Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 May 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 29[edit]

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

Sleek[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 change to a soft-redirect to Wiktionary. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want info on the term itself and its use. Not a worthy redirect. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the content has been around since 2006 and was moved to other pages, keep the pagehistory to preserve attribution (a requirement of GFDL and CC-BY-SA) and to minimize the problem of link rot. Overwrite with a soft-redirect to Wiktionary using {{wi}} because I agree that the D&D monster is less important (and far less likely to be the next reader's desired target) than the adjective. Rossami (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Redirect to Wiktionary per Rossami.--Lenticel (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate' there is no edit history to keep around, the edit history is located on a different page. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:26, 31 May 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.

User:VistaPrince/Rick Denzien[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 18:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from user space to the new location after the user moved it. Not sure if it's appropriate, but cleaning out the unnecessary redirects. Hasteur (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unless VistaPrince requests otherwise. This isn't doing any harm and so unless VistaPrince wants it deleted there isn't much reason to. Thryduulf (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects, which indicates a preference for deletion but not a requirement. Senator2029 ❝talk❞ 14:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User to articlespace redirects are usually okay since we create them when moving articles out of our sandbox.--Lenticel (talk) 00:01, 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.

Wikipedia:Rick Denzien[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 speedy deleted. Jenks24 (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from WP space to Article space for artist. Definitely not the purpose of the WP space Hasteur (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was automatically created when I did the move from WP space to Article space. I have no objection to deleting this redirect. GoingBatty (talk) 20:30, 29 May 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.

Izrail[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) 13:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unlikely to be used Mosmof (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Azrael. "Izrail" is a plausible search term for "ʿIzrāʾīl", which is an alternative transliteration of the Arabic "عزرائيل" (Encyclopaedia Britannica have their article at that title for example). Thryduulf (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Thryduulf, nice catch.--Lenticel (talk) 15:16, 10 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.

Thierry Ongry[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) 17:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unlikely to be used Mosmof (talk) 15:37, 29 May 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.

Liv'pool[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) 17:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unlikely to be used Mosmof (talk) 15:36, 29 May 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.

Tallest philadelphia[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. 17:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Vague and implausible rephrasing. Psychonaut (talk) 08:13, 29 May 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.

Tallest nashville[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) 17:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vague and implausible rephrasing. Psychonaut (talk) 08:09, 29 May 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.

Lily allen smile[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. Rossami (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible rephrasing. Psychonaut (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This has been in existence since February 2009 without causing any problems, and it gets lots of hits (70-100 each month this year for example) suggesting it's far from implausible. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect that the hits are from our search box's autocompletion feature (which also lists lily allen the fear and lily allen fuck you), which would make the argument somewhat circular—the page is getting hits only because the search box is promoting it as the name of an article, and not necessarily because people set out to look for it. These sorts of redirects are harmful insofar as they prevent more relevant autocompletions from being listed. In this particular case, that isn't a problem, because the number of articles beginning with the phrase "Lily Allen" is small enough that they are all listed. However, the high visibility of these sorts of implausible redirects may encourage users to create more of them, which in many other cases can lead to the problem I described. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The solution to that is to tag them as {{unprintworthy}}, which removes them from the autocompetion list. It must be noted though that the internal search is only one of many ways that people use to find our articles, all or most of the others not having the benefit of autocompletion. Additionally, our tools can only show current internal links, and the longer a redirect has been in existence, the greater the likelihood of their being links external to Wikipedia. It is a Very Bad Thing if we break these links without good reason. Thryduulf (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, quite probable that someone would search for the song that way. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • By searching, they'll find it whether or not this redirect exists. Redirects are for navigation. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirects exist to help people find the content they are looking for, regardless of why or how they choose to search or browse Wikipedia. Significant numbers of people demonstrably are using this title to find our article, deleting the redirect would therefore make it harder for them to access what they are looking for, which would be a Bad Thing. Search results are not predictable and do not even get displayed when navigating by some methods (for example going directly to the URL or by following a link from an external site). Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 2 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.

Breaking back[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 Backbreaker. Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing deletion as per criterion #10. The target article doesn't discuss the subject of back-breaking as an execution method, and it's unlikely the redirect could be replaced with a meaningful article at this time. The only references I'm able to turn up for this method of execution are a passing mention in a book on Mongol history, and countless blogs and other unreliable web pages which simply repeat this information without expanding on it. There was formerly an article here which was deleted, which is why the redirect appeared, but apparently whatever meagre information got merged into the target was deemed too trivial or irrelevant to keep. Psychonaut (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Backbreaker as a plausible redirect or Soft redirect to Wiktionary's backbreaking entry--Lenticel (talk) 23:25, 29 May 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.

Template:Sudo[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 Withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The hell does "sudo" mean? I don't see how this is a plausible redirect to {{edit protected}}. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's the Unix command used to carry out tasks that require elevated permissions, which has obvious parallels with making a protected edit request. Plus it's shorter to type. I think it's the last mildly amusing redirect I made that nobody has deleted yet, so it's probably had its time. Gurch (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The rationale for the redirect name is obvious, but only to people familiar with *nix. I'm not sure if that set of people is large enough to warrant keeping it; are there any similarly named redirects which are demonstrably used? Despite this it appears the redirect has been widely used and referenced, up to and including the present day. I think that as long as people are using it it should be kept. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sudo make me an edit. And also since it does seem to be getting used. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: sudo explains the redirect (I'm not sure how you missed that :-). I use the redirect frequently. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do some research before you nominate something for deletion. --Closedmouth (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Useful and in high-use, and redirects are cheap. Avicennasis @ 11:21, 11 Sivan 5772 / 11:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's only for use on talk pages to transclude a template: so the average user will typically see the brown box stating either "It is requested that an edit be made to this ..." or "This edit request has been answered.", and they won't really care about the name of the template which produces that. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:58, 1 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.

London Conference of 1838–39[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 Withdrawn by nominator Pdfpdf (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC) fixed by Redrose64 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the redirect page - the "Treaty of London (1839)" has never been referred to as "London Conference of 1838–39". Pdfpdf (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is part of the histories of Belgium and the Netherlands. A Wikipedia example of "the London conference in 1839" is in Auguste, Baron Lambermont. An external example is [1] about "a Memorandum of the London Conference of 18 April 1839". Another external link [2] says "The London Conference found itself in full session again. By summer of 1838 the Conference had come to a general agreement ... after the unconditional French agreement reached London, late in January 1839, the government of Leopold I was left with no alternative." This is a totally suitable redirect and should be included in the London Conference disambiguation page as a navigation aid to readers. Meanwhile something should be done about what looks something like a content fork at List of conferences in London where an editor's comments in included in the list to excuse the disruption caused by this edit. --Rumping (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you say is largely true, and largely irrelevant. The "London Conference" page is a disambiguation page, and therefore should comply with WP:MOSDAB. It didn't, by a very long shot, and "this edit" brings the dab page back into compliance. I fail to see how this relates to the subject matter. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, the "Treaty of London (1839)" has never been referred to as the "London Conference of 1838–39". Also, the "Treaty of London (1839)" article makes zero mention of the "London Conference of 1838–39". In fact, in the whole of wikipedia, there are zero visible mentions of a "London Conference of 1838–39". In the whole of wikipedia, the only occurrence of a link to the page is in Partitions of Luxembourg, where is says: "The London Conference's first proposal ... " with no prior (or subsequent) mention or definition of what London Conference it is referring to, when it was held, why it was held, or what it was about. Nor is there any sort of supporting evidence. Currently, nowhere in wikipedia is there any evidence that there ever was a "London Conference of 1838–39". That there exists a page for this undefined event, which is a redirect to another page that makes no mention of this undefined event, seems very peculiar. Until there is some evidence provided that this undefined event actually did occur, and the evidence explains what this undefined event was, the page should not exist. If/when this evidence is supplied, if the page remains as a redirect, then the target page should make at least some mention of the event. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to the comment about forking, a disambiguation page is not a list of things that could be related. Please read WP:MOSDAB. Pages about a list of things that could be related are titled something similar to: "List of things that could be related". Such a page serves a completely different purpose to a disambiguation page. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, I'm not saying there was no conference. What I'm saying is that currently wikipedia makes no mention of what it was. Also, the conference and the treaty are two separate (but related) things - they are not the same thing, and wikipedia should not imply that they are. Wikipedia should make it clear what they are, and how they are related. Currently, it doesn't. Pdfpdf (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There was a London conference. It happened in 1838 and 1839. It's not a big leap here. This is exactly what redirects are for, and there is no reasonable reason to delete here. "It's incorrect" is never a valid reason to delete a redirect, unless it should point somewhere else or it's flat out ridiculous. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:55, 30 May 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_May_29&oldid=1091632728"