Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 7, 2012

Blexzer[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 per WP:CSD#G3 (obvious vandalism), based on google hits this was probably an attack against a non-notable person so could falling under WP:CSD#G10 as well. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive redirect and no-one famously known called "Blexzer", most likely the work of a vandal - the action should be deletion.

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:Tiber.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 to rule out further confusion. Tikiwont (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image was moved to make room for commmons:File:Tiber.jpg ([commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiber.jpg]) -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need the File: prefix when linking to images on Commons, Commons:Tiber.jpg does the trick. Including it shouldn't fail though, I'll see if there is anything at Bugzilla and file a bug if not. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, it's just a simple typo - there are only two "m"s in "commons" ;) - Commons:File:Tiber.jpg works as expected. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HAHAHA, I knew the error was between the keyboard and my chair. :D Thanks for catching that.
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.

Mitt[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. Tikiwont (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more likely to refer to gloves (WP:OPINION notwithstanding); a redirect to Mitt (disambiguation) would be best in my opinion. Coppaar (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No opinion I'm the one who redirected this to Romney, but I could go either way on it. I'm not sure which option is better. Another possible target is baseball glove, since a baseball mitt seems to be the most common usage, at least here in the USA. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's a primary topic it's probably glove, but as multiple targets have been proposed it should probably go to the disambiguation page (or the disambiguation page should be moved back). Peter James (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is currently a move request at Mitt (disambiguation) to move that page to Mitt.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mitt (disambiguation), I'm also okay with anon's the move request.--Lenticel (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is actually not my request, I was pointing to an existing page move request that I believed to be relevant.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, changed my statement.--Lenticel (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with disambiguation page clearly it's a type of glove, and there are multiple targets for glove types on the disambiguation page. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment and it has been replaced with the disambiguation page, per the discussion on its talk page Talk:Mitt, so this redirect no longer exists (it was processed by an admin, since the redirect had an RFD edit history attached and retargets) ... so a close would be in order -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:42, 17 November 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.

Agios Georgios (Corfu (South)), Greece[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. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link is essentially unused, and it is extremely unlikely anyone is ever going to search for or use the name in this complicated form Constantine ✍ 10:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - history shows two important things: First, this page is over three years old, meaning that there are likely a whole lot of non-wiki links pointing to it - we have no way of knowing and don't want to kill someone's link. Second, this page was merged into the other back in February. It carries attribution history for the destination article that our copyright requires us to keep, see Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Either of those alone make this an unquestioned keep. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:23, 7 November 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.

Bir el Mazar[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 17:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is not an alternative name for the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, is not a plural or closely related word etc, it is not more specific than the article name and its less specificness like its subtopicness is beyond minimal. It is not an alternative spelling, misspelling, it does not address a punctuation issue, and should not be a redirect. Please delete this redirect because it makes no sense. Rskp (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it is a notable battle that was part of the campaign, and it targets the exact right article. Suggest targeting to section Bir el Mazar Raid, September 1916 Ego White Tray (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bir el Mazar was not "a notable battle," as a quick read of the subsection of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign article will show. None of the sources records any casualties on either side due to fighting or any other reason and the reconnaissance which was to develop into an attack only if no serious resistance was encountered withdrew without attacking. --Rskp (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter that there wasn't a battle. There is a section in an article with this title, that is enough for a redirect. Policies like notability simply don't apply to redirects. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ego White Tray argued that because Bir el Mazar was a notable battle it should be a redirect, now Ego White Tray says notability doesn't apply to redirects and the fact it wasn't a battle is also not relevant. So now we have a new argument. Now its enough that Bir el Mazar is a subsection of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign article. If every section of every article became a redirect Wikipedia would be overflowing with redirects. --Rskp (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability guidelines only apply to article space. Notability is not considered when evaluating a redirect. A412 (Talk • C) 13:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the basis of A412's post of 14 November, Ego White Tray's vote to keep on the basis of notability should be ignored. --Rskp (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - redirects are cheap. It's the correct target. A412 (Talk • C) 04:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say why you say the Sinai and Palestine Campaign is the correct target? --Rskp (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only information on the title under consideration is located at Sinai and Palestine Campaign. Standard redirect reasoning- closest relevant material. A412 (Talk • C) 06:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Bir el Mazar reconnaissance did not turn into a notable battle. There was no fighting. The reconnaissance was to an obscure little place on the Sinai peninsula which is in no way the "closest relevant material" to the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, which in contrast describes years of operations in the Sinai, in Southern and Northern Palestine, in the Jordan Valley, in the Judean Hills, in the Golan Heights and in Syria. During all those operations there are many other equally obscure places to which reconnaissances were made. Surely all these should not become redirects? --Rskp (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do I have to say it again? "Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal system resources, so it does not really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around." If the redirect DOES NO HARM, keep it. Additionally, since notability criteria do not apply to redirects, there is no argument for deletion. A412 (Talk • C) 05:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on dubious voting criteria. Ego White Tray's vote to Keep on 7 November was on the basis of notability. A412's argument encourages every and any redirects. This Bir el Mazar redirect to Sinai and Palestine Campaign is a nonsense. This redirect makes no sense and should be deleted. --Rskp (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects are navigational aids. If I want to find information on Bir el Mazar, it is in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign article. A412 (Talk • C) 02:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment So you agree the bases of your argument to keep was dubious. But now instead of cheap, redirects are for navigation. Bir el Mazar is not the only place mentioned in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign article. There is Khan Yunus, Jifjafa, Ghoraniyeh and Shunet Nimrin to name a few. Are you suggesting that all these place should have their own redirects? Or is it simply that you agree that this nonsense redirect is unsustainable. --Rskp (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, go ahead and redirect all of those too. A412 (Talk • C) 04:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That would be silly. See Wikipedia:Redirect where you will find the purposes of redirects which does not include navigation. These place names are NOT alternative names, NOT plurals, NOT closely related words, NOT adjectives/adverbs pointing to nour forms, NOT more of less specific forms of the article name, NOT abbreviations, NOT alternative spellings, NOT ASCII characters, NOT likely misspellings, NOT alternative capitalizations, and etc. and should therefore not be redirects --Rskp (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer this question: What harm is this redirect doing? A412 (Talk • C) 01:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer It contravenes the purposes of a redirect and should be deleted. --Rskp (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How? You haven't explained how in contravenes the purpose of a redirect. Someone who sees this name someplace can type it in the search box and get an article that discusses it. That's the whole point of having redirects. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RSKP, you didn't even answer the question. How is that harmful? A412 (Talk • C) 18:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer If you wish to argue for retention of this redirect please do so using the criteria for establishing a redirect. As this redirect defies the purpose of a redirect and flouts the reasons redirects are established, that will be difficult, as A412 and Ego White Tray have demonstrated. This redirect is completely without merit and must be deleted. --Rskp (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you got it. From Wikipedia:Redirects, under the first section "Purposes of redirects" is this text: "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)" - This redirect is exactly that. A sub-topic of Sinai and Palestine Campaign that links to Sinai and Palestine Campaign. So, just make sure it links to the correct section and it's a perfect example of this kind of redirect. Now that I've proved that this redirect meets the criteria for creating one, I can now point out that there is entirely different criteria for deleting a redirect, all of which error on the side of keeping them. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At last a credible argument. I have to disagree with you, tho. The Battle of Gaza would be a sub-topic of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign article, but the reconnaissance to Bir el Mazar is a sub, sub, sub sub-topic. Its like, if you think of an orange as being the Sinai and Palestine Campaign article, one of its pips would be Bir el Mazar and one of its segments would be the Battle of Gaza. That's about the difference in scale you are talking about. This redirect makes no sense. Bir el Mazar is such an obscure place that its next to impossible for it to be a search unless the reader had first been made aware of Bir el Mazar by the Sinai and Palestine article. --Rskp (talk) 05:07, 21 November 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.

Battle of Nahr el Faliq[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. Tikiwont (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this redirect because it makes no sense. It is not a plural or closely related word etc, it is not more nor less specific than the article name; its completely irrelevant. It is not an alternative spelling, misspelling, it does not address a punctuation issue, and should not be a redirect. Rskp (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, capturing the Nahr el Faliq was one of the key events of this battle, so it makes perfect sense. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using that logic the Battle of Megiddo article should have redirects from Battle of Nablus (1918), Capture of Jenin (1918), Battle of Samakh (1918), Third Transjordan attack, Battle of Sharon (1918), Capture of Tiberias (1918), Battle of Nazareth (1918), Battle of Tulkarm (1918), Battle of Tabsor (1918) and Capture of Afulah and Beisan. Would that be useful? --Rskp (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strawman argument. Most of these pages have their own articles. Nahr el Faliq doesn't have an article, so it makes sense to link to the wider campaign. You haven't presented a reason to delete this. In fact, deleting this would be unhelpful, since there wouldn't be a link to the content we do have on this. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the redirect should stay. --Rskp (talk) 05:09, 14 November 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.

Action of Arsuf[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 Moot (non-admin closure) Converted into article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk)

Please delete this redirect as it links to an action which occurred in June 1918. This redirect is misleading, is not a closely related word or a plural nor is it more or less specific; its not relevant at all to the Battle of Jaffa (1917) article. It is not an alternative spelling, misspelling, nor does it address punctuation issues. It makes no sense. Rskp (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is redirecting to a battle during the third Crusade in 1191 relevant? --Rskp (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Action of Arsuf and Battle of Arsuf are similar enough names that people might have them confused. Considering that "action" is so often used ana synonym for battle in military parlance, it makes sense. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its hard to say. The current lack of inline citations in the crusade article could see it develop in quite unexpected directions once it becomes properly cited. Anyway we are agreed the redirect as it stands should be deleted. --Rskp (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. In my view, after retargeting to Battle of Arsuf, we should place a note at the top of that article saying "Action of Arsuf redirects here. For the 1917 action, see Battle of Jaffa (1917)". This means that someone searching for the 1917 event can find it. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree. This redirect is misleading and does not fit any other criteria for redirects. It should be deleted. --Rskp (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content added now a stub class article - took about 5 mins web search Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that this action has enough notability for its own article. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That another question all together, however its a named battle involving four battalions covered in at least two sources. One being the British official history. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:45, 20 November 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.

President Romney[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. Per the 2008 precedent. Ruslik_Zero 17:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted; it's factually inaccurate and keeping it around is misleading. LongestAugust (talk) 05:00, 7 November 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_November_7&oldid=1138578484"