Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 4, 2013

Wikipedia:ROYAL SOCIETY[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 under criterion G6 (housekeeping) by user:Ironholds. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this while trying to find the notability requirements for royalty, and I have no idea what this was created for, as there's no reason it should redirect to either page to which it does (the current target is the result of bot maintenance), and anyone typing this in is likely not looking for either target. It's also in the wrong namespace to be repointed to an article (it would cause a cross-namespace violation), so I guess it should be deleted. MSJapan (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article history shows that this was for a presentation. It seems like a housekeeping deletion would be appropriate, but we should probably wait for comment from Ironholds. Ryan Vesey
I saw that, but it still didn't explain to me why it was created. :) MSJapan (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To demonstrate to a load of research monkeys at the Royal Society how redirects work (and also so they wouldn't have to remember the full contribution URL). Y'know, given that it's probably a housekeeping decision and I'm an admin, a full RfD is probably a waste ;p. I've deleted it under CSD G6. Ironholds (talk) 22:47, 4 January 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 Dumping Ground Episodes[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. Non-admin closure. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was sent to AFD, but during the process it got redirected. Below my signature is the AFD text: please add comments after the last one copied from AFD. I am neutral, coming here simply because we shouldn't necessarily cut off an AFD just because the page got redirected. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[nominator's statement] Upcoming TV show, not notable. I did a search for this and was unable to find anything other BBC's promo page. If it was notable, it would have a standalone page, not an episode page. Skrelk (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what have i done to you? this is my second article and i please just want to keep it on here — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolDan3 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi CoolDan, I just wanted to state that it's nothing personal. Skrelk has nominated the page for deletion because so far there is nothing to show that this program is notable right here and now. Its predecessors might have been notable, but that notability is not extended to every spinoff or product that is created. Notability is established by the show having been covered in multiple independent and reliable sources, which I don't see a lot of at this point in time. Don't feel bad- very few shows achieve this level of notability before their release. We can't guarantee that it will become notable, although if it does then you're certainly welcome to help re-create it. On a side note, there is a page for the TV series (The Dumping Ground) and it has issues with notability as well.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to assure you it's not personal, and I replied to you on your talk page and mine. Skrelk (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is now redirected to List of The Dumping Ground episodes, as of three hours ago. That page seems to be further along than this one was, so the redirect makes sense (and the title is better), but I don't know that the notability question has been resolved as yet. So, yeah. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[end of comments copied from AFD]

  • Keep the redirect. I have no opinion on the notability question, but as long as the target page exists this is a useful redirect to it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, apart from anything else, there's no valid rationale for deletion. Nor could there be: this is a perfectly valid redirect to a currently valid target page. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The redirect itself is fine - it's a path from this name to the more typically-formatted name where the more mature version of the article might be found (Mature in the "further along" sense). The arguments for deleting an article based on its notability don't apply to the redirect - if you think the redirect's target should be deleted, by all means send it to AFD. When the target is deleted, this would be too as a matter of course. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:15, 7 January 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.

Felis catus Domesticus[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. Non-admin closure. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The misplaced upper-case D is an implausible typo. "Felis catus domesticus" (not a valid scientific name, not now, not ever) is a fair common error, so should remain.[1], But this "randomly capitalized letter" version is pointless. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 10:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This has existed since 2001(!) without causing anyone any problems at all so deletion would bring no benefits and be potentially harmful for anyone following links/bookmarks/etc to this title. stats.grok.se is case insensitive, so it's not possible to determine whether people are using the lower or upper case "D", so we must assume that they are using both. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This redirect is relatively well-used (73 hits in the last 90 days) and doesn't appear to be causing any harm. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - incredibly plausible typo, no rationale for deletion. WilyD 14:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Not hurting anything, and there might be old pages linking to this title. The hit counter isn't case-sensitive, so a lot of the 73 users probably went to felis catus domesticus, but we still should expect that some of them wanted Domesticus and would have been impaired by deletion. Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was under the impression that Wikipedia links were case insensitive anyway? If this is indeed the case, the redirect is completely unnecessary and should be deleted, as even at its age, it is simply a duplicate. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, only the first letter is case insensitive, the rest is case sensitive. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong comment: By the above "keep" rationales, we would have to create redirects like Felis Catus domesticus, Felis Catus Domesticus, Felis Silvestris, Felis silvestris catus, Felis Silvestris catus, and Felis Silvestris catus and Felis Catus (the real thing being Felis catus and Felis silvestris catus depending on sources, in this case) and do this for every single species and subspecies we have an article about. This would be hundreds of thousands of pointless (more like WP:POINTy) redirects! Scientific names are a term of art capitalized a very specific way; we do not need to account for wacky misinterpretations of how taxonomic nomenclature works, except in odd cases. This isn't even based on a valid scientific name to begin with. And, yes, obviously most if not all incoming links for this are really for Felis catus domesticus, with no capital-D, per the hit counter's case insensitivity. The fact that there may be a few old links that need fixing is never a rationale to keep a bad redirect. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 12:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:WAX arguments are irrelevant, and there is a big difference between keeping an existing redirect and encouraging, let alone requiring, the creation of similar ones. It is not possible to know whether people are using the incorrectly capitalised form, despite your beliefs, and so we cannot be sure that deletion will be harmless. We can be sure though that deletion would be pointless, as it would bring no benefits to the encyclopaedia. Old links in Wikipedia can be fixed, but links on external sites, bookmarks, etc cannot. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - maybe it's just Chrome and IE9, maybe it's modern browsers - but entering "Felis Catus domesticus" redirects me to the correct page in both browsers... which browser is this not the case for? Lukeno94 (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you use the search box then you are directed to the most likely capitalisation if the one you enter does not exist. However the search box is only one of many different ways people use to access Wikipedia. Internal (Felis Catus domesticus) and external links (Felis Catus domesticus, url entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felis_Catus_domesticus) and many external search tools do not do this. Even if it were a function of the browser, not everybody uses the latest version of the most popular browser - the general use computers at my university still run Firefox 3.5something for example. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 10 January 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.

Christianity in Western Sahara[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 Demographics of Western Sahara#Religions. Non-admin closure. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Target isn't about Christianity in Western Sahara, it's specifiably about Catholicism Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While I doubt there's a large number of Christians in Western Sahara, surely they're not all Catholic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems too specialized to be a useful search term, especially given the demographics above. I would think this should just be a mention in the Western Sahara article under religion. We also do not have articles on Christianity either specifically in North Africa or Africa as a whole. MSJapan (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Demographics of Western Sahara#Religions to which I've added a sentence from and a link to the current target. There apparently used to be over 200,000 Roman Catholics in the country so it's fair to assume that there is some significant encyclopaedic content. Searching for information about a major world religion like Christianity in any country in the world is a very probable thing for people to do. Thryduulf (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferably Keep, but if not then Retarget to Demographics of Western Sahara#Religions. As a former Spanish colony it had a strong Catholic presence, Spaniards, settlers from other countries and native converts. It was never of the level of Algeria, but it was significant. JASpencer (talk) 16:43, 5 January 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_January_4&oldid=1089732861"