Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 5, 2014.

Incidente de la "Sangre Corrupta"[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 both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless redirect. No reader of en.wiki will search this title. Pichpich (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do not keep Spanish translations of titles as redirects unless that name is commonly used by English-language sources. This is not the case here. Pichpich (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a translation dictionary. The incident has no particular affinity to Spanish, and being an American MMO game, has affinity for English. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very plausible search term, there are numerous bilingual Spanish-English speakers. No argument has been presented for deletion, but as far as the non-sequiter about it being an American video game goes, Spanish is an important minority language in the United States (the second commonest first language), with official status in some States (at least, having official status in New Mexico and Puerto Rico), so American topics intrinsically have an affinity for Spanish. WilyD 09:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline Wikipedia:Redirect does not mention "titles translated in Spanish" (or any other language) as a legitimate use of redirects. Pichpich (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's not the practice of Wikipedia to redirect names of things in different languages to their English articles. Unless someone thinks that English Wikipedia is Spanish Wikipedia (somewhat unlikely I'd imagine) there'd be no reason for them to search for this. Wieno (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Generally, we only keep foreign-language redirects when the language has a clear connection to the topic. Absent evidence that this World of Warcraft incident has a connection to the Spanish language or a Spanish-speaking country, this should be deleted. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 6 February 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.

The Leaky Cauldron[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 procedural close. Use WP:RMTR for this. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this could be G6d or not, so better to be safe than sorry; both the two entries on Leaky Cauldron have 'The ' before the name. Therefore this should be deleted to make room for Leaky Cauldron. Launchballer 18:39, 5 February 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.

Woll Smoth[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name of a non-notable [meme] that isn't mentioned on the target page and is unlikely to be. Last RFD closed as "no consensus". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Pichpich (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should be red or an article on the meme. "Woll Smoth" is the name of a meme, not a nickname for Will Smith. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 6 February 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.

Wikipedia:-/[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created by 165.121.239.8 to point to a now deleted revision of WP:Status, which described server status information, including a link to http://openfacts.berlios.de/index-en.phtml?title=Wikipedia_Status , which is now a 404. I presume the sequence ':-/' was short for 'sad face because the servers are down'. WP:Status was re-targeted, and this redirect was updated to the new target. If we are to keep the original intent, the shortcut should be re-targeted at Wikipedia:Server status, which is a soft redirect to meta:Wikimedia servers. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Still thinking about this one, but just to note that titles with a double colon, e.g. [[Wikipedia::-/]] are accessible only by entering the URL directly - the search engine gives "An error has occurred while searching: The search backend returned an error:" and following a link leads to a bad title page. Thus supporting the idea that this is meant to be a sad face. You can see the openfacts wikistatus page via the way back machine [1], remembering that site and a couple of others like it brings home how much work the devs have done over the past years such that external status sites are no longer needed. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The double-colon note says that it is a misspelling for the target (intentional, but still), and that it is an assumption. -DePiep (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget and note the shortcut at the softredirect. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:46, 29 January 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) 17:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a "sad face", it is a spelling construct. Since we do not do such constructs (a bit like we do not do typos in shortcuts). Also, a "WP:sad face" can mean other things too, right? It's diasppointment in general, not engine-specific IMO. -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DePiep. Not being familiar with the editor activity indicator by name, I assumed this was related to the decline in active editors, and an expression of disappointment at that. Too vague to be very helpful. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 12 February 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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery/Most wanted[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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same as 'Wikipedia:Shortpages/Ships' below. Was a report; then retargetted to a special page - essentially now a double redirect, with no benefit over a direct link. No incoming links; very low pageviews. It is a redirect maintenance overhead with no demonstrated benefit. Previously listed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_7#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Red_Link_Recovery.2FMost_wanted_.E2.86.92_Special:Wantedpages, but closed as speedy keep despite two delete votes. WikiProject pages are subject to community review. Recommend tagging as {{historical}} or deleting if it is not of historical value. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The useful 'most wanted' list is now a manually generated one held at Wikipedia:Most wanted articles. Not sure I properly comprehend the issue with the redirect to the (discontinued?) special page, bit I've re-targetted it to the Wikipedia namespace one for now. The page revision history contains potentially useful information; outright deletion would not I think be appropriate here. - TB (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and good retargeting per TB. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 16:22, 2 February 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) 17:42, 5 February 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.

C+=1[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) 17:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect from a silly in-joke — shall we redirect C=C+1? � (talk) 15:14, 5 February 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.

European Parliament election, 2013 (France)[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) 17:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this was originally a typo when the page was created (since the election is in 2014, not 2013). Anyhow, I converted the stub into a redirect, but I think the redirect should probably still be deleted, since it could create some confusion about the date of the election (as opposed to European Parliament election, 2013 (Croatia) where there actually was a 2013 election). Wieno (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete unless there are sources that talk about an election in 2013 (e.g. if there was speculation that one was going to happen). I can't find any after a cursory search, but I likely wouldn't find any in French. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, EU election dates are always fixed. The only reason Croatia had one in 2013 is because they were a new EU member without any representation in the European Parliament. There's no reason anyone would speculate about a 2013 EU election in France. Wieno (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a typo, why should we assume that the reader is looking for European Parliament election, 2014 (France) and not, say, the 2004 election? The absence of the redirect ensures that readers notice their mistake. Pichpich (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add also that having a 2013 election date come up in search results or autocomplete could provide false information to those who don't actually click on the link that there was a 2013 election, when there was not. Wieno (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible. European Parliament elections are held on a fixed 5-yera cycle, except for newly-joined states, who hold an election when they join. There was never any possibility of a 2013 EP election in France. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 8 February 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.

Jibber-jabber[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. --BDD (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is currently a soft redirect to Wiktionary, but the word is (according to wikt:jabber) a synonym of gibberish. Since there is an article at Gibberish, perhaps the name should redirect there instead. Cnilep (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if we retarget this to gibberish, adding redirect documentation would be a good idea. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gibberish - even if someone's looking for the dicdef, it should be clear from article (and if not, the wikt page should be in the external links) 10:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs)
  • Comment If we redirect to gibberish, we need to add jibber-jabber as a synonym. Pichpich (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as nom proposes. Content improvements as mentioned above can be done too, but should not prevent retargeting. -DePiep (talk) 12:26, 11 February 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_February_5&oldid=1141906297"