Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 1, 2013.

List of 10 shortest-reigning popes[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. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have a List of shortest-reigning popes (which redirect I have created), but it actually contains eleven members due to the addition of John Paul I in the eleventh place. This addition is reasonable due to the remarkable and perhaps crucial brevity of the latter's reign, so I do not see a reason to shorten the list to fit the redirect, and the redirect is after all inaccurate. Also it seems to me that the more general term is more likely to be searched for. Mangoe (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could be moved over top of List of shortest-reigning popes. Mangoe (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2013 (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.

Distress sale[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 Fire sale. WJBscribe (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "distress sale" and "forced sale" can be the same or similar, but the forced sale article is about something different, possibly a duplicate of Partition (law). Peter James (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with suggestion by Nate; fire sale is a better target of this redirect. Peter James (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to stub The term is widely used and I can find definitions for it, and I see that "forced sale" as defined is a somewhat different beast. Mangoe (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to fire sale, which is the more appropriate place to go for the term "distress sale". Nate • (chatter) 00:01, 2 December 2013 (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.

Richard Helm[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. WJBscribe (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't discuss Helm at all, only a book that he took part in. This seems derogatory. Either he's relevant; then we should list his birth date. Or he isn't, and then he isn't. 2001:620:400:9:0:0:0:58 (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This was originally posted on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 20 (wrong date). Steel1943 (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't find any evidence that Helm has written (or co-written) any other books. That said, I suspect at least some clicking on this link are actually looking for Richard Helms, so some kind of hatnote may be in order. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a classic, so he may be relevant from the one book alone. If he isn't, then it's still derogatory to identify him with this one book he once worked on. Just leave the page empty. 2001:620:400:9:0:0:0:58 (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the guy's only notable for his part in writing one book, this is entirely appropriate. The hatnote was a good idea. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2013 (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.

Wp breakf[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. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CNR, not very useful Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: similar nominations combined. Ego White Tray (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all - Crossspace redirect as R2. Also, I'm sure the user meant to create these as WP:xxx instead of wp xxx, so as G6, obvious error. And some of these qualify as R3. Ego White Tray (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ego White Tray: these redirects are not eligible for CSD R2 speedy deletion since they redirect to the "Wikipedia:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just curious why you term those re-directs not useful? They are useful to me. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Shortcuts such as these without namespace prefixes generally don't exist, a consistent format for shortcuts makes them easy to remember, and being useful to one or two users isn't enough to justify their existence in the article namespace. I've created Wp:breakf and WP:BREAKF. Peter James (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A ":" or any other special character may be more difficult to type on certain devices or for people with disabilities. XOttawahitech (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: There have been 172 views of these redirects since they were created 2 weeks ago. So they are obviously of use to some? XOttawahitech (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech: cross-namespace redirects from the article namespace can always seem a bit misleading to readers, and are generally not accepted by consensus. The only consensus-accepted exceptions are a few titles that have a colon in them: these titles do not contain a colon. Steel1943 (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all per nom. No need to create a new scheme for redirects - keep em standard. Also no evidence that certain devices have difficulty typing colons.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • note to Ottawa if you think certain wiki projects should be notified, just do it. Nominators have no obligation to inform relevant wiki projects, but anyone is welcome to do so. Putting a note to say they haven't been informed is rather silly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obi, If what you say is true, then it appears the onus for doing all the work involved in getting enough editors to form a meaningful consensus,is not on the person who took 2 seconds to nominate for deletion, but on other interested editors. At this rate it is surprising that some content contributors are still sticking around.
By the way, it appears I do not need to notify you, since you seem to read everything I edit? However, I would still appreciate you summoning me since I am much more limited in my ability to follow you around. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
notifications are optional - every day we have hundreds of things up for discussing and it's only rarely that wikiprojects are explicitly informed - usually because it's a complex issue or more voices are needed. The onus isn't on any one - any one is welcome to neutrally notify any project they feel appropriate. It would have taken an almost equal amount of time to notify those projects vs posting that they haven't been notified. Re summoning, I usually only summon if the person isn't yet part if the discussion - if someone posted here an hour ago my assumption is they are watching.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Obi, My bad. I thought we were here, not to watch discussions, but to build an encyclopedia. XOttawahitech (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ottawa, I'm trying to assume good faith but comments like the above are rather snarky and frankly rude. I welcome the content creation you undertake and thank you for it, but part of the business of wikipedia takes place in discussions on talk pages. If you don't want to contribute or follow or watch or participate in those discussions, no-one is obliging you, and you can live your whole wiki-life in article space. Just don't complain when something you have made is deleted or changed, and then ask "Why wasn't I informed?"--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2013 (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/2013_December_1&oldid=1138578738"