Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 27, 2012

Tcho[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 wrong forum: the problem the nominator tries to address is the technical problem of Mediawiki, and should be discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) instead. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Pages that redirect to another page will redirect to an old version of the page for users who are not logged in with certain browsers e.g. Safari and Chrome. The redirected page happens to be an old revision that has incomplete and inaccurate information. This falls under reason 2 of Reasons for Deletion: "The redirect might cause confusion." Not sure if qualifies for speedy deletion criterion G8 69.38.211.148 (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is hopefully a temporary problem with the Wikipedia site. Many other redirects like this one exist and never were problematic until relatively recently. PleaseStand (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That logic would require the deletion of all redirects, a result which would be a serious disservice to our readers. This particular redirect is a capitalization variant, one of the preferred uses for redirects. It has existed since 2008 and was the location of the content prior to a pagemove. While there are no remaining internal links, we have no way to know if or where there are external links. Link rot is a problem to be avoided whenever feasible. Rossami (talk) 02:35, 28 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.

CAMRA[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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has for 7 years pointed to Campaign for Real Ale, but there is now a suggestion that there should be a dab page at CAMRA. PamD 18:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirect pointing to Campaign for Real Ale: this substantial organisation is the primary usage, over a marginally-notable community arts organisation. (I brought the discussion to RfD because other editors were scrapping about it, not because I believe that the status quo needs to be changed.) PamD 18:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect. Campaign for Real Ale is clearly the primary topic by checking page views and reliable sources. The article was started with the name CAMRA back in 2001 by Jimbo Wales, and moved to Campaign for Real Ale in 2005, leaving CAMRA as a redirect. CAMRA is accessed an average of 40 times a day; Campaign_for_Real_Ale is accessed an average of 120 times a day; while Canberra_Academy_of_Music_and_Related_Arts is accessed an average of 3 times a day. Even if all three of the Canberra_Academy_of_Music_and_Related_Arts readers came via CAMRA, that still indicates that 92% of readers are going from CAMRA to Campaign_for_Real_Ale. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:19, 1 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.

Millitary History[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 as retargeted. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe 'Military History' does not solely mean chamar or chamar regiment and I think its misleading as well. Shriram (talk) 14:42, 27 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.

Allizom[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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK "allizom", "mozilla" in reverse, is used today as a name for Mozilla's testing website for early staging versions of its websites. Now it redirects to SeaMonkey. Maybe it had something to do with SeaMonkey in the past, but it's not clear what it was and the article doesn't say it. It should better be deleted. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete can't find reliable sources that links it to the Mozilla project. Most that I found are blog entries with allizom user names and a link to an SEO company.--Lenticel (talk) 03:18, 28 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.

Receiving (disambigation)[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 all. None of these redirects had incoming links, other than to this discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

All of these redirects are misspelled. None of these have any incoming article space links, and all are unlikely search targets. WP:CSD G6 has already been attempted and reverted. I'm not sure if I'm technically allowed to group them all up myself, but I thought I'd be a little WP:BOLD. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 05:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as misspellings of "disambiguation". These are just leftovers from moves for the most part. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: FWIW, typos in the "(disambiguation)" is not something we should keep for any reasons. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Housekeeping Delete --Lenticel (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slowly. Definitely not plausible search targets (and as disambiguation pages, there's little chance that people would have linked to them in the past), but G6 is meant for things such as history merges and moves over redirects, not unlikely redirects. Combine that with the fact that a sample page (Geraldo) has been around since 2009 and thus not a suitable R3 speedy delete either, and we're left with no option except RFD. Nyttend (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - checking for and fixing any incoming links first! (Could have been created by mistyping a hatnote etc). PamD 16:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_27&oldid=1141906462"