Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 8[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Nasirabad Govt. High School[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) 20:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to have a WP namespace redirect to this article. Specs112 t c 21:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is an artifact of our screwy new "article creation" process. It can safely be deleted (though there is little value to doing so). More importantly, we need to find the instruction or widget which is malfunctioning and causing articles to be drafted in the Wikipedia space in the first place. Any thoughts? Rossami (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was probably a new user who didn't understand the purpose of the namespace dropdown on the Move screen. Perhaps R2 needs to be extended to include redirects from Wikipedia-space (root pages only, not subpages) to mainspace? These are popping up more and more often. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been mulling over the same thing, although I was thinking of a new criterion rather than expanding R2. In a previous discussion someone mentioned they had deleted a couple under G6 but that's a borderline fit at best. See WT:CSD, Thryduulf (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you found it! I haven't moved a page in a while and didn't know that namespace dropdown was added. And, yes, the distinction about namespaces is very confusing for new users. My preference is to get that "feature" stripped back out or at least defaulting more sensibly. Expanding CSD is always problematic. Rossami (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems a little unsafe to have the potential to follow a project namespace link and end up in articlespace. The chances of someone accidentally editing an article in an informal tone aren't high, but having an XNR in this manner isn't safe and it's sloppy practice to leave these around when we find them. Let's zap it. BigNate37(T) 08:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Apparently only exists by error and seems to serve no useful purpose. OSborn arfcontribs. 22:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete XNR. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Error? It seems to be a wrong namespace, as Ragib mentioned here: see the oldest edit summary --Tito Dutta ✉ 09:23, 13 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.

模板:article issues[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. —Kusma (t·c) 19:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this. It is a cross-namespace redirect using a foreign language unrelated to its target. There are no links to it and it is under a week old. Gorobay (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete foreign-language CNRs to template namespace are only very rarely useful and this is not one of those occasions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as CNR.--Lenticel (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete XNR. Further, "article issues" is in English and "模板" isn't, so this makes no sense. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, It's a typo. --Jack No1 (talk) 什么样的节奏是最呀最摇摆？什么样的歌声才是最开怀？ 06:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

Micro Award[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. After a month with no additional comments I don't forsee that a further relisting will produce a consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posting for 31Filmer: I propose that Micro Award be deleted since it's redirect doesn't mention it at all.

Note: This proposed deletion does not reflect my views for or against the deletion. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 08:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Micro award is not mentioned in Flash fiction at all --31filmer (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nomination as well as above. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀
  • This page was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micro Award. While that debate was closed as "no consensus", the ordinary-editor consensus afterward was to merge the content. The redirect documented the merger and the pagehistory behind it ensured our compliance with the attribution requirements of GFDL and CC-BY-SA. The content remained in the target article until earlier this month when it was removed as part of a massive reduction of the content of the page. The edit summary of that edit suggests that the complete removal of the Micro Award content may have been accidental - it does not appear related to the other content removals or to the given reason. Regardless, the content remains in the project's history and may be restored at any time. Keep to ensure our continued compliance with the attribution requirements. Suggest reconsideration of the content deletion on the target page. Rossami (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move without redirect to Talk:Flash fiction/article history or similar to preserve the history. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It can not realistically be moved without redirect because the content has already been merged to the target page. You could try a history-merge but that will make an utter hash of the pagehistory, generating false diffs as the two versions switch back and forth. Given the timing of edits, the history merge would not properly preserve the attributions. Rossami (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just re-read your comment and realized that you were proposing a subpage. My apologies for misunderstanding. The subpage proposal is technologically feasible and creative. It's a pretty non-standard answer, though. Why is it justified in this particular case? Rossami (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 8 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.

America First Books[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. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable e-book publishers - why would anyone looking for American Free Press type this in? There was promotional material added by this editor to AFP but I've removed it as promotional Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not promotional. This is a site which publishes books by the same group of people and authors responsible for the American Free Press, and is closely related enough to add as a section rather than its own article. The viewpoints generally mirror those of Willis Carto and the American Free PressRedhanker (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although it looked promotional, I don't think you meant it as promotional. But I still don't think it is a reasonable redirect and I don't think this ebook publisher would be notable enough for its own article. And without a source directly making the link with the American Free Press it really doesn't belong in the AFP article, although again I understand why you are doing this. Dougweller (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as there seems to be a consensus that a section on America First Books doesn't belong in the American Free Press article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since there are no sources linking this to American Free Press, not notable.CouchSurfer222 (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: in general, a subtopic that is not worthy of its own article is a great reason to have a redirect. This is the purpose of {{R from subtopic without possibilities}}. Such a redirect would prevent would-be authors from creating doomed stubs, by helping them find the appropriate place for that information. BigNate37(T) 08:41, 11 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.

Voxu[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 Ōshū. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page redirects to Mutsu, but... why? Furthermore, why does the page even exist? RabidDeity (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the name of a kingdom in that area in the 17th century, I think now roughly equivalent to Mutsu. Voxu is a Portuguese/Latin spelling of 奥州, which was at the time pronounced Wōshū, but nnow is pronounced Ōshū. The name came up repeatedly in my research for Hasekura Tsunenaga, and I wanted to make sure I could find the modern name again if I needed it. Perhaps it would be better to have it redirect to Oshu instead? --Iustinus (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, okay, I did a really brief search but couldn't find it. Given that information, I have no problem with keeping it, but maybe put a note in the Discussion page on both articles for future reference? --RabidDeity (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Both" meaning Voxu and Mutsu? --Iustinus (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ōshū This is an alternate name for that historical kingdom, so it should target to an article about the historical kingdom. If it corresponds to a modern location, that should be in the article, not thru a redirect. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Red link to encourage the creation of an article on this kingdom. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, could we get a Japanese History person to comment here? --Iustinus (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I will place a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan about this discussion per Iustinus' final comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ōshū and create a section explaining Voxu and its origins. Then, if someone wants to expand it more to make it big enough to be an article, we can leave a summary at Ōshū and spin it off into an article. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than redlinking, if the target's subject is in fact the same historical land as the redirect, the article should say so (perhaps in a short sentence in the lead), and the redirect should be tagged {{R with possibilities}}, which is preferential to deletion on the grounds of making room for an article in the future. BigNate37(T) 08:44, 11 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.

Interstate 79 (1957-1958)[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. If "a planning document that was tossed after two years doesn't really give this alternate number enough notability for a redirect", it should be deleted. Ruslik_Zero 13:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. This implies that nationally, there was an Interstate 79 that existed in two years and was discontinued. Instead, early planning documents showed the I-79 number on what is now I-77 before the numbering was finalized. Imzadi 1979 → 08:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that number wasn't signed "in the field", then either the Interstate 77 and/or Interstate 79 and/or etc. pages should be changed to reflect the correct version of events. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Interstate 77. A planning document that was tossed after two years doesn't really give this alternate number enough notability for a redirect. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No articles link to this redirect. The only incoming links are through the Article Alerts process, this RfD and the creator's list of creations. Imzadi 1979 → 12:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: It is unclear what action is being recommended by either commenter
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm advocating deletion. Dondegroovily suggested redirection, but his suggested target is the current target of this otherwise useless redirect. (No articles point to it, only project pages related to its creation or my nomination here or the creator's list of creations.) Imzadi 1979 → 10:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're position was and is clear, my comment (itself it seems not as clear as it might have been) was regarding the positions of Dondegroovily and Allen (Morriswa). Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 8 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.

Swimming in Miami[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. Ruslik_Zero 17:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not every song on a barely notable record is appropriate for a redirect. It's like making s redirect from every separate chapter of a book. DGG ( talk ) 07:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is the redirect in the way of other content? Is the redirect actively harmful or confusing? If not, then the general principle of pointing non- or semi-notable topics to a more-notable parent is a routine solution that politely preempts the creation of content that we really don't want here. While I agree that editors should probably do something more productive with their time than create these redirects, there is zero benefit to deleting them once they are here. Redirects really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly retarget to Swim Miami with a hatnote? The phrase "Miami Swim Week" is also used to refer to Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week Miami it seems from google, but that phrase is not used in the stub article so wouldn't make a brilliant target. Per Rossami a redirect to the current target is much preferable to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 8 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.

The Gateway Tower[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 per Arms. I didn't spot that target! — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked by R136a1 Star (talk · contribs), with edit summary "The gateway tower is not limketkai hotel, and it is not actually a hotel it's office building." It is only mentioned in the target article in an image caption, which hardly seems useful to readers. I think possibly that the Limketkai Hotel might be in the building known as The Gateway Tower(s), but I may be wrong. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:38, 8 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.

The Massive[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 Massive. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article here, but it seems to have been boldly redirected in 2006. According to Massive (dab page), it is "the starship that is home to The Almighty Tallest, the leaders of the Irken Empire."

No information on "The Massive" at Invader Zim or List of Invader Zim characters. Delete or retarget to Massive, List of Invader Zim characters#Secondary characters, or The Massive Crush. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:35, 8 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.

Daniel Zeichner[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. If he becomes notable in his own right in future then the history can be undeleted. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zeichner has stood once in Cambridge and three times in Mid Norfolk. An AfD two years ago was closed with the recommendation that this redirect be created, but that was in the midst of the 2010 election (in which Zeichner stood in Cambridge), and I think !voters might have been afflicted by recentism. Since neither target is more desirable than the other, I think this should be deleted. (If he's selected next week as the 2015 Labour candidate for Cambridge, I think he may become notable in his own right anyway.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:29, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_8&oldid=1138578302"