Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 16, 2014.

Xylocopa appendiculata[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. JohnCD (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a xwiki soft redirect. This article will eventually be created. GZWDer (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems like a useful search term, why would someone search for the longer one? Xylocopa redirects to Carpenter Bee. A very useful bee indeed unless you are a carpenter and the sodding things ruin a bit of two by four. Si Trew (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Retarget to Carpenter Bee. Although perhaps slightly inaccurate, we can't have redirects escaping EN:WP. That is just misleading. Si Trew (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Species names can redirect to their genus (which itself redirects to Carpenter bee in this case), but this isn't going to be very helpful. Better to leave it red to encourage creation. Almost any reader using this search term will be familiar with Binomial nomenclature and know to check Xylocopa next. In fact, Carpenter bee is likely to be the first hit on a search for the species name anyway. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2014 (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.

Brachydiplax chalybea[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. JohnCD (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a xwiki soft redirect. This article exists in 7 wikis, so it's very unlikely that this article would never be created. GZWDer (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I don't know why there are all these cross-wiki redirects about, that is what Interwiki is for. It's not hard to create a stub and add an interwiki link. Since it has not been, delete it, it is probably some idiot biology student who can't be arsed to do his homework. Si Trew (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Brachydiplax. There is already a genus at Brachydiplax. Just redirect it there. Sure it is not so specific but you can't go diverting EN:WP out to other places with redirects, that is not just misleading but positively harmful to WP as readers would then think that content came from EN:WP. Si Trew (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Species names can redirect to their genus, but this isn't going to be very helpful. Better to leave it red to encourage creation. Almost any reader using this search term will be familiar with Binomial nomenclature and know to check Brachydiplax next. In fact, it's likely to be the first hit on a search for the species name anyway. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and BDD. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2014 (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.

Insurgent attack on Fort Hood[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 6#Insurgent attack on Fort Hood

List of colloquialisms[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. JohnCD (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no list of colloquialisms at Colloquialism. Wiktionary has wikt:Appendix:Australian English colloquial proper nouns and wikt:Appendix:Glossary of Hiberno-English slang and jargon, but no list for other varieties of English. I would suggest deleting the redirect. Cnilep (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I suppose this could be converted to a list of lists, there being lists of colloquialisms on Wikipedia [1] -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't have such a list, and I'm not seeing many good suggestions in those search results either. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 9 years old and harmless. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per BDD; this is a surprising redirect. — Scott • talk 18:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even in 2005, when the redirect was created, the target didnt contain a list of colloquialisms. If someone wants to create a list of lists, have at it, but it is a wasted effort as word/phrase lists tend to be deleted as they are migrated to Wiktionary, unless the list has lots of prose and/or purpose to rise above WP:NOTDIC/WP:NOTDIR/etc. John Vandenberg (chat) 19:51, 6 April 2014 (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) 11:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per various above. This is WP:ASTONISH, it is not a list of colloquiallisms, and if it were, it would be WP:DICDEF probably. Si Trew (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While a list of colloquialisms may or may not be appropriate for Wikipedia, one would not necessarily be just dictionary definitions - one which contained links to articles about notable individual or groups of colloquialisms for example. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but this isn't a list: so to call it a list is misleading. We might as well make a list of articles with paraphrase and slang and backslang and Eric Partridge and Cockney rhyming slang and patois and pig latin and so on, then. But I am not suggesting that is worthwhile to do: that is what the search engine is for. Si Trew (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)list[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.

Some Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion section/subpage 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 withdrawn/resolved. Thank you David Biddulph for correcting what was wrong with their redirect, which turned out to be the issue with the other redirects: replacing "#"s with "/"s. Then, I realized that ".2F" means "/", and fixed that as well. Steel1943 (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that these redirects served a purpose to refer to a discussion on the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion page, but as it stands, without proper up-to-date targets (as well as no incoming links), it is difficult to understand the point of the redirects. I'm thinking that there is probably a valid "retarget" option for each of these redirects, but as they are redirects of subpages/sections that currently do not exist (each of these redirects have only one edit [other than the RfD notice I put on them]), I originally thought that CSD G6 may apply to these redirects. At this time, these redirects seem to be unnecessary redirect clutter. Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2014 (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/2014_April_16&oldid=1037875684"