Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 June 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 18, 2012

Gro.aidepikiw.ne[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) 20:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible. Virtually unused as one might expect. Apparently, people looking for Wikipedia will usually not type its url backwards when searching for it. Kilopi (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment this was orginally created as a double redirect to palindrome via Ikiw/gro.aidepikiw.ne//:ptth, which was speedily deleted years ago under criterion G1 (nonsense). It was retargetted to the present article in 2009 (presumably as it isn't a palindrome). Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the anagram is an implausible search term. (I doubt that problems with RTL/LTR input schemes could cause this outcome) 70.49.127.65 (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible synonym.--Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • eteleD, ton ynnuf. —Kusma (t·c) 17:35, 23 June 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.

Home language[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 First language. JohnCD (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the target of this redirect exactly matches the meaning, e.g. they are not the same. I'm not sure what better target there is though. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:46, 18 June 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:Chobham 2.0[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 Speedily deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs) under criterion G3. Subsequently, the target article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chobham 2.0. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect doesn't needed here.It's from a Wikipedia page to the article. Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 08:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete XNR. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy-delete as a self-corrected mistake - the user moved the page from his/her userspace to the Wikipedia-space then one minute later, moved it to the mainspace. This appears to be a common mistake somehow triggered by our new article creation process. I have not yet found the error in our instructions leading to this hiccup but I have to believe that there is some common cause. Rossami (talk) 03:48, 19 June 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 Entertainologist[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 defer to AfD Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for a page currently in AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lulu Powers DarkAudit (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • defer to AfD. Redirects like this don't need to be nominated here. If the target is deleted then redirects get speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G8. If the article is not deleted and you still think the redirect should be deleted you can nominate it here without prejudice. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redirect and the main article were both put up for AfD, that's why I nominated the redirect here. Lesson learned and no harm done. DarkAudit (talk) 13:56, 18 June 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.

Republic of China (1927–1949)[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 is. No alternative title presents itself and the diversity of content on the target page suggests that this is plausible ambiguity. Regardless, the redirect takes the reader to the correct page where the best-available data is presented. Rossami (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to correct title. What are the correct years for the beginning and end? The Target article Nationalist Government states years 1928-1948, but the info box says 1927-1948. We should have correct year range to correspond to the target article. Mistakefinder (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep reasonable search term. It is the period of the Chinese Civil War (according to the target article). 70.49.127.65 (talk) 00:20, 19 June 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.

Repulic of Venice[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. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deletion. Unnecessary for a stupid misspelling of common word. Mistakefinder (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's been around since 2006 and has not caused any controversy or confusion in all that time. By all appearances, it was created in good faith and the statistics show a steady trickle of hits suggesting that this misspelling is not uncommon. It is not in the way of any other content. "Unnecessary" is a value judgement based on how you navigate the wiki. It is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. They really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 03:44, 19 June 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.

Republic of China (1911-1949)[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. Rossami (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deletion or re-targeting. Should be deleted, because of wrong beginning year 1911, and it redirected to Taiwan, which is incorrect. There's already an article named Republic of China (1912-1949). It should, at a minimum, redirect to this article. However, why keep a redirect that's wrong anyway? Mistakefinder (talk) 07:15, 18 June 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.

Criticism of Wikipedia[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 the redirect. Ruslik_Zero 16:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undo the whole redirect and restore the original page. This page was meant to be here, and the Wikipedia main article talks very little about critical reception; it does not even have a section about reception and criticism. Longbyte1 (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Seems like there's been a long-running discussion in the NPOV noticeboard. Any way we can bring the issue up again? The issue has not been resolved. --Longbyte1 (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if you delete the redirect, you will delete the page you want to restore as well. That page appears in the edit history of the redirect. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic keep. This page has history going back almost to the start of the project. It serves an essential function for the project, allowing editors to vent about the nature of the wiki but more importantly, acknowledging the published failings of the project. It is essential that we live up to our own rules about balanced presentation even when the article is about Wikipedia itself. No, make that especially when the article is about Wikipedia. The history of this debate must be preserved.
    I am less emphatic about whether the page should be kept-as-is or restored to a pre-redirect version. Many of the older versions, while living up to NPOV (mostly), suffered serious deficiencies in sourcing and conflict-of-interest editing. I believe that a balanced page could be written but can also see the argument for redirect. That, however, is a matter to sort out on the article's Talk page and is not a proper decision for this forum. Rossami (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I mostly agree with Rossami, the history of this page is valuable, in fact, Jimmy Wales even cited this Wikipedia article in a debate with the editor-in-chief of Britannica. However, there is still the mild debate on POV. Can we revive some discussion on that note? Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic keep (the original page). This page serves as a healthy check and balance in understanding both the accuracy/inaccuracy and strengths/weaknesses of articles here. Criticism is invaluable and paramount to improving the quality of the repository that makes up Wikipedia. Veritycheck (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia: namespace? benzband (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, this was and should be an encyclopaedia article, not an internal project-space page. While there is scope for a project page it would have a different focus (e.g. strategies and good practice to follow in response to criticisms). keep redirect until an article is (re)established. 82.132.211.155 (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (the redirect) - I don't know if this page is an appropriate place to discuss bringing back the article, but since that's being discussed, I will respond. The criticism has not been removed; it has simply been moved to other articles, such as Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia and Community of Wikipedia. This was done to better comply with the recommendations in WP:NPOV that discourage "Criticism of" pages. No one here who has written on behalf of bring back the article has provided a policy reason for doing so. I also disagree with the statement that "the Wikipedia main article talks very little about critical reception". Some of the Nature section and most of the Analysis of Content section deal with issues where Wikipedia has been criticized, and much of this content came from the original Criticism of Wikipedia article. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the redirect - After reviewing Reliability of Wikipedia, I think that it would work better and generally more acceptable by the community than the old article on the Criticism. And I think JTSchreiber summed it up pretty well too. However, because the information in Reliability of Wikipedia is is more or less similar to Criticism of Wikipedia, should we change the redirect to Reliability instead? Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Only a jerk would want to redirect this page to begin with. This is a stupid poll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.9.2 (talk) 07:24, 29 June 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_June_18&oldid=1141906422"