Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 28, 2013

Emplastro[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. Wizardman 19:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - apparently it's a Portuguese word, meaning "plaster"; this redirect is not useful. Peter James (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no relation between the redirect and the topic of the destination -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:10, 1 March 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.

The Broken District[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. Wizardman 19:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the name isn't mentioned in the article and a search doesn't find anything relevant. Peter James (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete could refer to any district that is considered broken. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:11, 1 March 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.

物理[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. Wizardman 19:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these. Their languages are not especially related to their targets. Gorobay (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. Natively English topics (like physics, CIA) do not need foreign language redirects -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Қаз would normally be kept because these birds are found in Kazakhstan, among other places of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siuenti (talk • contribs) 01:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The laws of physics apply in China; should we keep 物理 too? Gorobay (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this bird were unique to Kazakhstan, you would probably have a case. However, they are found nearly worldwide. I wouldn't object to a redirect at the Chinese word for Panda, since those animals are unique to that country, but not in this case. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:53, 1 March 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.

Lampiões[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. There is no consensus here, but as the outcome should be the same as that for #Lampioes below I'm closing this in favour of that discussion. It is relisted on this page (28 February) for reference only. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to consensus. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my previous participation in the discussion at WT:FOOTBALL. The terms are pejorative and offensive and are rarely used in reliable media. Please, delete also Lampioes (the version without the accent mark). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the discussion at WT:FOOTBALL did not reach any consensus regarding this, nominator is mis-leading. GiantSnowman 21:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a google search shows search results relating to to redirect's target, so therefore it is a useful redirect. The correct course of action under policy is to keep a useful redirect pointing at the correct target, and "Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion", per WP:RNEUTRAL. C679 12:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, to avoid duplication maybe it would be better to close this discussion and merge it with the one in the next section (or vice versa) - Nabla (talk) 21:25, 16 February 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.

Lampioes[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. Wizardman 19:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to consensus. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the discussion at WT:FOOTBALL did not reach any consensus regarding this, nominator is mis-leading. GiantSnowman 21:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lampioes is the same as Lampiões, only without the ~. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know - but that doesn't actually answer my comment. Where was the consensus at WT:FOOTY? GiantSnowman 21:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was consensus that both Lampiões and Lampioes redirections were offensive. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there wasn't. GiantSnowman 17:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't agree with the deletion? "Lampiões" is not neutral and it's offensive as different people stated, after I wasted my precious time trying to convince you I was telling you the truth. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the redirect - hence why I haven't !voted. My only concern is you trying to say there is consensus to support deletion when that is patently not the case - and in fact there is consensus that an "offensive" term can be a useful redirect, see this RFD from January 2013. GiantSnowman 17:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What other users need to write in order to reach consensus? They already said the term is offensive it doesn't make sense for that page to exist, otherwise to be fair offensive redirections would be added to other clubs. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a google search shows search results relating to to redirect's target, so therefore it is a useful redirect. The correct course of action under policy is to keep a useful redirect pointing at the correct target, and "Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion", per WP:RNEUTRAL. C679 12:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Google indexed the redirect because the redirection was once a vandalism article against Benfica supporters created in 2005... BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter, the policy I cited gives reason for the redirects to exist. You arguments for deletion of the redirects seem not to be according to any particular policy. The search term is used for the target given, so the redirect serves a purpose. Your disenchantment with this is regrettable, but not a reason for the redirects to be deleted. C679 17:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • neutral, leaning on delete. The nominator makes it hard to assess this in a neutral way because their obvious COI, and they go completely overboard. F.C.Porto fans are not nicknamed "cheaters" nor "corrupt" as they claim; "lampião" does not show up on Google because of a WP article from 2005, it pre-dates that for many decades for sure (I don't know but I'd bet the use dates from early-mid 20th century); most of all there was no consensus at all to delete in the referenced discussion. Nevertheless, in here, RfD, we should discuss the redirect, not the nominator. We may go either way, with good reason any way. We may keep, because it is used and documented. But... we may as well (and better?) delete because I doubt we generally need redirects from non-english nicknames, say, we do not have, and I presume we should not have: Los Choriceros → Deportivo Toluca F.C., Darseneros → Club Atlético River Plate (Montevideo), etc., etc.. So we need even less of foreign language nicknames whose overwhelmingly major use is as derogatory slang. We do have nicknames that are widely used, as if they were the official name, as Chivas Guadalajara, but that is not the case here. I think a short reference in the article - that the search engine will pick up if searched for, just as it picks up the two examples above - would be enough. - Nabla (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Note that the outcome of this discussion should also apply to Lampiões too - see the section above for reference
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Can you explain what part of WP:V is a reason for your deletion vote? C679 22:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this term is not used by reliable sources but I'm willing to be proved wrong. Siuenti (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are irrelevant when dealing with search terms - all that it needed is evidence that they exist, that they go to the right target, and that they are useful. There is plenty of evidence of all three of these, per this earlier RfD. C679 10:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the evidence should be verifiable, and I disagree with the outcome of that RfD. Siuenti (talk) 15:11, 5 March 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_February_28&oldid=1138578861"