Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 21, 2012

Found the Answer[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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page was nominated for a {{db-hoax}} speedy deletion, but even if it is a hoax, I am not convinced that it is a "blatant" one. Hence I am listing it here to get more people to have a look at it, and get it either deleted or kept, as appropriate. It Is Me Here t / c 22:40, 21 September 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.

Lost Reputation/Above Suspicion[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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakenly created Redirect during an improper move - unlikely to ever be used as the first part matches actual string. Also, this is likely a subpage as opposed to anything else based on how it was created dangerouspanda 22:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without consensus to treat "Lost Reputation" and "Above Suspicion" as one episode, I don't see the need to keep this redirect. Davejohnsan (talk) 22:11, 21 September 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.

Arab terrorist[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 taking into account that we have also removed to a large extent categories of terrorists by nationality and ethnicity. In that sense Arab terrorism is different and hasn't really been discussed here so should rather be listed separately. Tikiwont (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Related to user talk: Jarble #Inexperienced user listed at Redirects for discussion (where arguments against the title "Arab terrorist" were presented) and is an indirect consequence of yesterday's #Inexperienced user. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in the context of attempted insertion of this link to the Orientalism article the meaning is not preserved. A stereotypical "Arab enemy of America" of 1990s is more likely a secular Iraqi baathist (or a Palestinian Fatah insurgent, if the action is set in 1980s) rather than fervently Islamic Wahhabite or Hezbollah fighter. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to TerroristTerrorism and protect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arab" =/= "Islamic", so deleting or redirecting to Terrorist are the only decent options I can see. Hairhorn (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-This is a tough one. On the one hand, odds are that Islamic terrorism would have the information that someone typing "Arab terrorist" into the search bar would be looking for. However, that may not be the case at all times, and ceartinly, not every Arab terrorist could be accurately described as an "Islamic terrorist". In view of that, and given the potentially inflammatory nature of such a redirect (and yes, I say that understanding that redirects are not required to be neutral) I think deletion is the best option. I also think that, given the talk page discussion linked in the nomination, the creation of this redirect have have been somewhat pointy, further arguing for deletion.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This become interesting[edit]

Special:WhatLinksHere/Arab terrorist
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_terrorism&action=history

I warned the community as early as in #Inexperienced user. My warnings were, at best, dismissed by the majority. But anyway, thanks… for discovering yet another bad redirect. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect page ("Arab terrorism") existed previously, but I noticed that it redirected to a different page, so I decided that it should be merged into the "Arab terrorist" redirect. Should I retarget it to the page that it pointed to originally? Also, I'm confused: what type of "warning" are you referring to? Jarble (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arab terrorism → Arab terrorist (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Now the target is not relevant. The wise reaction, on spotting of "Arab terrorism", would be to alert the community about it, because almost identical title "Arab terrorist" was already under discussion. There is no such action as "merging of two redirects", but now I realized that your edit was a good faith one. BTW, I hope the community will not object listing a newly discovered redirect here, not in a separate nomination. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:55, 25 September 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.

Humberto Osorio Botello[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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language soft redirects are generally not desirable. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I'm sure we have guidance to this somewhere but I have been completely unable to find it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems notable, red link to encourage article creation. Siuenti (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If someone wants to make the effort to translate the foreign language article to English, then that's a different matter totally. But just redirecting to it, whether soft or hard, is IMHO pretty useless on the English Wikipedia. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Wikipedia:Soft redirect: "Soft redirects to non-English language editions of Wikipedia should be avoided because they will generally be unhelpful to English-language readers.". -- œ™ 04:19, 23 September 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.

Ernst Hafen[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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language soft redirects are generally not desirable. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:51, 21 September 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.

Carla[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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Carla, a popular female name, shouldn't redirect to its male counterpart with no mention of the notable women called Carla. Douglasi (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. Did you prefer to put famous Carla's under Carl (name), or change Carla into something similar to Carl?  The Steve  10:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redlink to encourage an article, or possibly some kind of disambig page. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubbify with an intro sentence about it being the feminine form of Carl, and a list of famous Carlas, such as found at Carl for Carls. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Since there have been no objections to making an article, I've been bold and started it, using a wikipedia search for Carla and Carl (name) as a template.  The Steve  00:44, 26 September 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.

Gateway LT3103U[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 to delete. Tikiwont (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing specific about this model at the target page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The search page is more useful. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and refine the target to the section about LT31s. Actually all the references used by that section are about LT3103U, but even if it wasn't the case I think this is a close enough match to be more rewarding than the search page. Siuenti (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF but why should we have this one model and not all the other model mentioned on the target page? It should be all or nothing in a case like this and in this particular case it should be nothing. WP is not a product catalogue and all that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'd want to delete any of the hypothetical others, but this one at least is reviewed under this title in multiple reliable sources - see the references. Siuenti (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The LT3103U is not mentioned by name in the article but some of the refs talk about it. Not a good look for the accuracy of the article and it means the redir is not needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion I use is "helpful" not "needed". Siuenti (talk) 19:16, 22 September 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.

various "Larry Marshall" redirects [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) 14:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, redirects for non-notable person Hairhorn (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - useful for navigation, no BLP problems WilyD 08:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, this is a vanity redirect for a non-notable person, I'm not clear on how that's helpful. One of them isn't even spelled right, these are all unlikely search terms. Hairhorn (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Larry Marshall is mentioned in the target article, so these redirects are useful for those people searching for content about him. If he's non-notable then we don't want an article on him, which the redirects discourage - redirects from the names of non-notable individuals to articles where they are mentioned are explicitly encouraged. The incorrectly spelled title got over 120 hits in August, the correctly spelled ones got 93 between them (the stats are case insensitive) so this shows they are actively used (3-4 hits/month is background noise, this many uses is therefore very significant). Normally I'd say to delete the incorrectly spelled redirect, but as it's getting so many hits it's clearly linked from somewhere. It needs tagging as {{R from misspelling}} but not deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:19, 21 September 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_September_21&oldid=1142587494"