Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 29, 2012

Robert Holohan[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 until there is a suitable target. Tikiwont (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect violates the Principle of least astonishment. Robert Holohan was a child who was killed in Ireland in 2005 (see [1] for details). Philip Cairns is/was a child who went missing in 1986. The two cases are entirely unconnected. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 18:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 18:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment an article at this title was deleted in 2005 following a votes for deletion (the predecessor to articles for deletion) discussion that reached consensus that it was 'tragic but not encyclopaedic'. The redirect was created, apparently independently, in September 2010, I've yet to discover any explanation for the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The situation re Robert Holohan's notability has changed completely since January 2005, I think I could justify the notability of the article if it were up at AfD today. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 23:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I created the redirect to get rid of a redlink to the former article, though the redirect could be deleted or else expanded to an article if someone is keen enough !Hugo999 (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If/when a suitable target is created at a later target, the redirect could be recreated at that time, but it's not appropriate to have a redirect which points to Philip Cairns. bobrayner (talk) 18:23, 31 July 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.

Diddling[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 Diddle (disambiguation). Tikiwont (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The target article mentions several alternative names for this type of song, but "diddling" isn't one of them. In fact, I've only ever heard the term "diddling" used to refer to one thing, which has nothing to do with music. Suggest a retarget. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It has other meanings: see wikt:diddle. ☮Soap☮ 00:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to the new disambiguation page I've created at Diddle (disambiguation). That does not list either the current target or its original target, Vocalese, as neither article mentions the term. They should be added though if this is just a deficiency in our articles (it's not easy for me to check on my phone). Also, I have not investigated whether the new dab page should have primacy over the existing redirect to Drum rudiment. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 30 July 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.

1911 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles[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 expand. Tikiwont (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1912 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles[edit]

1913 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles[edit]

1914 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles[edit]

1919 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles[edit]

1920 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles[edit]

1921 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles[edit]

Delete, needs to become it's own article and not redirect to Wimbledon Championship article (see e.g. 1922 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles and 1923, 1924 etc.)

  • keep all. The redirects can just be overwritten without deletion. There is no reason to remove the edit history. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, that means going to the 1921 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles page , chose edit, remove the REDIRECT tag and enter the content that should be on that page? --Wolbo (talk) 11:56, 29 July 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.

US Drought of 1988[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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another ridiculous redirect. There is another redirect called U.S. drought of 1988. Having both makes no sense. United States Man (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect unambiguously refers to the event in question. I don't see what good would be served by deleting it. If someone created it, then they found it a plausible search time. I tend to agree with the ~150 page hits in that it's a valid potential search term for the target, albeit an incorrect one. I'm seeing a reason to keep, and no reason to delete. BigNate37(T) 03:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per BigNate. Similar to WP:OTHERSTUFF it is entirely irrelevant what other redirects exist to the same target, all that matters is whether each individual redirect is a useful search term or otherwise has greater benefit than harm. Here there is no harm and it's a useful search term so keeping is the correct course of action. Redirects with lowercase 'us' (with or without dots) should be marked as unprintworthy though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as it is a redirect from several articles (unless someone wants to amend these articles, though making a redirect is quicker) Hugo999 (talk) 10:32, 31 July 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.

1988 us drought[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. Stretched for some it makes sufficient sense for others to be around. Tikiwont (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are 7 other redirects for this article. 2 of them even have US drought in them. I really don't see the need for this one. United States Man (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as above. BigNate37(T) 03:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this one is a bit of a stretch for me. I don't see anyone typing "us" (sic) for the page they're supposed to get to. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments above (I thought I'd already posted this, but perhaps I just previewed it). People typing entire search phrases and urls in lowercase is very common, particularly by the younger generation (some teachers feel that proper capitalisation is a dying art). Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 5 August 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_July_29&oldid=1138578288"