Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 June 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 6, 2013

Henry H. Brecher[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. It's clear after the relist that this discussion isn't attracting much interest. There's narrow consensus to delete, and this outcome actually addresses one of DadaNeem's concerns—if a Henry Brecher article is created, the link will be there. Deleting this redirect will leave it a redlink; it won't remove it altogether. See WP:REDLINK for more information. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - text-book example of reason 10, the target article contains virtually no information on the subject, and contains a redirect back to itself. Better to keep redlink. Jan1naD (talk • contrib) 11:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - the target article contains more info on Mr Brecher than any other article in Wikipedia, namely:

It was named after Henry H. Brecher of the Byrd Polar Research Center, Ohio State University; he conducted Antarctic glaciological investigations for over 30 years, 1960–95, including determinations of surface velocities and elevations on Byrd Glacier.

I agree the redirect back to itself is messy, but should be retained in case a Henry H. Brecher page appears. On balance I considered something is better than nothing.DadaNeem (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 6 June 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.

Craft(s)manship[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 Craftsman which is moved from Craftsman (disambiguation). Salix (talk): 04:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd situation: craftmanship and craftsmanship are obviously the same concept, but the two have different targets. Should craft be retargeted to Artisan, or should crafts be retargeted to Handicraft, or should they both be sent to another page? I don't particularly have an opinion. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • In addition, Craftsman is a disambiguation page while Craftsmen redirects to Artisan. In any case, these pairs should be consistent. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the absence of an article (even a broad-concept stub) on artistry/craftmanship/skill-with-hand, retarget Craftmanship to Artisan. There's no reason to send these to a the Craftsman dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Demoting my earlier note "Agreed with Joy, although it will take an RM to move the Craftsman dab page to make room for the redirect to primary topic "Artisan". I'll submit that." The move didn't require the admin bit, so I moved the dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget pbp 22:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to what? There have been more than one suggestion. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I created the original article, I cannot remember doing it or why. I have no opinion on what ro do with it now. GreatWhiteNortherner (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore Craftsman to a dab (currently at Craftsman (disambiguation)) and retarget both there. A craft(s)man can be an artisan or involved in handicraft. We disambiguate when terms aren't precise. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Please could all future commenters be explicit about what they are proposing should redirect to where as the above isn't very clear
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Metagenomics: An Alternative Approach to Genomics[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 deleted by INeverCry. --BDD (talk) 23:09, 6 June 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.

DNLA[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 Danish National Library Authority. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article DNLA should be deleted. It is redirecting to DLNA, which has an entire different meaning.

It would probably be better to retarget there instead, since those are actually the initials of that organization. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, agreed. Retarget to Danish National Library Authority and add a 'did you mean' to that page. Dancraggs (talk) 15:21, 20 June 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.

List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches[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 and refine target to Casio F91W#Claimed use in terrorism. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD#DELETE #8, possibly #5. AldezD (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak keep and target to the #Claimed use in terrorism section. But of course, there's not an actual list there. We have a List of Guantanamo Bay detainees, and for some of whom the watch is mentioned, but we don't have a standalone list of them anywhere. It may be best to turn this into an article and let it stand or fall on its own merits. --BDD (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- We used to have an article at this location, the redirect replaces the deleted article. Why is this important? Because WP:Reliable sources, like the The Guardian [1], Slate magazine [2], and Atlantico magazine [3], directly linked to the wikipedia through this specific article name. So it is important that it should continue to point somewhere meaningful. (I used http://www.backlinkwatch.com/index.php to find the backlinks...) Geo Swan (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Highly unlikely to be a search term Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine target to Casio F91W#Claimed use in terrorism. As BDD noted there's no list there, but there is information about the topic. Unlikely search term or not, plenty of people are using this, probably due to the off-site links noted by Geo Swan. Sideways713 (talk) 15:28, 11 June 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.

Deathklok[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. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects about an article of the virtual band. There is an article about the Marvel Comics character with the distinguish note. Disambiguate it or delete it. JJ98 (Talk) 07:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a plausible misspelling, and (because "death" is an English word, but "klok" is not) it's a far more plausible misspelling of the virtual band Dethklok than of the comics character Deathlok. --Orlady (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per nom ; there's also death clock that could fit o such a dab page -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's an equally plausible misspelling for Dethklok or Deathlok, but I'm fine with keeping it as is since it's been stably pointing to the former for several years. I was initially thinking Death clock should be incorporated into the hatnote until I learned that it is itself a redirect, to what I think is a junk article (I'm nominating it for deletion now). --BDD (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: With Death test deleted, and thus the Death clock redirect, this is really only a plausible search term for Dethklok or Deathlok. In the spirit of WP:TWODABS, it would probably be better to have it point to one of those targets rather than turning it into a dab. Since both articles link to each other with {{distinguish}}, the choice probably isn't that important. So we might as well not upset the status quo and keep. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 19 June 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.

Wikipedia:Franklin Virtual High School[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. Creator of redirect agrees with deletion. No point in continuing the discussion further. Orlady (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible cross-namespace redirect. Orlady (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, accidental redirect created when the page was moved out of user space. Not a helpful redirect in any regards. Salavat (talk) 04:33, 6 June 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_June_6&oldid=1138578980"