor especially confusing to readers. There are a number of disambig redirects in the system - usually because the page was once a true disambiguation but the other uses were eventually removed, sometimes because of an overzealous bot. Repointing them to the only remaining target is normal. It does seem to me, however, that there should be at least some alternate uses to turn that title into a true disambiguation page. Rossami (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • reinstate disambiguation page which existed until the 25th at Southern Border (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and then retarget the disambiguation redirect there. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 06:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As it currently is, I don't have a problem with it. As long as the current version of all the many artifacts from this long, strange trip just redirect to the surviving version, I think it's fine. I initiated the PROD and the first RfD, just trying to help simplify and clean up some of the mess, but if the more usual way is to just point all the elements to what's current, then that's fine too. But BTW, there is still some history I can't find in any of the "artifact" articles' histories-- namely the "huge mass of unrelated information copy-pasted from the San Diego County and Imperial County articles" and the version "trimmed of all the fat... attempting to prove that San Diego-Imperial is actually a real concept or real entity" mentioned by MelanieN in her "Delete" vote here: [1]. If we're trying to "document the history of the current content", as mentioned by Rossami above, then we should probably try and find those. I don't see them listed in "History" for Southern Border, Southern Border (disambiguation), San Diego-Imperial, or San Diego-Imperial, California. If we're really trying to keep the history of what happened with this whole area of subject matter, then that is the relevant history. All these other articles mentioned are just playing bit parts in the whole drama. -- Rnickel (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one of the versions that characterizes "Southern Border" as a populated place: here.  What happened is that the current article was written from scratch during an AfD that redirected the "populated place" article to the new article.  I'd slightly prefer the half-baked disambiguation page at Southern Border that could be improved, but to me the important thing is to keep the edit history, because just the still-missing Talk:Southern Border makes it difficult to impossible to know what is missing.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Yes, that is the history I was looking for. My mistake was trying "California" with a comma instead of parens. Good on ya', Unscintillating. -- Rnickel (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment If "keep and redirect" is the usual procedure for DAB pages that don't disambiguate anything any more, as Rossami says, I suppose that's OK; as the saying goes, WP:Redirects are cheap. Personally I don't really see any point to this page, since anyone trying to search for "Southern Border" is already redirected to Southern Border Region (California) - which was the title everyone finally agreed on after half-a-dozen attempts. I would have preferred the PROD deletion, which happened earlier this month and was then reversed. IMO this article's history is trivial. The actual history of this "long strange trip" as RNickel said - starting with the original article composed of cut-and-pastes from San Diego County and Imperial County - can be found at the redirect page "San Diego–Imperial (California)" [2]. That was the page which began as "Southern Border" and was moved to "Southern Border (California)" and then to "San Diego-Imperial, California" and finally to "San Diego-Imperial (California)". That article was AfD'ed, and the result was a redirect to "Southern Border Region (California) which is where it stands now. Whew! I suppose all the intermediate steps in the chain are now also redirects - again probably not needed, but redirects are cheap. --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  This redirect was nominated because of an edit to an article page (an edit that changed a dab page to a redirect page) that occurred shortly after the article page was dePRODed, but the dePROD for the talk page of the article is still not complete.  Would it be possible to get the dePROD completed to enable the discussion here?  This RfD was posted before I knew that the article had been dePRODded, so I had no chance to discuss this issue with the admin before the issue came here.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:27, 4 March 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.

Talk:Bill Hicks/Archive01[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 deleted G6. (Non-admin closure.) HairyWombat 21:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: No longer needed; no longer linked to. Could be {{db-r3}}, but it wasn't when it was created by the bot GurchBot 2. HairyWombat 19:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD § G6: as I get it, this page is leftover of a previous archiving effort. I think there is no benefit in keeping this redirect, as well as nearly no chance of page recreation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This agrees with what I worked out. In March 2006, the archive page "Archive01" was created and populated manually. In December 2006, a bot passed by, moved it to the standard name "Archive 1", and left this redirect. I recently changed all references of "Archive01" to the standard name. As your speedy {{db-r3}} was declined, you might like to try {{db-g6}} as you suggested. HairyWombat 20:29, 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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject:Ravidassia[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 after history merge.--Salix (talk): 12:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo. Apparently a copy-paste move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ravidassia with the editing history, so not a CSD case. I'm not even sure if this is MfD or RfD case, but since it's currently a redirect placing it here. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:33, 25 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.

Poul Møller (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 overwrite. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless - there is no dab page, just a single article PamD 09:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are literally several hundred redirects like this scattered around, and I have been working my way through them slowly. See User:RussBot/Non-disambiguation redirects/001. Ones like this can be speedy deleted, and I would have gotten to this eventually. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, sorry, had forgotten a redirect could be speedied ... on the other hand, not sure which criterion it fits! Any thoughts? PamD 13:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does not fit under {{db-disambig}}, because that's for disambiguation pages, not for redirects. Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I'd worked that out but got an edit conflict with you by the time I came round to trying to delete the template! There doesn't seem to be a CSD cat for "Redirect which is incorrect because the target page is not a dab page". PamD 13:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • While deletable, this (and the others like it) are not speedy-deletable because of their age. Rossami (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading: it may make someone think that the disambiguation is needed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Poul Møller (diambiguation) there. Comparing Poul Møller and Poul Martin Møller makes me wonder why the first should be the primary topic, though. TimBentley (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The article on PMM, philosopher, was created at that title in 2003 and seems to have had that title, give or take a diacritical, ever since. There doesn't seem to have even been a redirect from PM, and the new article on PM, politician, was created just this week. So it looks as if the philosopher is actually known as PMM. PamD 08:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2nd Comment: Ah, you've found perhaps the root of the confusion: a mis-spelled dab page! If the redlinked actor had an article, we could forget about the dab page and add him to the hatnote at Poul Møller. As he's a redlink, we can't do so and, ironically, this means that we have to provide link from politician to philosopher via 2 clicks, through a dab page, instead of one, through the hatnote. But that's the way it goes. PamD 08:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Per WP:TWODABS we can link directly to the philosopher as well as to the dab page in the hatnote. Station1 (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanation:OK, what seems to have happened is:
  1. Longstanding article at Poul Martin Møller
  2. Longstanding redlink for Poul Møller (actor) from film title
  3. Longstanding redlink for Poul Møller (politician) from Conservative People's Party (Denmark)
  4. Dab page Poul Møller (diambiguation) (note typo in title) created 18 Nov 2011, with redlink for politician
  5. Article Poul Møller (politician) created 25 Feb 2012, moved to Poul Møller, given hatnote pointing to dab page ....
  6. but that hatnote led to a redirect which pointed to Poul Møller, instead of to the mistitled dab page ...
  7. so I nominated it for deletion as an unnecessary redirect, not knowing of the existence of the dab page!

Revised proposal: Move Poul Møller (diambiguation) to Poul Møller (disambiguation) over existing redirect! PamD 08:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egads, I've caused a storm in a teacup with my missing 's'. PamD has the right of this; I've moved Poul Møller (diambiguation) to Poul Møller (disambiguation), correcting yesterdays typo and (I hope) fixed the whole shebang in a pleasingly minimalist manner. - TB (talk) 09:33, 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_25&oldid=1083556147"