Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 8, 2012

Human consumption[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 disambiguate. JohnCD (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The most common use of the phrase "human consumption" is to refer to things consumed by humans; but anthropophagy refers to the consumption of humans. This redirect is very unlikely to reflect the actual intent of any article linking to it. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate This is a tricky one, but I was able to make a dab of sorts. --Lenticel (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Consumption (sociology), or just delete - The idea to disambiguate was a good one, but there doesn't seem to be enough material to disambiguate; for instance, it's a bit of a strecth to include Consumer (food chain) since that article makes only a passing mention of consumption of other organisms by humans. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Disambiguate as suggested by Mr. Czarkoff Retarget to Consumption. The disambiguation page suggested by the comments above and below would largely duplicate the one that already exists at Consumption, with only the modifier "as it applies to humans" added. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would disambiguate between anthropophagy and Consumption then, as the former is a logical choice for Human consumption but clearly not for Consumption. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a valid point. I wasn't aware that we disambiguated disambiguation pages, but it make senses in this circumstance. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: I would actually read the title exactly as consumption of human, and I believe that there could be some more people reading it the same way. Still it is pretty evident that the other viewpoint is also present. BTW, the search term is actually a good one, so I wouldn't consider deletion as a viable option at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate seems like it could refer to TB in humans as well... 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:17, 10 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.

Gluten intolerance[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 Gluten sensitivity. Lenticel (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather unhappy that typing in gluten intolerance, one gets redirected to coeliac disease. As mentioned on the Radio Four programme "Inside Health", presented by Mark Porter, the term "gluten intolerance" is a synonym for gluten sensitivity; the programme was careful to explain that this is NOT coeliac disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACEOREVIVED (talk • contribs) 15:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wrong forum: no admin action required. DIY. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the user above may want to retarget the redirect to gluten sensitivity.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is exactly the redirect which I would be a lot happier with! Many thanks for your comment, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's how I got it. And this action indeed doesn't require administrator's intervention. That's why DIY. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. The article Gluten sensitivity makes reference to "non-celiac gluten intolerance", meaning that the current target is misleading. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per the above comments, I have gone ahead and changed the redirect and removed the RFD tag. I'm unfamiliar with closing procedures or if regular editors are even supposed to, so please feel free to close this unless there's some issue with my actions. – RobinHood70 talk 05:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for every one's help on this one. It seems we now have settled (and corrected) this one. Many thanks again every one, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:23, 9 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.

List of awesome dinosaurs[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 no consensus to delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created on the idea that "dinosaurs are inherently awesome", which I won't dispute (except to say that paleontologists have ruined Jurassic Park's velociraptors for me), but that's not really the function of redirects (although it's good for a laugh). The redirect itself is neither a likely search term, having registered an average of c. 12 hits per month in the 24 months since its creation, nor an accurate one as 'awesomeness' is, sadly, not a criterion used at the target article. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: useless but funny; harmless. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree if this was part of Category:Wikipedia humor, but why keep a useless page in mainspace? -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is harmless and its hit count is a little above noise level. Just no reason to delete. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I always thought the other way – that there must be a use/reason in order to keep – but perhaps it's different with redirects. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:Redirects are cheap and it does have a few hits. A412 (Talk * C) 00:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the hits in January are from me, I think, as I had added the redirect to my favorites and used it to navigate to en.wiki; before then, hits averaged about one every three days. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:31, 11 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.

Philly.com[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 Philadelphia Media Network. JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this. Philly.com isn't just the website of the Enquirer but also of its sister paper the Philadelphia Daily News. This might be best retargeted to Philadelphia Media Network, the entity which publishes all both papers and the website. – hysteria18 (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close as retarget per nomination: no admin action required, DIY. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is a slight misunderstanding of the role of RFD. This is redirects for discussion, not for deletion, and I think a discussion here would be useful. If I thought retargeting was indisputably the best course of action, rest assured I would have done so myself. – hysteria18 (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see no sense in this course of action: the proposed target is clearly better then the current one, and, provided that you would leave a reasonable edit summary, the subsequent refining of target can be done easier by less heavy-weight procedure then RfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said above, if I thought the proposed target was clearly better than the current one I would have retargeted it myself. But I wasn't sure, so I created an RFD instead. Obviously you're free to !vote to retarget, and I'm inclined to agree, and the RFD will likely be closed to that effect in due time. But discussion is valuable, and a speedy close would be unwise. – hysteria18 (talk) 12:59, 9 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.

Pussy stank[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. JohnCD (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. – Confession0791 talk 01:04, 8 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.

File:Trans-Asia ship.JPG[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing to RfD as a contested speedy. Redirect contains no inbound file links, highly ambiguous search term which has little relevance to the image it redirects to. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:58, 8 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_8&oldid=1060726643"